Time - does it have any meaning?

I do not wear a watch but occasionally 'look at the time'.

Dear Friends,

I put this on the back-burner thought-wise, and surely time is relative. We move in time at the same rate as everyone else. It is fascinating to view the effects of this. Friends one knew as children are suddenly, like one's self addult, even if they were children when one was a young adult.

Equally people older than one's self are sudden gone. Sometimes without reasonable warning, so if it has any relevance, then it surely the case that we should not waste it!

I have always thought that people who wasted my time were really stealing my life! In a manner a sort of lesser murder, actually.

It is beholden on us all to enjoy our time as well as possible (and this involves kindness to others without any possibility of any payback) in the time we have and every day, as to complain later that we did not, is indeed a vain act.

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
What is time

Time will show.

No, time is an abstraction we use to describe certain events in our surroundings.
It doesn´t "exist" as such.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Friends,

I put this on the back-burner thought-wise, and surely time is relative. We move in time at the same rate as everyone else. It is fascinating to view the effects of this. Friends one knew as children are suddenly, like one's self addult, even if they were children when one was a young adult.

Equally people older than one's self are sudden gone. Sometimes without reasonable warning, so if it has any relevance, then it surely the case that we should not waste it!

I have always thought that people who wasted my time were really stealing my life! In a manner a sort of lesser murder, actually.

It is beholden on us all to enjoy our time as well as possible (and this involves kindness to others without any possibility of any payback) in the time we have and every day, as to complain later that we did not, is indeed a vain act.

Fredrik

Dear Fredrik

Great post, very essential. Thanks.

Regards,

Time is either cosmic - measurable, absolute; or it is phenomenological - relative, perceived.

Then there is the interplay between the two above...

Dear pe-zulu,

I think that my thoughts on time are essentially optimistic, which surprised me! It is possible to enjoy life without rquiring too much from it! But being msierable in the time we have is all too easy and all too common! I see this in some of the people whom I work with, and I wonder why they bother to get out of bed in the morning. If I were that miserable (and spreading that much misery in my wake), I would finish the whole thing today. Just exactly now!!

Fortunately that is not my view!

It is a lovely day! Fredrik

Time - does it have any meaning ?

I doubt if I would ever have enough time to spare to do justice in writing down my thoughts.

I think Steve Toy is getting close to my initial thoughts.

"Time" is merely a word in the English language. The concept it conveys to us is the fairly regular movement of the planets in the solar system relative to the Sun and, more importantly, what we can do or change in the interval between the repetitive position of the planets (particularly the Earth). So we have words to convey the idea of (say) a "day" and a "year", and we learn when its best to plant seeds.

Like-wise we start inventing things like the kilo-metre (I include the French in the "we") to describe the circumference of the Earth (4x10,000=40,000km roughly).

Before long, we have started to sub-divide the measurements of time and distance into hours/minutes/seconds (m, mm, Angstroms etc) and find they are not constant. So we re-define them and hope we have a system that is constant enough for all our pragmatic needs.

We go the other way and estimate how long ago the Earth was formed, the Galaxy in which we live was formed or the Universe in which we find ourselves was born. And how many km it is to the edge of the Universe. (12 million light-years, more or less).

Then we (naturally) ask "what lies beyond the edge of the Universe?" or "what happened before the Universe was born?".

And the members of the modern-day Flat-Earth Society (eg Stephen Hawkins and half the Scientific Community) tell us "nothing" or "the question doesn't have any meaning"

So according to the like of the Modern-Day Flat-Earth Society, Time started 12 million light years ago, more or less and the biggest dimension we can have is 12 million light years. Sort of.

And the question "does time have any meaning" is the same as "does life have any meaning" or "does a kilometre have any meaning".

And in the cosmopolitan sense we don't know.

In the practical sense of trying to make today more bearable (or more enjoyable) than yesterday, hell yes, time has a lot of meaning, whether we use it wisely, or simply waste it.

Cheers

Don

Time - does it have any meaning ?

Try asking the Holland & Portugese football teams at this moment in time!

Dear Don,

I know you initiated this thread, but it is surely true that if someone says the Universe is X million years old plus or minus some error bar, it is completely irrelevant to me, in exactly the same way that the life hearafter promissed in some religeons, is irrelevant to me. I neither see any reason to believe it or let it worry me or affect my judgement of daily life

It is almost a philosphical point, but not as much use as many philosophical points!

