Would you believe? Time doesn’t really exist?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 24, 2022

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Good news for those racing a deadline. This from mathematician and philosopher Sam Baron:

So we know we need a new physical theory to explain the universe, and that this theory might not feature time.
Suppose such a theory turns out to be correct. Would it follow that time does not exist?
It’s complicated, and it depends what we mean by exist.
Theories of physics don’t include any tables, chairs, or people, and yet we still accept that tables, chairs and people exist.
Why? Because we assume that such things exist at a higher level than the level described by physics.
We say that tables, for example, “emerge” from an underlying physics of particles whizzing around the universe.
But while we have a pretty good sense of how a table might be made out of fundamental particles, we have no idea how time might be “made out of” something more fundamental.
So unless we can come up with a good account of how time emerges, it is not clear we can simply assume time exists.
Time might not exist at any level.
Sam Baron, “Time might not exist, according to physicists and philosophers – but that’s okay” at The Conversation (April 14, 2022)

Most readers are likely way too young to remember Maxwell Smart and Would You Believe? But couldn’t resist so here anyway:

Comments

Without Intelligent Design all you have to try to explain our existence is sheer dumb luck. And that is the antithesis of science.ET_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

You are free to jump to that unwarranted conclusion if you would like.
Why is it unwarranted?jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

You mentioned an infinite number of Gods, which certainly may not be possible
The Asimov story tells of a great intelligence developing. We have no idea of how intelligent these entities can become. But why should there be a limit on intelligence? Especially since intelligences would be able to investigate how to make themselves more intelligent. The Asimov story implies there would probably not be a limit. That is its usefulness besides being an interesting read. And in an infinite time span, the number of these super intelligence would be without limit. So where are they? Not just one god, but an infinite number of them. As I said an infinite time span implies infinite absurdity. Similar the multi-verse fails for the same reason.jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Jerry: Whatever it was that always existed, all of a sudden a finely tuned universe popped into existence. This screams design and design screams purpose.
You are free to jump to that unwarranted conclusion if you would like.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Sev, Uncaused sounds arbitrary but the issue is that the root of reality as we experience it is finitely remote necessary being. Because our formal and informal education tends not to cover logic of being, it sounds strange. But once we attend to the logic we see the real issue is what is the necessary being root of reality. Utter non being means no reality, and has no causal powers, were non reality the case that would "always" be so. That a world is implies that something always was, necessary being. Is it infinite regress of quasi physwical, thermodynamically constrained reality? No, transfinite traverse by successive finite stages [e.g. years] is inherently infeasible. Is it circular retrocausation, no that is reality from non reality. We really do need causally adequate necessary being at root of reality. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

You mentioned an infinite number of Gods, which certainly may not be possible. I guess I don't even know what you are saying, so I'll let it drop.Viola Lee_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

our existence may be the only iteration and the conditions immediately before the Big Bang may have always existed. We just don’t know
Whatever it was that always existed, all of a sudden a finely tuned universe popped into existence. This screams design and design screams purpose.jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

there might be constraints upon those universes that apply to all So I don’t think your “logical conclusion” is as airtight as you think it is.
What constraints? I said anything possible has got to happen an infinite number of times. Tell me what is not possible? Universes exactly like our universe have got to happen an infinite number of times.jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I have read the Asimov story you like so much. I'll point out that an infinite number of universes does NOT necessarily mean an infinite number of possibilities because there might be constraints upon those universes that apply to all, depending on what the source and cause of the universes is. So I don't think your "logical conclusion" is as airtight as you think it is.Viola Lee_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Jerry: This is essentially saying there was an infinity of nothing and then suddenly our finely tuned universe popped into existence.
No it isn’t. We don’t know that nothing existed before the Big Bang. We don’t even know what existed at the very earliest stage of the Big Bang.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

KF: JH, you have been present when the reasons, physical and logic of structure and quantity have been laid out.
Yes, I have read these and I just don’t find them very compelling because they are based on assumptions that have not been clearly demonstrated.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

an uncaused first cause
Existence is the greatest mystery of all. By the way, my mention of the Asimov short story is probably the 10th or more times I have done so. The purpose for referring to it: the logic of infinite universes or infinite times leads to an infinite numbers of gods capable of creating a universe like ours. There is no way around this logic. No one here seems to understand this or they haven’t read the story which takes about 20 minutes. My guess both.jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

