MB> MB> Time began at the Big Bang.  The reason this is the best natural
MB>explanation
MB> MB> is not because "time" is an existant "thing" like a carpet or a wall; 
bu
MB> MB> because there must be a definition to support an abstract idea such 
s
MB> MB> "time".
MB> KK> Einstein once said, concerning relativity, that time is what clocks
MB> KK> measure and nothing more.  I have no idea what he meant by that.
MB> What he meant by that: time is illusory - it is "man-made".  It is not
MB> something that exists separate from us - but is dependent upon us to
MB> measure it.  If we were not here to observe time passing - it would not
MB> pass.  I do not entirely agree with this: yet the same principle states
MB> that a tree falling in a wood with no one to hear it still makes sound
MB> waves - but since there is no perception of sound - there is no sound.
MB> And there is no way to _prove_ that the sound waves occur either!  It
MB> takes an observation to make the proof "happen".
I think we may be confusing "time as a property of matter" with
"time as a way the brain orders its sensory input."
There is considerable evidence that matter was doing its stuff
long before there were human brains (or any brains) to observe it.
Yet it's also important to know that the brain seems to have mechanisms
that make sense of experience by ordering them in before/after
sequences.  I can usually make a good W.A.G. about what time it is,
except if I have my nose in a good book, at which point my estimate
of the time can be off by several hours.  I also recall a local TV news
anchor with 30 years' experience; he said that in the late afternoon,
he didn't need a clock to tell the time to within a couple of minutes.
As to your last observation:  if we observe hundreds of trees being
felled by loggers, and we note that sound waves occurred every time,
and if we then observe a tree that has fallen over with no one around to
observe it, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that sound waves
were generated when it fell.  This is the kind of statistical
argument that science often uses: if you carefully observe hundreds
of trees falling over, and carefully note what happens, you can
infer things about a tree that fell over when nobody was looking.
Strictly speaking we cannot 'prove' that sound waves were generated,
but if every other instance of a tree falling over generated sound
waves, it is somewhat unreasonable to suggest that they did not
occur in this one case.
MB> MB> In order for "time" to be meaningful, there must be movement - or a
MB>context,
MB> MB> if you will.  Since before the Big Bang we cannot theorize (we can
MB>speculate
MB> MB> then time is meaningless before the Big Bang because we can describe
MB>nothing
MB> MB> that gives it a context in which to move- without a universe for it 
o
MB>move
MB> MB> within.
MB> KK> Under the Newtonian model, if you could remove all the matter from
MB> KK> the universe, you would be left with infinite space and endless time.
MB> KK> In the relativistic model, you would be left with no space and no
MB> KK> time. Restated, relativity says that time is a property of matter.
MB> I cannot justify a substantiate difference between "endless time",
MB> and "no time".  They are equivalent in every respect which has meaning.
Within your personal frame of reference.
The real question is how well your personal frame of reference
accurately models what physical matter does.
That's the difference between traditional philosophy and science.
In traditional philosophy you could postulate a 'for-itself'
and an 'in-itself,' and these could become the basis for a whole
university course, precisely because they cannot be experimentally
tested.  But when you mention 'time,' you have mentioned something
that can be experimentally tested in particle accelerators and by
other means.  I'm no expert in physics, but I know that it has
been experimentally shown that time is different in clocks on the
surface of the earth, in jet planes, and on spacecraft orbiting
our planet.  Just as relativity predicts.
Just so, when spirituality pins its truth or falsity to certain
biblical-literalist opinions about the nature of physical matter,
it is mistakenly implying that if those opinions are shown to be
wrong, therefore spirituality is wrong.
MB> KK> If we assume the big bang model and wind the clock back to its
MB> KK> earliest moments, we see that at some point pressures and 
emperatures
MB> KK> were so great that atoms could not form; at an earlier point protons
MB> KK> and electrons could not form, etc.  If matter as it now exists could
MB> KK> not exist, then time as we know it could not exist. We could call 
his
MB> KK> "the beginning of time", but at some point we would be getting into
MB> KK> the tangles created by human concepts of 'cause' and 'first cause'
MB> KK> and such.
MB> MB> If there is no universe, (and for all practical purposes - before the 
Bi
MB> MB> Bang there was no universe), then there could be no time, because 
withou
MB> MB> a universe there can be no time.  Hmm, I think I just said that... ;)
MB> KK> You're not only being redundant, you're also repeating yourself.  
MB> If I've been redundant - and have also repeated myself - wouldn't they
MB> cancel each other out?
Only if you repeated your redundancy repetitively.  
MB> MB> Alright, that's one explanation.  Given the theory that the universe
MB> MB> "always was", or did not have a beginning, such as what we think of 
when
MB> MB> we think of "beginning" - then time is even less meaningful.  How 
oes
MB> MB> one measure something which is infinite in nature?  A mile is equal 
o
MB> MB> a millimeter, an hour takes the same amount of time as a millenium.
MB> MB> Therefore, "time" loses its meaning in the context of infinity; 
because
MB> MB> there is no contextual dimension with which we can _reliably_ claim
MB> MB> any moment is definite.
My understanding is that time is a property of matter, so once matter
as we know it became stable, a mile was always a mile and an hour was
always an hour.  Prior to the time when matter as we know it became
stable, we either do not know or cannot ever know.
MB> KK> Now I think we're on shaky ground.  On the one hand, science can
MB> KK> define a second as being exactly umpteen zillion vibrations of a 
cesium
MB> KK> atom, but OTOH my personal perception of time is quite variable.  If 

MB> KK> get up on a Saturday and putter around the place, I can usually tell
MB> KK> about what time it is without looking at the clock.  But if I pick up
MB> KK> a novel, or start building some gizmo, I'm always surprised at how
MB> KK> much time has gone by.
MB> Be that as it may - we could use an atomic clock to measure time,
MB> certainly and precisely; and we do.  But even this exact measurement
MB> is entangled in the very substance of what we call "reality".  And
MB> as Lewis Mumford said: that today's "astrophysicists... must reckon
MB> with... the possibility that their outer world is only our inner world
MB> turned inside out."  What I mean by that, is your perceptions of the
MB> passage of time might be just as meaningful - perhaps more so - than
MB> the precise courses of protons within the nucleus of an atom.
Only if you make the category error of confusing time as a property
of matter with the brain's subjective measurements of time.
MB> Who can determine which is "more real"?
>>> Continued to next message
 * SLMR 2.1a * .   Zen Meditation Contest -- you must be present to win!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------