h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>And yet you weren't able to answer a few simple questions about what it meant. Which is why I think you don't have a clear visual picture, and perhaps why other people remain unconvinced.<<

Perhaps ... but what don't you understand about my explanation?

What does the 'eternal timeline' mean to you? Can it be scientifically explained?

I suppose an eternal timeline would be one that goes on forever, though I'll confess I have no clear conception of what that might mean at the absolute beginning of the universe, or at its hypothetical absolute ending, and whether such beginnings and endings would render such eternality impossible.

Your explanation of 'illinear time' simply leaves me unable to see how such non-relativistic illinear time might be detected and distinguished from the linear sort, and in the absence of a distinction it's not clear that positing it serves any explanatory purpose.

But I'm always open to discussion.

Noggin

>>I have no clear conception of what that might mean at the absolute beginning of the universe, or at its hypothetical absolute ending<<

Nor me! The idea of time NOT being eternal however, doesn't make much sense to me in a very similar way to your philosophy of universal boundaries:
"a reason for thinking that the universe is unbounded."
Doesn't that apply to the time dimension as well?

>>It's not clear that positing it serves any explanatory purpose.<<

The reason for positing it, is to 'counterbalance' the relatively modern science of cosmology, which many people insist that its theories make 'God's creation of the universe' redundant. (Especially in a literal sense).

Some people of faith 'believe' that the universe is billions of years old, but say the Scriptures aren't supposed to be taken literally. I think there's a limit to how much is 'thrown away', and then people end up with very little guidance indeed.

It seems to me, the stronger one's faith, the more likely they will question EVERYTHING, interpretation of Scripture AND scientific theories/conclusions. Anybody who's looking for truth cannot just follow the nearest person, they have to ponder and use their own intellect to make a decision in sincerity.

I'm not just trying to be awkward, I really do think that most people's concept of time is not valid when it comes to envisaging billions of years. I personally, with all sincerity, don't think that a model of the universe that treats the 'real time-line' as linear is very scientific. Surely its an assumption?

ing....

<>

I don't have a philosophy of universal boundaries . If you think that's what I wrote that's probably why it didn't make much sense

What I wrote was that you can't have a crossable boundary between two domains with different sets of rules.

A finite but unbounded space can be visualised analogously to a finite but unbounded surface like the surface of a sphere. As to whether that applies to time, I'm not sure. My intuition tells me it should, but I can't *see* it. I can't really conceive of time as either infinite or as having a beginning. That's the point my personal understanding runs out.

<>

I think this is a bad reason for positing anything, particularly in the field of science. Nor, as far as I can see, does an undetectable illinear time make God any more or any less redundant in the creation of the universe.

"Assumptions" in science (and philosophy)... whole different subject, but really interesting. More on that later.

Noggin

>>I think this is a bad reason for positing anything, particularly in the field of science.<<
Mmm, perhaps I didn't put it very well ... whatever experiences you have in life, or studies of non-fiction that you find credible, it's bound to affect your beliefs and judgement. That includes scientific subjects and statistics as well.

[Yes, I realise that your boundary entry is abstract, but I think it applies very well to the universe]

Hi Warner

<>

Well, that word assumption can be used to cover a lot of territory - everything from unwarranted jumping to conclusions to "not subject to a formal proof".

And I'm not trying to be arkward either, but you really do need to be clearer about what you mean.

Until Einstein time (and space) was seen as "passive", and yes "linear". But in what sense is Einsteinian space time "non-linear"? Perhaps that would be a better place to start.

The airborne clock experiment and the Twin Paradox have both been mentioned in these discussions. What's your understanding of those - especially the subjective experience of the twins?

Noggin

>>The airborne clock experiment and the Twin Paradox have both been mentioned in these discussions.<<

Mmm, this is Einsteinian concepts of relative time, but is not 'set in stone'. It serves to show us that indeed, time is more complex than our everyday perception or understanding.
ie. it is possible for material to experience 'varying aging' over an apparent same 'time span' [relative to our own perception/time frame]

Incidently, when I proposed that the speed of light could be thought of as 'constant by definition', people implied that I was crazy and being 'non-scientific'. But what about this then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light