Time and space can never end. It is infinite.

@invulnerable23,

invulnerable23 wrote:

Validity makes a valid point. (heh.)

It doesn't matter. For the sake of the discussion, assume it is possible. You still haven't addressed the issue of how to track "time" in that instance.

It would turn into the old English measurement for "foot", where it was as long as the king's foot. It varies from person to person.

Honestly, no one would know how long time has passed. That is simply because time is in the mind. You organize factors by it, and set up ideas of it being a dimension, when it doesn't really exist apart from your mind.

When we argue about movement and existence resulting from time or time resulting from organizing movement, we start to develop a "chicken or the egg" argument. That doesn't change the fact that the idea of a conceptual time holds some water.

Time for us is constant with sun rising and it going down...if you have a crap day and it lasts all year im sorry for you but my day was too short it always is...That monkey just jumped up again and you missed it...

@invulnerable23,

invulnerable23 wrote:

It doesn't matter. For the sake of the discussion, assume it is possible. You still haven't addressed the issue of how to track "time" in that instance.

Time is irrelevant if everything stands still. There are no events, so nothing to measure with time. Can you measure distance in a universe containing only 1 object ?

But the topic is time and space can never end.

31st of October 2008, 31st of October 2011, 31st of October 905832000595884859949948 and so on towards infinity... common era or before common era, it doesn't matter.

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

Time is irrelevant if everything stands still. There are no events, so nothing to measure with time. Can you measure distance in a universe containing only 1 object ?

But the topic is time and space can never end.

31st of October 2008, 31st of October 2011, 31st of October 905832000595884859949948 and so on towards infinity... common era or before common era, it doesn't matter.

I cant understand why you say time is not important..to who are you speaking?.you cant reach infinity it is not possible..the next second is not possible let alone infinity...we know nothing except the sun rose this morning and hopefuly it wil tomorrow...If we had a time when there was no time if we had a time when there was no space then its possible we could have the no time again..

@astrotheological,

astrotheological;24522 wrote:

Time and space is continuous and can never end. Nor could it have a beginning to it.

Some people believe that in order to have been created we would not have needed time or space.

We would have needed time and space in order for us to have been created.
If someone was to say that if humans did not exist or that you yourself did not exist then there would no longer be such thing as time and space. They are right in the sence that since they are dead they are no longer able to perceive time and space. You need to exist in order to do so.

They are wrong though because time and space can never end in existence. It cannot be changed or influence because it is something that is just there.

How would humans have been created if it wasn't for time and space.
If you don't believe that there was time and space in existence before we were created then a god would of had to create us, because in our minds god is all powerful. He could influence time and space.

That ofcourse is impossible because time and space is infinint in existence. Not even god could influence or change space and time in existence.

The way that I would think of god if I was to believe in god would be that the idea of god is the transition from nothingness (possibly even time and space) to an existence. That would be gods one and only purpose.

I think that it depends what your beliefs are. If you are of the Catholic religion you are taught to believe that god created the world and the universe in seven days. But that brings up the question what or who created god? If you are an atheist you are most likely to believe in the big bang theory. The belief that two molecules collided an created a huge bang in which the start of the universe was created. But where did the two molecules come from?. I personally believe not necessarily with the catholic religion but that there is some greater force that created me. Because that does bring up the question that who created me and not just the universe. Basically all ties back to the question. Who created my mind?

@xris,

xris wrote:

Thats Ok if you can explain how time stopped but if you cant its not relevant...when you blinked a monkey jumped up smiled and then disappeared....

I did not say time had stopped. I said everything that is in motion stopped. You made the link between motion and time ie remove motion, remove time.

Congratulations.

@validity,

validity wrote:

I did not say time had stopped. I said everything that is in motion stopped. You made the link between motion and time ie remove motion, remove time.

Congratulations.

To remove motion you must make the universe disappear...

@xris,

xris wrote:

To remove motion you must make the universe disappear...

One way in which that could happen is for all objects in the universe to gravitationally collapse into a single object. A single object has no motion, therefore no time.

If you consider the expansion of space, then at some time in the finite past, the universe existed as a singular object.

This explination of stopping time has now made the question posed here

validity wrote:

If, for example, at 09:00 one day everything that is in motion stopped. Then after an unknown period, started again. How would you determine how long everything was not in motion? Does it even hold meaning to ask, how long does nothing happen?

relevant.

xris wrote:

Thats Ok if you can explain how time stopped but if you cant its not relevant...when you blinked a monkey jumped up smiled and then disappeared....

@validity,

validity wrote:

One way in which that could happen is for all objects in the universe to gravitationally collapse into a single object. A single object has no motion, therefore no time.

If you consider the expansion of space, then at some time in the finite past, the universe existed as a singular object.

This explination of stopping time has now made the question posed here

relevant.

It started with the BB it did not stop..yes you can stop time but you need to destroy the universe..

