Each time i read your posts on this issue, i just feel disillussioned and discouraged from continuing. Then a few days later I suddenly feel I can still make you see what I am saying. Maybe I will try a different approach. Cross-Examination. I will ask some questions, you will answer. The truth should become obvious within those questions and answers, I hope.

Q. 1. - True or false - the words "before" and "after" can only be used in the context of time and space - i.e: you cannot have a "before" or an "after" and there cannot be a "past" and a "future" if there is no time - as the whole idea of past, present and future is itself a reference to time.

Please answer, thanks.

Deep Sight:

Each time i read your posts on this issue, i just feel disillussioned and discouraged from continuing. Then a few days later I suddenly feel I can still make you see what I am saying. Maybe I will try a different approach. Cross-Examination. I will ask some questions, you will answer. The truth should become obvious within those questions and answers, I hope.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I may also have some questions for you too as we go along.

Deep Sight:

Q. 1. - True or false - the words "before" and "after" can only be used in the context of time and space - i.e: you cannot have a "before" or an "after" and there cannot be a "past" and a "future" if there is no time - as the whole idea of past, present and future is itself a reference to time.

Please answer, thanks.

Yes the words refer to events that occur in a time-line.

thehomer:


Yes the words refer to events that occur in a time-line.

Thank you very much.

Q. 2 - What existed before the initial expansion that is called the Big Bang.

Deep Sight:

Thank you very much.

Q. 2 - What existed before the initial expansion that is called the Big Bang.

A singularity state.

My questions are closed and the discussion is concluded against you by dint of your own answers.

You have explicitly acceded that time pre-existed the big bang.

For -

1. You accepted that it is not possible to have a "before" without a timeline

2. You stated that BEFORE the initial expansion, there was a singularity.

Since you are able to have a "before" the initial expansion, and since you yourself stated that the word "before" exists with reference to time, then the direct implication is that for there to have been a state "before" the initial expansion, then there was indeed time existing before that expansion.

This is iron clad logic and is most simply cast as stated.

I thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

Deep Sight:

My questions are closed and the discussion is concluded against you by dint of your own answers.

You have explicitly acceded that time pre-existed the big bang.

No I haven't.

Deep Sight:

For -

1. You accepted that it is not possible to have a "before" without a timeline

Ok.

Deep Sight:

2. You stated that BEFORE the initial expansion, there was a singularity.

Yes . . .

Deep Sight:

Since you are able to have a "before" the initial expansion, and since you yourself stated that the word "before" exists with reference to time, then the direct implication is that for there to have been a state "before" the initial expansion, then there was indeed time existing before that expansion.

Huh?? I said before the expansion was the singularity state. Sure we can refer to before the expansion. That would be the singularity state. And I said time is generally used in reference to events.

Deep Sight:

This is iron clad logic and is most simply cast as stated.

I thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

Deep Sight:

Good afternoon.

Good day to you too.

I do not have the proclivity for endless circular discussion which heads nowhere even after a point has been very succintly proven and laid to rest. What is starkly obvious to all who can read is that within your answers to my two questions, you conveyed a concession that time did pre-exist the big bang.

For you agreed with me answering my first question to the effect that indeed, the notion of a past, or the concepts of "before and after" can not exist without a timeline. Regarding such words a "before" you specifically answered -

thehomer:


Yes the words refer to events that occur in a time-line.

Thus accepting that one cannot use the word "before" without reference to an event that occurred "IN a timeline."

Your words, not mine, brother.

I then asked you what existed before the big bang, and you responded saying - "A singularity state."

You thus have clearly indicated that something existed before the big bang (a singularity state), and going by your own answers to me, the word "before" is only used in reference to events "that occur within a timeline."

Ergo, the big bang occurred within a timeline.

Ergo, the claim that time was created by or at the moment of the big bang fails, as the big bang occured within a timeline, otherwise one would not be able to speak of anything "before" the big bang whereas you have spoken of something before the big bang - a singularity - and you have also acceded that reference to "before" refers to events that occur within a timeline.

This point is firmly rested against you now on the strength of your own answers to my questions - regardless what denials you might make, I will thus take the point as sealed: as any objective third party who can read can see clearly the concession you have unwittingly made.

