The end of time is not where we think it is.

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
Just an idea that I wanted to throw to the wolves so to speak.

Some persons hold the view that the universe was never created and hold to the notion that if time is eternal then the universe has no begining in time nor will it have an end iin time.

By taking the notion that time is eternal both past and future and considering philosophies about the NOW as being the zero point between the past and future, it could be argured that time both begins and finishes in that zero point between past and future.

So if we draw a line with the past on one side and the future on the other the begining of that line is actually directly in between Past and future. Beginning at time = zero.

A little diagram to show my idea:
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/begendtime.gif>

Thus we have the end of the past and the beginning of the future in the NOW.

If one subscibes to the notion of finite time:
This is premised on the notion that if we were to see the end of time it would happen in the NOW. As the future became less and less the end of time would be experienced in the NOW. So even if a finite time perspective is subscribed to the end of time is always in the NOW and can't be in the future. [ as there is no future when time ends] ...... :D

any thoughts? :)
 
Last edited:
Time doesn't end, just our lives. Even if it does, we're gonna die LOOOOOOONG before it does, so it won't really concern us.
 
You may be on to something, Quantum Quack.

If we are to say that time is the measure of change, then the present is really the zero point of time. This is because each moment is zero time-lengths long. It is the change between moments that have time-length. Between one moment and the next, the time-length is almost immeasurably short. Between several moments, several of those immeasurably short time-lengths have passed, each taking place between each of the several moments that have gone between. Each one of these tiny time-lengths is a change, and each one minute, and based on the preceding moments' configurations and in-between changes.

This argument, of course, is fragmentary because I just devised it from Quack's post.
 
Thus the shortest measurement of time begins and ends with each moment. Longer measurements of time are simply compounds of these shortest measurements, and are used to measure more distant change.
 
Quantum Quack:

Whilst an interesting theory, I think you misunderstand the notion. Time is said to be eternal in the sense that it never had a beginning nor never will have an end, whilst the notion of past and future are relative conceptions. There is no true "past", nor true "future", just that forever is there an infinite expanse of time "behind" and "infront" of us.

beyondtimeandspace:

Thus the shortest measurement of time begins and ends with each moment. Longer measurements of time are simply compounds of these shortest measurements, and are used to measure more distant change.
Click to expand...

This is true.
 
There has always been a distinction between the eternal and the temporal (that which is of time). I don't think it's a proper expression to say that time can be eternal. The difference between the eternal and the temporal is that same difference between art and science, intuition and logic, and that is that one is a holistic (complete) set, while the other is a sequential (graduating) set. The temporal is sequenced, and moves from one moment to the next. The eternal is holistic, and does not move from one moment to the next.

The common idea of eternality is not the holistic, but rather infinitely temporal. I think it a proper expression to refer to endless (and beginningless) time as infinite (if that concept is even valid).
 
Does the future and the past both begin in the NOW or not? Do you think?
The past has it's genesis in the Now and the future begins in the Now.

so all springs from the Now.
 
The only thing that exists in the temporal is the present moment. Hence, to say the past "has its genesis in the now" can't be true. Genesis means beginning, and thus you're saying that the past "has its [beginning] in the now." If you were simply referring to the perspective of the past as springing from the present, I would be inclined to agree. However, when you say "all springs from the now," you seem to be implying that the existence of the past begins in the present. This is obviously not true on two accounts. First, time moves toward the future, hence the past existed prior to the present (because the past simply refers to sequenced moments that have already existed and the future refers to sequenced moments that are derived from and will exist later on). Secondly, as I have already stated, in the temporal, the present moment is the only thing in existence, thus the existence of the past does not properly arise from the present.
 