@validity,

validity wrote:

One way in which that could happen is for all objects in the universe to gravitationally collapse into a single object. A single object has no motion, therefore no time.

If you consider the expansion of space, then at some time in the finite past, the universe existed as a singular object.

This explination of stopping time has now made the question posed here relevant.

But I still can think about time during that period, even if there would be no way to measure it. Hmm... does that make sense ?

Code:



Old Universe     -> Collapsed Universe -> New Universe

Can measure time -> Can't measure time -> Can measure time again

Moment 0         -> Moment 1           -> Moment 2

I mean, from a human's point of view, there was a period of time during which the universe was in a state of singularity, even if I have no ways to measure it.

@xris,

xris wrote:

It started with the BB it did not stop..yes you can stop time but you need to destroy the universe..

What do you mean by destroyed? The universe can still be considered to exist in a singular state.

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

But I still can think about time during that period, even if there would be no way to measure it. Hmm... does that make sense ?

For me it does not make sense. For a duration to hold any meaning it must be measured with something. We can use different devices to measure time but we must always have a device.

ariciunervos wrote:

Old Universe -> Collapsed Universe -> New Universe
Can measure time -> Can't measure time -> Can measure time again
Moment 0 -> Moment 1 -> Moment 2
[/code]I mean, from a human's point of view, there was a period of time during which the universe was in a state of singularity, even if I have no ways to measure it.

That assumption does not answer the question. If there was a period of time during which the universe was in a state of singularity, then it must be measureable. So how long is that period?

@validity,

validity wrote:

Code:Old Universe -> Collapsed Universe -> New Universe Can measure time -> Can't measure time -> Can measure time again Moment 0 -> Moment 1 -> Moment 2
For me it does not make sense. For a duration to hold any meaning it must be measured with something. We can use different devices to measure time but we must always have a device.

That assumption does not answer the question. If there was a period of time during which the universe was in a state of singularity, then it must be measureable. So how long is that period?

It doesn't matter how long, we have 3 events, one following the other. That's time.

Can't measure it because -during the phase of singularity- the atoms that compose me are not formed yet. Is this like the sound of a falling tree still existing even if noone is there to listen ?

@validity,

validity wrote:

What do you mean by destroyed? The universe can still be considered to exist in a singular state.

If it exists then we have time..

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

It doesn't matter how long, we have 3 events, one following the other. That's time.

Can't measure it because -during the phase of singularity- the atoms that compose me are not formed yet. Is this like the sound of a falling tree still existing even if noone is there to listen ?

If you can not measure it, is it there? An excellent question. If there is a phase that has a duration, then there must be a means in which you can define the duration ie how long is this duration? Is the duration 1 second, 1 minute, 1 billion years? Are you suggesting it can be any of those? Or is it that the concept of time holds no meaning?

@validity,

validity wrote:

If you can not measure it, is it there? An excellent question. If there is a phase that has a duration, then there must be a means in which you can define the duration ie how long is this duration? Is the duration 1 second, 1 minute, 1 billion years? Are you suggesting it can be any of those? Or is it that the concept of time holds no meaning?

I agree that time can't be measured in an environment without movement eg during a phase of singularity.

But after that phase, mentally, one can speculate that 3 states followed one after another, first one containing moving parts, second containing none (singularity) and third moving again. One can logically conclude that even if there is no way time could be measured during the singularity phase, the state of everything went from "normal" to "singularity" to "normal again". If one would graphically present these 3 states on a timescale, what should one do ? Not add the middle (singularity) phase because one can't measure time during said phase ?

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos wrote:

If one would graphically present these 3 states on a timescale, what should one do ? Not add the middle (singularity) phase because one can't measure time during said phase ?

I am of the opinion that it should not appear at all on the timescale, for to appear on a timescale it should have a scale of time, which it does not.

A singularity does not sit in time waiting for something to happen, rather time is a property of objects and not an object.

@validity,

Hey, just thought I'd sign in a put in my 2 cents...

Ok, well, if time is only a measurement of movement, and that movement had once existed, would it stand to reason, that even once everything (hypothetically) had ended, and there was nothing to relate time to, would we still be able to measure time by that scale, even though it no longer exists?
After all, time, as we see it, is only how we as humans percieve it, and what we relate it to, eg. rotation of the Earth.

For example, say there was no matter at all, would it change the length of time the Earth took to rotate when it did exist? I don't think so, I think that even though it no longer exists, it shouldn't mean that we couldn't continue using that same scale...

Although all matter may have disappeared (for arguments sake), it would not change the past, and in the past, there was time, and even though what we relate it to may have ceased, it still did exist, and would it not therefore, still be a measure of time, even without matter?

Sorry if I repeated myself, what I'm trying to say is a tad hard to word, lol.