I will thus only proceed to prove the other contradictions i set out in the OP, this point already being firmly closed against you, and i will not be inrested in returning to beat this dead horse over and over again.

Thank you sir.

Having conclusively and incontrovertibly shown that in terms of your very own answers, time could not have been "created" by or at the moment of the big bang, we thus proceed speedily to a further line of questioning to prove the other averrments i made in the OP -

Q. 3 - Do you take it as reasonable and agreed, that for anything to expand, there must be some room of some sort, however defined, into which it expands. That if there were no room to accomodate expansion, such a thing could not expand.

Q. 4 - Did the universe begin to expand at a point, and is it still expanding.

Q. 5 - As we do know that the answer to Q.4 is "yes" - i.e: the universe did begin to expand and is still expanding, is it not logical to suppose that for it to expand, there is necessarily some room (however defined) into which it is expanding, for if there were none, it would have nowhere to expand into.

Q. 6 - What is the room (however defined) into which the universe is expanding called?

Q. 7 - How is that room different from or distinguished from what you terms as "space?"

Thanks and warm regards.

Deep Sight:

I do not have the proclivity for endless circular discussion which heads nowhere even after a point has been very succintly proven and laid to rest. What is starkly obvious to all who can read is that within your answers to my two questions, you conveyed a concession that time did pre-exist the big bang.

Neither do I.

Deep Sight:

For you agreed with me answering my first question to the effect that indeed, the notion of a past, or the concepts of "before and after" can not exist without a timeline. Regarding such words a "before" you specifically answered -

Thus accepting that one cannot use the word "before" without reference to an event that occurred "IN a timeline."

Your words, not mine, brother.

I then asked you what existed before the big bang, and you responded saying - "A singularity state."

You thus have clearly indicated that something existed before the big bang (a singularity state), and going by your own answers to me, the word "before" is only used in reference to events "that occur within a timeline."

Ergo, the big bang occurred within a timeline.

Ergo, the claim that time was created by or at the moment of the big bang fails, as the big bang occured within a timeline, otherwise one would not be able to speak of anything "before" the big bang whereas you have spoken of something before the big bang - a singularity - and you have also acceded that reference to "before" refers to events that occur within a timeline.

I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself again and again. While we can refer to a state before the expansion, we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line. From there we can commence counting down (or up) to the present time.

Deep Sight:

This point is firmly rested against you now on the strength of your own answers to my questions - regardless what denials you might make, I will thus take the point as sealed: as any objective third party who can read can see clearly the concession you have unwittingly made.

It's not right to misstate my words and try to make me accept them.

Deep Sight:

I will thus only proceed to prove the other contradictions i set out in the OP, this point already being firmly closed against you, and i will not be inrested in returning to beat this dead horse over and over again.

Go ahead.

Deep Sight:

Thank you sir.

You're welcome.

Deep Sight:

Having conclusively and incontrovertibly shown that in terms of your very own answers, time could not have been "created" by or at the moment of the big bang, we thus proceed speedily to a further line of questioning to prove the other averrments i made in the OP -

Sorry but you haven't.

Deep Sight:

Q. 3 - Do you take it as reasonable and agreed, that for anything to expand, there must be some room of some sort, however defined, into which it expands. That if there were no room to accomodate expansion, such a thing could not expand.

Yes within the universe.

Deep Sight:

Q. 4 - Did the universe begin to expand at a point, and is it still expanding.

Yes.

Deep Sight:

Q. 5 - As we do know that the answer to Q.4 is "yes" - i.e: the universe did begin to expand and is still expanding, is it not logical to suppose that for it to expand, there is necessarily some room (however defined) into which it is expanding, for if there were none, it would have nowhere to expand into.

Q. 6 - What is the room (however defined) into which the universe is expanding called?

Q. 7 - How is that room different from or distinguished from what you terms as "space?"

Thanks and warm regards.

No it's not logical to assume that there must be some room into which it must be expanding due to the lack of sufficient knowledge to decide one way or another.

As I said before, regardless of your response I will not be reverting to the issue of pre-bang time again because any objective third party can see clearly that you admitted that the word 'before' is (in your own words) a reference to events IN a timeline. You then said that the singularity existed before the big bang. That simply means the big bang is an event in a timeline. If you cannot wrap your head around such simple logical sequences, I will not waste my time: i already take the point as proven - and it may interest you to note that I do not debate the point to convince you; but to lay bare the contradictions within your surmise to the objective third-party reader. So if you are not swayed do not worry: you are not the target sought to be swayed.

