The Nature Of Time

[Lantalasse]

well, since the guild IS called "The Time Lords" i thought it would be a good idea to debate on the nature of time.

so, do you believe that time is:

-an infinite linear process with no end and no beginning, that constantly flows forward and that the events that occur are never repeated?

-a lie, a device for humans to control and manipulate reality, hence time does not actually exist?

-a circle in which events occur at certain points in time and re-occur again at the same point after a "whatever" amount of "years"?

-any other opinions

these are just 3 options, if you have other ideas please post them

:)

[Talierin]

I believe time is finite... it had a beginning (beginning when God created it, He Himself being outside time and space), and it will have an end, whenever God ends it.

[Niniel]

Time has a beginning and an end; it started when the world was created and it will end if the world is destroyed. This is of course a very long time (the world was created 5 billion years ago and will last about 10 biilion years- as you can see I don't believe in God creating the world), so it is hardly measurable, but it does have a beginning and an end. In a so great amount of time it is inevitable that sometimes there occur events that have already occurred before in almost the same way, but there is no regularity in this.

[Jesse]

I believe that time is real. Without time, we'd all be off schedule. My life is runned on a schedule, except on the weekends and holidays. Time is real to me because without it, I don't know where I'd be. Time has always been there and Time will always be there. Till the End of the Age. When Time is no more.

[Eledhwen]

Everywhere you look there's another theory about time, though my understanding matches Talierin's.

Recently, I was looking for information on some mudsprings in my home town, and found out that, if scientists apply their understanding rigorously, these springs disprove the most common theories about the age of the world. See Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1128.asp).

[omnipotent_elf]

time is continuous,
do you knoiw when time began

a famous quote
"to understand, you must first begin at the rotts"

to know what time is, you must discover what "sreated" time in itself.....


thats just my soap box...i'll get of now :D

[gilgalad]

Originally posted by Niniel
Time has a beginning and an end; it started when the world was created and it will end if the world is destroyed. This is of course a very long time (the world was created 5 billion years ago and will last about 10 biilion years- as you can see I don't believe in God creating the world), so it is hardly measurable, but it does have a beginning and an end. In a so great amount of time it is inevitable that sometimes there occur events that have already occurred before in almost the same way, but there is no regularity in this.

Are you saying that when the Earth dies or is destroyed, time stops? What about time in the rest of the universe? Or by "world" do you mean universe?

By the way, i agree with Talierin. I think we are here for a time, and when whatever higher power put us here decides that the universe has run its course that power will end it, for good or ill.

[Eledhwen]

According to my theology, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and the old earth will pass away. I suppose that means time starts again at zero - a bit like a new age in ME, but more absolute, more final.

[gilgalad]

Originally posted by Eledhwen
According to my theology, there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and the old earth will pass away. I suppose that means time starts again at zero - a bit like a new age in ME, but more absolute, more final.

It's actually a lot like the end of the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis as I'm sure anyone who has read the books will have noticed.

That is Christian theology, isn't it. If not, then it's very like it.

[Eledhwen]

Yes, The Last Battle reflects CS Lewis' interpretation (in allegory) of how it will all end. However, Lewis' account of Emen the Calormene's entry into Aslan's country (ie Paradise) would not be approved of by all Christians. Emen was a follower of Tash, but Aslan said to him "... [Tash and I] are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. ...".

I won't give my opinion on it, this isn't the right thread; but I find the subject of the end of time fascinating. I'm sorry that Tolkien's mythology didn't cover it.

Yes, Omnipotent_Elf, I know when time began... "There was evening and there was morning. The first day." It's in Genesis.

[Mrs. Maggott]

It all depends upon one's perspective but I will assume that you are speaking of time as it exists in the present "creation". If that is so, then time is linear and uni-directional (it only flows from the past to the present). However, other than that, time is a "relative" thing both objectively and subjectively. Time passes more slowly as one's rate of speed increases until it would stop altogether if one could reach the speed of light - which is one of the reasons why you can't! Time also slows down when one is close to an enormous gravitational source such as a black hole. These are objective findings relative to the "relativity" of time.