To me, the current situation of being faced with two absurdities - either an infinite causal chain or an uncaused first cause - suggests we are missing something profound without which we are not going to find a way past the dilemma. The other thing is that Jerry's reference to Asimov's The Last Question reminded me of Fred Hoyle's 1966 SF novel October The First Is Too Late in which he uses dialog between two of the main characters to discuss his thinking on these issues:
"After a short pause, John went off on a new tack. 'In physics, we accept a lot of mysterious things.' 'Such as what?' 'Well, it's very mysterious that our consciousness enables us to take decisions which turn out to improve our description of the world - in circumstances, mark you, when improvement ought to be impossible according to our basic physics.' 'Sounds the sort of thing our religious friends would be glad to hear.' 'They can read it in any textbook they like. Let me give an example. You take a number of radioactive nuclei of a particular kind, the number being chosen so that there's an even chance of one of them going off in a certain period of time, say ten seconds. Then for ten seconds you surround them with counters, or any other detecting device you might like to use. At the end of the time the question is, has one of them decayed or not. To decide this you take a look at your counters. The conventional notion is that the state of the counters decides whether a nucleus has gone off or not.' 'What you're saying is that if you did this experiment a lot of times your calculations require that in a half of the cases a nucleus will have decayed and in the other half there will have been no decay?' 'Right. But my problem now concerns an individual case. Has there been a decay or hasn't there? How do you decide?' 'I would suppose by looking , which is what you said a moment ago.' 'Of course. But here comes the rub. It is perfectly possible to put your counters, or your bubble chamber, your camera, all your gobbledegook in fact, into your calculations - and we know quite definitely that any attempt to get a definite answer out of calculation will prove completely fruitless. The thing that gives the answer isn't the camera or the counter, it's the actual operation of looking yourself at your equipment. It seems that only we ourselves take a subjective decision can we improve our description of the world, over and above the uncertainty of our theories. I'm talking about quantum theories now.' 'So you've got a real contradiction?' I waited as John paused again. He lifted his hand in a gesture. 'There's one possible loophole. We could be wrong in comparing ourselves as physical systems with a camera or a counter or anything like that. The essential thing about a camera is that it's local. Its operation can be described by a strictly finite number of variables, its activities are restricted to a limited volume of space-time. It could be that when we make subjective judgements we're using connexions ranging all over the universe.'" […] "'Because, like all of us in our daily lives, you're stuck with a grotesque and absurd illusion.' 'How's that?' 'The idea of time as an ever-rolling stream. The thing which is supposed to bear all its sons away. There's one thing quite certain in this business: the idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we're the vicitms of a confidence trick. If there's one thing we can be sure about in physics it is that all times exist with equal reality. If you consider the motion of the Earth around the Sun, it is a spiral in four dimensional space-time. There's absolutely no question of singling out a special point on the spiral and saying that particular point is the present position of the Earth. Not so far as physics is concerned.' 'But there certainly is such a thing as the present. Without the ideas of the past, the present, and the future we could make no sense at all out of life. If you were aware of your whole life at once it would be like playing a sonata simply by pushing down all the notes on the keyboard. The essential thing about a sonata is the notes are played in turn, not all at once.' 'I'm not really trying to say the present is without validity. Rather that it can't have any validity in physics.' 'Then physics isn't everything? A bit admission for a physicist, isn't it?' 'Remember the night we were out walking, back in Hawaii? I said then there were parts of our experience which simply defied physical law. I can develop those ideas a lot further. In a way I'd sooner get it off my chest now, rather than later. It sounds too crazy to put before a lot of people. Yet I'm sure something along these lines must be right. I'm going to put it in terms of a parable. Suppose you have a lot of pigeon holes, numbered in sequence, one, two, and so on...up to thousands and millions, and millions of millions if you like. In fact the sequence can be infinite both ways if you prefer.' I said that I didn't mind. John went on, 'All right, let's come now to the contents of the pigeon holes. Suppose you choose one of them, say the 137th. You find in it a story, as you might find one of those little slips of paper in a Christmas cracker. But you also find statments about the stories you'll find in other pigeon holes. You decide to check up on whether these statements about the stories in the other pigeon holes are right or not. To your surprise you find the statments made about earlier pigeon holes, the 136th, the 135th, and so on, are substantially correct. But when you compare with the pigeon holes on the other side, the 138th, the 139th,...you find things aren't so good. You find a lot of contradictions and discrepancies. This turns out to be the same wherever you happen to look, in every pigeon hole. The statements made about pigeon holes on the other side are at best diffuse and at the worst just plain wrong. Now let's translate this parable into the time problem. We'll call the particular pigeon hole, the one you happen to be examining, the present. The earlier pigeon holes, the ones for which you find substantially correct statements, we call the past. The later pigeon holes, the ones for which there isn't too much in the way of correct statments, we'll call the future. Let me go on a bit further. What I want to suggest is that the actual world is very much like this. Instead of pigeon holes we talk about states.' 'I understand what you're saying. You have a division into a number of states. Choice of any one of them constitutes the present. My problem is, who decides which pigeon hole to look in, the one that constitutes the present?' 