Asimov Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 What's the problem with that? I hear all the time: If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... What does that mean? and why is that a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... Is this statement even logically valid? It first refers to the universe as existing for an infinite number of years, but then concludes that "we" (finite beings) would never get to today. If time cannot be measured for the universe because it is infinite, why does it then make sense to apply that same rule to finite beings for whom time can be measured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 What's the problem with that? I hear all the time: If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... What does that mean? and why is that a problem? That is just a mind trick. Compare the concept of inifite and transfinite in math. There's an infinite number of whole numbers, yet number 1 exists There's an infinite number of sets of numbers between each whole number, called transfinite numbers, yet the number 3.5 exists together with pi, and e. Time is also relative, it exists on so many different levels and in so many different ways. Right now, depending on where you're located on this planet, relative to where I am, you and I don't have the same time axis, we have similar or synchronized, but our time line is not totally paralell. So even what we perceive as "now" maybe doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Hmmm, I've always questioned the notion of time myself. Does it really exist in and of itself? Or is it merely the measuring device sentient beings have agreed upon to measure change? And then, what if beings other than human have an entirely different notion of time as a result? Just think of the conversion charts we'd end up monkeying with far into the future. Probably make switching to the metric system easy by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 15, 2005 Author Share Posted May 15, 2005 That is just a mind trick. Compare the concept of inifite and transfinite in math. There's an infinite number of whole numbers, yet number 1 exists There's an infinite number of sets of numbers between each whole number, called transfinite numbers, yet the number 3.5 exists together with pi, and e. Time is also relative, it exists on so many different levels and in so many different ways. Right now, depending on where you're located on this planet, relative to where I am, you and I don't have the same time axis, we have similar or synchronized, but our time line is not totally paralell. So even what we perceive as "now" maybe doesn't exist. Right, that's what I think. like two points on an infinite line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Hmmm, I've always questioned the notion of time myself. Does it really exist in and of itself? Or is it merely the measuring device sentient beings have agreed upon to measure change? And then, what if beings other than human have an entirely different notion of time as a result? Just think of the conversion charts we'd end up monkeying with far into the future. Probably make switching to the metric system easy by comparison. If you really start thinking about time and what it is; consider how we measure time, and what are the basic principles behind time measuring, and also the physics. If you measure time with you watch or a clock, it's mechanical, and depending on cogwheels or crystals timers or somethings that is totally depending on atoms moving and interacting. Time measuring started with the suns motion on the sky, which is also dependent on particles and physical laws. If you changed the basics of quantum physics slightly, or say thay you just changed the speed of light, most likely you would have to change a couple of the physical laws to keep the system stable, but still if you could change some things. Would you know that time had changed in speed? You wouldn't. So time exists only within our system, not outside. Time didn't exist before the big bang, and time had to be measure different during the big bang. Example: If time unit X is measure by how long it takes for a light ray to go from my montior to my eye. And all my time is measured based on that constant. And all formulas that I derive from it. If I change the distance from the monitor to my eye, the constant changes, but not the formulas. The relationship is established the unit X, whateve unit X stands for. It maybe is easier to understand if you think about distance. The metric system is based on the circumference of our planet Earth. If you expanded Earth and everything on and in it (people, buildings, roads, everyting) with 20%, you could see the difference against other planets (external reference), but you would not see the difference in how many kilometers there is between Los Angeles and San Diego (internal reference). And this would apply to time as well. Summary: our measuring of time is totally depending on space and the physical laws in our closed system called the universe. This is kind of a tweaked way of looking at general relativity, even though Gen.rel. contains a lot more, gravity etc, and doesn't present it this way at all, but besides being totally different it's kind of the same... he he, now I really mess it up, huh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Looks good Han, The only thing that worries me is how many references are dependant on the physical laws of earth. Specifically our Earth. Could not those physical laws easily be different elsewhere? In a way, don't those laws change here on our planet too? Look at the term, "dog years". One of our years being roughly equal to 7 years for a dog. What if another planet had a faster rotation? Or a wider orbit around the sun? Wouldn't these factors create a different perception of time for those living there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 Looks good Han, The only thing that worries me is how many references are dependant on the physical laws of earth. Specifically our Earth. Could not those physical laws easily be different elsewhere? In a way, don't those laws change here on our planet too? Look at the term, "dog years". One of our years being roughly equal to 7 years for a dog. What if another planet had a faster rotation? Or a wider orbit around the sun? Wouldn't these factors create a different perception of time for those living there? It's not a question, it's proven already with science. Not with Bible thumping, but with pure, honest science. I could get more into it but I have to get my kids ready for movies, we're going to see Hitchhikers Guide (love the book, have to see the movie). So, later tonight I'll tell you about the twin atom clocks that traveled around our beloved earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 15, 2005 Share Posted May 15, 2005 It's not a question, it's proven already with science. Not with Bible thumping, but with pure, honest science. Eeeeeww! Asking questions doesn't make me a Christian! Eeew! Ick! Unfortunately I've never taken a physics class. So I'm kinda in the dark on the whole thing. Sorry. I could get more into it but I have to get my kids ready for movies, we're going to see Hitchhikers Guide (love the book, have to see the movie). Sweet movie. Adams would have been pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 It's not a question, it's proven already with science. Not with Bible thumping, but with pure, honest science. Getting overly sensitive are we? There was nothing religious, let alone Christian about White Raven's post. She just asked a question. Which I too would like to see answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Getting overly sensitive are we? There was nothing religious, let alone Christian about White Raven's post. She just asked a question. Which I too would like to see answered. Oh no, I didn't mean it that way at all. I didn't mean criticize White Raven. If that's how it