Subjective findings about the nature of time probably can best to summed up in the old saying, "time flies when you're having fun!" Albert Einstein once said about the subjective relativity of time that two minutes in your lover's arms and two minutes sitting on a hot stove are objectively the same amount of time, but subjectively there is a world of difference.

Time is the fourth dimension as Einstein pointed out so long ago. Nothing can exist in space if it does not also exist in time (and vice versa). Furthermore, because we exist within time, we are subject to its properties: that is, we can know the past and experience the present but we can do neither with the future. Most scientists agree that what we call "time travel" cannot occur because it would bring about paradoxes (such as killing your great-grandfather which means that you were never born which means that you couldn't go back and kill your great-grandfather and so forth). Much of this thought has been strengthened by the new theories about chaos which seem to prove that "random" as a concept, does not exist in nature and that the fluttering of a butterfly's wings in Senegal changes all of history from that moment. Hence, anyone going back in time, even if he did nothing but stand there, would irrevocably change the future - which again sets up insurmountable paradoxes proving the impossiblity of time travel.

There are those who posit that time travel might be possible but we would be traveling back not into our own past, but into the past of some parallel universe. Of course, this doesn't answer the problem of the paradoxes which would be caused by someone going back in Universe Q's past and, say, saving Lincoln. If that Universe were plodding along at about the same pace as ours, such an act would change everything about its "present" and you would be back to Paradox Alley. In the same way, one cannot travel forward in time either. We and time move together.

The only place such fundamentals of physics might cease to exist is at the center of a black hole which is called the "singularity", a monstrous thing of infinite smallness and infinite mass. In this place where all Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum physics cease to exist, it may be that time travel would be possible, but no one would survive to find out. However, like Occam's Razor, the most obvious answer is probably the best: you cannot travel in time.

[Eledhwen]

Beautifully put, Mrs. M! I don't agree with all those theories, but I haven't the science to argue it out.

[Walter]

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
The only place such fundamentals of physics might cease to exist is at the center of a black hole which is called the "singularity", a monstrous thing of infinite smallness and infinite mass. In this place where all Newtonian, Einsteinian and Quantum physics cease to exist, it may be that time travel would be possible, but no one would survive to find out. However, like Occam's Razor, the most obvious answer is probably the best: you cannot travel in time. What a highly interesting topic, isn't it? I wish I knew more about it...

As far as I have been able to comprehend what I have read about Einstein's relativity theory and quantum physics it no longer makes sense to distinguish between a "3-dimensional" space and a "1-dimensional" time, because those concepts no longer work in "extreme" surroundings (e.g. at high speeds or in strong graviational fields like the vicinity of black holes).

However the concept of a 4-dimensional space-time seems to remain valid under such conditions (hence - as I understand it - neither Einstein's theory nor Schrödinger's or Heisenberg's cease to exist).

The results may not seem clear to a simple human mind like mine (e.g. close to a black hole space is becoming 1-dimensional for there is only one extension of space possible: towards the center of the black hole; but according to this time ought to become 3-dimensional), but I think we must keep in mind that our brain has been developed for only one purpose: to ensure survival within the environment of our mother earth.

According to my own beliefs God has created our world, but our world is not confined to the universe we live in. God was there before the Big-Bang and no matter whether our universe will go on expanding (and die a cold death at some point) or begin contracting again (and hence probably lead to another big-bang), it does not affect it. Maybe it has even seen quite a few Big-Bangs already and is just delighted watching the movement of a couple universes and hearkening to their noises.

PS: Some "further reading" I could recommend for those who are - like myself - unable to follow the "equations" of some of the great scientific minds but still are interested what they have to say: A.Einstein/L. Infeld: The Evolution of Physics, W. Heisenberg: Physics & Philosophy, S. Weinberg: The first Three Minutes, G. Zukav: The Dancing Wu Li Masters and F. Capra: The Tao of Physics.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Walter
What a highly interesting topic, isn't it? I wish I knew more about it...

As far as I have been able to comprehend what I have read about Einstein's relativity theory and quantum physics it no longer makes sense to distinguish between a "3-dimensional" space and a "1-dimensional" time, because those concepts no longer work in "extreme" surroundings (e.g. at high speeds or in strong graviational fields like the vicinity of black holes).

