[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Apr 5 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 4 2009, 11:46 PM, said:

For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which in infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

W.r.t time, do you mean "finite" or do you mean "bounded"? The set of real numbers between zero and one is infinite but bounded. If the real numbers (or some other dense number set) is an accurate model for the timeline, then the set of time points from the big bang to the big crunch is infinite, but bounded.

I may be wrong but I can't see how boundedness could be a feature of time as it "really" is. Suppose your model of the world includes a real variable "time" which runs from -1 to +1, and my model includes a variable "taym" which is defined o.t.b. of your "time" by the equation
taym = ArcTan (time)

Then time is bounded while taym is unbounded, and yet they describe the same physical thing. The laws of nature which involve time will mathematically look different from those involving taym, One could dismiss one of the models because it is too "ugly", i.e. does not have the symmetry properties physicists like, but both models are equally valid and describe the same physics.

W.r.t finite vs infinite, I don't think our brains which can perceive only a finite number of bits can differentiate between infinite and "very large number", but if one believes in a truth "out there" which is independent from our perception, then it could be a meaningful question whether some set in the real world is finite or not. I am not saying it is a meaningful question (someone with more insight in physics might dismiss it), but from a pure philosophical point of view I don't see why it would have to be meaningless.

Yes, I should have said "bounded," but was trying not to change terms within the actual discussion. And the phrase "infinite hotel" was too simple also, but should have referred to the infinite number of rooms in Hilbert's hotel.

When using analogies to make a point, the strength of an analogy depends upon the similarities between the things being compared. Numbers do provide an excellent representation of time, which is why I used numbers to explain why it could never be logically impossible for time to be infinite (unbounded).

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

On the other hand, we can't assume that time as it "really" is will always be mapped precisely by our number system at the most extreme moments of the universe.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Apr 4 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Quote

Yes, there are many interesting word games that you can play with infinity, and also with rules and meta-rules, as Bertrand Russell discussed at length. But you cannot draw conclusions about the real world from word games without further evidence. For example, there is nothing at all inconsistent about a world in which an infinite hotel cannot exist, but where time is infinite.

first of all, hilbert's hotel isn't a word game that i play, it was formulated by mathematician david hilbert to specifically address the paradoxical nature and counter-intuitiveness of an actual infinite set of physical things that exists in nature and is an example of reductio ad absurdum... he is also the one who said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea." ... now you might call this an "interesting word game" if you choose, but it's possible that it's more than that... if you say you don't differentiate between actual and potential infinites, that's one thing... so far you don't say that, although you (and helene) use examples that seem to suggest there is no difference

Quote

That's not to say that time actually is infinite either. It's convenient to treat time as starting with the big bang because that's where our information begins. It might be convenient also to treat time as infinite going forward. As for traversing an infinite amount of time, we never have to do that. We just go forward, looking back.

By the way, why do you accept the big bang, but reject evolution?

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement... if time is actually infinite and you can only "look" back, do an infinite or finite number of years separate 9/11/01 from today? if you insist that time is only infinite going forward, how did we get to this day from 9/11/01? weren't an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years traversed? not only that, how about the universe itself? if (forget bb for a moment) it has existed for an infinite period of time, why is there still movement? why is there still expansion? why is there still heat? or life? if there was no beginning to it, an infinite period of time would have preceded this present time... surely you see the problem with an actual infinite existing in reality

i never said i accept the bb, i said that present scientific observation seems to support that theory... in any case, whether bb is true or not, it and evolution are not necessarily synonymous

Quote

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

where did i argue that? i expect more from you than straw man arguments... btw, where does the analogy "fall down?"

Winstonm, on Apr 4 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

Quote

this makes no sense to me, so you'll have to help out... how is the word "nothing" contingent on man's understanding? the word has a meaning, after all... it's the absence of something, anything...

