Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

If there is time then there is change. If there is no change we cannot say there is time.

Here you get it. Change takes place in space. No change takes no time, small change takes a little time, and so on. And there are equations that describe this joint motion through spacetime.

So time is meaningless if nothing is going on, nothing changing in space. Is there anything happening more than 13.72 billion years ago? That is an open question. Various physicists, various answers. Deist believers fit a god there.

But, I dare say, even those who favor time "starting" understand the others who favor an eternal timeline.

What is your opinion on Hawking's No Boundary proposal?

This is from a Hawking's lecture about the beginning of time.

The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity really is correct.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Hawkings does introduce the concept of "imaginary time" but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about real time.

 

[Kharakov]

Keep in mind that an interval is a defined, finite measurement. An infinite amount of time is not an interval, which is a defined measurement between 2 points: both infinity and negative infinity are not specific points, they are boundless.

Okay, but aren't we closing the wrong end of infinity if time moves in one direction. The interval would be (-infinity, +infinity] where +infinity is today.

Ok, right away your making a major conceptual mistake- today is for all intents and purposes something that can be picked as t=0, t=210230841, t=-12341452134 or t= iced with lemon for all the definition today has in relation to an infinite amount of time, which extends from today into the future, and into the past.

I could possibly agree with this if we knew that time doesn't have a single direction.

Ok. You're on a train, going in one direction. Does this mean that you can't look towards where you came from, or where you are going? Time's direction doesn't matter- you can look towards where you came from or where you are going.

You can even rearrange a time interval that you stand outside of, if the option is presented to you. You know... like this message.

Can an infinite number of days have a final day?

That question muddies the waters a bit (unless this is your intent? I'm not sure if you want to understand infinities, already do and are playing around, or trolling, a fact of which you should be aware of).

I don't know how I can convince you of sincerity if I am really trying to deceive you. Sorry, but you must have faith this time.

great....

 

[Kharakov]

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Hawkings does introduce the concept of "imaginary time" but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about real time.

Imaginary time is a reference to the imaginary (or vertical) axis of the timeline. It doesn't mean that "imaginary" time is imaginary. It means that time has an addition degree of freedom (although I tend to think there are a lot more than one).

  Imaginary time.

Hawkins also describes how pre-BB conditions cannot be determined according to the natural laws we've observed and one might as well disregard them and act as if time began at the BB. Basically, time existed before the BB, and Hawkins likes to act as if it is a discrete quantity, although he says "we cannot observe before the BB".

 

[untermensche]

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Hawkings does introduce the concept of "imaginary time" but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about real time.

Imaginary time is a reference to the imaginary (or vertical) axis of the timeline. It doesn't mean that "imaginary" time is imaginary. It means that time has an addition degree of freedom (although I tend to think there are a lot more than one).

  Imaginary time.

Hawkins also describes how pre-BB conditions cannot be determined according to the natural laws we've observed and one might as well disregard them and act as if time began at the BB. Basically, time existed before the BB, and Hawkins likes to act as if it is a discrete quantity, although he says "we cannot observe before the BB".

Hawking explained what he means by imaginary time in the article I linked.

It is not time.

This is what Hawking says about time.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

He doesn't think time existed infinitely in the past.

 

[Kharakov]

Hawking explained what he means by imaginary time in the article I linked.

It is not time.

That's not what Hawking means- he quite clearly states that imaginary time is an additional axis of time.

Link One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

He doesn't think time existed infinitely in the past.

He specifically states that imaginary time exists prior to the universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hawking does not stick to one idea about time in his modeling. He tries whatever will work. That is how theoretical physics is done in trying to construct a model in an attempt to understand reality. If the answers were already known then there would be no theoretical physicists. You can quote mine and find Hawking saying very different things when describing different models and pick the one you like.

Stephen Hawking was consulted in the development of the conformal cyclic cosmology model presented by Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadvan. This is a model which shows an eternal cycling universe, no beginning no end only an endless series of aeons. In this model, our current universe is the result of the death of the previous universe and our death will create another universe... on to an infinite string of universes.

As I keep saying, we just don’t know. We try different ideas in an attempt to learn. This is why you would have to look damned hard to find a cosmologist who will state absolutely either that time began or is infinite. You may find a statement of time when they are describing one particular model, but there are many competing models so they will describe time differently when describing a different model.

 

[untermensche]

He specifically states that imaginary time exists prior to the universe.

Great.

Start a thread about imaginary time. This one is about real time.

Please don't try to claim they are the same thing.

One can be measured one is purely speculation.

 

[untermensche]

Hawking does not stick to one idea about time in his modeling. He tries whatever will work. That is how theoretical physics is done in trying to construct a model in an attempt to understand reality. If the answers were already known than there would be no theoretical physicists. You can quote mine and find Hawking saying very different things when describing different models.

Stephen Hawking was consulted in the development of the conformal cyclic cosmology model presented by Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadvan. This is a model which shows an eternal cycling universe, no beginning no end only an endless series of aeons. In this model, our current universe is the result of the death of the previous universe and our death will create another universe.

As I keep saying, we just don’t know. We try different ideas in an attempt to learn. This is why you would have to look damned hard to find a cosmologist who will state absolutely either that time began or is infinite.

Hawking said in the article I linked that time started at the big bang.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

This is an absolute statement about time.

It had a beginning.

No amount of hand waving will change Hawking's clear opinion.

 

[skepticalbip]

Hawking said in the article I linked that time started at the big bang.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

This is an absolute statement about time.

It had a beginning.

No amount of hand waving will change Hawking's clear opinion.

That is a statement about the model he was talking about. He makes different statements about time when describing other models. Ask him about time in the conformal cyclic cosmology model and you will get a very different description.

 

[ryan]

Okay, but aren't we closing the wrong end of infinity if time moves in one direction. The interval would be (-infinity, +infinity] where +infinity is today.

Ok, right away your making a major conceptual mistake- today is for all intents and purposes something that can be picked as t=0, t=210230841, t=-12341452134 or t= iced with lemon for all the definition today has in relation to an infinite amount of time, which extends from today into the future, and into the past.

By picking an arbitrary point past an infinite number of intervals, you are, in a sense, fast-forwarding time infinitely fast (please read the next sentence before typing a comment.).

But, I will admit; you popped a hole in what I thought was airtight.

One could wedge in a postulate that time cannot move infinitely fast. If so, then it may be a tougher argument.

Either way I learnt - again - that absolute certainty probably should probably be avoided.

Infinitely fast moving time is probably not possible because I think it would mean something quite extreme like absolute zero or a static part of the universe.

I don't give reputation points because I find it too hard to qualify what should receive a certain number of reputation points, but I do express my gratitude in posts.

 

[Kharakov]

He specifically states that imaginary time exists prior to the universe.

Start a thread about imaginary time. This one is about real time.

No. This thread is about infinite regress. With the version of time you brought up (imaginary time, which has real existence according to the article you quoted), there is possibility of infinite regress. You brought it to the table, like so many things that refute your statements.

Please don't try to claim they are the same thing.

One can be measured one is purely speculation.

You might not want to quote a serious article by anyone intelligent who has diligently considered the continuum if you want their statements to support your claims. The lecture you quoted introduces that the claim of a start of time at the BB is speculation, and nothing more.

The lecture introduces imaginary time, which is an idea about a different timeline perpendicular to the one we are on that existed before the BB.

 

[Kharakov]

Hawking does not stick to one idea about time in his modeling. He tries whatever will work. T

Yeah. I used his Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach in the past to try to communicate another idea about the nature of possible multipath histories. Not that I think there are multipath histories, but the idea itself may be a good jumping off point for a freer future in which we can separate and rejoin various timelines which follow different evolutions of natural law. The whole idea might be a bit ridiculous though...

