Originally posted by jaywill So if eternity does not exist as such, then does it follow that as we consider the past - TIME must have begun ?
No, I am not saying time is finite. I am saying that the concept 'infinity' is not an entity that can be said to exist any more than the number '2' exists. I believe time may be finite or infinite and that we currently do not know which.
Originally posted by JS357 Timeless or everlastingness seem to be the alternative views of what it is or would be, if it were.
Existence outside a material universe in incomprehensible because there is no point of reference. There is no "were", there is no "soon", there just "is".
Originally posted by whodey Existence outside a material universe in incomprehensible because there is no point of reference. There is no "were", there is no "soon", there just "is".
I agree. I propose that we regard eternity as timelessness, not everlastingness.
Originally posted by sonhouse And if the multiverse theory is right, there are an endless different times, for instance, time going into a black hole slows down, way way down, so you could have an eternity go by inside while one second goes by on Earth. But time would have different meaning in different universes, like ours started some 14 billion years ago with the big bang if you beli ...[text shortened]... o slows down like in a black hole time could go on forever, maybe even outlasting our universe.
If you believe this, then why is it so hard for you to believe that the heavens
and the Earth was created in a 24 hour day?
Originally posted by JS357 I agree. I propose that we regard eternity as timelessness, not everlastingness.
I agree, eternity can be defined as the absence of time. If this is correct then maybe the more scientific amongst us could formulate the terms of an eternal universe?
Could an eternal universe have 'space' but no time? Would the requirement for this condition be to have no mass existent within that universe? Can space exist without time?
Originally posted by divegeester I agree, eternity can be defined as the absence of time. If this is correct then maybe the more scientific amongst us could formulate the terms of an eternal universe?
Could an eternal universe have 'space' but no time? Would the requirement for this condition be to have no mass existent within that universe? Can space exist without time?
An 'empty' universe is an eternal universe...?
I think all it would take for a universe to have no time dimension, would be for there to be no change in that universe. (Some philosophers prefer "at" instead of "in" when speaking of such things.) No "events"; nothing "happening". For example, no change in the composition or spatial separation or dimensions or properties of any objects, including the property of age. If we imagine a creator creating that universe, there could conceivably be a moment of creation, a change from it not existing to it existing, but that would be a change in the "universe" that comprised the creator and the created universe, not in the created universe itself. (Or it could be deemed nonsensical to say that a changeless universe comes into or goes out of existence; this could just be a rule of our little to -ology of universes.)
I think this kind of thinking yields a clue to the nature of time, in that it is intrinsically related to change. This, however, is not a moment of great enlightenment. 🙂
Originally posted by twhitehead No, I am not saying time is finite. I am saying that the concept 'infinity' is not an entity that can be said to exist any more than the number '2' exists. I believe time may be finite or infinite and that we currently do not know which.
Time is non-existent because the flow of time is impossible; if we accept that time is split into past, present and future, the conception of time loses its coherence because if the past is considered to produce the present and the future, the latter two parts would be already included in the past and it could not be properly said to have inherent existence and a separate being. On the other hand, if the present and the future are separate from the past, we are forced to assume that their self-contained existence leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past -and this is absurd. Also, since the notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, we have another self-contradiction. This means that neither the present nor the future exist, since neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future
😵
Originally posted by JS357 I agree. I propose that we regard eternity as timelessness, not everlastingness.
All observers are causal fields that change constantly. No observer is eternal, anything sooner or later dissolves through changes into quantum uncertainty. This change takes place in the context of the phenomena-in-flux that we (falsely) evaluate them (for our convenience) as flux-in-phenomena (time). Since the flow of time is impossible and the time itself is non inherently existent, herenow is the sole accurate "depiction” of the existing spacetime. So, how could ever eternity/ timelessness be related to herenow and thus be evaluated as both real and inherently existent?
😵
Originally posted by Pianoman1 Of course. So long as space limitless, then so is time.
I don't see why you'd think that. Why should time be dependent upon space, or
matter for that reason? I can see how relativity would be tied to those being
joined together, but that doesn't mean time has to be dependent upon either so it
can exist.
Kelly
11 Apr '12 20:37
Eternity
Back to Top