I will only point out one thing which begins to show some level of duplicity on your part: and if not duplicity, then the most severe and lamentable confusion. And here it is -

thehomer:


I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself again and again. While we can refer to a state before the expansion, we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line. From there we can commence counting down (or up) to the present time.

Now there it is above. An outright lie: a deliberate falsehood on your part. And you told this lie only because you saw that the questions had pulled the rug beneath your inconsistent and contradictory heels.

Why tell such a lie? You are aware that your statement which this thread takes to task is that time commences at the big bang. I have argued that time pre-existed the big bang. You have argued the contrary: that time began at the big bang. Now you suddenly conflate the terms and state that time began at the singularity. Please sir: you know very well that the singularity and the big bang are not the same thing, so why conflate the terms to avoid the clear implications of the answers you gave to my questions.

You now say  - "we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line" - whereas your position had always been that we cannot refer to time before the big bang - and that the big bang was the beginning of the time line!

It is obvious that you do this comical flip-flop only because the existence of a state PRIOR to the big bang has been shown and proven to you: and that also proves, in your own words, that the big bang was an event that occured within an already existing timeline.

So stop desperately conflating terms and telling lies, will you? How dare you deliberately switch "singularity" for "big bang' when you your self had earlier presumptuously warned me against doing such? ? ? Here is what you said -

You're using the singularity and the Big Bang interchangeably, I am not.

There it is. Cold hard evidence of your duplicity in this matter. The moment it is proven to you that there was a state in time prior to the bang, you now claim that you mean to say there was no state prior to the singularity. Consider carefully the facts before posting another falsehood, because i will be happy to embarrass you with further quotes of yours proving this very point that what you actually argued was that time began at the big bang, and not that time began at the singularity, which is what you are now attempting to escape by saying this.

The point is well proven. I will only proceed to deal with your respones to my further questions.

Thank you sir.

Now i herewith tender solid, irrefutable proof of the duplicity that I have alleged above.

I state that thehomer's argument has always been that time commenced at the big bang, that is, the initial expansion.

Here are several quotes from him in proof of the fact that that was what he always stated -

thehomer:


I thought it was clear that time as we know it was simply not available before the universe began to expand because as I said, time and space are intricately linked.

thehomer:


As long as one is in this universe, time for that person started with the Big Bang.

thehomer:

Time and space as we know it began with the expansion of this universe.

Suddenly, when it is conclusively shown to him that time ALREADY existed at the moment of the big bang, he suddenly changes gear. Cheack out this astonishing somer-sault -

thehomer:


I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself again and again. While we can refer to a state before the expansion, we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line. From there we can commence counting down (or up) to the present time.

Wow! So time no longer commenced at the big bang, but at the singularity! Amazing, this fellow, ehn? See how he runs away from his own statements when ratted out?

Tell me, Mr. Homer, so which is it - did time commence at the big bang or at the singularity? Reconcile your contradictory falsehoods!

Lol. its obvious this fella has no idea regarding the concepts he borrows from primary school science text books.

This is not worth my time.

Deep Sight:

Now i herewith tender solid, irrefutable proof of the duplicity that I have alleged above.

I state that thehomer's argument has always been that time commenced at the big bang, that is, the initial expansion.

Here are several quotes from him in proof of the fact that that was what he always stated -

Ok.

Deep Sight:

Suddenly, when it is conclusively shown to him that time ALREADY existed at the moment of the big bang, he suddenly changes gear. Cheack out this astonishing somer-sault -

Wow! So time no longer commenced at the big bang, but at the singularity! Amazing, this fellow, ehn? See how he runs away from his own statements when ratted out?

Again, you misquote me. Read it carefully. I said the singularity was the beginning of our time-line so we do not refer to time before that event. But we can refer to the state prior to this expansion which like I already said was the singularity. Please note the difference between the time-line and time.

Deep Sight:

Tell me, Mr. Homer, so which is it - did time commence at the big bang or at the singularity? Reconcile your contradictory falsehoods!