 

[untermensche]

Start a thread about imaginary time. This one is about real time.

No. This thread is about infinite regress. With the version of time you brought up (imaginary time, which has real existence according to the article you quoted), there is possibility of infinite regress. You brought it to the table, like so many things that refute your statements.

The thread is about infinite regress of time.

Even if we say imaginary time is real it still means time is finite.

The lecture introduces imaginary time, which is an idea about a different timeline perpendicular to the one we are on that existed before the BB.

I'll remind you of the conclusion of the lecture.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

The conclusion is that time had a beginning. Time is finite.

It couldn't be more clear. More hand waving can't change it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Start a thread about imaginary time. This one is about real time.

No. This thread is about infinite regress. With the version of time you brought up (imaginary time, which has real existence according to the article you quoted), there is possibility of infinite regress. You brought it to the table, like so many things that refute your statements.

Please don't try to claim they are the same thing.

One can be measured one is purely speculation.

You might not want to quote a serious article by anyone intelligent who has diligently considered the continuum if you want their statements to support your claims. The lecture you quoted introduces that the claim of a start of time at the BB is speculation, and nothing more.

The lecture introduces imaginary time, which is an idea about a different timeline perpendicular to the one we are on that existed before the BB.

And since Unter's quote was quote mined from the article, another quote from the article may be appropriate:

Stephen Hawking from Unter's linked article:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

So events before the BB are ignored because there is no way we can measure them. All evidence was erased at the initial expansion.

 

[Kharakov]

No. This thread is about infinite regress. With the version of time you brought up (imaginary time, which has real existence according to the article you quoted), there is possibility of infinite regress. You brought it to the table, like so many things that refute your statements.

The thread is about infinite regress of time.

Even if we say imaginary time is real it still means time is finite.

What a silly statement. According to the no-boundary conditions that Hawking speculated exist for the imaginary axis of time, a finite amount of time could be traversed for an infinite amount of time- you never reach the edge of a sphere that you are walking on. This means that you can keep regressing infinitely, traveling all over the sphere of imaginary time without hitting an edge.

The conclusion is that time had a beginning. Time is finite.

It couldn't be more clear. More hand waving can't change it.

Ok unter, I may have misinterpreted your incorrect statements as deliberate goading instead of indicative of misunderstanding concepts because I have a feeling that you possess some form of intelligence.

The next to last sentence of the concluding paragraph clearly states that the no boundary condition implies the universe will eventually collapse again. Now I'm wondering if you'll understand the implication of the universe collapsing again (to a singularity, like at the BB). Does this mean time goes on after the next BB? doyyyyy....

 

[Kharakov]

And since Unter's quote was quote mined from the article, another quote from the article may be appropriate:

Stephen Hawking from Unter's linked article:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

So events before the BB are ignored because there is no way we can measure them. All evidence was erased at the initial expansion.

It's nice to have someone to counterbalance Unter's inaccurate statements.

In addition, the quote he keeps quoting is before a statement about the universe collapsing again (which implies a previous collapse before the current BB singularity).

You know what would be horrible? If there is a collapse of intelligence, so that the ridiculous thoughts that unter's statements represent are squished into our minds as logical thoughts! eeeeek!!!

 

[skepticalbip]

And since Unter's quote was quote mined from the article, another quote from the article may be appropriate:


So events before the BB are ignored because there is no way we can measure them. All evidence was erased at the initial expansion.

It's nice to have someone to counterbalance Unter's inaccurate statements.

In addition, the quote he keeps quoting is before a statement about the universe collapsing again (which implies a previous collapse before the current BB singularity).

You know what would be horrible? If there is a collapse of intelligence, so that the ridiculous thoughts that unter's statements represent are squished into our minds as logical thoughts! eeeeek!!!

EEEEK. for sure.

