>
>Keith Knapp wrote to Mark Bloss about Time and Again
 
 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; 
ut
 MB> because there must be a definition to support an abstract idea such as
 MB> "time".
 KK> Einstein once said, concerning relativity, that time is what clocks
 KK> measure and nothing more.  I have no idea what he meant by that.
 
 What he meant by that: time is illusory - it is "man-made".  It is not
 something that exists separate from us - but is dependent upon us to
 measure it.  If we were not here to observe time passing - it would not
 pass.  I do not entirely agree with this: yet the same principle states
 that a tree falling in a wood with no one to hear it still makes sound
 waves - but since there is no perception of sound - there is no sound.
 And there is no way to _prove_ that the sound waves occur either!  It
 takes an observation to make the proof "happen".
 
 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.
 KK> Under the Newtonian model, if you could remove all the matter from
 KK> the universe, you would be left with infinite space and endless time.
 KK> In the relativistic model, you would be left with no space and no
 KK> time. Restated, relativity says that time is a property of matter.
 
 I cannot justify a substantiate difference between "endless time",
 and "no time".  They are equivalent in every respect which has meaning.
 KK> If we assume the big bang model and wind the clock back to its
 KK> earliest moments, we see that at some point pressures and temperatures
 KK> were so great that atoms could not form; at an earlier point protons
 KK> and electrons could not form, etc.  If matter as it now exists could
 KK> not exist, then time as we know it could not exist. We could call this
 KK> "the beginning of time", but at some point we would be getting into
 KK> the tangles created by human concepts of 'cause' and 'first cause'
 KK> and such.
 
 MB> If there is no universe, (and for all practical purposes - before the 
ig
 MB> Bang there was no universe), then there could be no time, because 
ithout
 MB> a universe there can be no time.  Hmm, I think I just said that... ;)
 KK> You're not only being redundant, you're also repeating yourself.  
 
 If I've been redundant - and have also repeated myself - wouldn't they
 cancel each other out?
 
 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.
 KK> Now I think we're on shaky ground.  On the one hand, science can
 KK> define a second as being exactly umpteen zillion vibrations of a cesium
 KK> atom, but OTOH my personal perception of time is quite variable.  If I
 KK> get up on a Saturday and putter around the place, I can usually tell
 KK> about what time it is without looking at the clock.  But if I pick up
 KK> a novel, or start building some gizmo, I'm always surprised at how
 KK> much time has gone by.
 
 Be that as it may - we could use an atomic clock to measure time, 
 certainly and precisely; and we do.  But even this exact measurement
 is entangled in the very substance of what we call "reality".  And
 as Lewis Mumford said: that today's "astrophysicists... must reckon
 with... the possibility that their outer world is only our inner world
 turned inside out."  What I mean by that, is your perceptions of the
 passage of time might be just as meaningful - perhaps more so - than
 the precise courses of protons within the nucleus of an atom.
 
 Who can determine which is "more real"?  All our measuring devices are
 incorporated into our reality - because they are part of our reality.
 But this has been proved to be insufficient to prove itself: for any
 function (F), (F) cannot prove itself.  "This sentence is false." is
 just as unprovable as "The universe is unreal."  By what wisdom do
 we assert that reality is reality?  Our common sense?  Surely: this
 is the best we can do.  And it IS sufficient for our purposes, normally.
 But when we step off the pier and onto a floating raft - we are no
 longer assured of a sea-worthy craft: we are dependent upon our
 all-too-insufficient senses and experience.  Our experience cannot
 help us where no one has ever experienced.  "No Time" is _unexperienced_;
 but that alone does not disprove its possibilty.  And the closest we
 come to experiencing "No Time" - is with our imagination and our senses;
 when our perceptions of time-passing is distorted.
 
 KK> I think we can say, scientifically, that time has some reality
 KK> independent of the observer, but we must also say that our
 KK> perception of time is profoundly dependent on mental states,
 KK> and it's important to keep the two separate.
 KK> Just so, I think it's crucial to recall that altho we humans can
 KK> come up with useful concepts like 'cause' and 'first cause', it does
 KK> not follow that these human-made concepts necessarily describe
 KK> reality.
 That - is the mouthful.  "Concepts" are imaginary - but useful.  
 Discount the _unexperienced_ possibilities, and we are left with only
 the inside of a big ball to look at.
 
... This copy of reality has been unregistered for 37 years...
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------