Timeless universe

[Fred56]

Sort this out:

 

A universe without Life is not a universe without change.

Life without change is death.

A universe without change cannot have change.

Death is without Time.

A universe without Time is not a universe without change, it is a universe without Life.

A universe does not have change, a universe is change.

[ydoaPs]

How can something change without time? How can one object go from one state to another if there is no time?

[Fred56]

You mean how can something change if it doesn't ...change?

[ydoaPs]

For an object to change, the different states must be separated. Things are separated by dimensions. For example, they can be in the same place at the different times and different places at the same time, but they can't be at the same place at the same time. There has to be at least one dimension difference. The change must be relative to a dimension. For a stationary object, if time does not exist, there is no separation of the states. Thus there is no change.

[Fred56]

"For a stationary object, if [change] does not exist, there is no separation of the states. Thus there is no change."

[foodchain]

Yes but having three dimensions on its own could entail the change or maybe even bring about another dimension

[ydoaPs]

"For a stationary object, if [change] does not exist, there is no separation of the states. Thus there is no change."

 

Are you going to actually respond, or are you going to just be facetious?

[Fred56]

Respond to which change of opinion, or point of view, exactly?

What has anyone (including me) managed to say about it (change, time, life, death), so far on this thread? Hmm?

having three dimensions on its own could entail the change or maybe even bring about another dimension

We project 3 dimensions to measure distance (we assign 3 measurements to distance), but we can also make do with just 2, or 1, to analyse motion, say.

No problems with projecting or assigning more dimensions (even an infinite number), as long as we remember, along with remembering the measurements, that that's what we're doing -assigning or mapping numbers to distance, or space.

 

What the riddle is is why does the universe need time when it has change (or it is change)?

WE sure need to measure change, or we are bound to observe it because we are changing too.

But it's a number, for god's sake. If it was real we would be able to put it in a clock (or take it out). But what we do is use something that changes (regularly) to measure change itself. Because we have a 'solid state' camera with a really good playback, we can measure the change (between changes -different events) pretty accurately (without writing it down, even) but, come on, its all change, we just call it different stuff (symbols) and write down lots of words and use it all in formulas, but ultimately it all exists because we 'observe' it (into existence).

The existence of time is ontological because of observers (its something they 'have'). The universe 'has' it in the sense that the observers it contains have it, but what did it do while it was waiting for 'us' to 'happen'? Will the universe stop if observers disappear?

[ydoaPs]

Respond to which change of opinion, or point of view, exactly?

What has anyone (including me) managed to say about it (change, time, life, death), so far on this thread? Hmm?

 

You're not interested in a serious conversation. Okay. That's all you had to say.

[Fred56]

That's all you had to say.

Is this

all you have to say..... . . . . .?

[Fred56]

I didn't think anyone would really be able to 'do away' with Time.

The claim that time is a fundamental property of the universe is (to me at least) a bit like claiming that we can't go anywhere unless we know how far it is, or how long it will take (are we there yet?).

In other words, before life came along, everything was changing just fine all by itself. Then time was "needed" for life to keep a handle on all the change -be able to remember when things happen by "putting a stick in the ground".

I don't see how that means it is needed (except by us, so we can do our observing). Everything was presumably changing ok before we showed up and noticed it...

[ydoaPs]

I'm not seeing your time independent definition of change.

[Fred56]

I'm not sure that we can define change without referring to the way it, 'changes' all the time...

[brainfart94]

Here's my 20-30 minute work on this thingamabop. It was more of a puzzle solution rather than using actual science...

 

universe - no life doesn't mean no change

life - w/o change = death

universe - w/o change = no change

death - life w/o time

universe -w/o time = w/o life

universe = change

 

so,

 

-universe is change and has to have time to have life

-universe doesn't have to have life (no life doesn't mean no change, but since the 'universe = change', no life doesn't mean no universe, so u don't need life for a universe)

-'no life = death = life w/o time'

-universe w/o time has no life, and no life means death

-death doesn't have change, unlike life

-since life needs change & time, universe is change and has time, so 'universe = life'

-but u don't need life for a universe, so for the universe not to have life, and to still be a universe(which is change), dead universe is w/o time, which links back to 'death = life w/o time'

-but since death doesn't have change, a dead universe means a universe w/o change & time, thus death is not a possible form of universe because it has no change

-so a universe would be w/ life, and life has change & time like a universe, however life doesn't mean change, so life doesn't excactly have change????

 

so,

 

universe = change

life = time

death = life w/o change & time, so death is w/o universe & life

universe w/o time = w/o life = death, so universe with no life means death...makes sense

 

-universe now doesn't need life and/or death

-but,,, no life means death, vice versa

-so if universe has time, it has life,

-if not, it has death

-so does it or does it not have time?

-well, universe, = change, which often = life, = time, so universe has time

-since universe can also have death, it means if a person is going thru time, he is alive, but when he dies, he loses his perception of time, and thus change

-when Bob (let's just call him that) is alive, he has time and is a part of change, aka universe

-when Bob kicks the bucket, he cannot see time and change, and is gone from the universe

-Bob is now not in a universe of time, thus being dead X_x

 

so,

 

universe is change, which is often life, which requires time, which death is without so a timeless universe is one of no change, life, and time, aka Hell.

Got it? :D

 

I'm sure its wrong, but I had fun working out complete nonsense.

[Fred56]

I think you´re trying to say that life is an inevitable consequence, maybe? Not sure if that can be said with any real certainty...

[seemysince]

If We Question OUR OWN Universe is that it's own way of telling us that it belongs to someone?

[Klaynos]

If We Question OUR OWN Universe is that it's own way of telling us that it belongs to someone?

 

Ya what?