It's reconciled.

Deep Sight:

Lol. its obvious this fella has no idea regarding the concepts he borrows from primary school science text books.

I borrowed them from primary school science text books yet you keep making me repeat myself over and over again.

Deep Sight:

This is not worth my time.

I'm done here too since you still do not grasp the concepts I've presented and concepts that are already part of our theory of the universe.

^^^ I am telling you that that theory of the universe is innacurate and inchoate. The difference between us is simply that you accept current scientific thinking as infallible whereas i do not. I see logical loopholes in the theories of time and space.

We agree to disagree. Your contradictions above speak for themselves. Cheers.

As a closing summary let us all carefully note that -

Thehomer -

- Claimed that time commenced with the big bang but then acceded that the big bang occured within a timeline

- Claimed that time commenced at the big bang, but that the timeline commenced at the singularity: which he says pre-existed the big bang

- Accepted that physical things exist in time and space

- Accepted that the singularity was physical and yet:

- insisted that there was no time at the singularity.

- Denies the obvious fact of pre-existing space given the expansion of the universe into already existing space by saying "i don't know"

- When asked the simple question: is it not obvious that inorder for something to expand, there must be some room into which it is expanding - avoids this starkly simple and obvious fact by saying that he is not sure if there must be room to accomadate such expansion.

That is the summary of wild contradictions which thehomer canvasses as credible science. I have pointed out these contradictions ad infinitum ad nauseum. It seems to me that the difference between my worldview and that of thehomer is simply that he takes current scientific thinking on any subject to be infallible: i do not. Otherwise he would not assume that the current scientific theories on time and space are exactly and infallibly correct - especially given the obvious contradictions and deficiencies that the theories throw up. I am of the view that it behoves a genuine thinker to prob beyond that which is offered by other human beings when such offerings throw up contradictions and inconsistencies.

In this regard i should mention the fact that people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholaus Corpernicus were derided in their day for propounding ideas that ran against the accepted "scientific" worldviews of the time. As it turns out, the questions and probes conducted by these people gave rise to better and more precise knowledge. Let us not be shy of challenging concepts that even Einstein has put forward regarding these things: for Einstein was only human: and you cannot tell me that science and knowledge will not continue to grow and expand beyond that which he knew in his day. If Einstein surpassed Newton's physical theories: surely with the passage of time and the growth of knowledge someone in the future may also surpass Einstein's physical theories, possibly even by contradicting them.

I will just leave a link to a discussion viaro, justcool and myself had about space a long while ago. That discussion i believe shows that some ideas about space may be wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

Enough said. Cheers.

Deep Sight:

As a closing summary let us all carefully note that -

Thehomer -

- Claimed that time commenced with the big bang but then acceded that the big bang occured within a timeline

- Claimed that time commenced at the big bang, but that the timeline commenced at the singularity: which he says pre-existed the big bang

- Accepted that physical things exist in time and space

- Accepted that the singularity was physical and yet:

- insisted that there was no time at the singularity.

What has been presented above is consistent. It also seems you did not look up the page on the fallacy of composition that I referred you to.
Here it is again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Deep Sight:

- Denies the obvious fact of pre-existing space given the expansion of the universe into already existing space by saying "i don't know"

This is not obvious besides, I don't know is not denial of anything. If you do know, then please present this information with explanation of how you do know this. Also, please recall the reasons I gave for not being able to answer this.

Deep Sight:

- When asked the simple question: is it not obvious that inorder for something to expand, there must be some room into which it is expanding - avoids this starkly simple and obvious fact by saying that he is not sure if there must be room to accomadate such expansion.

No this is not obvious. If it is obvious to you, please demonstrate this with something better than mere assertions.

Deep Sight:

That is the summary of wild contradictions which thehomer canvasses as credible science. I have pointed out these contradictions ad infinitum ad nauseum.

No you did not point out any contradictions. Please go back and read my responses to your so called contradictions.

Deep Sight:

It seems to me that the difference between my worldview and that of thehomer is simply that he takes current scientific thinking on any subject to be infallible: i do not. Otherwise he would not assume that the current scientific theories on time and space are exactly and infallibly correct - especially given the obvious contradictions and deficiencies that the theories throw up. I am of the view that it behoves a genuine thinker to prob beyond that which is offered by other human beings when such offerings throw up contradictions and inconsistencies.