However the concept of a 4-dimensional space-time seems to remain valid under such conditions (hence - as I understand it - neither Einstein's theory nor Schrödinger's or Heisenberg's cease to exist).

The results may not seem clear to a simple human mind like mine (e.g. close to a black hole space is becoming 1-dimensional for there is only one extension of space possible: towards the center of the black hole; but according to this time ought to become 3-dimensional), but I think we must keep in mind that our brain has been developed for only one purpose: to ensure survival within the environment of our mother earth.

According to my own beliefs God has created our world, but our world is not confined to the universe we live in. God was there before the Big-Bang and no matter whether our universe will go on expanding (and die a cold death at some point) or begin contracting again (and hence probably lead to another big-bang), it does not affect it. Maybe it has even seen quite a few Big-Bangs already and is just delighted watching the movement of a couple universes and hearkening to their noises.

PS: Some "further reading" I could recommend for those who are - like myself - unable to follow the "equations" of some of the great scientific minds but still are interested what they have to say: A.Einstein/L. Infeld: The Evolution of Physics, W. Heisenberg: Physics & Philosophy, S. Weinberg: The first Three Minutes, G. Zukav: The Dancing Wu Li Masters and F. Capra: The Tao of Physics.
I have read quite a few books on these topics (threads etc. included) and find them ultimately fascinating. I don't get the ones with the math though, as I can only recognize five things in math: +, -, x, = and the division sign for which they seem to use the slash / on the calculators rather than the cute little dot on either side of the - or /. However, all of this reminds me of the late Professor and Archpriest Alexander Schmemann who said that as he grew older, he realized he knew more and more about less and less so that when he reached the end of his life, he was confident that he would know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing!

[Beleg]

Time is finite. It will end with the end of the World. According to the muslim theology, the Lord said "kun" and the world started and the counting began. I believe in the other life, in the life of heaven or hell their will be no concept of Time, well not one like we are having right now. I don't clearly understand the concept of time given by the great scientists ( It is mentioned in great detail in one of the coursebook i happen to possess.) If we believe in God then we should believe that time is finite.

[Eriol]

This is a fun, fun, fun subject...

I once had a book called "Einstein's Dreams". As many of my books, it was once lent to someone else, and I never saw it again. Hehe. I hope it is not under some table's foot.

There were some 15-20 different conceptions of time in that book! (It is not written by Einstein, by the way). I recommend it to anyone.

As for my own beliefs: time is really the succession of events. We have not seen, ever, an event going "backwards", i.e., with the effect preceding the cause; this would go against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (I think). It is, in effect, precluded by our current physical theories. Time travelling to the past would not break the chain of causality by itself; it is only when they do break this chain that the famous paradoxes appear. If the time traveller does not interfere, there is no theoretical inherent impossibility, in my opinion. So I can imagine an universe in which time travelling to the past is possible without tampering with our physical laws; and our universe may well be this universe I'm imagining.

Being the succession of events, time is linear and unidirectional. It lives as the universe lives; there was no time before the universe existed, and there will be no time after the universe is gone. If we assume a cycle of "universes", we really have to imagine a "meta-universe", where the things "outside" our present universe are, so that the concept of time "outside" the universe can be of any use. But then we run into the problem of the origin of the meta-universe.

Knotty.

[Lhunithiliel]

In my understandings time is a spiral with no beginning and no end ...and I don't know why but if I have to "picture" it it will be going from down up.. :rolleyes:

To a great extent I do agree thta time is a succession of events but this is precisely what "feeds" my understanding of this phenomena. Events - every little one in the purely subjective life of a separate individual up to those where we all and the world we know are involved - all these and each one, viewed "from aside" seem to follow some pattern - the pattern of existance - they start, develop and then finish. This is a ceaseless process of repeating one and the same pattern over and over again (though having different "face" each time at each event) and that in fact is happenning within time.
Therefore, as I see it, time is a spiral whose coils are the events in our Universe.
I only wonder... do such "time-spirals" exist for each universe? The pattern of existance will be the same for each of these separate universes, there will be that spiral again...but then does the "time-spiral" of the other universe develops in speed as the one of our universe? Or is it one huge time-spiral for the events in all existing universes? :rolleyes:
If the first option is valid, then I suppose time-travel would be something like visiting the "neighbours" = the time-spiral of another universe ...
But if the second one is valid... than there is no escape from time and one cannot just go down a few "storeys" on the time-spiral.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
I only wonder... do such "time-spirals" exist for each universe? The pattern of existance will be the same for each of these separate universes, there will be that spiral again...but then does the "time-spiral" of the other universe develops in speed as the one of our universe? Or is it one huge time-spiral for the events in all existing universes?

