Lines and The Human Thought

[J.C.MacSwell]

This seems like a good question' date=' 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. [b']The fact that you and I are discussing this question is evidence that now is one of those points[/b].

 

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.

 

This could be evidence of time with a starting point also.

[ecoli]

I think that time does move in a line, or a ray. At least, for us humans (which is what the original post was in reference to) it does. I can't travel through time faster then I'm traveling through it right now. Can you?

[Cadmus]

I think that time does move in a line, or a ray. At least, for us humans (which is what the original post was in reference to) it does. I can't travel through time faster then I'm traveling through it right now. Can you?

Although I do not think that this relates to a line or ray, I think that it is possible to move at various speeds through time. As the speed of light is constant in space-time, the greater the rate of motion through space the less the motion through time, and vice versa. Are you familiar with the twin paradox? I think that when you sleep you move the fastest through time, or age the fastest. When you are outdoors exercising at your maximum, then you are moving relatively much more slowly through time.

[reverse]

Don’t want to reel you in from what seems like a fun tangent (heh)

 

 

But…

 

Topic…

 

“Lines” + “human thought”.

 

not “Lines” + “the nature of the universe”.

[BenSon]

I think that we as humans try to group or equate things to lines because we percieve the world in three spatial dimensions (lets leave time out of this one as we can clearly not agree on the direction its going...), that are all lines so its hard to describe the unfamiliar in anything but in terms of the familiar...

 

~Scott

[coquina]

On one hand, time passes whether humans or other organisms capable of understanding the passage of time, perceive it or not. But let's just take one example....

 

Let's arbitrarily say that time began with "Adam and Eve" - I'm not being religious here - just using and example to which most people can relate. Adam had a time line - Eve had a time line - there children are born, and their time line begins at rays between theirs - a little further away from the origin. (Think "family tree" that continues on and on and gets more branches).

 

As time goes on, a "time web" develops as people from different rays have offspring, which connect the rays together. Of course, we know that time continues in the spaces between too - so maybe a way to picture it is as though a spigot was turned on over a perfectly flat plate. The fluid coming out of the spigot would form a sheet of water that flows in all directions at once, and it would keep on flowing until the spigot ran out of fluid or it malfunctioned, or someone or something cut it off.

[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?

YOur question is excellent. I will try to respond now. I was caught off guard when you first asked. Now, I believe that my problem in dealing with your question was that I accepted your basic assumption and tried to respond in that context. In order for me to respond to your question, a shfit in premise is required. I recognize that you might well reject this shift, and anyway that it should be difficult to accept as completely valid on the basis of a paragraph introduction. But, here goes...

 

Your premise, which is in line with the topic of the thread, is that time flows in a linear manner. Your question assumes that time is in the form of a Euclidean ray. Even if we reject the false to facts Euclidean assumption that between any two points exist an infinte number of points, and assume time to be in discrete units, this still leaves us with a shell that resembles a ray.

 

This is not valid, in my opinion. Before the big bang, and after the big crunch, time is different. Space is finite, and does not exist always. In the beginning of the cycle of the universe, time is not in the form of a ray, but in the form of a point. The point symbolizes existence, and nothing more. Therefore, time existed. As there are no stages in the cycle before the point, there is nothing before existence, and as time is first, this existence is the existence of time. As the cycle progresses, time gives rise to space, which ultimately leads to the big bang. After the big bang, time is bound up in space, as space-time, and neither has a separate existence. It is in this stage that we now exist, post big bang, and it is in the form of a ray that we understand time. When I say we, I am referring to native speakers of English and other Indo-European languages, which symbolize time in this fashion. For a different point of view, consider Chinese, which does not symbolize time in the form of a ray.

 

YOur analogy of bricks along the ray of time does have a beginning, the big bang, because before that there could be no bricks, no concept of a ray, and no us to ponder the question. However, prior to the big bang, at the begining stage in each cycle of our universe, there is only time, which exists as a point. If we ask what was before the point, we have only the previous cycle, as there is no stage in each cycle of our universe before the stage of the point.

 

You are certainly not required to accept this as a satisfactory explanation, because to do so would require a substantial shift in assumption that you would have to make. However, it is on the basis of the assumtpion that I have presented here that I consider time to be infinite. The point is infinite. It evolves though its cycle, but the cycle ends at the beginning, with the infinite point of time.

[ecoli]

Although I do not think that this relates to a line or ray, I think that it is possible to move at various speeds through time. As the speed of light is constant in space-time, the greater the rate of motion through space the less the motion through time, and vice versa. Are you familiar with the twin paradox? I think that when you sleep you move the fastest through time, or age the fastest. When you are outdoors exercising at your maximum, then you are moving relatively much more slowly through time.

 

Yes, I know about the twin paradox. However, the original statement was in reference to human experiances on Earth. Not considering space travel.

 

This is the reason why we use timelines, to show historical events happening on a line. Here is a timeline http://www.dnai.org/timeline/index.html

[Cadmus]

the original statement was in reference to human experiances on Earth[/u'].

Oh. In the context of human perception, I see your point.