Can you demonstrate where I said or implied that current scientific thinking on any subject was infallible? The fact that I agree with the current best explanation we have about the universe is not bad neither does this mean that I think all our current knowledge is infallible. Besides, If you wish to elevate yourself as a genuine thinker, then you also need to be ready to understand what is currently accepted. If you do not agree with the current evidence, you have to be ready to do the work and present evidence required to further our knowledge and not just sit in your armchair issuing proclamations.

Deep Sight:

In this regard i should mention the fact that people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholaus Corpernicus were derided in their day for propounding ideas that ran against the accepted "scientific" worldviews of the time. As it turns out, the questions and probes conducted by these people gave rise to better and more precise knowledge.

So what? This is a red herring. Whether or not Galileo and Copernicus were correct does not make your assertions correct. You need evidence supporting your assertions for others to even begin considering that you may be right or wrong.

Deep Sight:

Let us not be shy of challenging concepts that even Einstein has put forward regarding these things: for Einstein was only human: and you cannot tell me that science and knowledge will not continue to grow and expand beyond that which he knew in his day. If Einstein surpassed Newton's physical theories: surely with the passage of time and the growth of knowledge someone in the future may also surpass Einstein's physical theories, possibly even by contradicting them.

I wonder where you get the idea that people are shy of challenging Einstein's ideas. In fact, his ideas have been tested several times even after his death but it still stands. It's up to you to do the work required in testing his ideas if you're so inclined. And doing this work would require more effort than making armchair assertions.

Deep Sight:

I will just leave a link to a discussion viaro, justcool and myself had about space a long while ago. That discussion i believe shows that some ideas about space may be wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

The discussion was quite long. I may go through it when I have the time to spare.

Deep Sight:

Enough said. Cheers.

Good day.

Ok, no problem. The posts above are all there for any person to read and derive their conclusions. If you see no contradictions in what you have laid out, especially the answers to my questions, and most especially your acceptance that refering to past states must indicate events in a timeline, then so be it.

Thank you for your time.

Unbelievable, wasn't this! Some people are clad in "scientific" dogma in as much as they accuse others of being clad in religious dogma.

First I agree that time is linear, in the sense that its moves continuously forward and irreversible. It connotes the past, present and the future. The present is withdrawn into the past, while the future becomes the present and so.

As a natural consequence, it would have had a starting point, a beginning and possibly an end (that I do not know). A world would time is outside my imagination, nevertheless there must have been a period whereby time would have been absence. The Big Bang sets out to explain the inception of this present universe and its physical properties. As most physicists posit, time is necessarily webbed with space and it is through this medium it operates.

Since time actually is measured by the change in things, in absence of matter or space, could one say time operates?

Kay 17:


Since time actually is measured by the change in things, in absence of matter or space, could one say time operates?

Perhaps you need to reflect on whether time itself moves at all or whether it is objects that move within time.

The lack of evidence on the nature of time prior to Big Bang makes it extremely difficult point one's finger whether or not time existed. On Big Bang, no one knows what existed prior to the point of singularity, but time expanded with space/matter.

My dear brother, i cannot go over this all over again. Try and read the posts of Justcool within this thread, to see if there is not obviously a different understanding of what time is.

The word 'time' used by scientists in context of this discussion is actually a misnomer. They should use another word for it. A specific scientic jargon should be deployed for it: because it has little or no co-relation with that which the lay man understands to be meant by the word 'time.'

hmm! No be small thing o

I believe that Deepsight is referring to "real time" or the layman's time. By "real time" I mean the eternal time, the phenomenon onto which events happen; the time that every body intuitively knows but very hard to define, very hard to capture with words.

But when science talks about time, they talk about duration of events or measurement of events. Thus "scientific time" is different from "real time." Scientific time can be measured; it depends on the event or the speed of events; and hence it is not constant. It speeds up or reduces in speed depending on how fast the object or system in question travels

First I doubt if there is any difference between "scientific time" and "layman time". It is more or less a point of disagreement as to the definition of time. A party sees it as material, detectable and measurable while the other feels it eternal?!

