The presence of time vs the absence of time

[Bobby17]

Some scientists say that space and time didn’t always exist and that it was the absence of time and the absence of space that led to the presence of time and the presence of space with the big bang.

So let’s take a closer look at the absence of time. How long was the absence of time able to remain itself before it became the presence of time?

Since the absence of time isn’t any period of time it ends at the same time as it begins. The end is the beginning. The absence of time became the presence of time at the same time the absence of time began and so the absence of time is always the presence of time and that makes the presence of time dominant. 

In other words: The absence of time did not have the time to eliminate the mass of the big bang there where one can calculate that mass before the big bang. 

And when the absence of time is always the presence of time, the presence of time is not only always dominant but it also makes the future and the past of the presence of time both infinite. 

And when the past of the presence of time is infinite, the past has already finished an infinity of time and that is a manifestation of the impossible. 

And so the topic called The presence of time vs the absence of time leads to another topic called The study of manifestations of the impossible. 

[tar]

1 hour ago, Bobby17 said:

 

So let’s take a closer look at the absence of time. How long was the absence of time able to remain itself before it became the presence of time?

 

Bobby17,

One of the problems with considering what happened "before" time, is that to make the consideration your premise requires time to exit "prior" its existence.

I don't think under the circumstances you can use terms like "period of time" to describe a set of circumstances were time was not part of the consideration.

So once you ask "how long",  your premise is already flawed.  What follows is various contradictions, but they are not surprisingly flawed, they are predictably flawed, having followed from a flawed premise.

If you want to discuss the "without time" condition, please refrain from using time words to describe that condition.  Things like period, before, after, how long, during, and such don't work to talk about the absence of time.

Also note in the thread title the term presence.  This is like present as in past, present, future, which obviously requires time to parse.  Again, disallowed if you are after looking at time vs. no time.

Regards, TAR

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Bobby17 said:

Some scientists say that space and time didn’t always exist and that it was the absence of time and the absence of space that led to the presence of time and the presence of space with the big bang.

So let’s take a closer look at the absence of time. How long was the absence of time able to remain itself before it became the presence of time?

Since the absence of time isn’t any period of time it ends at the same time as it begins. The end is the beginning. The absence of time became the presence of time at the same time the absence of time began and so the absence of time is always the presence of time and that makes the presence of time dominant. 

In other words: The absence of time did not have the time to eliminate the mass of the big bang there where one can calculate that mass before the big bang. 

And when the absence of time is always the presence of time, the presence of time is not only always dominant but it also makes the future and the past of the presence of time both infinite. 

And when the past of the presence of time is infinite, the past has already finished an infinity of time and that is a manifestation of the impossible. 

And so the topic called The presence of time vs the absence of time leads to another topic called The study of manifestations of the impossible. 

This is like saying the absence of heat equals cold, there is no such thing as cold, much like there is no absence of heat.

[Bobby17]

I know what you mean but there is no other option but to look at the transformation of the absence of time into the presence of time as claimed by some scientists when they claim that the presence of time has not always been. And when there’s no other option but to discuss this transformation, one can always ask how long this transformation took. How long did it take for the absence of time to transform into the presence of time?

[Silvestru]

14 minutes ago, tar said:

What follows is various contradictions, but they are not surprisingly flawed, they are predictably flawed, having followed from a flawed premise.

Hahaha I'm going to use this one day.

[Bobby17]

15 minutes ago, tar said:

Bobby17,

One of the problems with considering what happened "before" time, is that to make the consideration your premise requires time to exit "prior" its existence.

I don't think under the circumstances you can use terms like "period of time" to describe a set of circumstances were time was not part of the consideration.

So once you ask "how long",  your premise is already flawed.  What follows is various contradictions, but they are not surprisingly flawed, they are predictably flawed, having followed from a flawed premise.

If you want to discuss the "without time" condition, please refrain from using time words to describe that condition.  Things like period, before, after, how long, during, and such don't work to talk about the absence of time.

Also note in the thread title the term presence.  This is like present as in past, present, future, which obviously requires time to parse.  Again, disallowed if you are after looking at time vs. no time.

Regards, TAR

 I know what you mean but there is no other option but to look at the transformation of the absence of time into the presence of time as claimed by some scientists when they claim that the presence of time has not always been. And when there’s no other option but to discuss this transformation, one can always ask how long this transformation took. How long did it take for the absence of time to transform into the presence of time?

[dimreepr]

You're missing my point, time is the same as heat, absolute zero is unobtainable, so there is no cold there is just heat.

[Bobby17]

47 minutes ago, tar said:

Bobby17,

One of the problems with considering what happened "before" time, is that to make the consideration your premise requires time to exit "prior" its existence.

I don't think under the circumstances you can use terms like "period of time" to describe a set of circumstances were time was not part of the consideration.

So once you ask "how long",  your premise is already flawed.  What follows is various contradictions, but they are not surprisingly flawed, they are predictably flawed, having followed from a flawed premise.

