Did Time exist before the beginning of time …. (oxymoron) ?
This related to another thread that appeared the other day. To clarify what i mean here is a dictionaries definition of time;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Time
And here wiki's interpretation
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Time does not exist as an entity unto its self. Time is linked to space as Space-time. Before there was Space-time, Space-time did not exist.
Time is a side effect of entropy working on photons. Gravity warps the 4th Dimension therefore what photons are 'attached' to. Time is actually an illusion. But where ever there is matter there in the same sense as this universe there must be time.
Originally posted by Mindship
All these definitions relate -- obviously and unavoidably -- to time as we know it, whether scientifically defined or casually experienced. Thus, "Time" could not have existed "before time began" (ie, before the Big Bang).
Not unless the big-bang was caused by the end of the universe. A perpetual loop my friend like an Eternal circle. 🙂
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Not unless the big-bang was caused by the end of the universe. A perpetual loop my friend like an Eternal circle. 🙂
But even if we postulate pre-existing universes (certainly a possibility, regardless), this does not necessarily mean there was Time then like Time now. As far as we know, random factors led to the initial conditions of our universe, and given the countless, myriad factors in constructing a universe, probability dictates that a universe much like our own likely did not exist (the one exception to this could be the Budding Universe theory).
time is a perceptual phenomenon to humans existing due to the nature of integration of our perceptual ability{which can only be extended to predict the future through past events before it has happened and not the other way around since that would be linguistically illogical based on the words current definitions} in reality past and present are interchangeable, expansion of the universe seems to us to represent time moving FORWARD, while compression{as might happen in the big crunch} seems to indicate time moving BACKWARDS. in reality its just two states of matter which have opposite velocities, acceleration and direction of motion. we might as well not be MOVING at all and be stuck in one place{sort of like taking a freezeframe of the dynamic universe} and be completely static. yet still we would not know it and think things were progressing in the usual way simply because we are not physically equipped to percieve anything other than PERCEPTUAL time. any REAL TIME if it exists outside our perception is beyond our ability to know. now i could simply pass time off as a perceptual illusion, but things like time dilation in reletivity and dimensional time in quantum mechanics give us evidence that there is INFACT a thing similar to REAL time exists, seperate from perceptual time. now to accurately or completely define this with my very limited knowledge of both these fields is next to impossible, but i shall try to propose my own crazy theory. time is the ability of the universe to allow motion of bodies. i think in a 3 dimensional universe particles, waves etc can EXIST in any one 3d coordinate. but they do not have the ability to MOVE from their initial coordinate to any other. the ability or function which makes TRANSLATION from point A to point B possible is called time. and since time is theorised to exist as a dimenion perpendicular to all others, and it can not be observed with the other 3, its only role is TRANSLATION or acting as a mathematical{or its physical equivalent} function, giving the ability of motion when force is induced etc .
if: F(x, y, z) --------> (x', y', z'😉
and x, y, z are spatial coordinates of a point and x', y' and z' are there later coordinates on which the original are mapped onto, then the "F" is time. or atleast something like it.
in either of these contexts{if i am at all right in these presumption} there is no such thing as BEGINNING of time. or rather, such a thing is irrelevant. you could say that in CONTEXT to another dimension which is to time as time is to space[FF(x, y, z}] at WHAT COORDINATES did the lower dimensional function, TIME come into existance for the even lower dimensional space of the universe{remember that lower is only a reletive term here} you cant say "at which TIME did TIME come into existance " since time has to exist to begin with to measure the time of creation of TIME.
{i know its not the most lucid account and probably flawed but hey, its worth a try to try n understand right}
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
Dont copy my quotes ! U ****ing plagiarist !
What are you talking about? 😕 I never copied anything, I just quoted you because I was talking to you about what you said. What does that have to do with plagiarism?
BTW "..." means that there is more not shown. It is completely appropriate to quote only a portion as long as you show ... at the point where other information is missing.