I wish someone would explain to me the exact mechanism of the extinction of time like I am a two year old.
The theory of the heat death of the universe states that, eventually, all matter will decay to a point where no further decay is possible. That means that no further changes whatsoever can or will occur. Without any change, there is no movement along the "time" dimension, and thus time itself ceases to exist.
That theory doesn’t state time ends, it just states that no changes will take place. Most scientist agree time began at the Big Bang and will continue forever ultimately reaching heat death and staying in that state forever.
A one off bang for a beginning without an end? Makes no sense at all.
Aging, the seasons, decay, germination, birth, death - all these speak of 'time' to me.
Chat gtp tells me - "In human experience, time is shaped by memory, attention, and emotion—sometimes racing, sometimes dragging. Practically, we measure it to coordinate life, plan, and create meaning. Time is both an objective feature of the universe and a subjective lens through which we understand our existence."
Listen to what I'm saying very carefully. There was no "before" time. If time started at the Big Bang, there was no temporal period before it.
As I said this is extremely hard to understand, but talking about time as a continuous thing when I'm clearly saying it isn't a continuous thing is making conversation rather difficult.
You are asserting something about time. I'm clearly saying that's not the case. Then you are asserting something about what I'm saying based on your understanding, which I don't accept.
That's not the route to fruitful dialogue.
Can you share with us your ideas about how time gets obliterated in your cyclical view?
Is it a really high temperature that obliterates time? Extreme coldness?
I would’ve edited my last comment to you but time ran out.
Before time there was nothing. No time, no temperature, nothing.
Asking me what happened before time is like asking a slug to calculate Pi to the millionth decimal place. It is not only far beyond my ability, it is something that I cannot possibly know.
And presumably you must realise this, although why you thought it necessary to send me many consecutive messages about it in this thread, I have no idea. I was doing other things for the last 8 hours, it might surprise you to learn.
So you believe time is cyclical, not one continuous line as you have stated.
But you’re unsure of how time gets obliterated.
You say that it is something you cannot possibly know. This is what leading scientists say because that’s what science is about. It’s about evidence.
But outside of science, this is something that you can know. But if you choose to continue to not know, that your prerogative.
So this coincides with how I see time. I disagree with the god-mode Player above, that space and time are interdependent.
This means you have to throw out General Relativity and many of the theories that use its framework.
I believe motion and time are interdependent. And this makes sense to me because if you and I agree to meet at the corner of First (length) and Main (width) on the third floor (height) this is a three dimensional space. Its existence in time depends on the motion of the particles that sustain its form.
But can we meet (motion toward) if we don't have the intention to meet in time? We are either eternally fixed in the same space together, or we have movement toward and away from one another, and that movement is what creates the impression of time passing (time "verbs" and "nouns").
If you want to meet on the third floor of the corner of First and Main in the vicinity of Alpha Centuri, before the store closes (ie you'll both need to get your skates on), you're going to need to take relativity into account if you don't want to miss each other.
So the extinction of time would IMO coincide with the extinction of motion.
I think it would also coincide with the end of our ability to notice. Motion makes our bodies work, including our eyes and brains.
I think you would probably be better off believing time wasn’t cyclical, but just continuing in one straight infinite line, since you can’t explain how time gets obliterated.
@Basketactortale
And if you do still continue to believe that time is cyclical then you should really believe that each cycle has to be an identically repeating cycle because if it weren’t, that would imply one timeline.
Edit to last comment. I didn’t mean to say it’s the most complex form of matter in space I meant to say that life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is best equipped to be time itself.
Edit to last comment. I wouldn’t say it is best equipped to be time itself because I am not physically connected to all things. I am metaphysically connected to all things.
So I will say this instead. Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is similar to time itself and can “reproduce” a new timeline.
I wish someone would explain to me the exact mechanism of the extinction of time like I am a two year old.
The theory of the heat death of the universe states that, eventually, all matter will decay to a point where no further decay is possible. That means that no further changes whatsoever can or will occur. Without any change, there is no movement along the "time" dimension, and thus time itself ceases to exist.
That theory doesn’t state time ends, it just states that no changes will take place.