beyondtimeandspace said:
The only thing that exists in the temporal is the present moment. Hence, to say the past "has its genesis in the now" can't be true. Genesis means beginning, and thus you're saying that the past "has its [beginning] in the now." If you were simply referring to the perspective of the past as springing from the present, I would be inclined to agree. However, when you say "all springs from the now," you seem to be implying that the existence of the past begins in the present. This is obviously not true on two accounts. First, time moves toward the future, hence the past existed prior to the present (because the past simply refers to sequenced moments that have already existed and the future refers to sequenced moments that are derived from and will exist later on). Secondly, as I have already stated, in the temporal, the present moment is the only thing in existence, thus the existence of the past does not properly arise from the present.
Click to expand...
Actually I tend to agree with you.
The main thrust of the idea was the only null moment in the time line is in fact the NOW but of course this implies that the future and the past have a value other than null as well. This is the main flaw in my reasoning I think.
I was thinking too much in linea form, which is always a mistake when considering time, as it isn't a line as such but more a zero point that constantly changes.

In linguistic terms eternal time can not have a beginning or and end yet also in linguistic terms both past and future are intrinsically associated with the present. And If we make the mistake of drawing a time line like I have done with my diagram the only point of any reference in that line is the NOW. As I said if that Now moment has zero duration then it can be said time starts from zero. Of course to state that time starts impies that it goes somewhere which of course it doesn't.
But as I said earlier and as you have pointed out, this is flawed reasoning as the past and the future are also zero physical duration only having a value accumulated in the now.

eg. "10 years have passed". This value of "10 years" is simply a recording of an amount of change experienced in the NOW. Like wise "10 years are yet to pass" can be treated in a similar manner.

If one sits and observes time passing from an imaginary point of non time [ no movement] one can easilly see the continuum of change. A bit like watching a bird in flight and a car going by simultaneously. All moving as one in time. with you also moving in synch with them in time.

I guess I was merely playing with words such as begininning and end of time as we place imaginary values on the future and past and as such the Now has zero value yet has all the value simultaneously.
 
Meanwhile said:
Time vanishes in the now. The "eternal" future is what you expect. The "eternal" past is what you've collected.
Click to expand...

quite correct I think....welcome to sci forums BTW :)
 
when we say 'past' and 'future' they are actually abstractions. abstracted from a whole process. as with any astractions which signify two seemingly opposing end-points or TERMinals, one should always be aware of an EXcluded middle. or as siad we have abstracted the end-points and from there are usually un-conscious of this procedure and attempt to work out the 'problem' from this unacknowledged premise

what could tis excluded middl mean whaen Included?? how would it change the usually linear idea of 'past'-------to-------'future'....would it naturally change the linear to a cricle or spiral? wher sense of time comingles with sense of eternity?
 
this isnt really my department but ok,
personally it hurt my brain actually trying to get my head around all of those paragraphs. i havent had much sleep today but i think time simply goes around like a wheel, has no corners no start no end it just keeps on rolling, but also just like a tire it can be pierced from an outside "object" therefore meaning alternate "dimentions" can alter the fabric of time itself. allowing for changes to occur in time itself although time is the one thing that stays consistant. i also believe it is subject to change as is everything else in the universe.

feel free to rip apart my sleepy theory, wich i know you will because you guys have obviously thought about this alot more thoroughly than i have, therefore know flaws in my theory.
 
I like it. But I want to present a different view on how the term "moment" is being used, and also the term "infinite." First, to "moment." It comes from the root word for "movement," and is not a discrete unit of any length. I maintain that there is only one single moment. That moment's apparent "division" into units defined by "events" is purely subjective. It is subjective (albeit stable) because events are rooted in cycles relevant to our subjective organic selves (either physically, biologically, mentally, or culturally). The need to establish what appear to be separate things that we then string into an "arrow of time" exist as part of the larger need for a sense of movement, change, and shifting perspective. Those of you familiar with my theory know that this should be read "how the cosmos makes itself via various self-observation points." Shifting, yet always the same thing. Like a river is always One, yet in another way never the same.

This is related to the notion of infinity not of "so many we can't count," but rather, infinity as undivided wholeness (true one). Maybe we can call that 1' (one prime). Having no boundary, it cannot be a quantity. Thus it is without "fin," or end. It is thus...infinity. Or, if you prefer, onefinity. Thus be another model.

