it's true that in a universe in thermal equilibrium / maximum entropy there would be no "arrow of time" (a way to tell the difference between before and after)
Time is linked to consciousness. The two are inseparable.
How can a person traveling near the speed of light experience "now" and the stationery object it departed from experience "now" yet there is a disparity in the lengths of their experiences? It's all perceptual.
Which means within the universe, there are many different levels of temporal experiences going on. The universe itself may be timeless and ageless.
In theoretical physics, there are dimensions beyond the 4th where time is irrelevant.
My primitive understanding is that time is likely closely linked to the physical, linear experience. On other levels it's flexible or irrelevant. Either way humans are not perceiving or experiencing the full picture due to the scope of our existence.
yeah of course, fluctuations and such. but then again, a fluctuation causes a localized patch to loose that equilibrium. as far as I know this is talked about in some inflationary cosmology models. you just cannot have an eternal universe where there are places not in thermodynamical equilibrium without fluctuations. and if your model is not eternal, you have the problem of "before the big bang"..I don't think that's true. Thermodynamic equilibrium is still dynamic, which means that the system would change between individual configurations, and said changes could be expressed as a function of time.
Other than that, I think I agree with Bagseed in that time seems to be a fundamental feature of our universe - spacetime.
Well I suppose that depends on what idea of duration you have.Do they really have to be separable? I ask you to ponder that a little harder.
Fair point, I should have said 'observer' rather than consciousness....but on the other hand what about if it is recorded, but there is no one to ever watch it??? Then perhaps it is no different than had it never been recorded.Why must an observer be conscious? A camera or a clock can measure or observe changes and they are certainly not conscious.
Fair point, I should have said 'observer' rather than consciousness....but on the other hand what about if it is recorded, but there is no one to ever watch it??? Then perhaps it is no different than had it never been recorded.
This debate is revealing the dual-perspective of the primacy of Universe vs. the primacy of consciousness. On one hand if there is no evidence it exists and/or no sentient being to experience it, it does not exist. The other hand of the argument presumes that the Universe exists regardless of whether or not it exists in the reflection of mind. Both perspectives are equally valid in my opinion, but for sake of argument I go with the first hand.