Linear time was a Judeo-Christian creation. The concept of circular time is a belief shared through countless cultures. One popular theory in the scientific community is that our big bang was just one in an infinite cycle of big bangs. The analogy of a balloon is often used where it expands so much that it eventually collapses in on itself (pops) resulting in another big bang. It also fits with Newton's Third Law.
Newton's third law doesn't imply the rebirth of the universe. Also, the empirical evidence is that this universe will expand for all time; it won't ever collapse back in on itself.
I'm just saying that it's more obvious of a property to describe particles and "things" with than seeing how closely they resemble imagination based shapes, like a sand castle (as I've seen entropy be explained before). It's going to be universal for everyone in the same frame of reference to see how particles move, but would anyone be able to look at a pile of sand and determine that it only looks 85% like a sand castle so it's entropy must be increasing? What if it looks exactly like something their culture made up when it looks like a broken down castle to us? Would the system then have 0 entropy if that's what they chose to define as order? Does the precise mathematical notion of entropy you're talking about have to do with the amount of usable work? If we found out how to convert "waste" heat into another type of energy, would that law matter anymore? If you're talking about they way things can be shaped, could you explain more about how we would mathematically go about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Honestly I would trust the older religions than the new ones, they aren't even original in there "stories"Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidiTEA
There is empirical evidence showing that the expansion of the universe continues and, contrary to previous theories, is doing so an an accelerated rate. However, what evidence is there that this will continue through all of time? Also, "all of time" implies linear time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Every single piece of knowledge ever is fundamentally based on induction, that is, the assumption that stuff will continue to be like it was. This assumption can never be justified. Unless we want to deny all empirical knowledge, this is the best we can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidiTEA
Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying an "assumption" is what is being classified as "empirical evidence" that time is linear and the expansion of the universe will continue through all of time? Assumption != evidence.
Quote:
ev·i·dence
[ev-i-duhns] noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
Give me an example of something which constitutes physical evidence but is not based on induction.
Also, I don't know what 'linear time' means.
I'm not sure, but I think it's something that people call a "concept", which I think is a way of imagining things in your head that you don't understand. I can't speak for the poster, of course. I don't know what he means by it.. but I think it's a way that some people use to imagine what they call "time" in a straight line, like a journey.. but I don't know what "time" is btw. It's all very difficult to understand, from where I'm sitting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Edit: My friend's just told me that "straight lines only exist in the imagination" (sic), not in the "physical world" (sic), which I think is the world outside one's imagination, but I'm not sure.. and I don't understand her remark about straight lines, either. I'm going to talk to her some more, in the hope that she can explain it to me in terms that I understand. It's all very difficult... plus, I've just realised that I don't know what "imagination" is. I'll ask my friend.
After all that condescension, I hope you're able to explain exactly to me what it means for time not to be linear, for you to give an example, and of course for this explanation to correspond to LucidiTea's elaboration, before he/she has had the courtesy to give it. You already look rude, but I wouldn't want you to look very silly on top of that...
"..what it means for time not to be linear." Non-linear time? Where did that come from? I was trying to say what I imagine "linear" time to be, in reply to your question. I did say that I couldn't speak for the poster.. and also that I didn't know what "time" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I think that "non-linear" must be something that isn't "linear", you know, something that isn't linear.. but I'm not sure. I don't know what "linear" means. I know what I imagine it is, but I can't speak for others. I don't know what they mean. I'm not them. I'll ask my friend, and there's another chap here who says he knows all about it. I'll try to get my head round it, which I think is what they call "imagination", but I'm not sure..
Aah.. I think that "rude" is one of those "relative concepts" that people debate because they can never define it. It concerns something which is called "ego", I think, but I don't understand it. I mean, my take on it is that just because one thinks that something is "rude" doesn't mean that others will agree. I imagine it to be a bit like wine. Some people say that oysters taste nice, others say snails. I'm not sure, but I prefer whelks. I think it's the same with the concept of "very silly", but I'm not sure. I mean, I can say that someone is "rude" or "very silly" and another can disagree. I don't know if there is a consensus that I can follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'll ask my friend.
I don't understand. Were they bi-religionists? Jewish and christian? Or are you referring to a period of time? And how did they create time?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidiTEA
Countless ?Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidiTEA
...or, more succinctly, 'no, I can't'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneiro
So, we're left with the fascinating question of why you poured derision on a request for a clarification of a term, when you yourself have no clue what that term means.
What is it exactly that you think conversations are for, given that you apparently don't believe that they are for conveying meaning? I really am very curious.
So you don't know, either? Is that what you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But I think I do "have a clue" about what it might mean! I wrote it. I did say that I wasn't sure. I wrote that already, as well. And who's "we"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well I can only speak for myself, but I think that conversations are for debate, information, clarification, entertainment and learning and countless other things. So.. please.. tell me.. what are they for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't understand. To me, this could mean two different things. Are you an inquisitive type, are you being self-deprecating, or are you being self-aggrandising?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And now you've gone and derailed yet another thread. I think it would be rude to the original copy-and-paster if you carried on like this. If you want to debate about your own statements and behaviour, or someone else's, you could start another thread.
I'll ask my friends for help.
So.. back to the OP?
