|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Logarithmic time? Further explanation, please? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
since existence can hardly be considered without implying time (and vice versa).
Surely this is not so?
I am able to imagine an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created. It would have existed for no time whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that it did not exist
Such an entity might, perhaps, find it necessary to invent time in order to make sense of its situation, but such an invention could only be a convention, without real existence, or real meaning outside the experience of the entity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
an entity that ceases to exist at the identical point at which it is created
I don't think I can agree with this. If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.
The situation you imagine may certainly be possible, but from my understanding, knowledge, and beliefs, I don't think you can say that something ceases to exist, unless it has already in fact existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
[speculation alert] here's a theory, and it's my theory: before the big bang there was no time (actually, there was virtually nothing). the big bang happened in no time at all. time started with the big bang and has been expanding (but you can't tell because everything is relative to the obvious observer) as the universe expands to fill the big void (see New Yorker link below). one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop (this will also be the beginning of the end of the universe as we know it). that's the theory, and it's my theory. the fact that it makes no sense is a moot point and totally begs the question; ask a quantum mechanic. ot, here is a shortened link if you want to remove that wiiiiiiiiide one...
http://www.cartoonbank.com/cartoonissue_closeup.asp?pf_id=46122&dept_id=1001
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Actually it make as much sense as anything about the subject-- it sounds like you read the article in NYTimes science section yesterday-- (or came to NY and saw the show at the planeterium) i have done both, and the only meaning i find to time is either -- I am on time or late..
so time is, must be, three dimentional or else how could i , a three dimentional being, be on time!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773 |
Where human age is concerned, I favor logarithmic time.
That's a good term for it, wseiber. I've always thought of it as telescoping time, but logarithmic says it better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Jackie: If something exists, it is. And if something is, then there has to be a time in which it exists, no matter how brief.
My whole point is that, if something exists, it is. My hypothesis is something that comes into existence and ceases to exist at exactly the same point. The very fact that one can postulate the fact that it comes into being, and them ceases to be is a clear statement of its existence. But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist. (*name any amount of time, and you can always halve it!) There has to be a possibility that the "big bang" which started "time" (as per tsuwm) and that which ends "time" are an example of exactly the phenomenon that I have postulated. In which case, "time" is, indeed,© a convention of ours, invented, as Prof. Chronotis stated, to stop everything from seeming to happen at the same time! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 544 |
[clarification alert]
one day the universe will begin to contract and time (as we know it) will stop
tsuwm - I think I buy your theory, but I wanted to be sure how you meant the above. Following your description, I see time beginning after that big ol' bang, and expanding as the universe does. But does time stop when the universe begins contracting, or does time just begin to contract at that point, only stopping when we get to the final Big Squeeze? If time stops when the universe begins contracting, when does the contraction happen?
[flashback alert] when does the contraction happen? how far apart are the contractions? how long do they last? Hey - maybe it's all just one very, very long birthing process - but what's being born?
And after the Big Squeeze, where the hell are we all going to find parking spaces?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218 |
I've always been wary of Western Civilization's perspective on the existence of time. I'm not sure it exists or not. If it does exist, I'm not sure its linear (some people, while looking across their flat fields, figured the Earth was flat, too). But I do have a much surer sense (within myself, mind you; I've got no empirical support to provide) that if something has a beginning, it *must have an ending. The only things eternal, I figure, are things that always have been. Something cannot begin existence and then last forever. If time began, it surely will end. If time is forever, it must have existed forever.
(I feel the same about my own existence; I (my soul) was created at birth and will cease to exist sometime in the future OR I've always been around but, like everyone else, have a lousy memory of my pre-birth existence. As an optimist, I prefer the latter idea.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
But time isn't part of my hypothesis! I see no reason why time has to be part of it. If so, how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? The very fact that this question is, in practical terms, unanswerable* is part of the reason why I am prepared to accept the possibility that time does not realy exist.AUGH! The question "how long does something have to exist in order for it to be said to have existed? " isn't unanswerable! Just because we may not be able to measure it or name it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Mercy-- if we based our theory on that, we'd have to say that anything shorter than the shortest duration we have a name and measuring capability for, doesn't exist! That is-- let's say that a second was the shortest amount of time that we have named and measured. Would we then say that any length of time shorter than a second does not exist? Given what we know now, no! So, I am extrapolating that, down beyond what we know of measuring time today. And besides, if time truly isn't part of your hypothesis, then there is no need to have asked that question. I still say that if something exists, it exists in a period of time. And that goes for tsuwm's Before the Big Bang theory, too: there was something there, that all of these celestial (isn't that a lovely word?  ) bodies were formed from. So, I think there was time, then, and probably also changes of some kind, that marked the passage of time. Even if it was nothing more than all the little electrons and quarks and things moving in their little orbits, something happened. I think that if anything changes, that is indication that time has passed. Hmm--I was going to say that if a true vacuum existed, then perhaps there wouldn't be time inside it. But as far as the Big Bang theory goes, all this mass couldn't have suddenly sprung into being from a vacuum! It just couldn't have. But since I can't quite get my mind around the concept of a universe that contains a vacuum, with...something...affecting it from outside, let me go here: let's say that scientists have created a perfect vacuum inside a container. Is there time inside that container? I say yes! If light falls on it, and changes with the turning of the earth, that's a change inside the container. Okay, let's say the container is opaque: what about changes in temperature, or in whatever the container is resting on? Gravity shouldn't affect the vacuum, but changes in temperature might, if they affect the container by altering its size slightly. I don't think we can stop time. Not today, but possibly in the distant future. I don't think time will ever run backward, though it may eventually become possible for humans to travel back through it. Whew, what an exercise! Cool discussion!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,347
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
769
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