'If I could answer that question I'd be a good half-way towards solving everything. Before I say anything about it let me ask you a question. Suppose that in each of these states your own consciousness is included. As soon as a particular state is chosen, as soon as an imaginary office worker takes a look at the contents of a particular pigeon hole, you have the subjective consciousness of a particular moment, of what you call the present. Think of the clerk in an office taking a look, first at the contents of one pigeon hole, then at the contents of another. Suppose he does this, not in sequence, but in any old order. What is the effect on your subjective consciousness? So far as the clerk himself is concerned, he's jumping about all over the place among the pigeon holes. So your consciousness jumps all over the place. But the strange thing is that your subjective impression is quite different. You have the impression of time as an ever-rolling stream.' We walked on for a while. I saw that if the contents of a pigeon hole could never be modified then John was right. It would be possible for his clerk to look into a particular pigeon hole a dozen times or more and you'd never know about it. All you could be aware of, on his idea, was the contents of a pigeon hole, not when or how it was sampled. But there was one thing that bothered me: 'Doesn't the idea of a sequence of choices on the part of your clerk imply the flow of time? If it does, the argument gets you nowhere.' 'I'm sure it does not. A sequence is a logical concept in which time doesn't really enter at all.' I saw in a general sort of way what he meant. Yet I was troubled. 'But if you have a rule that requires you to pass from one pigeon hole to the next, like passing from one number to the next, isn't it really exactly the same as a smooth flow of time?' 'If the rule were the one you say, yes certainly. But you could have rules that didn't require the next number to be the succeeding pigeon hole. Look, suppose we do it this way. We could choose number 1, then number 100, then number 2, then number 99, and so on until we've had every pigeon hole from 1 to 100. Then we could do the same thing from 101 to 200. That would be different kind of rule. In fact there are infinitely many ways in which you can lay down rules, if the sequence itself is infinite. Any particular rule establishes what we call a correspondence between the pigeon holes and the choices. If every pigeon hole is chosen exactly once we have what mathematicians call a one-one correspondence. If every pigeon hole is chosen many times we have a one-many correspondence. The crux of my argument is that you get exactly the same subjective experience whatever the correspondence you choose. It doesn't matter what order you take the pigeon holes, it doesn't matter if you choose some or all of them a million times, you'd never know anything different from the simple sequential order. All you can know is the original contents of the pigeon holes themselves.' 'So really the choices could be an incredible hotch-potch. You could have youth and old ages interlaced with each other and you'd never know?' 'Not only that, but you could experience your youth a million times over and you'd never know. If the clerk were to put a note in a pigeon hole whenever he used it, then of course you could know you'd had a certain experience before. But as long as he leaves no note you can never know.' 'I suppose so. Where have we got to now?' 'Quite a way. We've got our sequence of pigeon holes, that's the physical world. We don't think of one pigeon hole as having any more significance than another, which agress with what I said before. We don't think of one particular state of the Earth as having any more significance than any other state of the Earth. We've completely eliminated the bogus idea of a steady flow of time. Our consciousness corresponds to just where the light falls, as it dances about among the pigeon holes. It lights up first once, then another, in some sequence that is quite irrelevant. 'Now let's come to the hard part. What is this light? I'm no longer talking in terms of a clerk in an office, because I don't want to get bogged down in human images. All our pigeon holes are in darkness except where the spot of light falls. What that light consists of, where it comes from, we know nothing. It lies outside our present-day physics. 'You remember I told you that it's possible to defy our own present-day physical laws and still to make a clear gain in our assessment of the world. You remember the radioactive nuclei with the counters surrounding them? We wanted to know whether or now in a certain period of time a nucleus had undergone decay. I said there was only one way to find out. By looking. In other words by using the spot of light in our pigeon hole. My strong hunch is that it's the spot of light that permits decisions which lie outside the laws of physics. This is why I'm so sure something else must be involved. It doesn't need to be anything mystical. It may be subject to precise description, to law and order, the same as in our ordinary physics. It may only be mysterious because we don't understand it.' 'There's certainly a lot of things I don't understand. This light of yours, or whatever you like to call it, how does it decide that you are you and I am me?' 'That could be another illusion. Look, along one wall of our office we have one complete set of pigeon holes, all in their nice tidy sequence. Along another wall we have another set of pigeon holes. Two completely different sets. But there is only one light. It dances about in both sets of pigeon holes. Wherever it happens to be, there is the phenomenon of consciousness. One set of pigeon holes is what you call you, the other is what I call me. It would be possible to experience both and never know it. It would be possible to follow the little patch of light wherever it went. There could be only one consciousness, although there must certainly be more than one set of pigeon holes.' I found this a staggering idea. 'If you're right it would be possible to be a million people and never know it.' 'It would be possible to be much more than that. It would be possible to be every creature on every system of planets throughout the universe. My point is that for every so-called different creature, for every different person, you need a separate set of pigeon holes. But the consciousness could be the same. There could even be completely different universes. Go back to my decaying nucleus. Hook up a bomb which explodes according to whether you have decay of a nucleus or not. Make the bomb so big that it becomes a doomsday machine. Let it be capable - if exploded - of wiping out all life on the Earth. Let the whole thing go for a critical few seconds, you remember we were considering whether a nucleus would decay in a particular ten seconds? Do we all survive or don't we? 'My guess is that inevitably we appear to survive, because there is a division, the world divides into two, into two completely disparate stacks of pigeon holes. In one, a nucleus undergoes decay, explodes the bomb, and wipes us out. But the pigeon holes in that case never contain anything further about life on the Earth. So although those pigeon holes might be activated, there could never be any awareness that an explosion had taken place. In the other block, the Earth would be safe, our lives would continue - to put it in the usual phrase. Whenever the spotlight of consciousness hit those pigeon holes we should be aware of the Earth and we should decide the bomb had not exploded.'
Seversky_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

