Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

"quite possible some other universe doesn't have time at all"

How do they even exist then?

Well, as I hope I made clear, we do not know if any such universes exist.

But why would the absence of time imply non-existence?

 

[Polymath257]

"some universes may have no time"

How can a universe be a universe without time.

What does it mean to be a universe? Maybe the difficulty is that I don't see a good definition of the concept.

If you want a 'causally closed system', then the absence of time would imply there is no causality at all, which would imply such a system is causally closed.

 

[We Never Know]

Well, as I hope I made clear, we do not know if any such universes exist.

But why would the absence of time imply non-existence?

You said in a previous post time is equivalent to movement/measurement.(something like that)
If there is no movement/measurement how could anything exist?
With no time nothing could evolve or decay.

 

[Polymath257]

You said in a previous post time is equivalent to movement/measurement.(something like that)
If there is no movement/measurement how could anything exist?
With no time nothing could evolve or decay.

True. It would be static. That doesn't mean non-existent.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does it mean to be a universe? Maybe the difficulty is that I don't see a good definition of the concept.

If you want a 'causally closed system', then the absence of time would imply there is no causality at all, which would imply such a system is causally closed.

Interesting question. Maybe there is not a good definition, but hat do you mean to be a universe? I consider tw with variations of two possible descriptions: {1} our local expansion from a singularity (maybe?) or possibly a cyclic universe within a greater . . . (2) Boundless, timeless matrix that contains our universe and all possible universes possibly a multiverse.

 

[shunyadragon]

You said in a previous post time is equivalent to movement/measurement.(something like that)
If there is no movement/measurement how could anything exist?
With no time nothing could evolve or decay.

Quantum Mechanics describes the smallest scale world with no continuous time/space or gravity. Particles come and go in this boundless matrix that underlies our space/time univeerse.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I never made that claim. At least get the claims that you did not understand correct. And no. You have shown that you are at least as dualistic as anyone. Probably more so.

Your words were.... " We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time. "
Let's not talk about the Big Bang

If you claim that is not a claim, then ok.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What does it mean to be a universe? Maybe the difficulty is that I don't see a good definition of the concept.

If you want a 'causally closed system', then the absence of time would imply there is no causality at all, which would imply such a system is causally closed.

So my intitial reaction is to think how dumb that is in the context of the concept of universal time, and then I remember that you perhaps are not thinking in terms of universal time?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"some universes may have no time"

How can a universe be a universe without time.

Beats me, but these folk don't define time as universal time, if you can understand this from ratiocinator, you are doing better than I.

First, throw your intuition in the bin. Now, GR treats the space-time as a single, 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction through it - actually an observer specific direction because different observers will see different directions as their time axes. The manifold is a geometrical 'object'. This is how all the calculations are done in relativity, how all the predictions are made. Time has no other meaning than the observer dependent directions through the manifold.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A time coordinate. So, in 4+0, there is no time. In 2+2 there would be two dimensions of time (and two of space).

This also is assuming the total manifold is of four dimensions (like ours). There is no reason to assume this. it is possible to have, say, a 5+3 geometry: five dimensions of space and 3 of time.

Ok, I do not grok that. Are you using time in the context of ratiocinator's explanation?

First, throw your intuition in the bin. Now, GR treats the space-time as a single, 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction through it - actually an observer specific direction because different observers will see different directions as their time axes. The manifold is a geometrical 'object'. This is how all the calculations are done in relativity, how all the predictions are made. Time has no other meaning than the observer dependent directions through the manifold.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When your intuition clashes with the evidence, your intuition loses. Mine too, it's not personal.

The problem is that we have no reason at all to think that human intuition will be any good at all at the fundamentals of the universe, why would it be? It evolved to keep us alive in very limited circumstances as far as the whole universe is concerned.

Quantum mechanics breaks everybody's intuition, yet you are using a device to post here that wouldn't work unless it was substantially correct.

Wrt intuition in the context of physical science, you make a point.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, I do not grok that. Are you using time in the context of ratiocinator's explanation?

First, throw your intuition in the bin. Now, GR treats the space-time as a single, 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction through it - actually an observer specific direction because different observers will see different directions as their time axes. The manifold is a geometrical 'object'. This is how all the calculations are done in relativity, how all the predictions are made. Time has no other meaning than the observer dependent directions through the manifold.

Yes, of course. That is standard usage and is necessary to understand general relativity. It is the viewpoint that has the most evidence at this time.

Beats me, but these folk don't define time as universal time, if you can understand this from ratiocinator, you are doing better than I.

First, throw your intuition in the bin. Now, GR treats the space-time as a single, 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction through it - actually an observer specific direction because different observers will see different directions as their time axes. The manifold is a geometrical 'object'. This is how all the calculations are done in relativity, how all the predictions are made. Time has no other meaning than the observer dependent directions through the manifold.

No, we don't use universal time because we know that such is contradicted by actual evidence from the universe.

And yes, that is a basic fact that simply needs to be dealt with. It has been known for over a century and is supported by a wide variety of actual observations and tests.

If you don't understand this, then it is best if you take some time and think deeply about it. Ask some questions. Ask about the experiments that show it to be true.

But yes, GR treats spacetime as a single 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction (like left, right, up, down, forward, backward) and different observers can *and do* see different directions in spacetime as their time axes.

Which part of this do you not understand? And do you actually not understand it, or do you simply refuse to believe it?

 

[Polymath257]

So my intitial reaction is to think how dumb that is in the context of the concept of universal time, and then I remember that you perhaps are not thinking in terms of universal time?

Of course not. That is a concept that has been disproved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your words were.... " We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time. "
Let's not talk about the Big Bang

If you claim that is not a claim, then ok.

Yes, that was my claim. You got it wrong. Look at what your post claimed that I said. It is not even close to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we don't use universal time because we know that such is contradicted by actual evidence from the universe.

And from experiences in cheap dive bars. Las Vegas seems to have cashed in on this as well.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, of course. That is standard usage and is necessary to understand general relativity. It is the viewpoint that has the most evidence at this time.



No, we don't use universal time because we know that such is contradicted by actual evidence from the universe.

And yes, that is a basic fact that simply needs to be dealt with. It has been known for over a century and is supported by a wide variety of actual observations and tests.

If you don't understand this, then it is best if you take some time and think deeply about it. Ask some questions. Ask about the experiments that show it to be true.

But yes, GR treats spacetime as a single 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction (like left, right, up, down, forward, backward) and different observers can *and do* see different directions in spacetime as their time axes.

Which part of this do you not understand? And do you actually not understand it, or do you simply refuse to believe it?

Just about all of it, it is counterintuitive to my understanding of universal time. Yes, I am aware of the perturbations of relative time, observer time, but I consider the universe as a unity, such that any and all distinctions are relative attributes, and am not distracted or concerned with them except in the context of living in this contemporary human society whereby I try to fit in and abide by the common rules of it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, that was my claim. You got it wrong. Look at what your post claimed that I said. It is not even close to that.

There is an implication that a universe without time may be possible in what you said, or do you disagree and say you meant to imply a universe without time is impossible?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course not. That is a concept that has been disproved.

I accept that it may be seen as disproved in the context of human science which is dualist/relative, but to my meditative mind, the universe is an indivisible one, and its continuing existence is universe wide regardless of the perturbations of relative/observer time. Both universal and relative time exist, the latter within the former.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is an implication that a universe without time may be possible in what you said, or do you disagree and say you meant to imply a universe without time is impossible?

Yes, of course it is possible. I even made a similar claim to that of @Polymath257 . But you insist on misinterpreting posts at times. I used the all important qualifier "may". And you keep demonstrating that you are extremely dualistic. It appears you read a phrase the you like without understanding its full implications.

If you want to claim that someone said something perhaps you should quote them instead of doing such a botched job of interpreting what they said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I accept that it may be seen as disproved in the context of human science which is dualist/relative, but to my meditative mind, the universe is an indivisible one, and its continuing existence is universe wide regardless of the perturbations of relative/observer time. Both universal and relative time exist, the latter within the former.

You blew your cover. This claim of yours no longer flies.