sounded, then I'm deeply sorry. Sorry guys, ok? We cool? I just tried to make a stupid comment that the fact that time isn't constant in different conditions has been proven by science and it's not based on some faith or belief or religion. That's what I meant. And here I will try to write what I can remember from the experiment. You know atomic clocks; they're very precise in time measure. They're usually built around some atomic process that always gives the same result in time. Like having a certain particle encapsulated in a vacuum chamber, charging it so one electron jumps one layer, and the time between the charge and it jumps back to its original state takes always the exact same time. Without going into details, they wanted to test Einstein’s special theory which deals with how time changes in respect to speed. So the test is done with two atomic clocks, one placed at the starting point, and the other on a plane that is flown around the world. Now the plane has traveled faster than the clock on the ground, so there should me a difference in the clocks, and there is. It’s a extremely small difference, but it matches the what you will get from the Einstein’s formulas for special relativity. What this is about is that time slows down the faster you go. If you can go in the speed of light, your time has more or less stopped. To explain everything about the relativity theories, it would take way to long, but it’s really cool. But to go back to one thing you were thinking about. If time would be different for someone living on another planet with a different spin, and different length around the sun. The answer is yes, but the difference would be very small, but it would be there. Oh, I just remembered an illustration from a book I read long time ago. You actually age different if you live on the equator your whole life, versus if you live at the North Pole. The equator person will have a slightly higher speed and slow down his aging somewhat. It will be a very small number, and it also depends on if he smokes, use sunscreen and eat his vegetables, but that is a totally different story. So again, Eponymic and White Raven, I’m sorry if I sounded sensitive, I wasn’t. You have to excuse my English; it’s not my native language. Peace out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 It's all good Han, just confused about how the heck religion managed to sneak its way into an otherwise decent and stimulating conversation. You've really piqued me about age differences between the North Pole and the Equator in terms of time. It explains a lot really. As if I've not advertised it enough.....I'm a life long Alaskan. Not a big drinker, don't smoke. My lifestyle could be more active, but I know people who are less so. My skin type doesn't tan, it just rashes, so I'm careful about exposure. I've been made to understand, that as long as I don't open my mouth (a dead giveaway), I could easily pass for 19 or 20 when I'm closer to 30. That's locally. When I go visit family in the States (or Outside, as we refer to the rest of USA), they make it clear that I could pass for someone even younger. Wow. Kind of explains why my youngest cousin looks 8 years older than me, when she's really six years younger (and BOY does she let me know how much she hates that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 It's all good Han, just confused about how the heck religion managed to sneak its way into an otherwise decent and stimulating conversation. You've really piqued me about age differences between the North Pole and the Equator in terms of time. It explains a lot really. As if I've not advertised it enough.....I'm a life long Alaskan. Not a big drinker, don't smoke. My lifestyle could be more active, but I know people who are less so. My skin type doesn't tan, it just rashes, so I'm careful about exposure. I've been made to understand, that as long as I don't open my mouth (a dead giveaway), I could easily pass for 19 or 20 when I'm closer to 30. That's locally. When I go visit family in the States (or Outside, as we refer to the rest of USA), they make it clear that I could pass for someone even younger. Wow. Kind of explains why my youngest cousin looks 8 years older than me, when she's really six years younger (and BOY does she let me know how much she hates that). Well, I don't know why I mixed in religion neither. Probably because I was in another discussion just before I wrote this, and I was still rallied up. Anywho... The age thing, looking younger etc, I think is more of your genetic predisposition than the special relativity time factor thingy, sorry… But I had the same experience as you. I’m from Sweden, and when I came over here to US, I was about 31 but they actually carded me at the restaurants when I ordered beer. No one could believe I was that old. Today I do look older (last 9 years have been tough on me), the look-age has been catching up with the biological-age. Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with where you live after all… because I live in California now which is closer to the equator and I’m aging faster… Who knows... many questions yet to be answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... What does that mean? and why is that a problem? How do we know the universe had no beginning? Note: I'm not talking supernatural here, it could've had a perfectly natural cause, such as having been born out of the aftermath of the end of a previous universe. My theory is that the universe is in an infinite loop. Sort of like a badly written computer code, but with the universe, it's more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 The point of this thread isn't to analyze how the universe began, it's to analyze why someone would say infinite regress is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What's the problem with that? I hear all the time: If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... What does that mean? and why is that a problem? Well one response would be: If God never had a beginning, then he would never be with us here today... Or Jesus couldn't walk the earth, or be born or die or be resurrected. Infinity can not be a problem when we're talking about the universe, when it's not a problem when talking about God. First mover could be God, but first mover could just as well be be the Big Bang. So anything that applies to him, we should be allowed to apply to the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 Well one response would be: If God never had a beginning, then he would never be with us here today... Or Jesus couldn't walk the earth, or be born or die or be resurrected. Infinity can not be a problem when we're talking about the universe, when it's not a problem when talking about God. First mover could be God, but first mover could just as well be be the Big Bang. So anything that applies to him, we should be allowed to apply to the universe. Of course, that's what I think when some moron comes up with bullshit like that. If God is eternal, and never had a beginning, then he would never reach today! haha! "Oh but God can do anything." "shit, caught me on a technicality..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What's the problem with that? I hear all the time: If the universe had no beginning, then it has existed for an infinite number of years, if that is true, then we would never get to today.... What does that mean? and why is that a problem? A better question is, how can you create a universe from nothing? XCh: What was before nothing? Ch: Nothing. XCh: But wasn't God before the universe Ch: Sure. XCh: So God was nothing? Ch: uhm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 17, 2005 Author Share Posted May 17, 2005 A better question is, how can you create a universe from nothing? XCh: What was before nothing? Ch: Nothing. XCh: But wasn't God before the universe Ch: Sure. XCh: So God was nothing? Ch: uhm... derrrr, he's god! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts