I would like to discuss thoughts about time, the main questions being: Is time infinite? If it is infinite, how so? Is time linear? Is time an illusion? Does time have a beginning, does time have an end, or does time have both a beginning and an end? Is time quantized^link?

Time's definition is rather shady, because in order to define it we need the answers to some questions I asked above. Here is a couple links to get people started, and to help clarify some major properties and beliefs about time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

I'd like to start this discussion of by providing a complete (I think) list of beliefs about time. The options of belief are (hopefully limited to):
Time has a fixed beginning point, and a never ending future.
The past extends forever, but the future has an ending point.
Time has both a beginning and end.
Time extends forever into both the future and the past.
Time is non-linear, and is only an illusion.

An interesting point of view on time is the idea that coincides with the second law of thermodynamics [here], in that the universe is constantly changing. This change requires the use of energy, and according to the second law of thermodynamics, that energy will at some point in time will become 100% useless. When that happens, time will cease to exist, because without energy there will be no cause of change between different pieces of matter. Without any change between different pieces of matter (or at least any way to measure that change), then time itself would cease to exist (or if time existed and was just not measurable, then it could be considered an "end" of time).

As for the beginning of time, think of it this way: If time is needed to have a change since change is a property of time, and time was non-existent, then how could time come into existence? Wouldn't time coming into existence be a change, which shouldn't be possible if time doesn't exist. If there was no time for the beginning, then time couldn't have been created. Therefore, you need time to create time, so time would have to be infinitly spanned in the direction of the past.

Any thoughts or different viewpoints? Any counters to this viewpoint presented?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 12 2010, 3:47 am by CecilSunkure.

This logically makes no sense. It can't end because it is by definition infinite.

Let me reword the OP.

[Edit]Done.

Rewording it doesn't change the fact that an infinite beginning can't have an end.

Yeah, it's like saying, 0.0000....1. The beginning and middle are infinite 0s, and the last number is a 1.
Which is mathematically void.

Well if you believe so, then you should probably explain your reasoning, as this is what this topic is about

How is that relational to time? I can say that time is like a duck and goes quack like one, but that doesn't make it so. You need to provide an explanation to your analogy.

I explained in the OP an argument for stating that the past is never-ending, and that the future is finite.

Why not?

Supposing time had a beginning, it might still proceed forever, so why not suppose that time had no beginning but will come to an end sometime? Unless you have some sort of knowledge I don't, I see no basis for you to make any claim regarding the true nature or time. In fact, none of us really do as far as I know... unless perhaps we mean some specific model of time, like that used in general relativity, but mankind's experience in this universe is essentially a tiny blip in comparison to the elapsed time since the big bang, I hardly would imagine being able to fathom it from our small viewpoint right now, anymore than an ant would know all the ins-and-outs of the planet earth.

First off, I would like to just say that I have been bluescreened. It happened when I clicked the link after "quantifiable" in the first post. Evidence:


Second of all, I have heard, though I have no direct opinion on the matter, that time can be thought of as the fourth dimension. Just as we walk throughout the day the universe "walks" through time. This concept, that our universe and its processes are subject to time, is used practically in mathematics constantly. It is a good reference point conceptually, but practically... time is very hard to pin down. The way I imagine it, Just as a two dimensional cut out cannot look up to see us watching him exist, we cannot "look up" and see what time Really is, or how it functions. More rather, how we function amongst it.

I've heard this too. Some people say time is like any other dimension, like length and height (x and y). People move in a straight line through this fourth dimension and cannot move backwards along the time "axis." In this theory, time has neither a beginning or an end, just like numbers.

Am I gonna have to get Syphon in here?
Supposing water falls out of a bucket when I hold it upside down, why wouldn't it fall upwards when i held it upside up? Now, I will poorly articulate my point (I don't know how to word it )

You can't pinpoint a location on infinity without some relative start. An end time would be this point. You can't say a Cartesian coordinate plain go on forever in the negative x direction but ends at x=42. We'd have to fall somewhere on this number line of time. If there is an infinite beginning, then we could be anywhere on it. We have to come from some relative point to move forward, otherwise we'd be trapped in a relativity.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying, or what point you are trying to make except for your statement in bold. I agree with the bolded statement, although, we can use any time in which we presently existed, and use that as a frame of reference for defining the present. How do we know now is now? Because what was now before is now in the past.