I will now take any questions, except those from the Socratic Logic Generator :)
 
Following up on the Now, I hypothesize that we (humans) will not ever make it to the time when the sun swallows the earth. The reason I say that is I think that long before then, human understanding and living will evolve to the point where the eternal nature of Now will become apparent to us. Along with this, I believe, the notions of past and future will collapse, as will the notions of subject and object, birth and death, and the notion of self. While the story that we live now will continue to unfold, as it must over and over again, that portion of us which is the All-Subject, the cosmos, will have its wholeness renewed. As has always happened, and will always happen. I know that this is hard to imagine, but it is as if everything that has ever happened, and everything that will ever happen, is happening right Now. The revelation has already "happened" - for it is continuous and not "located" in time. One foot "in" time, and one foot "outside" of time - I think that is the nature of things. We see it from the first angle right now; someday (each of us upon death, and all of us in a couple thousand years, maybe) will see it from the other angle. But we can't have both. And whilst we dwell in the temporal perspective, we cannot really know what the other angle looks like. Perhaps at moments we can glimpse. I don't know. Some may. Anyway, this is how I see it.
 
You are speaking of the Eternal Present. I am aware of this reality (not fully, but passively). Though it was obviously not obvious, this was the reason for my distinction between the temporal and the eternal. The eternal is a reference to this notion of the Eternal Present, while the temporal is a reference to the notion of time (past, present, future). The Eternal Present has no beginning and no end, all is simply now, as you have said. All events, in the Eternal Present, occur now, simultaneously. In the temporal, they occur in sequence. This is the duality, holism and sequence. With sequence comes construct and division, which arises from the internal multi-configurations of the All.

Aristotle spoke of two kinds of infinities, the actual and the potential. The actual infinite is the holistic, complete set, one, all of the Eternal Present. The potential infinite is the sequenced, divided, incomplete set of the Temporal Time, which is finite. This is the nature of the cosmos.

Subjective/Objective, Relative/Absolute, Sequenced/Holistic, Logic/Intuition, Science/Art, Philosophy/Religion, Divided/Complete, Many/One, Potential Infinite/Actual Infinite, Creations/Creator... all dualities that refer to the basic nature of reality. Anything temporal is potentially infinite, a creation, divided, sequenced, can be understood logically, by means of science or philosophy, and understood in a subjective and relative manner. That which is eternal is actually infinite, a complete set, one, holistic, it is the absolute, objective measure of reality, that which is understood intuitively and formally expressed in art, and religion, it is the creator.

In the Eternal Present, there is only one moment, the Now. There is no movement in the Eternal Present, no change, since all is occurring in the present, simultaneously, eternally. In the Temporal, there are many, divided moments, relative to the temporal present, and understood as such by the subjective observer. There is movement, and change. The duality is real, the temporal is not an illusion, it is merely a perspective, a way of experiencing reality. Both are purely real to whomever is experiencing them.

The laws contained in one are necessarily contained in the other, but are not necessarily functional in both.
 
All in all, I believe time can be expressed thus:

Past and present are relative to the now, but in every moment the past is extends infinitely into the past, and the future extends infinitely into the future, as there was never a beginning, nor will there ever be an end, but today becomes yesterday, and tomorrow becomes today.
 
Wow profound. James are you god or something?
How do we know there was never a beginning or that there will never be an end?
 
Sniffy:

I've explained my arguments elsewhere, but here's them in a condensed form. Ask me if you require my full argument and I'll dig it up:

Reality is eternal, due to its two halves, namely, somethingness and nothingness being incapable of existing seperately. If you have nothing, you must have something, and if you have something, you must have nothing, it is impossible to have one and not the other, and since there can never be a time when one of these did not exist, they must eternally "co-create" one another. Since somethingness is eternal, neither creatable or destroyable, there is an infinite past and infinite future.
 
Sniffy:

In what way could time be a circle?

If there is nothing, there is no something -in nothing-, but nothing must be contrasted with something. To have nothing, in essence, you must have something. Again, the analogy of long and short. These are two opposites which hold within eachother the seed of their own. So to is it with nothing and something, non-existence and something. Since also there cannot be a time where there wasn't something or nothing, they must be eternal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top