What I mean is that our word nothing may acually be a physical impossibility so when we say nothing we are simply saying "an unknown and unexplained state" or we use the word "nothing" to express a physical condition for which there is no present understanding or explanation.

then don't you think this should be the definition of the word rather than the one actually used? perhaps you should offer this as a possible definition to those who assign such values... as for 'something from nothing', even david hume seemed to disagree with you, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 4 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Anyone? Throughout history many paradox's have been shown untrue. It doesn't mean any paradox is untrue, but it means you can't use one as valid proof of anything.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 4 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Anyone? Throughout history many paradox's have been shown untrue. It doesn't mean any paradox is untrue, but it means you can't use one as valid proof of anything.

i thought we were referring to hilbert's hotel specifically... evidently my bad

[blackshoe]

The source of the English word "infinity" is the Latin "infinitas", meaning "unbounded".

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch". If this is the case, then time is not "infinite".

[luke warm]

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

The source of the English word "infinity" is the Latin "infinitas", meaning "unbounded".

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch". If this is the case, then time is not "infinite".

yes, and if time had a beginning, it was either caused or uncaused

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch".

I think that is completely wrong, but I'm certainly no expert so if you have a link that supports you I'd love to see it.

From wikipedia:

Quote

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.

I think it's a misunderstanding or disagreement of what we mean by 'universe'. There are many references to the universe being of finite age, but I believe what is meant by that is 'the universe in its current form which follows the rules of physics and relativity as we know them', not 'any universe of any form that has ever existed, even prior to the big bang'.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Apr 4 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.

says who? you?

Any logical paradox is an intellectual construction. Unless it is tautalogical (and therefore uninteresting), it cannot by itself (even if devised by a mathematician) make something impossible in the real world. The real world is not bound to follow what anyone, no matter how learned, writes on a piece of paper. You still have to establish that what you write accurately reflects the real world.

The same holds true for the other Hilbert quotes you gave. Suppose I give contrary quotes from other learned people? Those quotes would also prove nothing about the real world.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

Consider a sequence of positive integers beginning with zero. I find it bizarre that anyone would consider that sequence nonsensical. Does it mean that such a sequence accurately reflects time? Not necessarily.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

if time is actually infinite and you can only "look" back, do an infinite or finite number of years separate 9/11/01 from today? if you insist that time is only infinite going forward, how did we get to this day from 9/11/01? weren't an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years traversed?

If you recall, seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years have specified measurable durations. The fact that a sequence continues indefinitely does not mean that finite measurements cannot be made within it. We got to this day from 9/11/2001 one measurable second at a time.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

i never said i accept the bb, i said that present scientific observation seems to support that theory...

Well, do you accept the big bang as the starting point of our universe? It seems that you have argued that way.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

Quote

However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.

where did i argue that? i expect more from you than straw man arguments

In response to my offering numbers as a good representation of time, you offered the hotel analogy as more apt.

[Winstonm]

Jimmy,

Do you agree that the difference in explaining the universe and its beginning with the utilization of a God Hypothesis versus an Unknown Cause Solution is simply in testability? In other words, the God Hypothesis can only be tested through logic arguments, while an Unknown Cause Solution not only has to pass the logic test but must also pass the scientific test.

That's the reason I say that "something from nothing" is not the end of the argument, but simply an admission that we don't understand what came before.
In other words, there is no such thing as "nothing" other than what we can imagine - but the fact that something cannot arise from nothing in no manner implies a Creator was necessary - but it does allow for that possibility, as well as other as yet undiscovered physical explanations.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch".

I am certainly no expert on this subject, but I understood that Einstein in his General Relativity theory showed that time and space are interwoven. Time really has no meaning without a refererence frame - if everything in the universe was moving at the speed of light then nothing would be moving and no time would pass.

It may be more correct to conclude that the BB created a reference frame for time.

[luke warm]