Although, you should probably try to explain yourself a bit better in order for people to understand you. You should also probably define words like Cartesian, or give a link to their definitions, if you want everyone to have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Cartesian Coordinate System - A fancy word for a graph.
I don't know how to articulate my argument.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 17 2010, 8:01 pm by dumbducky.

I see both of those as impossible.
The way I see it, if you extend a line infinitely in one direction, it would be, in effect, infinitely long in both directions.
My belief is that time has no start, or no end.

There is no reason why it wouldn't fall upwards when I held it upside up, if we knew nothing about the universe in which you were holding this bucket. However, if we know you are standing on a planet like earth which has a gravitational pull, then we can figure out that the water won't fall upwards. Basically, to stay within the analogy, I am saying we don't know anything about the planet we're standing on, or even if we're on a planet, so why should we say anything about the way the water will fall?


This is essentially true, but it says nothing about the state that time actually could be.

I think it may be appropriate to introduce some of the notions of relativistic theory here:
Normal Euclidean space is essentially governed by the pythagorean theorem: c^2 = a^2 + b^2
Relativistic space is governed mostly by a similar, but importantly different theorem: c^2 = a^2 - b^2.
If we simplify things by making c = 1, we have 1 = a^2 - b^2. Now, I know I used to be confused a bit by the whole time-space relationship because there are 3 spacial dimensions, and 1 time dimension. So, by a further simplification, we can instead compare distance and time, where distance is measured on a single linear axis, even if the actual path is curved or warped, there is still some distance traveled from the origin in one of the 3 particular spacial dimensions. This way we can use a plane to think about what's going on, and we will call our vertical axis t for time, and our horizontal axis x for distance.

One of the most fundamental concepts to understand, is the relation where t = x. On a graph, it's just this:

What gets interesting though, is the values for t = 1 and x = 1. t = 1 second, and x = 1 light-second. 1 light-second = 299,792,458 meters. The diameter of earth is 12,756,200 meters, slightly more than 4% of one light-second. So, one unit of space-time is just under 25 earths long. Considering when we throw a ball, it travels maybe 10 meters in one second, it's easy to see why we can't normally see the relativistic effects happening around us.

If we could throw a ball at 1/2 light seconds per second, that's 149896229 m/s, on a graph we would have this:

To get the relativistic length L of the arrow, we use our relativistic formula: t^2 - x^2 = L^2.
So, 1^2 - (1/2)^2 = L^2, 3/4 = L^2, so square root of (3) / 2 = L.
or L = .866.

If we throw a ball at 10 m/s, we would have this:

1^2 - (10/299792458)^2 = L^2
L = 1 - 1.11265*10^-15
L = .9999999999999988873

As you can see, no human can really tell the difference between 1 and .9999999999, which is why we don't see these relativistic effects in our daily lives.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 18 2010, 9:41 pm by Vrael.

Well, time didn't had a beginning and it will never have an end. Time is infinite, how should it have an beginning? Time has always been there , even when there was absolutely nothing (...which never actually was the case but you know what I mean), and time will remain when there isn't anything in the future, it's (for me) an independent and infinite counter.

Well, besides stating your views you didn't explain why your views are valid. Why is time infinite, how come it cannot have a beginning or an end? Is there a reason as to why time cannot have a beginning or an end? If so, why is that? These are things you need to explain if you want your post to be more than a stating of your views

Several major religions have prophesied the End of Time. And 2012. Who knows, maybe they're right?

That time they are refering to is the end of civilization.

I don't know much about relativity, but that doesn't negate my statements about time, correct? I made a statement about why one of Cecil's theories was wrong. But you understand the point I was trying to make?

Now I understand the point you were originally trying to make. If time is limitless in either direction, how would we know which direction in time we are travelling, if in any direction at all, since we shouldn't have a frame of reference in order to determine a change over time.

Well, as I tried to point out earlier, we wouldn't be trapped in a relativity because we haven't existed as long as the universe theoretically did. We can use our past presents as a point of reference in determining the distance between time A and time B. If we ourselves were infinitely old, then we wouldn't necessarily have a point in time in which to move forward, which would make everything seem timeless. We have a beginning time in which our life span started to begin moving forward in time linearly.