bahman wrote:
Lets see what happen if time is eternal. Eternal time means that no matter how far you go in past you can never reach a point that time
didnt exist. It is in fact an impossibility to reach to eternal past. Now reverse the time. You will see that it would be impossible to reach
from eternal past to now assuming that you are there
If time was eternal either in the past or the future it would be impossible for anything to reach those points unless it had zero rest mass
A photon could travel the entire length of an eternal Universe in precisely no time at all because they only move through space not time
So you are saying that there was only photons in eternal past ?
No because there was a point in time before photons actually existed
But no photon that does exist now can actually experience time and so eternity / infinity can be travelled instantaneously
If time was eternal either in the past or the future it would be impossible for anything to reach those points unless it had zero rest mass
A photon could travel the entire length of an eternal Universe in precisely no time at all because they only move through space not time
So you are saying that there was only photons in eternal past ?
No because there was a point in time before photons actually existed
But no photon that does exist now can actually experience time and so eternity / infinity can be travelled instantaneously
So you believe that nothing existed and then photon exist.
bahman wrote:
So you are saying that there was only photons in eternal past ?
No because there was a point in time before photons actually existed
But no photon that does exist now can actually experience time and so eternity / infinity can be travelled instantaneously
So you believe that nothing existed and then photon exist ?
I do not think absolute nothing existed infinitely before photons came into existence as this is not possible
Physics cannot go back further than the Big Bang therefore what actually happened before that is unknown
surreptitious57 wrote:
No because there was a point in time before photons actually existed
But no photon that does exist now can actually experience time and so eternity / infinity can be travelled instantaneously
So you believe that nothing existed and then photon exist ?
I do not think absolute nothing existed infinitely before photons came into existence as this is not possible
Why it is not possible?
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:28 pm
Physics cannot go back further than the Big Bang therefore what actually happened before that is unknown
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
Non-sequitur.
The situation is that nobody understand time or knows what it is, and so no one knows whether time had a beginning or not.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.
So what?
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.
You haven't considered the more likely explanation: that your post is nonsense.
EB
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:47 am
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:17 pm
We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
Non-sequitur.
It is not.
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:50 pm
The situation is that nobody understand time or knows what it is, and so no one knows whether time had a beginning or not.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:47 am
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB
Time here has an actual direction, which is pretty illogical. (Not impossible though I guess.)
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:47 am
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB
You cannot reach from eternal past to now by waiting.
I originally wrote this: Expansion Paradox a few years back. I also opened a thread relating to this and am attempting to link a set of proofs for something I'm presenting. You might be interested in checking that out but I'm going to present some of that in An origin of Space and Time. That includes both time and space. Come join me there bahman.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:47 am
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB
Time here has an actual direction, which is pretty illogical. (Not impossible though I guess.)
You're contradicting yourself. If it's not impossible, then it's possible, and if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible, then it's not illogical. QED.
EB
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:47 am
The only known resolution to the dilemma is the idea that time is circular, in other words spacetime is a closed loop.
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB
You cannot reach from eternal past to now by waiting.
Non-sequitur.
The assumption of an infinite past doesn't imply that there should be somebody waiting for time to elapse.
You don't understand the concept of the infinite. Some people throughout history have been a witness to this medical condition.
EB
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:49 pm
I think you don't understand my arguments.
Your arguments are simple and well-known. Many people claim the idea of an infinite past to be inconsistent. None of them has any justification for this claim. There's no logical inconsistency in the idea of an infinite past and there's no empirical evidence that an infinite past didn't exist or couldn't have existed. So, until you produce some solid reason, based on fact and logic, your claim is just nonsense.
EB
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:54 pm
What is the problem with an infinite past?!
EB
Time here has an actual direction, which is pretty illogical. (Not impossible though I guess.)
You're contradicting yourself. If it's not impossible, then it's possible, and if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible, then it's not illogical. QED.
EB
Umm no. You say: if' it's possible, then it's logically possible.
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:55 pm
Time here has an actual direction, which is pretty illogical. (Not impossible though I guess.)
You're contradicting yourself. If it's not impossible, then it's possible, and if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, and if it's logically possible, then it's not illogical. QED.
EB
Umm no. You say: if' it's possible, then it's logically possible.
What if the world isn't logical?
The only way to falsify the implication that if' it's possible, then it's logically possible, is by being illogical. But then you don't need to assume the world is illogical since you're being illogical yourself.
You seem to be confused by the fact that if it's logically possible maybe it's still not physically possible, which is true. But the reverse is not true. To make it true, you need to be illogical yourself, which maybe you are.
EB
