Without a way to measure time, time has no meaning, which means as the orginal poster indicated is infinite.
However, you would have to count this as a seperate entity.
Why?
There are only so many ways to measure time and all of them have to do with our understanding of the current said universe, but we were not here all of the time(pun intended), thusly you can not classify "time" as it was before we began to use it as a relative concept.
There are two types of time, one we can easily measure and understand the other has the infinite label on it. Since it is beyond our knowledge level (at the current moment) there should be another label for it.
"Time" did not exist untill a life form used it, "infinite time" for lack of a better term has always been around.
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Well, be careful of assigning new meanings to words. It causes confusion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Lack of common definitions are typically the number one failure for communication in these types of discussions. And Cyndane, let's not be concerned with winners and losers, if you're discussing for the sake of being right, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
In regards to "the big bang", I've always been skeptical of much modern physics and science. I don't really believe that we know, or ever will know the origin of the universe. (Not to be a logical positivist though...)
Also, I think there is some distinctions to be made regarding philosophy. Philosophy and other subjects are not seperate, they're similar. Remember, Philosophy used to involve all sciences from mathematics to biology. Once again, we're getting confused because of the differences in definitions. Philosophy can be viewed as either just the study of metaphysics, knowledge in general, or rather, a method of determining validity / truth. Cyndane seems to be speaking from a metaphysical view regarding the nature of reality.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Sirus+Jun 14 2005, 04:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Jun 14 2005, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lack of common definitions are typically the number one failure for communication in these types of discussions. And Cyndane, let's not be concerned with winners and losers, if you're discussing for the sake of being right, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
In regards to "the big bang", I've always been skeptical of much modern physics and science. I don't really believe that we know, or ever will know the origin of the universe. (Not to be a logical positivist though...)
Also, I think there is some distinctions to be made regarding philosophy. Philosophy and other subjects are not seperate, they're similar. Remember, Philosophy used to involve all sciences from mathematics to biology. Once again, we're getting confused because of the differences in definitions. Philosophy can be viewed as either just the study of metaphysics, knowledge in general, or rather, a method of determining validity / truth. Cyndane seems to be speaking from a metaphysical view regarding the nature of reality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My philosophy prof once said this, I thought it was pretty funny:
"Every branch of philosophy that became exact enough to be useful was spun off into its own discipline."
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 14 2005, 04:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 14 2005, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nemmy, I always win in a philosophical debate darling. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I had not realized this was a debate. As far as I can see, this is a discussion, which, as Sirus points out, does not know winner or loser.
Anyway, your basic argument is thus: Everything man-made is relative. Which is true, but of no matter whatsoever to our topic.
You concede yourself that time is a dimension - which you call "infinite time". As such, it is an objective reality. It is fact. All we know and perceive hints at the existence of causality. Therefore, it exists independently from us; objective statements about it are possible.
Then, we appear and start measuring this causality. And get it physically wrong. That does not result in the existence of a second, 'human' time, it simply indicates that we screwed up. Time is not meaningless without us, the measure we created is meaningless, with or without us. We just happen to find it convenient.
So, feel free to continue reasoning around that faulty idea of time mankind created, but in doing so, you are about as likely to make correct assumptions about causality as by looking at a picture in a sprung mirror.
You should know by now that when I post "I win" I am quite throughly joking, serious discussion or not.
Either way "infinite time" has always existed, and "time" is only relative to the person/animals/singular cells that are using it for measurement of their biological functions.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 15 2005, 07:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 15 2005, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "time" is only relative to the person/animals/singular cells that are using it for measurement of their biological functions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Except that it's not.
Time is a real, concrete phenomenon, not just an abstract philosophical concept. It's relative to the speed of the object, not the object's perception of time.
As far as my limited understanding of relativity theory goes: when they say that the speed of light is a constant at 3x10^8 meters per second, they mean it. You can't travel a greater distance than 3x10^8 meters in one second second, and if you try to <i>time itself</i> distorts so that a "second" is longer. That's not just mathematical quibbling over the definition of a second - if you go hurtling through space at the speed of light for one second according the watch sitting on your wrist at the time (let's pretend the acceleration doesn't kill you <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> and that your watch is that accurate), everyone <i>else's</i> watch will think you travelled for a lot longer. It's complicated.
Thinking the other way about it: distance is always relative, speed is rate of change of distance (that is, distance per time unit). So if <i>everything</i> is concentrated into one infinitely tiny point, distance does not exist (there's nothing for anything to be positioned relative to, since everything is all at the same point). If distance doesn't exist, you can't have speed. If speed doesn't exist, you can't have time.
