Time: Finite or infinite? (and other related topics), What are your thoughts on time? Options

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

Recently, I was involved in a heavy discussion with a few people regarding one of Zeno's famous paradoxes, generally referred to as "The Dichotomy Paradox." Simply put, if one wants to travel from any one point to another, he must first travel half of that distance, and then half of that distance, and then half of that distance, and so on and so forth, infinitely. However, it is an axiom that it is impossible to do an infinite amount of things in a finite amount of time. Therefore, logically, we can never reach the second point. In fact, if you were to reverse the logic on it as well, we would never even be able to move from where we are standing.
This is where my theory comes into play. In a universe where time is infinite, we would logically never reach that point. However, seeing as in the real world, we do reach the door, the main factor that is different is motion. In an infinite universe, the paradoxical idea that we would never even be able to move would hold true; we would literally never move in an infinite universe, as motion would cease to exist. However, since there is such thing as time, it allows for motion.
One way to relate the two is using speed. We know the formula s=d/t, speed equals distance divided by time. You can never divide a number by 0 or infinite. Therefore, if the time were 0 or infinite, you would have no speed or no distance, you would have simply nothing. However, as soon as you throw in a real number, it makes the equation possible, bringing about the effects of motion.

What I'm saying is, the dichotomy paradox is actually proof that time and motion exist because of each other. If you take away all motion, time ceases to exist. If you take away all time, motion ceases to exist.

Anyone disagree?

Also, I was in heavy thinking mode yesterday after everyone left, and my roommate and I were kind of hanging out and chatting. We were going over some of the stuff we talked about, and I jotted down a few ideas...here's what I came up with.

---
Assume time is finite.
Then, time started at some point.
Logically, time has to end if it is finite.
Then, if time ends, everything ceases to exist, because motion is dependent upon time.
If time is finite, then before it began, there was no time, therefore there was no motion.
By no motion, I mean absolute absence of motion. Not a single molecule would move, ever.
The slightest move would create time.
Since time began, there must have been a cause for the disturbance of molecules.
There was some motion that was created, since objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon.

(If time=0 or time=infinite, then nothing could move; s=d/t, and nothing can be divided by
0 or infinite. Therefore, before time, when time=0, nothing was in motion).
Time is finite, because if time ceases to exist, then everything ceases to exist.
Time can never reach infinite, yet it is always approaching it.
Therefore, it is, paradoxically infinite.
If time were to end, then it would, per se, become infinite, which is logically impossible.
Therefore, time will always be, and always was, yet is not infinite.
----

Any different opinions?
This is a subject I've been really interested in as of lately after picking up "Achilles in the Quantum Universe -- the Definitive History of Infinity," a book by Richard Morris. I would like to get some feedback and possible analysis of my theories, and maybe someone could try to point out some flaws.

[*mipadi*]

There are two premises you have that are incorrect, which lead to some weird conclusions.

One, you can divide by infinity. Generally, dividing by infinity yields 0. Which makes sense—if you take an infinite amount of time to move a distance, you are essentially not moving at all.

Secondly, the "solution", if you will, to the Dichotomy Paradox lies in calculus—specifically, series. The distance is essentially just an infinite sum. However, there are finite answers to infinite sums. Remember that as you halve the distance, you are halving the amount of time that it takes to move that distance; so as the distance approaches 0, so, too, does the amount of time to move that distance. Long story short, though, a distance—or an infinite series of distances—can have a finite answer. (It's pretty crazy stuff, I admit. Calculus is a pretty wild branch of mathematics.)

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

One, you can divide by infinity. Generally, dividing by infinity yields 0. Which makes sense—if you take an infinite amount of time to move a distance, you are essentially not moving at all.

So by that logic, if you are to divide anything by 0, you will get infinite?

If that were the case, then using the simple equation, speed equals distance over time, then in zero amount of time (as in, at any given moment) an object would have to have an infinite amount of speed.

[*mipadi*]

So by that logic, if you are to divide anything by 0, you will get infinite?

No. Dividing by 0 is undefined. So anything divided by 0 is undefined. Look at it this way: when you say "12 divided by 6 equals 2", what you're saying is that six times 2 equals 12. But when you say "12 divided by 0", what are you saying? 0 times what equals 12? Well, 0 times no number equals 12—there is not a number that satisfies that equation. In fact, not even infinity satisfies that equation (infinity times 0 is also undefined, actually).