People keep repeating this but this is not an explanation, it is just an unsupported dismissal.
No it is not!!! When a supposition leads to very definite conclusions, and those conclusions are false, it means that the supposition is false. In logic P=> Q where P is infinite past and Q is expected consequences. Then Not Q => not P then lack of expected outcomes implies infinite past does not exist. It’s definitely not unsupported dismissal. Maybe you don’t understand basic logic.
Or our existence may be the only iteration and the conditions immediately before the Big Bang may have always existed. We just don’t know
This is essentially saying there was an infinity of nothing and then suddenly our finely tuned universe popped into existence. Begs the question, what all of a sudden caused it and why so finely tuned. This sounds like some all powerful god sat around for infinity and then decided to say “Let there be light.”jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

PS, yes something was obviously existent as cause of the singularity. the question is of what nature and a q-foam or the like is sufficiently physical to face thermodynamics constraints and heat death issues as energy concentrations dissipate. Whatever W0 was there before singularity and q foam or whatever, is not of thermodynamic order. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

JH, you have been present when the reasons, physical and logic of structure and quantity have been laid out. i suggest you consider heat death in 10^25 s as even white dwarfs cool down, and the infeasibl,e supertask of stepwise finite stage -- years for convenience -- traversal of a succession of order type w, with cardinality aleph null. A potential transfinite with an unlimited future is possible but not an already traversed transfinite past. If you have a problem with successive stepwise traversal, kindly go look at a calendar. And that is before various other issues come up. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Jerry: Because it leads to absurdity after absurdity.
People keep repeating this but this is not an explanation, it is just an unsupported dismissal.
If it is physically possible, then it must have existed. And it must have existed in an infinite number of iterations.
Or our existence may be the only iteration and the conditions immediately before the Big Bang may have always existed. We just don’t know.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Why not?
Because it leads to absurdity after absurdity. If it is physically possible, then it must have existed. And it must have existed in an infinite number of iterations. Including the asking of this exact same question to Kf an infinite number of times. Infinite time precludes nothing. Again I recommend the Asimov short story, The Last Question.
The Last Question By Isaac Asimov This is by far my favorite story of all those I have written. After all, I undertook to tell several trillion years of human history in the space of a short story and I leave it to you as to how well I succeeded. I also undertook another task, but I won't tell you what that was lest l spoil the story for you. It is a curious fact that innumerable readers have asked me if I wrote this story. They seem never to remember the title of the story or (for sure) the author, except for the vague thought it might be me. But, of course, they never forget the story itself especially the ending. The idea seems to drown out everything -- and I'm satisfied that it should
https://physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdfjerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

KF: beginninglessnes is not on the cards
Why not? I agree that we are fairly certain that our iteration of the universe, consisting of trillions of atoms in 92+ different sizes, had its beginning at the Big Bang. But that is just the beginning of elements, just as the congregation of a sufficient number of atoms in a confined space was the beginning of any element heavier than helium. But none of this means that time had a beginning. The best we can say is that we don’t know and any answer would be pure speculation.JHolo_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