If you want to discuss the "without time" condition, please refrain from using time words to describe that condition.  Things like period, before, after, how long, during, and such don't work to talk about the absence of time.

Also note in the thread title the term presence.  This is like present as in past, present, future, which obviously requires time to parse.  Again, disallowed if you are after looking at time vs. no time.

Regards, TAR

If you compare the absence of time vs the presence of time with the absence of speed and therefor distance and the presence of speed and therefor distance you claim that one cannot ask how much distance a car drove when it drove at zero miles an hour for an hour because zero miles an hour is the absence of speed and therefor also the absence of distance. But the question is legit just like asking how long the absence of time was able to remain itself before it became the presence of time.

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Bobby17 said:

If you compare the absence of time vs the presence of time with the absence of speed and therefor distance and the presence of speed and therefor distance you claim that one cannot ask how much distance a car drove when it drove at zero miles an hour for an hour because zero miles an hour is the absence of speed and therefor also the absence of distance. But the question is legit just like asking how long the absence of time was able to remain itself before it became the presence of time.

GR says there is no absence of speed, we are all moving relative to something; like I said there is no absence of heat/time.

Edited October 25, 2017 by dimreepr

[tar]

1 hour ago, Bobby17 said:

If you compare the absence of time vs the presence of time with the absence of speed and therefor distance and the presence of speed and therefor distance you claim that one cannot ask how much distance a car drove when it drove at zero miles an hour for an hour because zero miles an hour is the absence of speed and therefor also the absence of distance. But the question is legit just like asking how long the absence of time was able to remain itself before it became the presence of time.

Bobby17,

Not exactly the same claim, because speed you can break down into time and distance components.  Time by itself, you can not break down into any subcomponents.  Kant believed, in terms of our understanding, we have two a priori considerations.  Time and space.  So its really hard to say anything about either.  Likewise its hard to negate either because you don't have a definition of either.   So negation is difficult if you don't have a definition to put a not in front of, or a -less behind.   We use the term timeless, but it is not used in the sense that you are the absence of time.   But still, if you are talking about the absence of time, you should not simultaneously....wait, that word is out, you cannot at the same time...wait, that is out, you cannot consider a "before" the present condition, because it assumes the place was on the clock,  "when" there was no clock to be on.

Meaning we think in terms of time and space.  Everything we say anything about, can be analyzed or synthesized based on breaking it down into its time and space components or building up to, synthesizing other things to say about something based on time and space constructs. Speed for instance is a certain distance covered in a certain time.   Frequency as in the frequency of red light, is a certain wave covering a distance in a certain time with a certain amplitude, or spacelike presence.

So mentally, when we are asked the thread question, it is already a non starter, because you are assuming a condition is possible, that occurred in existence, "before" time, and lasted for a certain duration.   Both concepts, that of before, and that of duration, can not be had, without using the idea of time.

Similar perhaps to asking what is outside of space.  You can't use a position term to talk about the absence of space.

Regards, TAR

[studiot]

Hello Bobby, and welcome.

I am not a fan of the big bang hypothesis and providing an explanation for your difficulty is one reason for that.

However there is a way to make sense of the statement without tying yourself up in knots.

 

You haven't said much about yourself so I don't know if know what a sine curve is or understand Fourier series.

If not we can make do with an ordinary common or garde (not digital) clock face.

 

Let us say we have a sound generator and want to mathematically describe the sound.
We can use part of a since curve for this or if it is a complicated sound, a Fourier series combining many sine curves.

I say part of a sine curve because mathematically a sine curve extends to infinity in both directions.
In other words it has no beginning and no end.

But if we want our sound to start and stop at certain times we only use that part of the whole infinite axis from start to stop, although an imaginary sound continues in to the infinite past and forward into the infinite future.

In fact, a single sine wave, or Fourier series of waves, does more than this - it repeats its pattern at regular intervals along the axis.
So we could in principle start at nothing, follow the curve as far as we please and then stop at nothing.
(Electronic power control circuits do exactly this to avoid generating radio interference.)
This is where our clock face comes in because, of course, the clock repeats its pattern every 12 or 24 hours.

So every 12 or 24 hours the clock return to zero and we see the same thing, and every new day is a new start.

 

Cosmologically there is much argument as to whether the Universe does exactly the same.

We just don't know for sure.

[beecee]

7 hours ago, Bobby17 said:

Some scientists say that space and time didn’t always exist and that it was the absence of time and the absence of space that led to the presence of time and the presence of space with the big bang.

Space and time, (spacetime) as we know them certainly evolved at the BB.....Most scientists agree that the BB evolution of the universe/spacetime is supported by the evidence and aligns with the four prime pillars of observational astronomy....(1) observed expansion, (2) CMBR, (3) Abundance of the lighter elements, and (4) The large scale structure and galactic formation.

Let me say again that the BB was the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) "as we know them". 

The rest of your ramblings about space and time, I'm sorry to say, to me at least, is nothing but philosophical claptrap.

Edited October 25, 2017 by beecee