I don't think that he actually read the article. If he had, he probibly wouldn't have linked to it. A shame, if he had read for understanding rather than scanning for a quote to mine then he may have learned something, though not too much as it was really watered down for a pop-sci type presentation.

 

[ryan]

No. This thread is about infinite regress. With the version of time you brought up (imaginary time, which has real existence according to the article you quoted), there is possibility of infinite regress. You brought it to the table, like so many things that refute your statements.

The thread is about infinite regress of time.

Even if we say imaginary time is real it still means time is finite.

The lecture introduces imaginary time, which is an idea about a different timeline perpendicular to the one we are on that existed before the BB.

I'll remind you of the conclusion of the lecture.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

The conclusion is that time had a beginning. Time is finite.

Kharakov brings up an interesting point in our latest exchange. The point I took is that if we can allow a fast-forward of an infinite number of intervals, if they exist, then one could get to the present from an infinite past.

Imagine being inside of a black hole. I think time would move infinitely fast (time dilation from the general theory of relativity) outside of the black hole. This would allow one to travel some infinite amount of time into the future in almost no time at all.

So maybe time can have a beginning and an end, and it can still be infinite. Furthermore, this may actually require a 5th dimension.

 

[untermensche]

The thread is about infinite regress of time.

Even if we say imaginary time is real it still means time is finite.

The lecture introduces imaginary time, which is an idea about a different timeline perpendicular to the one we are on that existed before the BB.

I'll remind you of the conclusion of the lecture.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

The conclusion is that time had a beginning. Time is finite.

Kharakov brings up an interesting point in our latest exchange. The point I took is that if we can allow a fast-forward of an infinite number of intervals, if they exist, then one could get to the present from an infinite past.

Imagine being inside of a black hole. I think time would move infinitely fast (time dilation from the general theory of relativity) outside of the black hole. This would allow one to travel some infinite amount of time into the future in almost no time at all.

So maybe time can have a beginning and an end, and it can still be infinite. Furthermore, this may actually require a 5th dimension.

The people who argue for the existence of infinite time have neither logic nor evidence on their side.

Their belief is no different from the belief that Jesus is god and we see the twisted arguments used to try to prove the existence of infinity.

Now we are contorted into examining the effects of black holes and asked to imagine being inside of one.

And then we are supposed to talk about the effects on time being in this black hole.

It is absurdity on top of absurdity.

A desperate attempt to try to justify the existence of this imaginary thing called infinity.

No mater what argument is made the logic remains. If an infinite amount of time existed before yesterday then an infinite amount of time must finish passing before yesterday can arrive.

When you have neither logic or observation you wave your hands around and talk about black holes and the alleged ability of time to move infinitely fast. The argument is asking you to accept one infinity (infinitely fast time, whatever that is) to justify another. It is a worthless argument.

 

[untermensche]

The thread is about infinite regress of time.

Even if we say imaginary time is real it still means time is finite.

What a silly statement. According to the no-boundary conditions that Hawking speculated exist for the imaginary axis of time, a finite amount of time could be traversed for an infinite amount of time- you never reach the edge of a sphere that you are walking on. This means that you can keep regressing infinitely, traveling all over the sphere of imaginary time without hitting an edge.

The conclusion is that time had a beginning. Time is finite.

It couldn't be more clear. More hand waving can't change it.

Ok unter, I may have misinterpreted your incorrect statements as deliberate goading instead of indicative of misunderstanding concepts because I have a feeling that you possess some form of intelligence.

The next to last sentence of the concluding paragraph clearly states that the no boundary condition implies the universe will eventually collapse again. Now I'm wondering if you'll understand the implication of the universe collapsing again (to a singularity, like at the BB). Does this mean time goes on after the next BB? doyyyyy....

I notice how you like to completely ignore what Hawking calls his conclusion.

You do know what that word means?

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.

Your only talent seems to be ignoring the significant and worshiping the nonexistent.

You ignore logic, ignore quite obvious conclusions, and all in service to your imaginary god, infinity.