LCD, I enjoy discussing these topics, as I have repeatedly stated.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

If you have your own "ontology" why in the world would try to search synchronicity of your ideas with other ontologies? :) Do you try to show your ontology is right and other ontologies are wrong? Then this is an admission of existence of only one true ontology ?Lieutenant Commander Data_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

KF @38, As far as I can tell, you're basically just saying that you are sticking with your views even though you cannot resolve the time dilemma I've exposed here. You basically just chalk it up to being an inexplicable mystery. Fair enough. Are you not going to answer my question about whether or not Heaven is a thermodynamic world like this one, and if not, are we still capable of thinking and acting as if we are experiencing a flow of time there?William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

WJM, we know separately that our temporal domain is not credibly beginningless, indeed we have empirical warrant as outlined that has been about 14 BY for over a generation. There has been an attempt to suggest a quantum foam as root but this is also sufficiently thermodynamic to meet the same constraint. With causal succession of finite stages [years for convenience] we see structural logic of being reasons even beyond physics of heat death why that is inherently finite in the past. And BTW extension of such an order to God runs into the same trouble. We know utter non being is a non starter and circular retrocausation is just another form of this. That points to necessary being reality root, however strange and unpalatable that may seem to many. Actually, that is an advantage in being likely not to be something we are likely to project, its alien-ness, like that of Q-theory, is a plus for its being on the right though not the comfortable track. W0 is non thermodynamic, so not another world similar to ours or the Q-foam or other similar models. It is sufficiently capable to be a source, and is or contains design capability to account for fine tuning. It is inherently without beginning and cannot cease, it is fabric to any possible world. Considering our morally governed being it also needs to bridge is and ought. But, we are dealing here with what is alien and only glimpsed through a glass, darkly. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Potential
Potential Is constantly calling my cell phone. Last name is Spam.
I didn’t say time doesn’t exist
I know, I know. It’s UD that doesn’t exist. At last, we are getting some place. But it does waste time. Does this mean we will have more time?jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

Jerry said:
UD is the best example I know that time exists.
I didn't say time doesn't exist.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

In my ontology, W0 is potential. Potential doesn't do anything, nor does it take up any space. Potential requires no time or space. You cannot get behind, under or before it. It's obviously the actual W0.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

our concept of what time is must be wrong.
UD is the best example I know that time exists. Actually Too much time! Oh, for the good old days when there wasn’t enough time and if we took time off from work, we or our families might starve. Thank God, someone invented more time.jerry_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

KF said:
I am wondering at this point whether you think that we must attach time to W0, rather than a distinct nature, traditionally termed eternity.
Without attaching time at W0, W0 cannot be sentient, cannot act, do, create, or cause. The thermodynamic world you refer to cannot "begin" from W0. That is your dilemma to resolve, not mine, because of your ontological conditions. You never answered this question of mine: is heaven an entropic, thermodynamic world as you have described this world as? If not, is there no sense of time passing? Do we not do, act, think, talk, move about in heaven? My ontology has no such issues, and does not face the time dilemma yours does.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

KF said:
WJM, that is the core point, time is inextricably tied to and a key part of causal-thermodynamic, dynamic-stochastic process, locally and cosmologically
If that is what time is, you run into the time-dilemma issue I have described, which you try to solve - apparently - with the following:
The need for necessary being at reality root points to another order of existence which is not thermodynamic, pivoting on stochastic behaviour of collections of micro particles etc.
Unless time exists there, then the thermodynamic universe cannot begin or be created, there cannot be a sentient God and that God cannot make decisions, because all of that presupposes existence within a framework of time. If time is rooted in this thermodynamic world (as you claim,) nothing occurs, causes, choose or begins external of that, because all of those concepts presuppose an already ongoing framework of time. Waving your hands and appealing to "another order of existence" doesn't buy you any relief from the time dilemma.William J Murray_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

WJM, I just amplified a bit on how I am thinking of time and why I accept the framework that sees time as tied to thermodynamics intrinsically. I have already showed why a temporal,causal, energy dynamics, thermodynamic domain is inherently finitely bound in the past. As a world from non being, no reality is not feasible, this means the root of reality, world zero W0, is non thermodynamic, which latter requires masses of individual micro entities subject to stochastic distributions. I am wondering at this point whether you think that we must attach time to W0, rather than a distinct nature, traditionally termed eternity. KFkairosfocus_{April 30, 2022
April
04
Apr
30
30
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply