Philosophy Discussion Forums

Could time be both radial and linear? Like light emitted from a single point in all directions.
With the characteristics of both wave and particle.
The present being representative of the photon (or visa versa)
Much like pi. We know the first number, but is there a last?
It has some sort of anchored coordinate, but we can't ever seem to reach it.

I understand that if all change/motion ceased, time would be irrelevant. Not to mention, matter would cease to exist. If this were to happen then space would also become irrelevant. Dare I say non-existent having existed in the past. Having once existed would have a rippling effect on all future events, however insignificant. And having once existed, evidence of its existence would remain since information can not be destroyed.

But could information remain hidden.

Given that the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light. Which I found confusing until it occurred to me that it is the medium through which light travels that is expanding.
So the galaxies we see now from space will one day be unobservable. (At least via light)

Also, this interesting bit of info makes me wonder:
From the viewpoint of the ever-expanding space, wouldn't it appear as if it were matter that was dramatically shrinking?

Anyways, if we were somehow able to revert back to let's say a minute after the Big Bang, wouldn't that minute be all the time that has ever been?
I have no doubt that the first minute was exponentially longer than the second minute, as with the first second, nano-second, etc.

Given this pattern, would it be fair to say that you could approach the beginning of time without ever reaching it?

The Big Bang was the beginning of local cosmic expansion not the absolute beginning of everything
So is not that it began then but that physics can not go back further than it at this moment in time
Because of the Planck scale below which no temporal or physical measurements can be taken. And
so until they can then what happened before the Big Bang shall continue to remain a total mystery

The posit for time in the Big Bang hypothesis, is merely an assumption.

There is no direct proof for time is variant, it was merely validated by the a posteriori knowledge of the Big Bang model.

Much of the statements by the OP, is merely the contemplation in the subjective reality of the Big Bang cosmos.

If there is a beginning, then there is an end - and vice versa. The universe is unsolveable because, no matter which way you look at it, you end up with a regression problem. The only way I can reconcile it is to say that reality (whatever it may be) is eternal and the big bang and cosmic inflation is the creation of new material, which is not the beginning of everything but has sprung from something else, or perhaps even just undergoing a state change. That depends on the size of reality - be it universe-sized, multiverse sized - or a fractal layer larger again. Too hard basket.

There are assumptions about cosmic inflation that are not necessarily logical. Consider the current observed passage of inflation: at first, there was barely any inflation, and maybe none at all, then there was a sudden burst for a while, a slowdown, and then shifting into another exponential growth phase which we are in now. For some reason, this burst is considered eternal, unlike the prior bursts. Maybe. On the other hand, in a universe just 13 billion years or so into its expected 1,000 billion Stelliferous Era lifespan may be just experiencing another growth spurt like the relative toddler that it is?

What is the definition of "time" that is being used relative to this topic?

If the universe had a Big Bang (event) type beginning, an attribute or element of that beginning caused time (the constant linear progression of the universe) to exist. Since time still exists from that event or from the inception of the universe, I think that its reasonable to say that time subsists or persists with the development or expansion of the universe. Considering this, I don't think there's a reason to believe that time will end, unless the universe ends. Hence, the event which caused time, ceases to exist. Assuming that the cause of time still exists with the universe, or is an intrinsic element / part of it.

That's what I'm thinking. I know time slows down when there's a lot of gravity. All of the matter in the universe in one space would produce a lot of gravity. Maybe in theory the beginning of the universe is where time was motionless. In that case relative to our perception of time the universe is eternal but relative to the universe it is finite with a beginning.

Hingley wrote:Could time be both radial and linear?

The empty notion of "time" doesn't really mean anything. If we say time, we should always indicate: Time of what? Similarly as change/motion doesn't say anything without reference to the object.

I understand that if all change/motion ceased, time would be irrelevant.

Yes. If change (of object)/motion (of object) stopped, time (of objects) stopped too (synonyms)

Not to mention, matter would cease to exist.

Matter would then turn to pre-matter (or ether). The difference consists (among other things) in their motion. But such a likelihood is close to zero.

If this were to happen then space would also become irrelevant.

No, extent of space would be the same.

Dare I say non-existent having existed in the past.

Not clear. Nature Was~Is~Will-be in other words just is.

But could information remain hidden.

Do you mean information how matter came into being? It was an accidental occurrence.

Given that the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light. Which I found confusing until it occurred to me that it is the medium through which light travels that is expanding.

So the galaxies we see now from space will one day be unobservable. (At least via light)

The universe does not expand. The heavenly objects we can observe, some indeed are moving away from us but some are approaching to us. However all it happens within the universal nucleus. Object cannot surpass speed of light.

Also, this interesting bit of info makes me wonder:
From the viewpoint of the ever-expanding space, wouldn't it appear as if it were matter that was dramatically shrinking?

Space never expanded. It's volume is still the same.

Anyways, if we were somehow able to revert back to let's say a minute after the Big Bang, wouldn't that minute be all the time that has ever been?
I have no doubt that the first minute was exponentially longer than the second minute, as with the first second, nano-second, etc.

There was no Big Bang in contrast to Big Birth . All the universal matter originated from the state of looseness of pre-matter (or ether), but definitely not from the initial "point" of squeezed microscopic portion of matter.