It’s the same thing. Nothing happening perforce means no time, because time is things happening.
I wish someone would explain to me the exact mechanism of the extinction of time like I am a two year old.
The theory of the heat death of the universe states that, eventually, all matter will decay to a point where no further decay is possible. That means that no further changes whatsoever can or will occur. Without any change, there is no movement along the "time" dimension, and thus time itself ceases to exist.
That theory doesn’t state time ends, it just states that no changes will take place.
It’s the same thing. Nothing happening perforce means no time, because time is things happening.
Well, the theory goes on to say that there may be some small particles that still exist, but they would be far and few in between and wouldn’t have enough energy to cause anything big to happen. No big changes to speak of. Just little changes to keep time going forever. It’s a ridiculous theory.
@Basketactortale
And if you do still continue to believe that time is cyclical then you should really believe that each cycle has to be an identically repeating cycle because if it weren’t, that would imply one timeline.
Do you mind not doing this. How about slowing down, getting your thoughts in order and then sending a single reply that is actually comprehensible to the person you are communicating with?
I have already expressed a disbelief that the cycles are identical. Simply repeating the same point is not going to change my mind.
@Basketactortale
And if you do still continue to believe that time is cyclical then you should really believe that each cycle has to be an identically repeating cycle because if it weren’t, that would imply one timeline.
Do you mind not doing this. How about slowing down, getting your thoughts in order and then sending a single reply that is actually comprehensible to the person you are communicating with?
I have already expressed a disbelief that the cycles are identical. Simply repeating the same point is not going to change my mind.
Ok. Different cycles but different timelines.. gotcha.
Sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. Perhaps alternate universes
If I recall correctly, according to Stephen Hawking if you have a four coordinate system to represent space-time and multiply the time coordinate by i (square root -1) you can treat the time coordinate like the space coordinates and all the equations work out nicely. That strongly suggests to me that just as you can have space where nothing much is happening so time can pass with nothing much happening.
If I recall correctly, according to Stephen Hawking if you have a four coordinate system to represent space-time and multiply the time coordinate by i (square root -1) you can treat the time coordinate like the space coordinates and all the equations work out nicely. That strongly suggests to me that just as you can have space where nothing much is happening so time can pass with nothing much happening.
Yup, time starts with a bang and ends with a static whimper that lasts forever apparently. lol. Not for me thanks.
Aging, the seasons, decay, germination, birth, death - all these speak of 'time' to me.
I like that. Time is something we feel. As well as it being something that progresses, I don't think it's any accident that our conceptions of time emerge from observation and experience of the cycles of life.
Chat gtp tells me - "In human experience, time is shaped by memory, attention, and emotion—sometimes racing, sometimes dragging. Practically, we measure it to coordinate life, plan, and create meaning. Time is both an objective feature of the universe and a subjective lens through which we understand our existence."
One of its better efforts, apart from time being "an objective feature of the universe". Time is a concept that human beings use to make sense of our lives and the universe around us. Whether other forms of sentience see it the same way is moot.
But time is something we experience collectively, all the way up to coordinating the lives of the majority of the human population of the planet. And it's no surprise that time is bound up in the way we organise the celebrations and commemorations that mark our lives, the events that signify our belonging.
I don't think we experience time, we describe it. In other words it's a conceptual thing. Reminds me of a famous Zen koan, there is no time, what is memory? I think memory gives us the framework, which we call time.
I don't think we experience time, we describe it. In other words it's a conceptual thing. Reminds me of a famous Zen koan, there is no time, what is memory? I think memory gives us the framework, which we call time.
In that case I guess we don't experience eating a banana neither.
According to Christianity, heaven is a nonmaterial realm that transcends and exists beyond created space and time as we know them. Sounds like my next life cycle.
There’s probably many atheists who know that the incarnation of God is walking the Earth, but like the Christians they too keep it to themselves out of fear of looking like a nutcase. You see that that’s what makes them an atheist. Knowing the incarnation of God walks the Earth, but choosing to think it’s no big deal. Christians hide it through stories of Jesus while the atheists hides it on a deeper level saying to themselves it’s just a man who dies and ends all existence. No big deal for them. No god concept needed they say. It is what it is they say. That’s the true atheist. Not these pretenders who deny storybook gods.