The more I thought about this the more I concluded that it is exactly as I posted above, a question of making the best of certainly limited time we all have:

[Posted by me at the begining of the weekend after a couple of weeks in the back ground of thought].

I put this on the back-burner thought-wise, and surely time is relative. We move in time at the same rate as everyone else, but it is fascinating to view the effects of this. Friends one knew as children are suddenly, like one's self addult, even if they were children when one was a young adult.

Equally people older than one's self are suddenly gone. Sometimes without reasonable warning, so if time has any relevance, then it is surely the case that we should not waste it!

I have always thought that people who wasted my time were really stealing my life! In a manner a sort of lesser murder, actually.

It is beholden on us all to enjoy our time as well as possible (and this involves kindness to others without any possibility of any payback) in the time we have and every day, as to complain later that we did not, is indeed a vain act.

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Time - does it have any meaning ?



Then we (naturally) ask "what lies beyond the edge of the Universe?" or "what happened before the Universe was born?".

And the members of the modern-day Flat-Earth Society (eg Stephen Hawkins and half the Scientific Community) tell us "nothing" or "the question doesn't have any meaning"

I'm not sure there is an edge as the universe spreads out in all directions from an observer and observer and observed are co-dependent. Observer and observed are of one nature - aspects of the same thing. This chap nearly understands If you could travel at many times the speed of light to catch up with the most distant element the universe would just keep on expanding all around you. There can be nothing (knowable to us)outside the universe as the universe is all there is.

The French might own the metre, but the English own time.

You sound delightfully chilled-out Don. Good on yer.

A long dead philosopher (whose name escapes me) once commented that time consists of the past, the present and the future.

He then went onto say that the past no longer exists, the future hasn't arrived, and the present has an infinitesimal existence. Therefore, what is time?

John.

quote:

They agree that there was something, but all of our physical laws are determined from observing our universe. How can you say anything about what's "outside" or "before" the universe when it can't be observed?

Also, there are some weird effects from the curvature of space, which mean there isn't really a true edge, so you can't go past the edge to see what's "outside".

This is, in fact, almost impossible to visualise.

cheers, Martin

quote:

Also, there are some weird effects from the curvature of space

I thought the principle consequence (as predicted within Einstein's general theory of relativity) of curvature of space (and time)......... was gravity?

There seems to be an emergence of new scientists who are willing to look for evidence of an existence that preceded the "accepted" Big-Bang, including an existence of "time" that preceded the Big-Bang. A recent phrase (to my ears) to replace the Big-Bang is.... the Big-Bounce.

And when I asked if time was continuous or discrete, I had in mind recent work that considers that space is discrete and not continuous, with the smallest volume of space after Zero being about 10 to the minus 99 cubic centimetres........we are talking about space, not small quanities of matter.

Time to reflect..........

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Also, there are some weird effects from the curvature of space

I thought the principle consequence (as predicted within Einstein's general theory of relativity) of curvature of space (and time)......... was gravity?

There seems to be an emergence of new scientists who are willing to look for evidence of an existence that preceded the "accepted" Big-Bang, including an existence of "time" that preceded the Big-Bang. A recent phrase (to my ears) to replace the Big-Bang is.... the Big-Bounce.

And when I asked if time was continuous or discrete, I had in mind recent work that considers that space is discrete and not continuous, with the smallest volume of space after Zero being about 10 to the minus 99 cubic centimetres........we are talking about space, not small quanities of matter.

Time to reflect..........

Cheers

Don

Insofar as there is no such thing as a first cause (in science or philosophy)I hold to the big bounce theory as the big bang without a cause does not make sense (inventing God to provide the divine spark to ignite the bang is of course nonesense as one could ask what caused God?)- if one identifies what appears to be a first cause then one has to ask what caused the cause? This process of infinite regress will have you chasing your tail in ever decresing circles.

A repitition of expanding and collapsing universes is predicited by Buddhist cosmology in amazing detail

I think that whatever theory you hold to be true it causes great difficulty to the human mind.

Whether you believe in a beginning at the Big Bang or a beginning with a cause or infinitely bouncing universes or universes with multiple dimensions curled up small it can cause you to go potty if you think about it too much.

We are not designed to cope with the concept of infinity or singularities or nothingness.

