I like the the thought of there being more than one dimension of time---things start making sense with that line of thinking.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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%[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]<epistemology%[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]<epistemology%[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]<epistemology%[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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > 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 at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
