by jimwalton » Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:34 pm
I think we can only speculate about such things since we as humans are bound in both space and time. I guess it's sort of like us trying to think of what it means to exist without length, width, and depth.
Mathematically we at least theorize that a point has no dimension and yet it technically (mathematically) exists. We theorize that a line has no width or depth but only length. In a sense these are absurdities, but we understand the underlying concepts and to some extent accept them.
Current theory about the Big Bang is that back at the singularity, all was dimensionless, time did not exist (though that is being challenged), and physics breaks down. Stephen Hawking, in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.
As far as relativity is concerned, we know that time is not a constant as was once thought, but can be slowed or bent. But if I observe time being bent, isn't time on its usual pace, at least for me?
Science fiction writers have been toying with the concept of timelessness for a while. The movies Interstellar (2014) and Arrival (2016), along with many others, speculate that in certain conditions it's possible to experience being able to access multiple times at the same time. Yes, I know it's Hollywood, but the physics isn't as far-fetched. There are also speculations about how black holes distort or destroy time.
I read an article in a science journal a few days ago that said scientists really don't know and can't define what "matter" is, let alone what "space" is. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin theorizes that time is actually space. (Bhwllhhwhll—the sound of my head exploding).
Then we have to define "existence"—even tougher. "Existence" certainly doesn't apply to materiality, for it is speculated by others that time has no materiality but is just as real as anything else. And what about consciousness? Though it it based in material beings and processes, I'm not sure anyone would say consciousness is material.
There is so much we don't know—and hence the fun of scientific hypotheses and discovery.
Does dark matter occupy space? Is it a temporal entity? Did time begin at the Big Bang? What about space? No one knows, though there are hypotheses. It is generally presently thought that before the Big Bang time and space did not exist, but something had to have existed because it's not regarded as possible for something to self-generate out of non-existence.
Presumably what it means to exist outside of time and space is that this entity (like time and perhaps dark matter) has no materiality and no basis in materiality, and that this entity exists in a state where time is a dimension within which ones moves but is not controlled by it (where time is bent or absorbed or slowed to a stop—all theoretical, of course)—where time is a tool and not a master, something to observe but not live in.
I think we can only speculate about such things since we as humans are bound in both space and time. I guess it's sort of like us trying to think of what it means to exist without length, width, and depth.
Mathematically we at least theorize that a point has no dimension and yet it technically (mathematically) exists. We theorize that a line has no width or depth but only length. In a sense these are absurdities, but we understand the underlying concepts and to some extent accept them.
Current theory about the Big Bang is that back at the singularity, all was dimensionless, time did not exist (though that is being challenged), and physics breaks down. Stephen Hawking, in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.
As far as relativity is concerned, we know that time is not a constant as was once thought, but can be slowed or bent. But if I observe time being bent, isn't time on its usual pace, at least for me?
Science fiction writers have been toying with the concept of timelessness for a while. The movies Interstellar (2014) and Arrival (2016), along with many others, speculate that in certain conditions it's possible to experience being able to access multiple times at the same time. Yes, I know it's Hollywood, but the physics isn't as far-fetched. There are also speculations about how black holes distort or destroy time.
I read an article in a science journal a few days ago that said scientists really don't know and can't define what "matter" is, let alone what "space" is. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin theorizes that time is actually space. (Bhwllhhwhll—the sound of my head exploding).
Then we have to define "existence"—even tougher. "Existence" certainly doesn't apply to materiality, for it is speculated by others that time has no materiality but is just as real as anything else. And what about consciousness? Though it it based in material beings and processes, I'm not sure anyone would say consciousness is material.
There is so much we don't know—and hence the fun of scientific hypotheses and discovery.
Does dark matter occupy space? Is it a temporal entity? Did time begin at the Big Bang? What about space? No one knows, though there are hypotheses. It is generally presently thought that before the Big Bang time and space did not exist, but something had to have existed because it's not regarded as possible for something to self-generate out of non-existence.
Presumably what it means to exist outside of time and space is that this entity (like time and perhaps dark matter) has no materiality and no basis in materiality, and that this entity exists in a state where time is a dimension within which ones moves but is not controlled by it (where time is bent or absorbed or slowed to a stop—all theoretical, of course)—where time is a tool and not a master, something to observe but not live in.