There’s probably many atheists who know that the incarnation of God is walking the Earth, but like the Christians they too keep it to themselves out of fear of looking like a nutcase. You see that that’s what makes them an atheist. Knowing the incarnation of God walks the Earth, but choosing to think it’s no big deal. Christians hide it through stories of Jesus while the atheists hides it on a deeper level saying to themselves it’s just a man who dies and ends all existence. No big deal for them. No god concept needed they say. It is what it is they say. That’s the true atheist. Not these pretenders who deny storybook gods.
I've no idea what any of this means. A true atheist doesn't believe in a deity, so I can't see how one can be an atheist and know the incarnation of God is walking the earth. Doesn't the latter idea require a belief in God?
There’s probably many atheists who know that the incarnation of God is walking the Earth, but like the Christians they too keep it to themselves out of fear of looking like a nutcase. You see that that’s what makes them an atheist. Knowing the incarnation of God walks the Earth, but choosing to think it’s no big deal. Christians hide it through stories of Jesus while the atheists hides it on a deeper level saying to themselves it’s just a man who dies and ends all existence. No big deal for them. No god concept needed they say. It is what it is they say. That’s the true atheist. Not these pretenders who deny storybook gods.
I've no idea what any of this means. A true atheist doesn't believe in a deity, so I can't see how one can be an atheist and know the incarnation of God is walking the earth. Doesn't the latter idea require a belief in God?
No, it’s called rejecting God. That’s what a true blue atheist is.
So yes, Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is similar to time itself and can “reproduce” a new timeline.
It's difficult to come up with a definition of Life that doesn't explicitly or implicitly depend on time. And it's difficult to come up with a definition of time, full stop (or period).
In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws at the microscopic level seem to require a single direction.
…
Quantum gravity describes theories that attempt to reconcile or unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the current theory of gravity. The problem of time is central to these theoretical attempts. It remains unclear how time is related to quantum probability, whether time is fundamental or a consequence of processes, and whether time is approximate, among other issues. Different theories try different answers to the questions but no clear solution has emerged.
Time has puzzled philosophers and theologians for (ahem!) millenia. Cf St Augustine:
“What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I do not know.”
― St. Augustine.
So yes, Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is similar to time itself and can “reproduce” a new timeline.
It's difficult to come up with a definition of Life that doesn't explicitly or implicitly depend on time. And it's difficult to come up with a definition of time, full stop (or period).
In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws at the microscopic level seem to require a single direction.
…
Quantum gravity describes theories that attempt to reconcile or unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the current theory of gravity. The problem of time is central to these theoretical attempts. It remains unclear how time is related to quantum probability, whether time is fundamental or a consequence of processes, and whether time is approximate, among other issues. Different theories try different answers to the questions but no clear solution has emerged.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
I read the thread title as "There is a group of Christians known as the 'secret Christians', and those people aren't sharing with you."
So did I, at first!
An intriguing thought...are the Gnostics alive and well, and living among us?
On a more serious note, perhaps, there are probably some who regard themselves as Christian, but don't admit it in public, so to speak. This may well be true of people in countries where Christians are actively persecuted, for example, and I don't wish to disparage them in any way.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a very honest position to take up. YMMV.
I read the thread title as "There is a group of Christians known as the 'secret Christians', and those people aren't sharing with you."
So did I, at first!
An intriguing thought...are the Gnostics alive and well, and living among us?
On a more serious note, perhaps, there are probably some who regard themselves as Christian, but don't admit it in public, so to speak. This may well be true of people in countries where Christians are actively persecuted, for example, and I don't wish to disparage them in any way.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a very honest position to take up. YMMV.
I read the thread title as "There is a group of Christians known as the 'secret Christians', and those people aren't sharing with you."
So did I, at first!
An intriguing thought...are the Gnostics alive and well, and living among us?
On a more serious note, perhaps, there are probably some who regard themselves as Christian, but don't admit it in public, so to speak. This may well be true of people in countries where Christians are actively persecuted, for example, and I don't wish to disparage them in any way.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a very honest position to take up. YMMV.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
Agnosticism means not knowing if there is a deity or not, atheism is not believing one exists at all. An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.