[quote name='PassedOut' date='Apr 5 2009, 10:39 AM'][quote name='luke warm' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM'][quote name='PassedOut' date='Apr 4 2009, 05:46 PM']To say that a logical paradox (no matter how cleverly constructed) makes anything impossible in the real world is to claim that the tail wags the dog.[/quote]
says who? you?
[/quote]
Any logical paradox is an intellectual construction. Unless it is tautalogical (and therefore uninteresting), it cannot by itself (even if devised by a mathematician) make something impossible in the real world. The real world is not bound to follow what anyone, no matter how learned, writes on a piece of paper. You still have to establish that what you write accurately reflects the real world.[/quote]
i have tried to... you fail to accept it... you simply assert that space/time is beginningless and leave it at that... evidently this is your attempt to reflect the "real world"
[quote]The same holds true for the other Hilbert quotes you gave. Suppose I give contrary quotes from other learned people? Those quotes would also prove nothing about the real world.[/quote]
no, but they might show that you've actually read and/or thought on these things, that they aren't, in your words, "word games"... even such luminaries as hawking have granted that a beginning of time has theological ramifications, which is one reason he has worked on other cosmological theories... as i've said quite often, we all have presuppositions and we all have authorities we can point to who seem to back those presuppositions... if you are arguing that space/time is infinite, you'll need to actually make an argument... i've at least attempted to argue the converse... you have not...
[quote][quote name='luke warm' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM']it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...[/quote]
Consider a sequence of positive integers beginning with zero. I find it bizarre that anyone would consider that sequence nonsensical. Does it mean that such a sequence accurately reflects time? Not necessarily.[/quote]
but isn't time what we were speaking of? i find it even more bizarre that one would argue for an actual infinite by positing a beginning point.. why offer an example that doesn't accurately reflect that which you're arguing? btw, a set of positive integers beginning with zero would have a beginning... if we are speaking of space/time starting at zero (the bb?), there is a beginning... you can't say that time is infinite and then point to a beginning as some sort of rationale for that... this is the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too fallacy...
[quote][quote name='luke warm' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM']if time is actually infinite and you can only "look" back, do an infinite or finite number of years separate 9/11/01 from today? if you insist that time is only infinite going forward, how did we get to this day from 9/11/01? weren't an infinite number of seconds, minutes, hours, days, years traversed?[/quote]
If you recall, seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years have specified measurable durations. The fact that a sequence continues indefinitely does not mean that finite measurements cannot be made within it. We got to this day from 9/11/2001 one measurable second at a time.[/quote]
'indefinitely' does not translate into 'infinitely'... the whole point is that if time is infinite, there is an infinite period between each second... remember, we are talking about reality here
[quote][quote name='luke warm' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM']i never said i accept the bb, i said that present scientific observation seems to support that theory...[/quote]
Well, do you accept the big bang as the starting point of our universe? It seems that you have argued that way.[/quote]
i accept a beginning, though not necessarily the bb
[quote][quote name='luke warm' date='Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM'][quote]However, Jimmy argues (as he must) that numbers do not provide an accurate representation of time. Rather, he claims that time is more like a hotel, which cannot have an unlimited number of rooms. I think that the hotel analogy falls down in many respects, but there you are.[/quote]
where did i argue that? i expect more from you than straw man arguments[/quote]
In response to my offering numbers as a good representation of time, you offered the hotel analogy as more apt.[/quote]
numbers aren't a good representation of time... time is a good representation of time, however... btw, i don't see where you differentiate between actual vs. potential infinites... i think if you would do that you might begin to see the problem
[quote name='Winstonm' date='Apr 5 2009, 11:00 AM']Jimmy,

Do you agree that the difference in explaining the universe and its beginning with the utilization of a God Hypothesis versus an Unknown Cause Solution is simply in testability?  In other words, the God Hypothesis can only be tested through logic arguments, while an Unknown Cause Solution not only has to pass the logic test but must also pass the scientific test.[/quote]
give me an example of a testable 'unknown cause solution'... that sounds suspiciously like

something caused the bb
the cause of the bb is unknowable
therefore, we don't know what caused the bb

[quote]In other words, there is no such thing as "nothing" other than what we can imagine - but the fact that something cannot arise from nothing in no manner implies a Creator was necessary - but it does allow for that possibility, as well as other as yet undiscovered physical explanations.[/quote]
winston, how many other words can you say the same thing about? we define words so that we can communicate... 'nothing' is defined as, the lack of something, no thing - no movement, no anything

[Winstonm]

Quote

give me an example of a testable 'unknown cause solution'

I can't and that is the point - the solution is unknown.

To be more clear, the difference between saying a Being created the universe and saying I do not know how the universe began is that the second statement accepts testability as a rationale for belief but the first does not.

In other words, I am not arguing against you but simply trying to point out the differences in getting to our respective beliefs.

Quote

winston, how many other words can you say the same thing about?

I thought I was quite plain. I acknowledge the validity of the logic that something cannot arise from nothing, but that only allows for the possibility of a Creator and does not refute other unknown physical explanations that may be uncovered.

In other words, saying something cannot arise from nothing may turn out to be a meaningless and irrelevant concept - it may be that there always was "something" but it was not an entity.

Quote

the whole point is that if time is infinite, there is an infinite period between each second... remember, we are talking about reality here

This is point where I wish I had taken that nuclear physicist correspondence course offered by DeVries. Still, even with my limited understanding it appears to me a misconception of space-time in your conclusion. If time is an infinite, that could only occur when everything is moving at the same speed as the reference frame - which would have to be the speed of light. But if that were to occur, there would be no passage of time, and time would not exist. So it appears that infinite time and non-time are one and the same.

So it seems the conclusion of infinite time would not necessarily mean an infinite period between seconds but infinite time would mean that time does not exist.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

you simply assert that space/time is beginningless and leave it at that... evidently this is your attempt to reflect the "real world"

This is another false statement, as I believe you know. I've not made any such assertion. In fact, in each post on this topic I have allowed for the possiblity that time might not be infinite in either direction.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

if you are arguing that space/time is infinite, you'll need to actually make an argument...

As you know, I have not made that argument. I've refuted your statement that infinite time is a logical impossibility. I have thought about and read about these matters, and have determined that providing quotes is useless.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Quote

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

Consider a sequence of positive integers beginning with zero. I find it bizarre that anyone would consider that sequence nonsensical. Does it mean that such a sequence accurately reflects time? Not necessarily.

but isn't time what we were speaking of? i find it even more bizarre that one would argue for an actual infinite by positing a beginning point.. why offer an example that doesn't accurately reflect that which you're arguing? btw, a set of positive integers beginning with zero would have a beginning... if we are speaking of space/time starting at zero (the bb?), there is a beginning... you can't say that time is infinite and then point to a beginning as some sort of rationale for that... this is the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too fallacy...

Let's review: You were the one who said, "it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only." I simply pointed out that your statement was wrong (regarding "nonsensical") and gave a simple example to illustrate. Whether or not time is really infinite cannot be determined by citing a number sequence or a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

the whole point is that if time is infinite, there is an infinite period between each second...

Simply wrong. Where did you get that idea?

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

btw, i don't see where you differentiate between actual vs. potential infinites... i think if you would do that you might begin to see the problem

I guess, using your terms, that time might be one of your "potential infinities." Whether or not it is an "actual infinity" cannot be determined by contemplation.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Apr 5 2009, 10:27 AM, said:

I think that is completely wrong, but I'm certainly no expert so if you have a link that supports you I'd love to see it.

The "link" is my memory of college courses (I was a physics major) years ago, and reading after that. I imagine you're as capable of searching the internet (or libraries) as I am, so I'll leave that to you.

Quote

I think it's a misunderstanding or disagreement of what we mean by 'universe'. There are many references to the universe being of finite age, but I believe what is meant by that is 'the universe in its current form which follows the rules of physics and relativity as we know them', not 'any universe of any form that has ever existed, even prior to the big bang'.

"Time" ≠ "Universe"

In an earlier post, I alluded to this same possibility ("Maybe it depends on the meaning of "universe"").

This article may prove useful to the discussion.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Apr 5 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

Quote

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

Consider a sequence of positive integers beginning with zero. I find it bizarre that anyone would consider that sequence nonsensical. Does it mean that such a sequence accurately reflects time? Not necessarily.

but isn't time what we were speaking of? i find it even more bizarre that one would argue for an actual infinite by positing a beginning point.. why offer an example that doesn't accurately reflect that which you're arguing? btw, a set of positive integers beginning with zero would have a beginning... if we are speaking of space/time starting at zero (the bb?), there is a beginning... you can't say that time is infinite and then point to a beginning as some sort of rationale for that... this is the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too fallacy...

Let's review: You were the one who said, "it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only." I simply pointed out that your statement was wrong (regarding "nonsensical") and gave a simple example to illustrate. Whether or not time is really infinite cannot be determined by citing a number sequence or a hotel with an infinite number of rooms.

it is nonsensical... you asserted that my statement was wrong and then tried to illustrate this with a set of (supposedly infinite) numbers that have a finite starting point (zero)... how is that anything other than a circular argument? you said

Quote

If you recall, seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years have specified measurable durations. The fact that a sequence continues indefinitely does not mean that finite measurements cannot be made within it.

as if "indefinitely" meant the same as "infinitely"... are there an infinite number of measurements that can be made within an hour?