Given this pattern, would it be fair to say that you could approach the beginning of time without ever reaching it?

Time of what? Time autonomously does not exist.

This post is very interesting to me because I was just working on this line of thought recently.

I have come to the conclusion that, although there is a Beginning and an End to the Universe, one could never reach either by moving through time. By this I mean that if you could "go back in time" you would never reach the elusive Beginning, no matter how far back you went, and neither would you reach the End even if you went on and on into the future forever.

In other words, it is Infinite Time and yet it also has a Beginning and Ending, and could be represented by drawing an apparent line segment, but denoting its length as being infinite. This means that even though one can travel across the line segment, one's relative position in the line would never change!....

Time exist in finite quantum leaps, eternally.

Space exists eternally as occupied space and non-occupied space.

Time nor occupied space can be created nor destroyed.

r6

Time is not a "thing". There is no "time matter" or "time energy". Time is an identity we construct to notice that things are not organized in the same relation as our memory had them. There is no "going back" or "forward". There is simply the organization of matter from moment to moment. Since we have concluded there existed different relations of matter before people existed, the question of whether there is a "beginning" to time is up to us to define. If we wish to define "beginning" as a time before humans existed, then its a moot argument. No one can ever know that beginning if it exists.

Spiral Out wrote:What is the definition of "time" that is being used relative to this topic?

Most important is to define "time". I see it as merely a concept like a metre, a yard, or a pound. Time, in and of itself, does not exist in the observable universe. It can't be observed. Nor can you observe a yard, a meter or a pound. Time is a concept used in modelling the Universe just like the xyz axis. You can only 'travel in time' in a model...not in reality. Thinking about travelling in time is about as useful as travelling in a pound or a mile or a Unicorn. You simply cannot physically travel in a concept. It doesn't make any sense.

-- Updated August 1st, 2016, 11:51 am to add the following --

Spiral Out wrote:What is the definition of "time" that is being used relative to this topic?

Most important is to define "time". I see it as merely a concept like a metre, a yard, or a pound. Time, in and of itself, does not exist in the observable universe. It can't be observed. Nor can you observe a yard, a meter or a pound. Time is a concept used in modelling the Universe just like the xyz axis. You can only 'travel in time' in a model...not in reality. Thinking about travelling in time is about as useful as travelling in a pound or a mile or a Unicorn. You simply cannot physically travel in a concept. It doesn't make any sense.

Yes, we do travel in time and space, ergo the the term space-time is not only a metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept, it is a vector.
Vector has magnitude and direction { trajectory }.

Unlike Atryeu, who does not believe space exists, most humans measure space,

1} space measured in feet, meters etc.....

2} time is measured in seconds, hours days, years etc....

Matter { fermions } exists as both space and observed time { frequency ^v^v/motion }

Bosons { force } also exist as both space and observed time { frequency ^v^v/motion }

Observed Time is frequency ^v^v and motion ergo a terminal beginning time, duration and terminal ending time.

>>>>>>>>arrow-of-time>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<< past OUT <<< ( * | * ) <<< IN <<<< future
>>>>>>>> arrow-of-time>>>>>>>

<<<<< "we cannot return to the womb : R. B. Fuller } <<<<<<<<

| is a 2D cross section of 3D time.

Time in inherent to XYZ dimensions of space i.e. we cannot have a beginning and ending vector dimension of space, that is not inclusive of time. This is why the term space-time has existed for many years now. Ive been very clear and elaborated greatly on definning space-time.

Space (....) = finite integral direction

Observed time = ^v^ frequency ergo trajectory/direction of motion

Space ....)(.... = non-integral because of infinite direction

Gravity is a property of space-time and I believve dark energy is second property of space-time ergo,

Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(

The gravitaional geodeisc vector reaches a peak and travels INward to be expressed as physical/energy/reality/time/^v^v and then bounces/reflects back out to continue on it geodesic positive geodesic trajectory, only to become dark energy.

At the inner surface peak, dark energy INverts/invaginates, as physical/energy/reality/time ^v^v, and then bounces back out to continue on its negative geodesic, only to become gravity.

We exist as the interplay between gravity and dark energy, that, are inerent to every particle of Universe, and combine to as aggregates of atoms and molecules, etc.......

We live in a finite, occupied space Universe of space-time or as Ive revised to more correctly--- imho --as,

Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(

r6

Rr6 wrote:Time exist in finite quantum leaps, eternally.
Space exists eternally as occupied space and non-occupied space.
Time nor occupied space can be created nor destroyed.
r6

When you say "time exists" are you talking about existing as in "matter and energy" exists? or are you using a different definition. I need to know how time physically exists? as for time being created or destroyed...you are talking about physically altering something that is merely a concept. It's like saying unicorns can neither be created or destroyed...doesn't make any sense to me. Can you create or destroy a mile? or a foot? or a pound?

YOu need to understand space-time.

No space then no time.

Via brain we observed space-time. Both space and time have beginnings and endings. Simple.

r6

Rainman wrote:When you say "time exists" are you talking about existing as in "matter and energy" exists? or are you using a different definition. I need to know how time physically exists? as for time being created or destroyed...you are talking about physically altering something that is merely a concept. It's like saying unicorns can neither be created or destroyed...doesn't make any sense to me. Can you create or destroy a mile? or a foot? or a pound?