Keep in mind that infinity is not a number per se. It doesn't behave like a number. For example, 2 plus 2 is 4, but infinity plus infinity is still infinity. Infinity times infinity is still infinity. Infinity divided by any number other than 0 is infinity. (Of course, infinity divided by 0, or infinity divided by infinity, is undefined.) It's complicated, but the key is that infinity is not really a number, so the normal rules of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division don't apply to infinity.

If that were the case, then using the simple equation, speed equals distance over time, then in zero amount of time (as in, at any given moment) an object would have to have an infinite amount of speed.

This statement is also based heavily on calculus, and relies very much on the concept of limits. But it is, of course, possible to calculate the speed of an object at a specific moment in time, using the concept of limits.

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

No. Dividing by 0 is undefined. So anything divided by 0 is undefined. Look at it this way: when you say "12 divided by 6 equals 2", what you're saying is that six times 2 equals 12. But when you say "12 divided by 0", what are you saying? 0 times what equals 12? Well, 0 times no number equals 12—there is not a number that satisfies that equation. In fact, not even infinity satisfies that equation (infinity times 0 is also undefined, actually).

Keep in mind that infinity is not a number per se. It doesn't behave like a number. For example, 2 plus 2 is 4, but infinity plus infinity is still infinity. Infinity times infinity is still infinity. Infinity divided by any number other than 0 is infinity. (Of course, infinity divided by 0, or infinity divided by infinity, is undefined.) It's complicated, but the key is that infinity is not really a number, so the normal rules of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division don't apply to infinity.
This statement is also based heavily on calculus, and relies very much on the concept of limits. But it is, of course, possible to calculate the speed of an object at a specific moment in time, using the concept of limits.

You stated that dividing anything by infinity gives you zero.
However, you also stated infinity is not a number per se.
How can you divide any number by a non-number?

Also, if you look at it the way you pointed out -- 12 divided by 6 equals 2, then it goes to show that obviously 2 times 6 equals twelve. This holds true for any set of real numbers. Why will this not hold true for, say, 0 equals 9 divided by infinite? Would it not logically make sense that 9 equals 0 times infinity?
Exactly what quality changes that would make it not true?

[*mipadi*]

You stated that dividing anything by infinity gives you zero.
However, you also stated infinity is not a number per se.
How can you divide any number by a non-number?

Infinity is not a number in that it doesn't display the normal properties of a number. For example, x + x = 2x. But the statement "infinity plus infinity equals two infinity" is not true, because infinity is not a number.

However, you can still do operations involving infinity. You can still add, subtract, multiply, and divide infinity—you just don't get an answer that uses the same rules as other numbers. For instance, 6 times 2 equals 12; but 6 times infinity does not equal 6 infinity, it merely equals infinity. Thus, you can divide by infinity, and the answer is 0.

Also, if you look at it the way you pointed out -- 12 divided by 6 equals 2, then it goes to show that obviously 2 times 6 equals twelve. This holds true for any set of real numbers. Why will this not hold true for, say, 0 equals 9 divided by infinite? Would it not logically make sense that 9 equals 0 times infinity?
Exactly what quality changes that would make it not true?

It would seem to, but again, you can't generally reverse operations when dealing with infinity. They don't unwind properly. There's actually a pretty complicated mathematical proof showing why this is true; unfortunately, I study applied mathematics, not theoretical mathematics, so I'm not the best person to demonstrate and explain such a proof. But when dealing with infinity, there are simply some properties that are used; two of the properties of infinity are "any real number divided by infinity is 0" and "0 times infinity is undefined".

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

Alright, I guess that makes sense.
Anyways, back to the heart of the issue.

What I'm saying is, the dichotomy paradox is actually proof that time and motion exist because of each other. If you take away all motion, time ceases to exist. If you take away all time, motion ceases to exist.

Make sense?