Uh... how was this a derailing? At what point did I start a tangent? I think conversations are for conveying meaning, but I didn't understand the meaning of a part of LucidiTea's post so I asked them to clarify. You apparently find this behaviour risible and went on another of your jeering sessions. That was the point at which this thread stopped being about what it's supposed to be discussing. Why did you do it, given that you also seem to agree that conveying meaning is the goal of communicating, and yet you yourself don't grasp the meaning of the post? What's your problem?
You're doing it again.
Ah.. I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But I was trying to join in and help you with an opinion! I get the feeling that you mean I interrupted you, I think. This isn't the place for that, imo. It's rude I think to carp on as you do, subtly directing the focus back to yourself. But of course, I can only speak for myself. Perhaps you have some opinions of your own? Perhaps start another thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I do have a problem in understanding meaning, because I think that people don't say what they mean, or is it mean what they say? Or know what they mean? I really don't know.
Damn! You've gone and done it again! You're good at this stuff.
And who's "we"?
OP? Help! Give him a meaningful answer, or he won't stop!
lol
My friend says it's a photograph. She says that's why we take photographs. She says that we even take photographs of things that exist billions of years ago and that we look at today. That's why we know that the universe is currently expanding and speeding up because photos from billions of years ago.. hang on..Quote:
Originally Posted by toMmo
We take photos of things that are currently happening so that we won't forget what is happening billions of years ago... hang on..
She says that we know that is happening now by looking in large telescopes at a digital camera what show what is happening now at, billions of years ago. That's how we know what the universe is doing now because we can see it moving now billions of years ago, and I truly know what she means. She says that's empirical knowledge because she first read about it, had it confirmed by someone else, and then saw the photos with her own eyes. She's got some photos of it, but they look like stuff from before, to me. She says that's empirical evidence. That's something I personally never understood... and now she's saying.. hang on..
I never said that.
This one's just crept up on me. Respect in the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeraCook
Well, relative order - in the same sense that the expansion of the universe shows us the decaying 'order' to our universe. Your statement of "the universe will become more disorderly" implies that it is moving away from some relative sense of order (that of the 'early universe', or the 'singularity' of the point before the Big Bang).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
To be clear, I think we might be talking about two different phenomena, here (which is partly my fault). I think we have to make a distinction between the idea that the (single) universe expands and then collapses in on itself, infinitely, and the idea that universes like ours are possibly born inside of black holes (the two concepts related, of course, by the proposal that 'there was something before the - or our big bang').Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
With that being said, here is a little bit on the former idea:
LHC News & Particle Physics: Before the Big Bang - evidence for cyclical universe - Roger Penrose
BBC News - Cosmos may show echoes of events before Big Bang
(And criticism, as is only fair:
No evidence of time before Big Bang : Nature News)
When it comes to the idea of the universe-creating black holes, it's something that is being talked about recently. I don't know the extent to which the idea has truly been substantiated, but I'm simply bringing it up because (it's fascinating as hell and) it's related to the 'beore the big bang' discussion:
Every black hole contains a new universe: A physicist presents a solution to present-day cosmic mysteries
Why Our Universe Must Have Been Born Inside a Black Hole - Technology Review
Also, I think this addresses the question of what happens to all the information when a black hole disappears or dissipates (the answer is: we don't know):
Quote:
As particles escape from a black hole the hole will lose mass, and shrink.This will increase the rate of emission of particles.Eventually, the black hole will lose all its mass, and disappear. What then happens to all the particles and unlucky astronauts, that fell into the black hole. They can't just re-emerge when the black hole disappears.The particles that come out of a black hole, seem to be completely random, and to bear no relation to what fell in. It appears that the information about what fell in, is lost, apart
from the total amount of mass, and the amount of rotation. But if information is lost, this raises a serious problem that strikes at the heart of our understanding of science. For more than 200 years, we have believed in Scientific determinism, that is, that the laws of science, determine the evolution of the universe. This was formulated by La~plass as, If we know the state of the universe at one time, the laws of science will determine it at all future and past times. Napoleon is said to have asked La~plass how God fitted into this picture.La~plass replied, Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis. I don't think that La~plass was claiming that God didn't exist. It is just that He
doesn't intervene, to break the laws of Science. That must be the position of every scientist. A scientific law, is not a scientific law, if it only holds when some supernatural being, decides to let things run, and not intervene.
Into a Black Hole - Stephen Hawking
Wow this tread became active :)
Linear time simply means time has a starting point and an ending point. This was a Judeo-Christian concept ie God created the universe. Before his creation there was nothing and was always nothing. They did not "create" time they simply created the concept of time that is widely believed in current culture.
However, the concept of circular time (time in in an infinite cycle with no true beginning or end) is found in many religions and cultures and also theorized by many modern scientist (big bang was only one of infinite amounts of big bangs in an endless cycle)
It is not likely that either concept of time could ever be proven, at least not in our limited point on the timeline (or circle).
He means objective. You means objective. I means subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But I still don't know what "we" means.
I thought that we came to the concept and name by starting by beginning with what it might be? I thought all knowledge began like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm so confused. I want to talk to "we".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Oh boy....Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidiTEA
Yes, that's why I said "CURRENT" observation (as opposed to absolute truth) and "UNLIKELY" (as opposed to impossible). Not sure what your point was.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeraCook