Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[RED-DOG]

Time" of course didn't start at the big bang. The concept of time started when humans wanted it to start and will end when the human race is extinct


Gotta think about that one. Can't quite get my head around it.

It may not have been called time pre humans, but it still must have existed.

Yeah, Boldie is wrong. I think by 'time' he means calling things hours, minutes, seconds etc, which obviously only started with humans, but time itself clearly already existed. It's like claiming that there was never ten of anything before a human counted their toes and said 'I'll call that ten'.

This will sound a bit confusing, I admit...but;

But if you accept that time was there at the start of the big bang, time had to have been there before the big bang. You only have to allow for  -1 and -2 etc. You could say "It started with 0" but Time is linear..therefore you can allow for -1 and -2.

 This is not the same as say "B.C." as in "Before Christ there was no christ and therefore Christ started at Christ"..or "Before toes, there were no toes and therefore toes started at point X".
Therefore time either already existed before the big bang, or (and this is my point) time did not exist until humans started with it.

To continue with the "ten" methaphor. There has always been "ten" even when there was only 1...the naming of ten however was started by humans.

It seems to me that if everything in the universe existed before the big bang, then so did time.

[gatso]

oh bold one, the linear perception of time as a standalone dimension is a human illusion which allows our minds to deal with the concept of change

in reality if there is no space then there is no time, they are not seperable so time could not exist 'before' the big bang

[Karabiner]

Gatso beat me to it well in a way.

My slant is that if absolutely nothing is going on then the concept of time is totally redundant.

[RED-DOG]

Gatso beat me to it well in a way.

My slant is that if absolutely nothing is going on then the concept of time is totally redundant.

According to Hawkins, it was going on, inside a singularity.

[Karabiner]

Gatso beat me to it well in a way.

My slant is that if absolutely nothing is going on then the concept of time is totally redundant.

According to Hawkins, it was going on, inside a singularity.

This is getting too deep for my limited intellect and I'm not familiar with Mr. Hawkins' oevre.

How about telling us another Tommy Hotdog story while I contemplate my navel ?

[gatso]

Gatso beat me to it well in a way.

My slant is that if absolutely nothing is going on then the concept of time is totally redundant.

According to Hawkins, it was going on, inside a singularity.

I've never read hawking's work but as I understand it he is referring to imaginary time, not actual time in his book. imaginary time is far removed from real time (the linear time line that we perceive)

[boldie]

Time and space are facets of the same thing. If there was negative time before the big bang then surely there must have been negative space as well - tell me about negative space and what that was like.

 "You tell me about anything from before the Big Bang." is essentially the question you're asking. Even Hawking accepts that he doesn't have an answer to that one.

Why are time and space facets of the same thing (obv the Big Bang theory essentially says that "time is light and therefore time started at the Big Bang". That's when light started after all but that only holds when you say "Time and Light are the same thing" )?

The implication that there was negative time does not at all mean there had to have been negative space. I am not disputing the big bang theory as the start of the universe (if I was the negative space argument might be somewhat relevant) I am saying that time can have existed before the big bang.
Are you saying that when the universe ends (which it inevitably will) "Time as a concept" will end because the lights go out? Or could there be "X amount of time after the end of the universe"?

I will get back on to this one later, have people coming over at 7 and apparently the house needs to be in order.

[boldie]

Time" of course didn't start at the big bang. The concept of time started when humans wanted it to start and will end when the human race is extinct


Gotta think about that one. Can't quite get my head around it.

It may not have been called time pre humans, but it still must have existed.

Yeah, Boldie is wrong. I think by 'time' he means calling things hours, minutes, seconds etc, which obviously only started with humans, but time itself clearly already existed. It's like claiming that there was never ten of anything before a human counted their toes and said 'I'll call that ten'.

This will sound a bit confusing, I admit...but;

But if you accept that time was there at the start of the big bang, time had to have been there before the big bang. You only have to allow for  -1 and -2 etc. You could say "It started with 0" but Time is linear..therefore you can allow for -1 and -2.

 This is not the same as say "B.C." as in "Before Christ there was no christ and therefore Christ started at Christ"..or "Before toes, there were no toes and therefore toes started at point X".
Therefore time either already existed before the big bang, or (and this is my point) time did not exist until humans started with it.

To continue with the "ten" methaphor. There has always been "ten" even when there was only 1...the naming of ten however was started by humans.

It seems to me that if everything in the universe existed before the big bang, then so did time.

But I'm not saying that everything in the universe existed...just that time did.

[boldie]

Gatso beat me to it well in a way.

My slant is that if absolutely nothing is going on then the concept of time is totally redundant.

But just because something is redundant doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[RED-DOG]

As far as we can tell, everything has always existed. Yes?

[gatso]

As far as we can tell, everything has always existed. Yes?

essentially yes, although it's all theoretical

your original question which was something like 'where did it all come from?' is kinda nonsensical under that theory as it didn't come from anywhere, it just always was

[RED-DOG]

As far as we can tell, everything has always existed. Yes?

essentially yes, although it's all theoretical

your original question which was something like 'where did it all come from?' is kinda nonsensical under that theory as it didn't come from anywhere, it just always was

I agree, but I didn't know how else to ask it.

I guess what I'm really saying is that for all our advances, we're really no further forward.

Or am I?

[gatso]

I agree, but I didn't know how else to ask it.

I'm not really sure there is another way to ask it unless you're a theoretical physicist. language evolved alongside our perception of time so isn't designed to ask the right questions

[RED-DOG]

I agree, but I didn't know how else to ask it.

I'm not really sure there is another way to ask it unless you're a theoretical physicist. language evolved alongside our perception of time so isn't designed to ask the right questions

Admit it, you just don't know the answer.

[gatso]

I agree, but I didn't know how else to ask it.

I'm not really sure there is another way to ask it unless you're a theoretical physicist. language evolved alongside our perception of time so isn't designed to ask the right questions

Admit it, you just don't know the answer.

I don't even know the question let alone the answer