Can you answer the most fundamental question about time?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Speakpigeon, Apr 18, 2019.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What did I fail to understand , in ( your post # and thread ) . The last time you related to me ?

    Be very , very ; specific , on post # and thread .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    river, you are banned from the sciences due to your usual nonsensical anti science phobia and continued silly questions.
    Many astronomical issues have been related to you to help you understand, including the superforce issue.
    The superforce issue and the fact that there was a time period when there was no matter, has been put to you more then once.
    I see know benefit to go searching for them, while you continue to embark on your anti science nonsense.
    But you could comment on the evidence and links I have already given...but you wont.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    That is exactly what I am addressing. Time is not fundamental and only emerges as a product of change. You just stated this very fact. before the BB there was no time. The BB was causal to the begining of universal time, the duration of existence of the physical universe.

    Is time any different than the algebraic functions without which change also could not take place?
    It is not a question of function, it's a question of prior causality, which uses or produces certain abstractins which we have named for our convenience and tools of measurement.

    Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, duration are abstract functions and each has a unique quality of action employed in, or as a simultaneous emergent property of change.

    Duration is a result of a polynominal algebraic function, but time is not part of the function. Time has no value in and of itself, therefore cannot be causal to a function.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Change based on physical things all ways existing .

    Polynominal Algebraic Function does not produce Duration unless the physical thing(s) exist in the first place .
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Correct, physical existence is a prior requirement and causal to change by utilizing mathematical algebraic functions and with duration as an emergent property of that existence.

    The BB is an example of a timeless "singularity" being causal to "inflation" and the emergence of space and time as a result of duration of the ongoing chronological action of spatial expansion.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Changes occurs in time, time does not occur because of change.
    Before the BB, there was no space or time, "as we know them"
    Whatever exist before the BB, speculatively speaking [quantum foam?] could be the "nothing"from which the BB arose, but that would need a redefining of nothing that most of us are familiar with. Perhaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing as is possible, and as such, is nothing.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Which , to your last statement , has no physical properties .
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    I can prove it does, can you prove time is a pre-existing environment?
    Indeed.
    But you claim a durable existence of this quantum foam. If so, then that would be causal to an emergent associated time frame of duration of existence, no?

    I visualize a timeless permittiveness which culminated in a singular event, the BB and the beginning of space and its attendant duration of chronological existence, time.
    Things happen in space, not in time. Time is a result of space and any of change inside space. Each chronology creating its own unique time-line of duration, from individual Planck scale events to 14.7 billion years of Spatial existence.

    There is no time without duration of an prior existence of something other than time itself. That's would be circular.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Things happen in space , because within space exists the physical .
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The overwhelmingly supported BB model tells us that time and space [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds. Do you have a better verifiable better model?
    The quantum foam is a speculative issue, albeit seemingly the most accepted.
    And yet time and space are interchangeable as is shown in relativity.
    https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_spacetime.html
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Yes, and it took 14+ billion years to evolve a human brain and we know the properties of human brains. there are a little more subtle than suns and planets
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    No, but that statement proves my point that prior to the BB there was no prior dimension of time. Time emerged along with the evolution of space.
    But there will be no future time without a future space. Time emerges along with change, hence it's uni-directional character.
    Yes, but that's theoretical mathematics, not practical equivalence.
    The definition of time is that it is "irreversible" i.e. it cannot exist before it has emerged.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What are the " properties of human brains " ? That we know ?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It proves nothing more then that according to the model, that space and time emerged and evolved at t+10-43 seconds, and are interchangeable, depending on one's frame of reference. There is no universal now. And of course there is a future time that is evident when astronauts return from the ISS being a few seconds or so younger due to time dilation, a fact that is utilised in GPS systems.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    (Sorry, I edited my prior post before you posted this.)
    No that's theoretical relativity. It's like saying that the doppler effect is a future change in pitch before the sound from an approaching source has arrived. You cannot measure the "effect" (result) before the physical event (change) has occurred.
    Time is a measurement of duration of something else, not of itself . The variability of time in relation to physical change testifies to the fact that it is not a universal constant, but an emergent phenomenon relative to physical change.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2020
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Yet both space and time can only exist if the physical existed first .

    The real discussion is about space and the physical , relationship .

    Which came first ?
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,612
    Space is the durable physical "spatial" object (mathematical pattern)
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    What is the essence of space its self ?

    Can space exist independent of energy ? Energy being the lowest amount of space needed for the physical to exist . To manifest .
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    SR/GR are far more then theoretical, if you are assuming the every day layman's use of the term. Cosmological redshift is determined from Doppler and gravitational...cosmological due to intervening spacetime expansion and gravitational due to different gravitational wells and potential.
    And again, as shown, space and time are interchangebale.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
    Space and time [as we know them] emerged together, dependant on one another as analogous to the two sides of a coin.
    Something does not need to be physical to be real.
    https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/which-came-first-time-or-space/
    Which came first – time or space?
    According to Albert Einstein, space and time are simply different aspects of the same entity now called ‘spacetime’.
     

Share This Page