AuldSoul: Ignoring the God argument entirely, for the moment, is it possible that the Big Bang was simply a manifestation of "objects" (by which I mean objects with 3 spacial dimensions) into our 3d universe?
Is there an arguement to support the idea that the 3s+1t dimensions that we can observe are the base dimensions, the dimensions from which all the others "unfold"? Is there any such thing as a "base" dimension.
AuldSoul: In other words, time only started with the Big Bang IF (1) we correctly understand the properties of time and (2) no events occurred in any other universe or any other dimension prior to the Big Bang. I will grant that time in our 3s+1t universe started with the Big Bang, as it was the first 3s+1t event from which to start marking the gaps spanning to other events.
I agree, Time did not exist before the Big Bang, so the phrase "before the Big Bang" is redundant, except in the context of other theoretical universes. However, is the word "before" really semantically sensible even in these cases? In the other universes, the 1st dimension might not exist in the same way as it does in ours.
flyphisher: Yes, thats what I meant ! There cannot be TIME without an OBSERVER ! And the question is: WHO can serve as an observer in the physical understanding? So-called "REALISTS" believe, that only consciousness (e.g. a person) can serve as an "observer" in physics. They believe that a wavefunction collapse (in quantum theory) has to be bound to an observation through a conscious person. But this is not right.
In my opinion, Time should be treated just the same as the other dimensions. These realists as you rightly say are wrong, because there are no conscious observers that we know of who can observe the higher dimensions. Or did the dimensions just pop into existance as soon as physicists started calculating the mathematics as to their existance?... The fact that Time or a state factor collapse has to be "observed" to be said to exist does not necessarily mean that it must be observed by a conscious being. In my opinion, another particle is more than enough to be the "observer" if the particles have an interaction with one another that is able to be ultimately observed. Observer doesn't mean that someone is standing there looking at it, lol.
If a tree falls in a forest but theres no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?... well the answer is yes... and no. It causes vibrations in the air that CAN be percieved as sound by a human if the human were present. However, because a human is not present, the vibrations are not sound. In this case, the very air that is vibrated is the "observer".
Do red or blue exist? In a way, they exist as wavelengths, but NO, they do not exist as colours unless they are percieved as red and blue by the human eye. In fact Benjamin Thompson in a famous light experiment, figured that the human mind can add its own colour to a grey area. In the same way, Time does exist but only as a dimensional concept. It is only percieved as Time, by the beings who can percieve it, and we can interpret it and add bulk to the illusion as our brains see fit.
Time is an "illusion" in a similar way to how light is an "illusion".
Terry: "TIME" doesn't exist the way atoms exist. Time is a bookkeeping method of marking the distance between actual events.
ballistic: Time still exists without an observer, although there is a philosophical opinion that time does not exist without change. I personally believe in the idea that time is more of an inherant property of space and not merely a mathematical construct "space-time".
I think im more inclined to agree with you ballistic. I agree that as a dimension time does not exist in the same way as atoms, but also space itself does not exist in the same way as atoms either. I see Time as of the same quality as the 3 spacial dimensions, but as merely percieved as the distance between events, just as space is percieved as the distance between objects.
Notice that you use the phrase "distance between events". I read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica the following:
Space-Time. In physical science, single concept that recognizes the union of space and time, posited by Albert Einstein in the theories of relativity (1905, 1915). Common intuition previously supposed no connection between space and time...
However i dont believe this is true. (Far be it for me to criticise the great and worthy Encyclopaedia Britannica). Semantically, we invariably speak of time in terms of space, which reflects they way we think of time and space in the same terms. A few examples from Guy Deutscher's book "The Unfolding of Language" show that even some of the simplest words, prepositions, that were originally used to discribe spatial relations, are used to describe temporal relations as well...
SPACIAL ---------- TEMPORAL
from London to Paris ---------- from Monday to Friday
in England ---------- in January
at the door ---------- at noon
he king rode before the army ---------- he king rode before the battle started
they are a mile behind us ---------- they are an hour behind us
the shop after the post office ---------- the hours after darkness
within the prison ---------- within a year
through the jungle ---------- through the month
outside Africa ---------- outside office hours
around the fire ---------- around lunchtime
about the neighbourhood ---------- about midnight
This doesnt prove that Time and each of the three dimensions of Space are esensially the same thing, but it goes a bit of a way to getting the brain around such a difficult concept from a linguistic angle.