Quote

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

the whole point is that if time is infinite, there is an infinite period between each second...

Simply wrong. Where did you get that idea?

why is it simply wrong? where did you get that idea?

Quote

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

btw, i don't see where you differentiate between actual vs. potential infinites... i think if you would do that you might begin to see the problem

I guess, using your terms, that time might be one of your "potential infinities." Whether or not it is an "actual infinity" cannot be determined by contemplation.

wouldn't it be more correct to say that you cannot determine this by thinking? btw, these aren't my words (but since you've read about these things you already know that)... i know you dislike using the words of others, but this concept can be traced to at least the time of aristotle...

in any case, the terms are usually defined:

an actual infinite is a set of things that cannot be added to
a potential infinite is a set of things that can be added to

if you can add a thing (book, painting, hotel room, historical events) to a set of infinite books, paintings, hotel rooms, or historical events, then that set was not actually infinite...i don't know why this is hard to dontemplate

[PassedOut]

What we have here is a troubling failure to communicate.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

It is clearly not nonsensical for time to be infinite in one direction only. That would indeed be a useful way to describe time if the universe began with the big bang and expands forever, which might well happen. The number sequence I offered simply showed that the idea itself is not nonsensical.

Whether or not time is actually infinite going forward is interesting, but not of much immediate consequence. And if some now-hidden matter or force eventually pulls the universe together again into one point, then it might turn out to be useful to describe time as finite. I don't know how this will play out.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical... you asserted that my statement was wrong and then tried to illustrate this with a set of (supposedly infinite) numbers that have a finite starting point (zero)... how is that anything other than a circular argument?

What do you mean by "supposedly?" Do you disagree that the sequence of positive integers is infinite? Is that sequence nonsensical to you? Maybe that points to where our misunderstanding of each other starts.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 11:24 AM, said:

the whole point is that if time is infinite, there is an infinite period between each second...

How would the fact that our universe continues to expand forever (if that's what turns out to happen) require "an infinite period between each second" that we experience on earth right now?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

in any case, the terms are usually defined:

an actual infinite is a set of things that cannot be added to
a potential infinite is a set of things that can be added to

if you can add a thing (book, painting, hotel room, historical events) to a set of infinite books, paintings, hotel rooms, or historical events, then that set was not actually infinite...i don't know why this is hard to dontemplate

I use "full" and "not full."

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Apr 5 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

What we have here is a troubling failure to communicate.

luke warm, on Apr 5 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

it is nonsensical to say that time is infinite in one direction only, you will have to provide some sort of reasoning for that statement...

It is clearly not nonsensical for time to be infinite in one direction only. That would indeed be a useful way to describe time if the universe began with the big bang and expands forever, which might well happen. The number sequence I offered simply showed that the idea itself is not nonsensical.

you're right, unless one of us is simply being obstinate there is a failure to communicate... you use words differently from the way i use them, else with meanings that differ...

an actual infinite is a set of things that cannot be added to
a sequence of future events is a set of things being added to
therefore a sequence of future events is not an actual infinite

that is mine, what is yours?

[blackshoe]

Looked at from "now" a sequence of future events is "being added to" because they haven't happened yet. But suppose you could observe the whole axis of time, past to future, from some outside viewpoint. Then you might see that the sequence is not "being added to", it's just that you see it that way, because you only see events as they happen.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Apr 5 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

Quote

Is time bounded? Probably. One aspect of "Big Bang" theory is that time did not exist before the Bang, and will presumably cease to exist after what Helene called the "Crunch".

I am certainly no expert on this subject, but I understood that Einstein in his General Relativity theory showed that time and space are interwoven. Time really has no meaning without a refererence frame - if everything in the universe was moving at the speed of light then nothing would be moving and no time would pass.

It may be more correct to conclude that the BB created a reference frame for time.

That's how I understand it, too. Any event that took place "before" the big bang took place on a different timeline, and we might as well say it took place in a parallel universum since we canot compare "their" dates to ours.

Or something like that Gotta read "the elegant universe".