MB> RM> Question:  Leading theorists of our day claim that time began at the
MB> RM> Big Bang (the BB is something I still dispute).  Why does time have 
o
MB> RM> have a beginning?  IMO, claiming such is sheer speculation, built 
rom
MB> RM> assumption.
MB> RM> There starting from scratch.  Your turn.  ;)
MB> Time began at the Big Bang.  The reason this is the best natural 
explanation
MB> is not because "time" is an existant "thing" like a carpet or a wall; but
MB> because there must be a definition to support an abstract idea such as
MB> "time".
Einstein once said, concerning relativity, that time is what clocks
measure and nothing more.  I have no idea what he meant by that.
MB> In order for "time" to be meaningful, there must be movement - or a 
context,
MB> if you will.  Since before the Big Bang we cannot theorize (we can 
speculate
MB> then time is meaningless before the Big Bang because we can describe 
nothing
MB> that gives it a context in which to move- without a universe for it to 
move
MB> within.
Under the Newtonian model, if you could remove all the matter from
the universe, you would be left with infinite space and endless time.
In the relativistic model, you would be left with no space and no time.
Restated, relativity says that time is a property of matter.
If we assume the big bang model and wind the clock back to its
earliest moments, we see that at some point pressures and temperatures
were so great that atoms could not form; at an earlier point protons
and electrons could not form, etc.  If matter as it now exists could
not exist, then time as we know it could not exist. We could call this
"the beginning of time", but at some point we would be getting into
the tangles created by human concepts of 'cause' and 'first cause'
and such.
MB> If there is no universe, (and for all practical purposes - before the Big
MB> Bang there was no universe), then there could be no time, because without
MB> a universe there can be no time.  Hmm, I think I just said that... ;)
You're not only being redundant, you're also repeating yourself.  
MB> Alright, that's one explanation.  Given the theory that the universe
MB> "always was", or did not have a beginning, such as what we think of when
MB> we think of "beginning" - then time is even less meaningful.  How does
MB> one measure something which is infinite in nature?  A mile is equal to
MB> a millimeter, an hour takes the same amount of time as a millenium.
MB> Therefore, "time" loses its meaning in the context of infinity; because
MB> there is no contextual dimension with which we can _reliably_ claim
MB> any moment is definite.
Now I think we're on shaky ground.  On the one hand, science can define
a second as being exactly umpteen zillion vibrations of a cesium atom,
but OTOH my personal perception of time is quite variable.  If I get
up on a Saturday and putter around the place, I can usually tell
about what time it is without looking at the clock.  But if I pick up
a novel, or start building some gizmo, I'm always surprised at how
much time has gone by.
I think we can say, scientifically, that time has some reality
independent of the observer, but we must also say that our
perception of time is profoundly dependent on mental states,
and it's important to keep the two separate.
Just so, I think it's crucial to recall that altho we humans can
come up with useful concepts like 'cause' and 'first cause', it does
not follow that these human-made concepts necessarily describe
reality.
 * SLMR 2.1a *  Did that gesture mean your team is number one?
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------