Still, just because it is difficult to grasp does not mean it is untrue.

Personally I find it easier to believe that the universe (or universes (surely a contradictive plural)) has always existed than it was created or sprang up out of nowhere.

Whilst the solid state universe of Hoyle is largely discredited these days I like the Big Bounce theory,
although recent predictions say that the universe will go on expanding forever.

I suppose that ultimately, despite what we may think about how close we are to finding out about the universe, we really aren't and much of it is guesswork and models that approximate our observations with maths made to fit.

Was science not ever thus?

Erik, I would be interested if you could point me in the direction of the Buddhist cosmology you talk about.

Mark

quote:

Insofar as there is no such thing as a first cause

I have always suffered from an inability to imagine more than a couple of fundamental potential concepts eg

Something has always existed or

Something emerged out of Nothing or

Sometimes there is Something and sometimes there is Nothing



Concepts such as

is space finite or infinite

will Something always exist

will Something disolve into nothing (either temporarily or permanently)

are simply variants on the first three


I have always tended towards the first of these concepts (without any shred of evidence to justify this tendancy)

None of the concepts is easy to grasp in terms of our life-experiences.

Intreaging thoughts to while a way a few relaxing moments....

Cheers

Don

Don

I suspect this is the case with all of us, even the scientists.

It's easy enough to separate yourself from such concepts when you are just dealing with theories or mathematics, it's when you start to really contemplate infinity that it starts to happen.

This used to happen to me all the time when as a boy I used to stare through my dad's 8" reflecting telescope at a distant galaxy (actually not that distant in cosmological terms) and thought about the immense distance that separated us. It was then a small leap from there (conceptually) to thinking about infinity and suddenly my brain would start clipping violently!

It isn't much different now.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:


Erik, I would be interested if you could point me in the direction of the Buddhist cosmology you talk about.

Mark

Mark,

I had a quick google and found masses of stuff but you would still have to sift through a mass of detail (some irrelevant and some seemingly irrelevant)to get at it and I got quite frustrated at finding bits and pieces and no one definitive article on a site I could direct you towards.

I found this, however, which may serve as an introduction

Buddhism, Physics, and Cosmology

Then click on Time and Space which includes the following and much more:

'An important area of conflict in the Buddhist and scientific views of cosmogony is the Buddhist claim that the present Big Bang is only one in a series of Big Bangs that have continued without beginning. The rationale for this claim is in response to the question of a Divine Creator. A divine creator implies that the universe did not exist until a creator decided to bring it into existence. Buddhists object that if this were the case, does not the creator himself need to have been created? Where did the creator come from? If the creator is eternal, how can something arise causelessly? Rather than asserting origination without a cause, Buddhists argue that causality extends infinitely back into time and therefore, the universe has no beginning, just an endless duration of cause and effect. In short, in the metaphysical realm, Buddhists strongly maintain an emphasis on reasoning based on the principles of impermanence and causality'.

This is worth a look too

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Insofar as there is no such thing as a first cause (in science or philosophy)I hold to the big bounce theory as the big bang without a cause does not make sense (inventing God to provide the divine spark to ignite the bang is of course nonesense as one could ask what caused God?)- if one identifies what appears to be a first cause then one has to ask what caused the cause? This process of infinite regress will have you chasing your tail in ever decresing circles.

The only valid answer to these questions is, that the principle of causality, whatever the astrophysicians say, can´t be applied in these matters. We are conditioned to think in concepts of cause and effect, and we don´t understand a state, where these concepts maybe don´t reign. So my advice is: stop thinking about it, you will never get to understand it. The most similar experience I can think of, is an absurde dream. Would you try to insist, that the principle of causality reigns there? Well maybe on the neurophysiological level, but not on the psychological level.

quote:

Originally posted by pe-zulu:
[QUOTE]

The most similar experience I can think of, is an absurde dream. Would you try to insist, that the principle of causality reigns there? Well maybe on the neurophysiological level, but not on the psychological level.

I reckon I could put together an argument to show causality reigns in even dreams. However, talking of dreams, i'm off to bed zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:

an argument to show causality reigns in even dreams

Casuality would be better and certainly more true.

Pe_zulu,

If dreams are not subject to causality how do they arise? You are saying there can be an effect (a dream or elements of a dream)which do not have a cause? How then can something arise from nothing?