You talk about the "speed" of the time spiral, Lhun. But the concept of speed demands a reference outside the thing moving; it is speed in relation to something. So you are really asking whether there is a "meta-time" running on the universe of universes (the meta-universe). If there is such a thing, then the "times" of each universe can run "out of sync", so to speak, so that one universe is "faster" and the other is "slower".

But since time is the succession of events, and events in our Universe can't influence events outside of it (almost by definition), then it is all a fun dream.

;)

[Lhunithiliel]

Eri, wouldn't it be true that speed can be understood if the sequence of events in one spiral is compared to that of another one? I mean...is "meta-time" necessary to refer to it ...? Besides,even if it existed, could it be a constant ? I can't imagine any constant existing!

Now...
But since time is the succession of events, and events in our Universe can't influence events outside of it (almost by definition), then it is all a fun dream.
You see... (the highlighted section)... I don't think quite so. Imagine a time spiral is one world and that there are other worlds where the events are running on separate time-spirals... What if one wanderer, an Eriol ;) leaves his world and time and hops to another one? Then this event (leaving one world) will definitely influence the events in the other world (entering it will be quite an event for this specific world!)
That is of course if we assume that there are universes within a meta-universe...
And then of course comes the inevitable head-ache-causing question..."And where is this meta universe placed within?" :p :D

[Eriol]

This is related to the concept of "Universe". Physically, it can be said that our universe is everything that resulted from the Big Bang, from the explosion of space in the beginning of time. This is very hard for us to picture: an expansion of space itself. Three dimensional space is, for humans at least, unbounded; we can't conceive an end to it. But we have evidence that our space was once contained in a volume. Very odd. We usually picture it in our minds as an explosion of particles (a "big bang" ;) ), but it really is just a trick to fool ourselves, since an explosion of particles takes place in a 3-dimensional space. The explosion of space itself is very hard to imagine.

Since "events" are really "particles interacting in space", there is no way in which events in our universe can reach another universe. Our space is isolated from their space. Physical theories involving many universes usually postulate multiple existences: people living in several universes, several spaces, at the same time. But this still establishes an absolute barrier between the universes. Eriol "A" can't influence Eriol "B".

Apart from that, particles "migrating" from one universe to another -- a necessity for any kind of event, for "event" really means interaction of particles -- would violate physical laws of conservation of matter/energy and information.

The only way to accept the "migration between the universes" scenario is by imagining that the many universes are components in a meta-Universe. And therefore our universe would not really be "a universe"; and space would not be created by the big-bang, or at least not by our big bang, but rather by the BIG big bang -- the beginning of the meta-universe. This is really the beginning of the endless chain of universes that is incomprehensible to our minds.

According to our physics knowledge, to leave a universe is impossible: it would violate physical laws of conservation and it would have to use some other "quality" of Being that is NOT space or time to move; these two qualities are bound to our own universe.

[Lhunithiliel]

And if we are "particles" of one universe and if this one universe is within a meta-universe...then we are particles of one and the same space...
What's so impossible then for a "particle" to move places? :p

Besides, am I wrong to think that each and every material thing (including us) is in fact a materialized energy in that same meta-space? If so, then again, this energy, when being released from a present (temporary) material form, will move freely wherever in the meta-space. It also may well be materialized somewhere else in another form of material existance. :p

[Eriol]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not... the smileys are confusing ;).

It goes back to the problem of the big bang. If our universe is one among many in the "meta-universe", then space itself -- our ordinary 3 dimensions -- is NOT what these universes are "floating on". Space was created with the big bang (and time as well, by the way). There was no space before it; so how can this meta-universe work without space? It has some other kind of "space", something unimaginable and outside of our reach.