Viewed from the perspective of "real time", the big bang is just an event and not really the birth or beginning of anything new. At best, the big bang can be described as the birth or beginning of our present universe. This universe will eventually colapse, decay, and remodel for another big bang. Each big bang is a beginning or a particular universe not the birth of any components of the universe. The same components exist and eternally passes through the cycles of birth(big bang) and decay.

This involves the problem of wild speculation, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty, what lay before the big bang.

Deep Sight:

Unbelievable, wasn't this! Some people are clad in "scientific" dogma in as much as they accuse others of being clad in religious dogma.

The phrase scientific dogma is an oxymoron. What actually are you referring to as scientific dogma?

Deep Sight:

My dear brother, i cannot go over this all over again. Try and read the posts of Justcool within this thread, to see if there is not obviously a different understanding of what time is.

The word 'time' used by scientists in context of this discussion is actually a misnomer. They should use another word for it. A specific scientic jargon should be deployed for it: because it has little or no co-relation with that which the lay man understands to be meant by the word 'time.'

If you're so serious about this, then you need to do the work required and get to the point where you need to rename time. Do not underestimate the lay man. What do you think the lay man means when he says "the phone rang 5 minutes ago"?

thehomer:

The phrase scientific dogma is an oxymoron. What actually are you referring to as scientific dogma?

You are so zealous in your dogma that you failed to notice the " . . ." quote marks I placed around the word "scientific" deliberately to cast a doubt on just how scientific such theories are!

thehomer:

If you're so serious about this, then you need to do the work required and get to the point where you need to rename time. Do not underestimate the lay man. What do you think the lay man means when he says "the phone rang 5 minutes ago"?

I don't think the lay man observes such magical things as time being a physical fabric expanding or contracting anywhere.

Here is Wikipedia's definition of time -

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]

And this makes it clear that what is actually referred to is a measurement of events and objects in motion.

Time itself does not move anywhere. Events and objects move within a static continuum that is time.

I can prove this, you know. Because if time moves, then the only rational conclusion is that it moves backwards - - - because the future regresses to become the present which further regresses to become the past. We do not see the present proceeding forward to become the future, rather the future becomes the present, which in turn becomes the past.

What this means, if you will reflect, is that people, objects and events are occuring in a static continuum and not that time is moving anywhere.

But I can bet my hat that you will make a hash of this simple reasoning.

As this will show, and as i stated to you, there are several differing ideas as to what time actually is -

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events.[27] This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but , are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.

The Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC, describe ancient Hindu cosmology, in which the universe goes through repeated cycles of creation, destruction and rebirth, with each cycle lasting 4320 million years.[28] Ancient Greek philosophers, including Parmenides and Heraclitus, wrote essays on the nature of time.[29] Plato, in the Timaeus, identified time with the period of motion of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle, in Book IV of his Physica defined time as the number of change with respect to before and after.

In Book 11 of his Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He begins to define time by what it is not than what it is,[30] an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions. However, Augustine ends up calling time a “distention” of the mind (Confessions 11.26) by which we simultaneously grasp the past in memory, the present by attention, and the future by expectation.

In contrast to ancient Greek philosophers who believed that the universe had an infinite past with no beginning, medieval philosophers and theologians developed the concept of the universe having a finite past with a beginning. This view is shared by Abrahamic faiths as they believe time started by creation, therefore the only thing being infinite is God and everything else, including time, is finite.

Isaac Newton believed in absolute space and absolute time; Leibniz believed that time and space are relational.[31] The differences between Leibniz's and Newton's interpretations came to a head in the famous Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.

Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

“”Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), trans. Vasilis Politis (London: Dent., 1991), p.54.Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[32] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. (See Ontology).

Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson's view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.[33]

Time as "unreal"In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[34] Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought,[35] and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).

However, these arguments often center around what it means for something to be "real". Modern physicists generally consider time to be as "real" as space, though others such as Julian Barbour in his book The End of Time, argue that quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless configuration spacerealm containing every possible "Now" or momentary configuration of the universe, which he terms 'platonia'.[36] (See also: Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Deep Sight:

You are so zealous in your dogma that you failed to notice the " . . ." quote marks I placed around the word "scientific" deliberately to cast a doubt on just how scientific such theories are!

How scientific which theories are? Which theories are you referring to?

