Lines and The Human Thought

[Guest NUkes]

Why do us as humans try to put everything on a lline? For example why when we think of our universe and out demension are we just one line of many? And Why do we try to make everything into a line like time and what is on the other side of that line here is an example-

 

___________________________we are here on this line__________________

 

What is over here I assume that it is not just a void there has to be something and what is it?

 

And a Ray is a line remeber 9th grade Geometry

[ecoli]

Because, for us, time moves progressivly foward, in a linear fashion. Time travel moves at constant pace, and always foward, so there is only one demension that needs to be plotted. The rate at which time moves is always constant.

[Cadmus]

Time travel moves at constant pace, and always foward, so there is only one demension that needs to be plotted. The rate at which time moves is always constant.

I disagree completely. What possible evidence could you have for this, other than speculation?

[Cadmus]

Why do us as humans try to put everything on a lline? For example why when we think of our universe and out demension are we just one line of many? And Why do we try to make everything into a line like time and what is on the other side of that line here is an example-

I am not aware that this is the case. Furthermore, time is not considered in the form of a line, but rather in the form of a unidirectional ray. The difference is tremendous.

[Obnoxious]

It is ridiculous to be stuck in line thought, but we are human, and therefore notoriously dumb when it comes to thinking beyond our dimension.

[Nevermore]

It's somply human nature, along with subcounciously using the golden ratio and phi in everything we build.

[alt_f13]

I am not aware that this is the case. Furthermore, time is not considered in the form of a line, but rather in the form of a unidirectional ray. The difference is tremendous.

And where does this ray originate? Which way does it face?

 

I assume you mean facing foreward starting at the big bang, but as far as humans are concerned, time started when we began to exist, and ends presently, as nothing beyond that is provable beyond reasonable doubt.

 

A time ray facing foreward assumes time has been plotted, or at least proven to exist, which it hasen't. It almost certainly will exist, and just did, and just did, and just did, and so on, but popular belief calls for a heat death of the universe, in which case time would cease to exist.

 

On a universal scale, assuming the future has not happened yet in any instance, time would be a segment of a line, from begginning of time to present time. Unless you assume the future will exist, in which case time ends at the end of the universe.

 

I could not see time as a ray, as it assumes there is a beginning and no end, or the other way around. At least a segment assumes both, and a line assumes neither.

 

Maybe you are paraphrasing the popular point of view; in that case I just dissagree.

 

 

Either way, I would like you to elaborate.

[Cadmus]

And where does this ray originate? Which way does it face?

 

I assume you mean facing foreward starting at the big bang' date='[/quote']Moving forward, yes, but not starting at the big bang. Time is infintie.

 

but as far as humans are concerned, time started when we began to exist, and ends presently, as nothing beyond that is provable beyond reasonable doubt.

I have no doubt that tommorow will come.

 

I could not see time as a ray, as it assumes there is a beginning and no end, or the other way around. At least a segment assumes both, and a line assumes neither.

The time since the big bang until now is a ray segment, as you suggest.

 

Maybe you are paraphrasing the popular point of view; in that case I just dissagree.

I do not think that this is a popular point of view.

 

Either way, I would like you to elaborate.

Time is infinite. Time moves in one direction, forward. Time did not begin with the big bang. Space-time began with the big bang.

[alt_f13]

Moving forward' date=' yes, but not starting at the big bang. Time is infintie.

[/quote']

 

You didn't answer my main question: where does the ray originate? At the beginning of time I suppose. The concept is rather redundant, and impossible to prove. But the rhetoric is hillarious.

 

Who says there was a beginning to time? If you say so, why isn't there an end as well?

 

Everything that has a beginning has an end Ne- I mean Cadmus.

[reverse]

I don’t think in a line.

 

I let everything swim around until it comes into focus.

 

it takes a certain kind of faith to do that.

 

Is that what you mean?

 

First step is to set off without a destination.

 

It can really piss people off who don’t understand it.

 

 

Sometimes it's good to think in a line.

 

Swapping between the two is also a good trick.

[Cadmus]

You didn't answer my main question: where does the ray originate?

Since you are asking me, then I will give you my answer. The answer is, as I have said, that there is no origination, as time is infinite in both directions.

 

At the beginning of time I suppose.

I consider that time is infinite into the past, and so there was no beginning.

 

Who says there was a beginning to time? If you say so, why isn't there an end as well?

I say that there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

 

Everything that has a beginning has an end

I quite agree. However, let me explain what your sentence means. Every THING has a beginning and an end. Things are objects that occupy space, or more properly space-time. Space is finite, and so everything in space-time has a beginning and an end. Time, however, is infinite, and is not a thing, as it does not occupy space. Therefore, your statement that everything has a beginning and an end is a statement about space and has no relaionship to time.

[Sayonara]

I disagree completely. What possible evidence could you have for this, other than speculation?

I think what he is most likely alluding to is that there's no reason to unnecessarily multiply the dimensionality of time (yet?).

 

As in pointing out the evidence for other cases is absent.

[reverse]

I think what he is most likely alluding to is that there's no reason to unnecessarily multiply the dimensionality of time (yet?).

 

As in pointing out the evidence for other cases is absent.

 

He could be having a simple language issue.

Which is the same as a thought issue.

Could be the same answer as to why there are always nouns in a sentence.

ps (truncated sentences infer nouns but can reduce them by context).

 

He also could be having a tool issue.

 

People have traditionally recorded thoughts with a stick into a ductile surface.

That process makes a line.

 

3d computer designers have the tool to think in volume, surfaces and relationships.

 

Is this what you mean?

[Cadmus]

I think what he is most likely alluding to is that there's no reason to unnecessarily multiply the dimensionality of time (yet?).

You may be correct in understanding his meaning better than me. But I believe that he made it quite clear that he thiinks that time moves at a constant rate. I think that there is no basis for this contention when considering relativity.

[reverse]

Why do us as humans try to put everything on a lline? For example

 

Guys, I dont think he wants us to solve the example.

It might be just an example.

I took the intention from the title and the opening line.

 

dunno might be off track.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Since you are asking me, then I will give you my answer. The answer is, as I have said, that there is no origination, as time is infinite in both directions.e.

 

OK, so how could we possibly get to this point in time? I'm not saying I disagree, just curious as to how you view it.

[Cadmus]

OK, so how could we possibly get to this point in time? I'm not saying I disagree, just curious as to how you view it.

Please rephrase the question. I don't really understand what you are asking.

[Callipygous]

I have no doubt that tommorow will come.

 

I disagree completely. What possible evidence could you have for this, other than speculation?

[Cadmus]

I have no doubt that tommorow will come.

 

I disagree completely. What possible evidence could you have for this' date=' other than speculation?[/quote']

Personal experience. Social experience. The grammar of our language is constructed on this basis. Does any of this evidence count? Do you really have doubts as to whether or not tomorrow will come? If so, I think that you would be considered by many people to be far from typical in that regard.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Please rephrase the question. I don't really understand what you are asking.

 

If I asked you to pile an infinite amount of bricks prior to piling your favourite brick you named "now" how would you ever get to it, even given an infinite amount of time?

[Cadmus]

If I asked you to pile an infinite amount of bricks prior to piling your favourite brick you named "now" how would you ever get to it, even given an infinite amount of time?

Very nice question. I think that this deserves some thought.

 

Let me take an initial stab at a response:

 

Even along a continuum that extends forever, there are distinct points. Not all points on the continuum will be reached, or it would not be infinite. However, some of them must. We are now at some of those.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Very nice question. I think that this deserves some thought.

 

Let me take an initial stab at a response:

 

Even along a continuum that extends forever' date=' there are distinct points. Not all points on the continuum will be reached, or it would not be infinite. However, some of them must. We are now at some of those.[/quote']

 

This is a good start, but if we now consider only the set from minus infinite up 'til now then the explanation (I think) breaks down. How did you ever get to the "last one" of that set?

[Cadmus]

This is a good start, but if we now consider only the set from minus infinite up 'til now then the explanation (I think) breaks down. How did you ever get to the "last one" of that set?

This seems like a good question, and it deserves thought. I will think about it.

 

However, if the universe has been here forever, then it has been passing through time forever. As it passes through time, it by necessity reaches points in time. The fact that you and I are discussing this question is evidence that now is one of those points.

 

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the study of infinity to describe an answer to the question as you posed it. Perhaps someone else on the forum can lend a hand.

[coquina]

I have no doubt that tommorow will come.

 

Personal experience. Social experience. The grammar of our language is constructed on this basis. Does any of this evidence count? Do you really have doubts as to whether or not tomorrow will come? If so' date=' I think that you would be considered by many people to be far from typical in that regard.[/quote']

 

It's quite possible that tomorrow won't come. People die in their sleep all the time, so from their point of view, tomorrow doesn't come.

 

I don't think of time as a straight line - I think of it as a circle - I always have, since I was little. Originally it was due to the seasons - spring opposite fall and summer opposite winter. Now, because I think in geologic time, my time here is an infinitely small arc of the circle - eventually, what went around will come around. I don't have any proof or evidence of that - it's just the way my mind works.

[Cadmus]

I don't think of time as a straight line - I think of it as a circle - I always have, since I was little. Originally it was due to the seasons - spring opposite fall and summer opposite winter. Now, because I think in geologic time, my time here is an infinitely small arc of the circle - eventually, what went around will come around. I don't have any proof or evidence of that - it's just the way my mind works.

I think that time is cyclic at all levels, from the cycles of time that mankind counts to the cycles of time of the universe.