Note, especially, "outside of our reach". There is no way we can leave our universe according to physical laws (conservation of energy/matter and information). No way, Lhun; sorry :(.

Besides, am I wrong to think that each and every material thing (including us) is in fact a materialized energy in that same meta-space? If so, then again, this energy, when being released from a present (temporary) material form, will move freely wherever in the meta-space. It also may well be materialized somewhere else in another form of material existance

"Materialized energy" is not a clear concept to me. What do you mean? Energy IS matter, and matter IS energy; Einstein pretty much clinched that. All energy is therefore "materialized" somehow.

And, energy "de-materialized" (whatever it means) is still subject to the physical laws, as we construe them. Energy is still unable to leave the universe. "Energy" is not "spirit", Lhun... you are ascribing some spooky supernatural characteristics to energy.

"Somewhere else" inside our universe is something; "somewhere else" outside our universe is very different, unimaginable, and out of our reach ;).

[Lhunithiliel]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not... the smileys are confusing
I am being...serious...as much serious as one can be when talking about such things. After all, it's mostly speculation and fantasy! For what do we know about the world outside? We haven't explored completely even our own environment , we still haven't explored the possibilities of our own brains, for God's sake...! How could we decide whether there are other universes or or not !:eek: :D
But it's nice thinking about such things...It makes one feel an "intelligent" being :D

Anyway, Mariner, our conversation looks like two streams flowing parallel but seldom crossing. ;)

You speak about the Big Boom-Bang ;) as the "monster" that started it all, time including. It may be so, taking into consideration what WE know. All right... Then, if it "gave birth" to space and then space in its turn bore galaxies... etc. then we can assume that the course of events in each part of this space is running differently. Which means that time flows in each galaxy and its inner components (solar systems, planets etc..) with a different speed compared to each other. It must be so! It's logical.... There are theories I have read about this too, though not all is in the books!

Based on the above, then we may assume that each place in space has its own time and as galaxies are places that can be "visited" (moving places is a common thing, right?) then it turns out that we can also "visit" another time!
There, in the other galaxy, time may flow slower or faster compared to time in the galaxy one comes from. While one is in that other galaxy, he lives within the time of that galaxy. But what happens when he comes back "home"? He could well find millenia to have passed while he was away, yet still within the short life-span of his own individual human bodily material form,
OR
It may turn out that although he has spent a couple of years space-travelling (measured according to time as he individually knows and feels it) returning now back to his own world and time, only a couple of minutes may have passed! ...
I wonder...could it happen that when he comes back he would appears some time before the moment he once left? It maybe so!
So...to me time travelling is not impossible and it can probably be achieved, provided we take time as the course of the sequence of events going on in one separate place (three-dimensional of course).

Therefore, moving to a different place where the course of events = time runs with a different speed, then one can thus experience time-travelling especially when coming back to his own place and time.

Space was created with the big bang (and time as well, by the way). There was no space before it; so how can this meta-universe work without space? It has some other kind of "space", something unimaginable and outside of our reach.
True! ....And not quite... :p
Is it the limited human brain that makes me reluctant to accept the theory that "...There was no space before it..."!
Because according to what our human brain knows "a smaller box is placed within a bigger box"... Something, therefore, no matter how grand it is, cannot appear just out of nothing! If there were circumstances to cause the big bang and the birth of space then these must have existed somewhere! Where?... As you have said - unreachable for our brains! :( But this "somewhere" must also have had its time !!! Doesn't time exist only within a place? :rolleyes:

As for energy... I don't have the honour of knowing too much about Einstein's theories apart from what I once learned in high school... But I do agree that ...Yes! Energy is matter. What I meant was a "shape" which energy=matter takes from time to time. It can be different, but what is more interesting to me is that energy=matter can take shape in different times of the existing of place=space! Therefore I assume that while not within a particular shape, a portion of energy=matter can flow wherever it wills whithin space! ;) And since time exists within space who can predict when in the time continuity this energy may take a new shape again? It may be in the future ...but it may be in the past... (just speculating! :p).