Deep Sight:

I don't think the lay man observes such magical things as time being a physical fabric expanding or contracting anywhere.

This of course does not answer the question I posed about the lay man.

Deep Sight:

Here is Wikipedia's definition of time -

Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.[1]

And this makes it clear that what is actually referred to is a measurement of events and objects in motion.

Yes this is what I'm referring to when I'm speaking of time here. It is the way it is used in physics.

Deep Sight:

Time itself does not move anywhere. Events and objects move within a static continuum that is time.

I can prove this, you know. Because if time moves, then the only rational conclusion is that it moves backwards - - - because the future regresses to become the present which further regresses to become the past. We do not see the present proceeding forward to become the future, rather the future becomes the present, which in turn becomes the past.

What this means, if you will reflect, is that people, objects and events are occuring in a static continuum and not that time is moving anywhere.

But I can bet my hat that you will make a hash of this simple reasoning.

I see. The problem here is that you are complaining about the way we use language. This was why I said earlier on that I was referring to time the way it is used in physics.

Deep Sight:

As this will show, and as i stated to you, there are several differing ideas as to what time actually is -

Among prominent philosophers, there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3] An opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of actually existing dimension that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead an intellectual concept (together with space and number) that enables humans to sequence and compare events.[27] This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that space and time "do not exist in and of themselves, but , are the product of the way we represent things", because we can know objects only as they appear to us.

The Vedas, the earliest texts on Indian philosophy and Hindu philosophy dating back to the late 2nd millennium BC, describe ancient Hindu cosmology, in which the universe goes through repeated cycles of creation, destruction and rebirth, with each cycle lasting 4320 million years.[28] Ancient Greek philosophers, including Parmenides and Heraclitus, wrote essays on the nature of time.[29] Plato, in the Timaeus, identified time with the period of motion of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle, in Book IV of his Physica defined time as the number of change with respect to before and after.

In Book 11 of his Confessions, St. Augustine of Hippo ruminates on the nature of time, asking, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not." He begins to define time by what it is not than what it is,[30] an approach similar to that taken in other negative definitions. However, Augustine ends up calling time a “distention” of the mind (Confessions 11.26) by which we simultaneously grasp the past in memory, the present by attention, and the future by expectation.

In contrast to ancient Greek philosophers who believed that the universe had an infinite past with no beginning, medieval philosophers and theologians developed the concept of the universe having a finite past with a beginning. This view is shared by Abrahamic faiths as they believe time started by creation, therefore the only thing being infinite is God and everything else, including time, is finite.

Isaac Newton believed in absolute space and absolute time; Leibniz believed that time and space are relational.[31] The differences between Leibniz's and Newton's interpretations came to a head in the famous Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.

Time is not an empirical concept. For neither co-existence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation a priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession.

“”Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781), trans. Vasilis Politis (London: Dent., 1991), p.54.Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience.[32] With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events. (See Ontology).

Henri Bergson believed that time was neither a real homogeneous medium nor a mental construct, but possesses what he referred to as Duration. Duration, in Bergson's view, was creativity and memory as an essential component of reality.[33]

Time as "unreal"In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work On Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hypostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Parmenides went further, maintaining that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to the paradoxes of his follower Zeno.[34] Time as illusion is also a common theme in Buddhist thought,[35] and some modern philosophers have carried on with this theme. J. M. E. McTaggart's 1908 The Unreality of Time, for example, argues that time is unreal (see also The flow of time).

However, these arguments often center around what it means for something to be "real". Modern physicists generally consider time to be as "real" as space, though others such as Julian Barbour in his book The End of Time, argue that quantum equations of the universe take their true form when expressed in the timeless configuration spacerealm containing every possible "Now" or momentary configuration of the universe, which he terms 'platonia'.[36] (See also: Eternalism (philosophy of time).)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

This further demonstrates what I'm saying. When I'm speaking of time, I'm not using it the way philosophers do. In fact, from the article, one can see that philosophers can use the word to refer to various concepts. I have chosen one of the concepts for clarity and consistency which will aid in avoiding ambiguity.

Well we are clearly not on the same page. I think Justcool's post sums it up.

Deep Sight:

Well we are clearly not on the same page. I think Justcool's post sums it up.

Ok then.