Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is there any new research worth noting on the one-directional dimension of time?

arroba Email

File:Wooden hourglass 3.jpg
passage of time, imaged/S. Sepp
From John Steele at Nautilus, interviewing cosmologist Paul Davies:

Steele: What do you think are the most exciting recent advances in understanding time?

Davies: In terms of fundamental physics, is there anything especially new about time? I think the answer is not really. There are new ideas that are out there. I think there are still fundamental problems; we’ve talked about one of them: Is time an emergent property or a fundamental property? And the ultimate origin of the arrow of time, which is the asymmetry of the world in time, is still a bit contentious. We know we have to trace it back to the Big Bang, but there are still different issues swirling around there that we haven’t completely resolved. But these are sort of airy-fairy philosophical and theoretical issues in terms of measurement of time or anything being exposed about the nature of time. More.

Remember this when a local cosmology crank is speaking with great decisiveness on cable TV.

See also: Cosmology is naturalism’s playground. But does the fun mask a science decline?

Latest theories:

J-Mac @ 5, Science perverted by atheism resorts to such esoteric concepts, I suspect, in order to silence and bamboozle ordinary people before they demand answers to common sense questions like, "Of what did that singularity from which the Universe sprang consist? Space didn't exist yet, so how does all the matter in the Universe fit into no space at all?" Until they address questions such as that, I am not going to worry about quantum foam. harry
Harry, 95% of the universe is dark energy and matter which means we have no clue how they affect space time and matter...if time is real... It's not easy to speculate about something that 95% of is unknown and yet it certainly exists... Have you heard the term quantum foam? J-Mac
J-Mac @ 2, I think time may be an epiphenomenon of space and matter in motion. harry
It's time for me to go to bed mike1962
"But an event means that there was some kind of change, an after the change state that is different from the before the change state" I think that there is an exception or two if that's how you are trying to prove that time exists... In double slit experiment when the act of measurement is involved photons are able to "go back to before and change their state from wave to particle, as if traveling back in time...or as if time were nonlinear... But, is time linear? Human brain during speech seems to be doing the same thing as photons in the double slit experiment...as neurological experiments prove ... The question remains: Is time real? Einstein came to the conclusion that "...time is illusion...however a persistent one..." J-Mac
Speaking of time, we now know that it began, along with space, matter and energy, with a mysterious event commonly referred to as the Big Bang. The Big Bang presents a huge problem for those wanting to find a natural explanation of the reality that produced it. The production of the Universe was an event. But an event means that there was some kind of change, an after the change state that is different from the before the change state. But there was no such thing as "before" and "after" yet. Time didn't exist. There can be no event, including the Big Bang, unless there is time. Timelessness means no changes. This is a problem. (Not to mention the problems that arise from the fact that there was no matter to change yet and no space yet in which matter could exist.) Yet time, space, matter and energy began anyway even though such an event was clearly impossible according to the ways in which natural reality works. In spite of the fact that from nothing (in terms of the absence of time, space, matter and energy), nothing comes, something came. We know that anything that begins to exist had a cause for its existence. So it is clear that whatever caused the Universe was not a natural reality. What kind of reality does that leave us with? A reality that transcends the natural, that transcends time, space, matter and energy. More problems: In the pre-Big Bang state where time, space, matter and energy don't exist, where were all these other universes posited by multiverse theory, and of what did they consist? The nature of the reality that produced the Big Bang is simply inaccessible to science because it obviously is not a natural reality, which is all that science can observe. On what basis then, does one posit other realms of time, space, matter and energy? That our Universe exists is miraculous in that it began in a way that has no natural explanation. How could time, space, matter and energy have begun in those other universes naturally? There is less reason to believe in multiverse theory than there is to believe in flying spaghetti monsters. harry

Leave a Reply