[Eriol]

I don't know if I understood you correctly, Lhun, but remember that time is the succession of events. Going to the past is forbidden in this view. Also, energy/matter flowing "inside" space is something, and flowing "from one universe to another" is very different.

[Lhunithiliel]

Originally posted by Eriol
I don't know if I understood you correctly, Lhun, but remember that time is the succession of events. Going to the past is forbidden in this view.
Not necessarily... How to explain the deja vu-s ? then? Sure! I'm not claiming that it is going back in time...but seen from another p.o.v. - the seqence of events, this phenomena could be probably explained as a dis-order of this succession. One and the same event happens twice in succession... without any deviations or/and alterations or/and variations... !

And why do you say that going enywhere in time would be forbidden ?
By whom? I can't think of anyone who would not wished to at least once go back and "fix" sth! :)
By what? Laws of physics? Which physics? Humans' ? :p :D Are we so learned as to be firmly convinced and sure about what we have so far understood about the world we live in, calling these findings "laws" ...? Whose science do humans have to compare with in order to be sure whether we are right or wrong?

Also, energy/matter flowing "inside" space is something, and flowing "from one universe to another" is very different.
How is it different?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lhunithiliel
Not necessarily... How to explain the deja vu-s ? then? Sure! I'm not claiming that it is going back in time...but seen from another p.o.v. - the seqence of events, this phenomena could be probably explained as a dis-order of this succession. One and the same event happens twice in succession... without any deviations or/and alterations or/and variations... !

I suppose the best answer is a statistical, boring answer :D. Coincidences happen.

And why do you say that going enywhere in time would be forbidden ?
By whom? I can't think of anyone who would not wished to at least once go back and "fix" sth! :)
By what? Laws of physics? Which physics? Humans' ? :p :D Are we so learned as to be firmly convinced and sure about what we have so far understood about the world we live in, calling these findings "laws" ...? Whose science do humans have to compare with in order to be sure whether we are right or wrong?

It is forbidden by the laws of logic, which are much stronger than the laws of physics. If time is the succession of cause and effect, going to the past means that the effect would precede the cause; and that's impossible.

Are the laws of logic valid? Well, Science built a mighty edifice based on them. In spite of the materialistic claim that "our brains were made merely to ensure survival" (note how the word "merely" carries a world of connotations), it is a clear fact that somehow our brain can interpret the world extremely well, much beyond what is needed to "survival" of a "mere ape". We have never -- not once -- seen a logical law being broken. And yes, we can't even imagine that, but you seem to think this is a limitation of the brain, while I think this is a limitation on reality.

I can't very well prove my stance, but I can (sort of) disprove yours. If the brain is hopelessly limited to understand reality, how do you know that? How can you believe in the sentence "the brain is hopelessly limited to understand reality"? The sentence was produced by a limited brain...

;)

The realm of the "imaginable" is much greater than the realm of the "observed", and this also reinforces the view that the "unimaginable" -- strictly speaking, the things we can't imagine no matter how hard we try -- is really "outside reality".

As I said, I can't prove my views on that; but if we reject these views we abandon all hope of science (and in fact of rational action). We must trust our brains as "detectors of reality", or simply stop functioning.

Travelling "from one universe to another" involves a meta-space, since it assumes that the two universes are in some kind of spatial relation to each other ("above", "below", "to the side", something like that). But if space was born at the big bang (and we know that it was like that in our universe -- or, properly speaking, this is the best scientific account we have), then this meta-space must also have been born in a meta-big bang, and we are stuck with an endless chain of universes -- which is unimaginable. So, if we trust our brains, we must refuse this hypothesis. And if we're wrong on that, we're wrong on everything else... human activities throughout history show that we are NOT wrong in our observations, so -- scientifically speaking -- the "endless chain of universes" is a null hypothesis.

Science must assume that the unimaginable (strictly speaking, remember) is outside the possibilities of reality. When Nature surprises us, (and She does it all the time :D), it is with the not-yet-imagined, never with the unimaginable. Everything we know and observe is imaginable. It is a great chain, from what is necessary, to the probable, to the possible, or, in the terms we have been using:

Proven > Observed > Imaginable.

Everything outside the greatest set, outside the "imaginable", must be deemed to not exist, if we trust our brains.