Well, hopefully my post made at least some sense, and yeah, I hope I raise a good point, and don't just look like a fool, lol. :bigsmile:

Oh, and if you disagree with what I think, please, feel free to email me at [EMAIL="[email protected]"][email protected][/EMAIL], because I'm really interested to see an answer to my post, and yeah...

Ok, Im going now,

Cya.

@Dale phil,

xris wrote:

If it exists then we have time..

Hello xris, sorry I missed this comment.

If a single thing exists, then it is equally difficult to describe is motion and the duration of its existence.

Dale wrote:

Hey, just thought I'd sign in a put in my 2 cents...

Ok, well, if time is only a measurement of movement, and that movement had once existed, would it stand to reason, that even once everything (hypothetically) had ended, and there was nothing to relate time to, would we still be able to measure time by that scale, even though it no longer exists?
After all, time, as we see it, is only how we as humans percieve it, and what we relate it to, eg. rotation of the Earth.

For example, say there was no matter at all, would it change the length of time the Earth took to rotate when it did exist? I don't think so, I think that even though it no longer exists, it shouldn't mean that we couldn't continue using that same scale....

Although all matter may have disappeared (for arguments sake), it would not change the past, and in the past, there was time, and even though what we relate it to may have ceased, it still did exist, and would it not therefore, still be a measure of time, even without matter?

Hello Dale.

I am in the camp of "no objects, no processes, no time". My answer, using the examples in your post would be, one complete rotation of the earth is set to be the standard of 24 hours (it could of been 25 hours, 28 hours 44.656565656 hours, whatever. For this example we wont worry about the definition of any other unit of time eg second) From there, all other orbits/movements/processes ie anyhting else that moves, has its cycle related to that 24 hour standard ie the orbit of neptune is so many times longer relative to 24 hours so its orbit is set at more hours than earth etc.

If there was no earth, you are correct the standard is gone and all other orbits etc were relative to the 24 hour period so everything is fine. But when all things are gone, you have lost all means to measure the relative duration and you do not need to know. There is no means in which you can say "nothing" has existed for 48 hours, because there is no thing (orbits/movements/processes) to relate the duration of "nothing" to.

If the arguement is that time exists when no thing exists, then what remains is not easy to answer ie "For how long did nothing exist?" There is no orbit/movement/process to relate the duration to.

I do not think it makes sense to ask that question. For my opinion is that time is the relative comparison of orbits/movements/processes to other orbits/movements/processes. Time does not exist without these things. Time emerges from them.

@validity,

I thought I'd just say my opinions on the subject, though I agree with the original poster's view to an extent.

Firstly on time:

Well firstly I no longer believe time exists (except as a form of measurement) BUT though there is a logical contradiction if the universe has a beginning which is what caused it until we digress to an infinite loop of 'what caused that'. But there is no logical contradiction with it never ending and becoming infinite. But can something infinite have a start?

With space, this is where my views get a bit more pseudo-scientific and metaphysical, which is strange in this day and age. Scientists say there is an edge of the universe: a limit which past it, we cannot measure. But the universe is expanding...

We take the two propositions: the universe is expanding into something and we cannot measure what we are moving into. Now what lies beyond our universe of matter, anti matter and dark matter must fit those criteria and I believe the best thing to fit that criteria is nothing.

Nothing lies beyond our universe, which in turn makes it infinite.

Non-measurement: the inability to measure beyond the universe is answered by nothing because it is impossible to measure nothing.

Universe expansion: If there is nothing then as the universe expands, it will occupy the nothingness and then give the previously empty space the property of 'something'

That's my opinion anyway, I don't like to spout it as it may offend some scientific people out there

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

Time and space is continuous and can never end. Nor could it have a beginning to it.

Some people believe that in order to have been created we would not have needed time or space.

We would have needed time and space in order for us to have been created.
If someone was to say that if humans did not exist or that you yourself did not exist then there would no longer be such thing as time and space. They are right in the sence that since they are dead they are no longer able to perceive time and space. You need to exist in order to do so.

They are wrong though because time and space can never end in existence. It cannot be changed or influence because it is something that is just there.

How would humans have been created if it wasn't for time and space.
If you don't believe that there was time and space in existence before we were created then a god would of had to create us, because in our minds god is all powerful. He could influence time and space.

That ofcourse is impossible because time and space is infinint in existence. Not even god could influence or change space and time in existence.

The way that I would think of god if I was to believe in god would be that the idea of god is the transition from nothingness (possibly even time and space) to an existence. That would be gods one and only purpose.

Here is a location where the same topic has poped up at.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/lounge/general-discussion/3038-time-infinite-2.html#post38768

And here is a links to the thread about "Nothing" & "Nothingness".

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-2.html#post15068

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-2.html#post15070

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-2.html#post15074

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-2.html#post15245

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/young-philosophers-forum/1232-existance-nothing-2.html#post15454

Everything will change, Nothingness will not change.

Philosophy Forum

Time and space can never end. It is infinite.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know