Very interesting. The topology of time could take many forms, and need not be linear. Somewhere I read that two theoretical physicists were suggesting that there might be more than one dimension of time, just as there is more than one dimension of space. If this is true, it offers a reconciliation between the Biblical time line of creation (6,000 years ago) and the Standard Model, 15-20 billion years. Laterally measured time might result in a different numerical value than longitudinally measured time. Just a speculation at this point.... In time, that is :) ----------------------------------------------------- On Apr 20, 10:09 am, sekhar goteti <[email protected]> wrote: > The Topology of Time > > It's natural to think that time can be represented by a line. But a > line has a shape. What shape should we give to the line that > represents time? This is a question about the topology, or structure, > of time. > > One natural way to answer our question is to say that time should be > represented by a single, straight, non-branching, continuous line that > extends without end in each of its two directions. This is the > “standard topology” for time. But for each of the features attributed > to time in the standard topology, two interesting questions arise: (a) > does time in fact have that feature? and (b) if time does have the > feature in question, is this a necessary or a contingent fact about > time? > > Questions about the topology of time appear to be closely connected to > the issue of Platonism versus Reductionism with Respect to Time. For > if Reductionism is true, then it seems likely that time's topological > features will depend on contingent facts about the relations among > things and events in the world, whereas if Platonism is true, so that > time exists independently of whatever is in time, then time will > presumably have its topological properties as a matter of necessity. > But even if we assume that Platonism is true, it's not clear just what > topological properties should be attributed to time. > > Consider the question of whether time should be represented by a line > without a beginning. Aristotle has argued (roughly) that time cannot > have a beginning on the grounds that in order for time to have a > beginning, there must be a first moment of time, but that in order to > count as a moment of time, that allegedly first moment would have to > come between an earlier period of time and a later period of time, > which is inconsistent with its being the first moment of time. > (Aristotle argues in the same way that time cannot have an end.) > > It is also worth asking whether time must be represented by a single > line. Perhaps we should take seriously the possibility of time's > consisting of multiple time streams, each one of which is isolated > from each other, so that every moment of time stands in temporal > relations to other moments in its own time stream, but does not bear > any temporal relations to any moment from another time stream. > Likewise we can ask whether time could correspond to a branching line, > or to a closed loop, or to a discontinuous line. And we can also > wonder whether one of the two directions of time is in some way > priveleged, in a way that makes time itself asymmetrical. > > Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a sense, one can argue that the beginning of time was the beginning > > of everything. > > But that is because semantically, we identify "beginning" with time. > > Therefore, by definition, nothing can have happened before time began. > > > But conceptually, we can say that if time began, then something must > > have caused time to begin. > > So even though technically there was no "before" time, > > the initiation of time must have happened "before" time began. > > > We should not get caught up in the semantics. > > > If we accept that the universe has order and structure, then we must > > accept that there is some organizing principle underlying that order > > and structure. > > > That organizing principle can be likened to a molecule of DNA. > > Let's use human DNA as our analogy. > > > DNA is not the human. It is the coded instruction set for > > "building" (so to speak) a human body. > > Within that coded instruction set is the organizing principle that > > results in the human body. > > > In a similar manner, we can discern that there must be a coded > > instruction set, > > we might liken it to a computer program, that organizes the cosmos. > > > But just as DNA is not a human body, so also we can reasonably assume > > that the > > organizing principle is not the same as the "finished product," the > > cosmos. > > The organizing principle would be as different from the cosmos as DNA > > is from a human body. > > > The organizing principle need not obey the laws of cause and effect, > > the laws of sequence, the laws of time. > > Indeed, even human logic itself is encoded in the principle, and > > therefore > > the organizing principle is not subject to, not subordinate to, > > the human intellect. > > > We can only conclude then, that we have utterly no method of ever > > understanding the > > organizing principle unless certain conditions are met: > > > The organizing principle is intelligent and purposeful. > > It reveals itself to us, at least in part. > > It bestows on us the capacity to understand what it reveals to us. > > > If this sounds like theology, it is because it deals with ultimates > > and absolutes. > > But it also shows us that while ultimates and absolutes are forever > > beyond the ken of the human mind, > > it is entirely reasonable to propose that there is an ineffable > > essence to all reality, and that it is entirely reasonable to > > attribute intelligence and purpose to it (after all, these exist in > > our finite beings). > > > All of which impose upon us one critical attribute for which each of > > us must strive--- > > humility. > > ----------------------------------------- > > > On Apr 19, 5:42 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A particle of what? In what context did it exist---in a timeless context? > >> My > >> argument is that---everything began at a point--a point of time. First > >> there > >> was time then an event---the event was the beginning. > > >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > In the beginning there was a primordial point particle. > >> > This was BEFORE there was time, space and energy. > >> > ---------------------------------- > > >> > On Apr 17, 10:06 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > For the sake of debate----in the beginning there was time and then > >> > > space > >> > and > >> > > energy followed. The rest is history. > > >> > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> > "Epistemology" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >> > . > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > >> -- > > >> nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "Epistemology" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > sekhar > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
