BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

Bit of an old story this but I just ran into it and more here.

The upshot of this idea is that time simply runs out and everything stops whether it be in five billion years or in the next second as one unlikely scenario would play out, and the end would come without warning and without notice.

Any thoughts on this idea, time running down like a wound up clock destined to halt at some point?

[Thinker]

Hmm, not sure what to say to that Shadows.

Is it plausible? I suppose so. Every theory has a level of plausability.

[Lateralman]

Tough one, but If you do not believe that there is any such thing as time then how can it ever run out?

Adopting this attitude could make you immortal!

[M Paul Lloyd]

Nah, to be truly immortal you need to be outside of what we view as linear time and be able to see all that has happened and all that will in one eternal moment... which would make you god............... but then again, if time stopped??

Anyway, time running out. An interesting thought. Perhaps old film cameras did not use a slower shutter speed after all and the apparently accelerated motion is merely a side effect of our time running more slowly? Doubt it.
We have an old clock at work which contrary to the usual way these things go is actually running about one minute a week faster than the actual time from Greenwich and therefore gains nearly an hour a year.
So perhaps this 'olde' clock is actually correct and all the new clocks are subject to a different rate of time...? but then again my phone gains the same amount so perhaps not.

To be honest I think this is a case of science straying into the realm of philosophy, a theoretical concept that does not mean we will suddenly sto

[Liam Sheppard]

time isn't really a thing, it can't stop. ....... surely

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well we don't really know what time is, other than it is signified by the progression of events, nor indeed how it actually works, although it does seem to be tied up with things like relative velocity and mass but that's about it, so although it seems unlikely I can't see any reason why it should keep on going just because we don't want it to stop.

If time was running faster in the distant past then a great many of our observations of deep space would have to be seriously updated, including relative distances and indeed that old chestnut 'redshift'.

Although I consider it highly unlikely.

[Shadowwolf]

It seems mostly predicated on an idea that if time were infinite then anything could and would happen an infinite number of times.

But only things that are plausible would be likely to occur and even unlikely events happening an infinite number of times in an infinite period does mean that they would happen all the time. Plus we've hardly been around and able to notice for anything beyond the teeniest blip, so our experience is rather limited. Or perhaps I've missed something, still, time stopping seems unlikely.

I suppose so. Every theory has a level of plausability.

That all depends on how you're defining 'theory', we know that some things called theory have no plausibility.

[M Paul Lloyd]

we know that some things called theory have no plausibility.

But, perhaps in an infinite universe it might?

[...]

the universe unfolds as it will despite us being here and we just try to categorize it and put it in a box
infinite number of people winning the lottery, maybe, but there's an infinitely larger infinity of people not winning it

[Shadowwolf]

But, perhaps in an infinite universe it might?

No I think there are limits, if something is just downright not physically plausible then it will never be, like homeopathy. Allegedly operating on unknown mechanisms that nonetheless can be harnessed and all impossible under well established chemistry and physics, whilst being surprisingly ineffective when properly tested. This would remain the same I think even in an infinite universe.

infinite number of people winning the lottery, maybe, but there's an infinitely larger infinity of people not winning it

I reckon that where infinity is concerned one cannot have an infinitely larger infinity, just infinite winners and losers.

[...]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rent-sizes

[M Paul Lloyd]

Isn't this a bit like 'the biggest number' for which I believe their is an equation but which is meaningless if some oaf like me were to say 'googleplex' (or whatever) plus one.?

So we go to the edge of the universe, or indeed the 'end of time' and then we notice another bit, and another and... well hey..... I'm a great fan of theoretical physics but really? Do we need to go there just now. ??

[Shadowwolf]

Interesting article but I'm not seeing it, think it's a confusion of what is seen in a limited scenario with the infinite scenario.

The reals can only be larger even to infinity when compared to finite sets of naturals, if both are infinite then one can not be larger than the other because by definition both are completely open ended. To have a larger infinity would in some way suggest that the other is in fact not infinite no?

Where is the Caped one who might shed more light?

[...]

the last one, i promise http://www.alephzero.co.uk/what.htm

[Shadowwolf]

Again interesting, but I'm still of the position that infinity by definition precludes the possibility of any infinite set being bigger than another infinite set.

I may be way off but I think it's like asking which is heavier, a ton of lead bricks or a ton of feathers? Sure a lead brick is heavier than a feather but a ton is a ton regardless of what the material is.

Of course if we had an infinite number of lead bricks and an infinite number of feathers we would know that each brick is heavier than a feather, and thus on weight an infinite number of lead bricks will be infinitely heavier than an infinite number of feathers Therefore making one infinite set bigger than the other in a sense, unless the presence of infinity makes the idea of knowing any weight beyond the individual item impossible and thus cannot be spoken of.

Don't think I'm any the wiser

[nemisis39]

Again interesting, but I'm still of the position that infinity by definition precludes the possibility of any infinite set being bigger than another infinite set.

I may be way off but I think it's like asking which is heavier, a ton of lead bricks or a ton of feathers? Sure a lead brick is heavier than a feather but a ton is a ton regardless of what the material is.

i understand that

Of course if we had an infinite number of lead bricks and an infinite number of feathers we would know that each brick is heavier than a feather, and thus on weight an infinite number of lead bricks will be infinitely heavier than an infinite number of feathers Therefore making one infinite set bigger than the other in a sense, unless the presence of infinity makes the idea of knowing any weight beyond the individual item impossible and thus cannot be spoken of.

but that make my head hurt........... emmm infinitley

[Lateralman]

Then again, it all changes when you have to take into account what environment your infinite numbers of bricks or feathers are travelling off to infinity in.

One where weight is inconsequential.
The vacuum of space, water, for example.

Therefore, if there is no weight to anything then nothing can travel to infinity because there is no infinity, because there is no weight to anything and so does not exist.

Consequently, if there is no infinity, then there is no such thing as time. Furthermore if there is no time, then how can it wind down, run out. End.

It cannot end because it has never begun and if has never begun for that reason. Cannot exist.

What is the weight of your dreams? Are they real or an illusion?

Sleep on that one. Chaps.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Upon an infinite feather mattress no less Lateral.

[Shadowwolf]

Then again, it all changes when you have to take into account what environment your infinite numbers of bricks or feathers are travelling off to infinity in.

One where weight is inconsequential.
The vacuum of space, water, for example.

Therefore, if there is no weight to anything then nothing can travel to infinity because there is no infinity, because there is no weight to anything and so does not exist.

Consequently, if there is no infinity, then there is no such thing as time. Furthermore if there is no time, then how can it wind down, run out. End.

It cannot end because it has never begun and if has never begun for that reason. Cannot exist.

What is the weight of your dreams? Are they real or an illusion?

And that kids is what a complete absence of logic looks like

[Lateralman]

I shall try again, Mr Spock.

“Time. A point in space measured by the interval between the events.”

If the dictionary statement above is correct then there can be no such thing as infinity as it impossible to measure by time, because there is no measurable interval between the events as it is supposedly limitless.

Therefore, if it is impossible to measure, by time, then time and infinity cannot exist and if time does not exist then it cannot stop or run out. Otherwise, the above statement is wrong when applied to infinity.

We have discussed this before. There is no past, no future, there is only ‘now.’

It is our 'now' that can stop.

Illogical or logical?