There has never been in the whole history of the universe an effect which has had no cause. The fact that a dream (which is an example of a more subtle/less gross mind than the normal waking mind)may appear to be absurd is still made up of recognisable elements e.g. a pink elephant is absurd but the elements of pink and elephant are common place.

Also how do we know what is going on with the more subtle levels of mind all the time? Through training out mind in contemplative techniques we can experience our dream mind in totally lucid focussed detail. We can then experience the causes in the way we can in focussed waking concentration. An absurd dream is just our dream mind/subconscious manifesting 'stuff' from our waking mind/subconscious moments in a seemingly less coherent way but nothing is entirely random. Somethings are just too complex for us to perceive the individual cause but all effects do have causes - and that includes absurd dreams.

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Also, there are some weird effects from the curvature of space

I thought the principle consequence (as predicted within Einstein's general theory of relativity) of curvature of space (and time)......... was gravity?

Indeed - mass causes curvature of space (actually, space-time), and the curvature is perceived as gravity.

On the largest scales, that curvature also has implications for the overall shape of space.

It appears that the universe contains not only normal matter, but also dark matter & dark energy. That dark energy seems to be causing the universe to expand faster and faster (effectively anti-gravity), and that may cause a very strange end to our universe - a "big rip". Expansion would go faster & faster, with the anti-gravity getting stronger & stronger, until galaxies start to be ripped apart. Later still, the planets would be flung from their orbits, and the final end (the rip) would come when the anti-gravity got so strong that atoms are ripped apart. Each sub-atomic particle would then be separated from every other one by a "horizon", where the space between was expanding faster than the speed that light can travel between them. (This is not the particles travelling faster than light, it's the space expanding very quickly. As an analogy, think of an ant on a towel. There is a maximum speed it can run [equivalent to the speed of light], but the towel [equivalent to space itself] can be pulled much faster in the opposite direction.) This would make each particle alone in it's own little universe. In theory, I guess this means there would be vaster tracts of vacuum which have no particles within the horizon, but I'm not sure that space can actually exist without matter in it (I seem to remember something about Mach's principle here).

quote:

There seems to be an emergence of new scientists who are willing to look for evidence of an existence that preceded the "accepted" Big-Bang, including an existence of "time" that preceded the Big-Bang. A recent phrase (to my ears) to replace the Big-Bang is.... the Big-Bounce.

The latest version of the repeating big-bang, or similar is driven by string theory, and may involve our universe being a three-dimensional "brane" within an 11- or 12- dimensional hyper-volume.

Apparently, if there's another "parallel" brane, then they may collide, separate, draw together, collide repeatedly. Each collission would be perceived as a new big bang. The geometry of these things is weird - the "branes" collide accros a wide area, but we perceive it as an infinitely small point exploding.

More recent ideas involve universes giving birth to child universes with different properties.

As I said in my first post, which seems to have disappeared, even though I quoted it in my second, scientists said that they couldn't see past the big bang to whatever existed "before". This wasn't because there was any problem with the question, but because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science.

quote:

And when I asked if time was continuous or discrete, I had in mind recent work that considers that space is discrete and not continuous, with the smallest volume of space after Zero being about 10 to the minus 99 cubic centimetres........we are talking about space, not small quanities of matter.

The Plank limit for space is about 10e-33 cm, so 10e-99 cubic cm.

I believe the equivalent limit for time is about 10e-44, which I presume comes from the speed of light (speed limit in the universe) and how long it would take a photon to traverse 10e-33 cm at 3e10 cm/s.

There are some interesting theories about the structure of space & time at the Plank limits, especially Loop Quantum Gravity, which suggests that space is simply a number of points separated by about 1 plank unit, and that the curvature of space comes when the points are not joined together in a simple cubic array.

There wouldn't be anything between these points, they would be the ultimate structure of everything else, and our senses would simply merge the dots to create the impression of smoothness of space.

In this theory, time is actually created by the random jiggling of the connections between the various points.

Of course, once you get to this sort of theory, you can start to question whether the whole universe is just some computer simulation running on a grid.

A cheery thought.

cheers, Martin

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so!




So, given that I'm currently at lunch (or as some might suggest, permanently "out to lunch"), did I really post this reply?

Regards, Mike
Missing, presumed fed!