What if Einstein was wrong? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
MouseThe Lighter Side of PessimismJoin Date: 2002-03-02Member: 263Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-Align+Jun 16 2005, 01:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Align @ Jun 16 2005, 01:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if the universe is really a sweaty sock? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I er... misread that...
<!--QuoteBegin-AlienCow+Jun 15 2005, 11:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AlienCow @ Jun 15 2005, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if Einstein was wrong? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There have been actual, real experiments with results consistent with the concept of time distortion, so it doesn't really matter if Einstein was wrong because the model that replaces his will still be able to explain the observed phenomena. Call it what you like, but time distortion does actually happen.
Comments
Without a way to measure time, time has no meaning, which means as the orginal poster indicated is infinite.
However, you would have to count this as a seperate entity.
Why?
There are only so many ways to measure time and all of them have to do with our understanding of the current said universe, but we were not here all of the time(pun intended), thusly you can not classify "time" as it was before we began to use it as a relative concept.
There are two types of time, one we can easily measure and understand the other has the infinite label on it. Since it is beyond our knowledge level (at the current moment) there should be another label for it.
"Time" did not exist untill a life form used it, "infinite time" for lack of a better term has always been around.
It didn't work. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In regards to "the big bang", I've always been skeptical of much modern physics and science. I don't really believe that we know, or ever will know the origin of the universe. (Not to be a logical positivist though...)
Also, I think there is some distinctions to be made regarding philosophy. Philosophy and other subjects are not seperate, they're similar. Remember, Philosophy used to involve all sciences from mathematics to biology. Once again, we're getting confused because of the differences in definitions. Philosophy can be viewed as either just the study of metaphysics, knowledge in general, or rather, a method of determining validity / truth. Cyndane seems to be speaking from a metaphysical view regarding the nature of reality.
In regards to "the big bang", I've always been skeptical of much modern physics and science. I don't really believe that we know, or ever will know the origin of the universe. (Not to be a logical positivist though...)
Also, I think there is some distinctions to be made regarding philosophy. Philosophy and other subjects are not seperate, they're similar. Remember, Philosophy used to involve all sciences from mathematics to biology. Once again, we're getting confused because of the differences in definitions. Philosophy can be viewed as either just the study of metaphysics, knowledge in general, or rather, a method of determining validity / truth. Cyndane seems to be speaking from a metaphysical view regarding the nature of reality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My philosophy prof once said this, I thought it was pretty funny:
"Every branch of philosophy that became exact enough to be useful was spun off into its own discipline."
I had not realized this was a debate. As far as I can see, this is a discussion, which, as Sirus points out, does not know winner or loser.
Anyway, your basic argument is thus: Everything man-made is relative.
Which is true, but of no matter whatsoever to our topic.
You concede yourself that time is a dimension - which you call "infinite time". As such, it is an objective reality. It is fact. All we know and perceive hints at the existence of causality. Therefore, it exists independently from us; objective statements about it are possible.
Then, we appear and start measuring this causality. And get it physically wrong. That does not result in the existence of a second, 'human' time, it simply indicates that we screwed up. Time is not meaningless without us, the measure we created is meaningless, with or without us. We just happen to find it convenient.
So, feel free to continue reasoning around that faulty idea of time mankind created, but in doing so, you are about as likely to make correct assumptions about causality as by looking at a picture in a sprung mirror.
Either way "infinite time" has always existed, and "time" is only relative to the person/animals/singular cells that are using it for measurement of their biological functions.
Except that it's not.
Time is a real, concrete phenomenon, not just an abstract philosophical concept. It's relative to the speed of the object, not the object's perception of time.
As far as my limited understanding of relativity theory goes: when they say that the speed of light is a constant at 3x10^8 meters per second, they mean it. You can't travel a greater distance than 3x10^8 meters in one second second, and if you try to <i>time itself</i> distorts so that a "second" is longer. That's not just mathematical quibbling over the definition of a second - if you go hurtling through space at the speed of light for one second according the watch sitting on your wrist at the time (let's pretend the acceleration doesn't kill you <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> and that your watch is that accurate), everyone <i>else's</i> watch will think you travelled for a lot longer. It's complicated.
Thinking the other way about it: distance is always relative, speed is rate of change of distance (that is, distance per time unit). So if <i>everything</i> is concentrated into one infinitely tiny point, distance does not exist (there's nothing for anything to be positioned relative to, since everything is all at the same point). If distance doesn't exist, you can't have speed. If speed doesn't exist, you can't have time.
I er... misread that...
There have been actual, real experiments with results consistent with the concept of time distortion, so it doesn't really matter if Einstein was wrong because the model that replaces his will still be able to explain the observed phenomena. Call it what you like, but time distortion does actually happen.