Comments
That theory doesn’t state time ends, it just states that no changes will take place. Most scientist agree time began at the Big Bang and will continue forever ultimately reaching heat death and staying in that state forever.
A one off bang for a beginning without an end? Makes no sense at all.
Chat gtp tells me - "In human experience, time is shaped by memory, attention, and emotion—sometimes racing, sometimes dragging. Practically, we measure it to coordinate life, plan, and create meaning. Time is both an objective feature of the universe and a subjective lens through which we understand our existence."
So you believe time is cyclical, not one continuous line as you have stated.
But you’re unsure of how time gets obliterated.
You say that it is something you cannot possibly know. This is what leading scientists say because that’s what science is about. It’s about evidence.
But outside of science, this is something that you can know. But if you choose to continue to not know, that your prerogative.
I think it would also coincide with the end of our ability to notice. Motion makes our bodies work, including our eyes and brains.
I think you would probably be better off believing time wasn’t cyclical, but just continuing in one straight infinite line, since you can’t explain how time gets obliterated.
And if you do still continue to believe that time is cyclical then you should really believe that each cycle has to be an identically repeating cycle because if it weren’t, that would imply one timeline.
Life is the time of all creation. It occupies space. It is the most complex form of matter in space, therefore it is best equipped to be time itself.
Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is best equipped to be time itself and “reproduce” a new timeline.
So I will say this instead. Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is similar to time itself and can “reproduce” a new timeline.
So yes, Life is the only self-sustaining thing in space, therefore it is similar to time itself and can “reproduce” a new timeline.
It’s the same thing. Nothing happening perforce means no time, because time is things happening.
Motion makes everything work, organic and inorganic.
Well, the theory goes on to say that there may be some small particles that still exist, but they would be far and few in between and wouldn’t have enough energy to cause anything big to happen. No big changes to speak of. Just little changes to keep time going forever. It’s a ridiculous theory.
Not that there may be some small particles left, that there will be particles left over like electrons, positrons, neutrinos and photons.
So changes will take place but none that will matter
Do you mind not doing this. How about slowing down, getting your thoughts in order and then sending a single reply that is actually comprehensible to the person you are communicating with?
I have already expressed a disbelief that the cycles are identical. Simply repeating the same point is not going to change my mind.
Ok. Different cycles but different timelines.. gotcha.
Sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie. Perhaps alternate universes
Yup, time starts with a bang and ends with a static whimper that lasts forever apparently. lol. Not for me thanks.
One of its better efforts, apart from time being "an objective feature of the universe". Time is a concept that human beings use to make sense of our lives and the universe around us. Whether other forms of sentience see it the same way is moot.
But time is something we experience collectively, all the way up to coordinating the lives of the majority of the human population of the planet. And it's no surprise that time is bound up in the way we organise the celebrations and commemorations that mark our lives, the events that signify our belonging.
I've no idea what any of this means. A true atheist doesn't believe in a deity, so I can't see how one can be an atheist and know the incarnation of God is walking the earth. Doesn't the latter idea require a belief in God?
No, it’s called rejecting God. That’s what a true blue atheist is.
Well that's obviously true, although that's like saying sand and custard have a lot in common because they're both yellow.
Look at your skin. It's older. Time has passed. You don't need to have a concept to see that.
Watch a plant grow from seed. A child can experience that, no concept required.
The Problem of Time:
“What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I do not know.”
― St. Augustine.
If your happy with that then roll with it!
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
So did I, at first!
An intriguing thought...are the Gnostics alive and well, and living among us?
On a more serious note, perhaps, there are probably some who regard themselves as Christian, but don't admit it in public, so to speak. This may well be true of people in countries where Christians are actively persecuted, for example, and I don't wish to disparage them in any way.
Agnosticism seems to me to be a very honest position to take up. YMMV.
Agnosticim seems wishy washy to me.
I wouldn't know.
Agnosticism means not knowing if there is a deity or not, atheism is not believing one exists at all. An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.