Also...If the universe is infinite in time, then the same would hold true: since dividing by infinity, as you stated, results in 0, then no motion would exist if time were infinite. (Then it would follow that a universe of infinite time is a universe where time cannot exist, since motion does not exist.) Therefore, we must logically live in a universe where time is finite. If time is finite, then it must end at some point. When time ends, motion ends. This means the universe becomes infinite in time. However, a requirement for time to be infinite is that it has no beginning. Therefore, it can never become infinite. Which means time will always approach infinite (the end of time), but never actually reach it. Same with the beginning; if it began, then before that, it was infinite, which is impossible. Therefore, time is finite, and has always existed, and always will.
Going off on a tangent, this would mean that time never began, which means God did not create time. This means either a) The Bible lied, and God did not create time, or B) God flat out does not exist. Assuming all the mumbo-jumbo that led up to time always existing is true, then one of those (or both) has to be true.

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

wow. this is confusing.
but i think that time is infinite
nonetheless

[*RiC3xBoy*]

Just a thought, what exactly is Time?

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

wow. this is confusing.
but i think that time is infinite
nonetheless

What exactly makes you think that?

Just a thought, what exactly is Time?

The definition of time is very controversial. I'm referring to time as used to quantify the perpetuation of events and the periods between them.

Like such measurements as space and mass, time is a fundamental quantity; It cannot be described by other quantities, because it is the most rudamentary measurement known. Therefore, time is defined by measurement.

In Zeno's paradox, we're looking at time as an entity that continues to flow at a definited rate whether we exist to see it or not (by we, I mean humans; I don't refer to the existence of all matter in the universe.). What I'm trying to get at is that once you take away that measurement of time, then there is no way objects could move, because it takes time to move a certain distance.

[*mipadi*]

Also...If the universe is infinite in time, then the same would hold true: since dividing by infinity, as you stated, results in 0, then no motion would exist if time were infinite. (Then it would follow that a universe of infinite time is a universe where time cannot exist, since motion does not exist.)

I think there is an error in your thinking. You're looking at time and motion as grand, all-encompassing concepts, but they're not necessarily. Even if time is infinite, we can still break it up into finite parts; and motion isn't continuous and all-encompassing, so it, too, can be broken up into smaller parts. Time may be infinite, but it still only takes a finite amount of time for me to move from point A to point B. The fact that I can theoretically do that infinitely many times does not mean that each instance takes an infinite amount of time just because time itself is infinite.

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

(Don't think the topic has died, I'm still working on a solid argument. I've just been a little lazy about it. I think it's almost done.)

[*mipadi*]

Well, that's good. It's a nice change of pace from the countless religious debates.

[illriginal]

Time is infinite... just because humans define time by using the sun/moon doesn't mean it should be limited. The universe is infinite alone... you would have to use light speed and travel in "light years" in order to get anywhere far just within our solar system.

Oh by the way... I discovered how to travel to the future, unless there's already a discovery of it. Lets just say one would have to travel around the world faster than time. Such as traveling the world in 1 hour instead of taking 24 hours. Imagine traveling around the world 365 times in one hour? That means it only took 1 hour of your life to travel 1 year into the future.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

Oh by the way... I discovered how to travel to the future, unless there's already a discovery of it. Lets just say one would have to travel around the world faster than time. Such as traveling the world in 1 hour instead of taking 24 hours. Imagine traveling around the world 365 times in one hour? That means it only took 1 hour of your life to travel 1 year into the future.

Wouldn't that lead you into the past?

And I don't really get it. Just 'cause you travel around the world 365 times doesn't mean you go 1 year into the future.

I've Googled it and found nothing.
I've even consulted my annoying 12-year-old genus brother who can explain the basics of string theories and quantum physics in 10 minutes. He said that your theory is impossible.

I'll have him explain why if you need an explanation..

[illriginal]

Actually, I'd like to know his explaination of the String Theory and Quantum physics.

And also explain how this theory is impossible.

Traveling faster than the speed of day or 24 hours around the world would make you travel into the future. If you travel from california all the way around the world back to california in 1 hour instead of 24 hours or longer everyone else will be 23+ hours behind you. Because you went faster than what the sunrised and sunsetted (is that a word?) and rised again.


Time only travels forward, never backwards... traveling into the past is impossible.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

I have to explain it later. He's locked up in his room playing Xbox 360..
And if you want a lecture on the basics of string theories and quantum physics, you'll have to do that by phone because I seriously doubt that he can type that fast.

But I seriously doubt that your theory is possible. I mean, maybe it'll slow time down, but it won't let you travel into the future!

I mean, just because you are traveling faster than the speed of day, doesn't mean you can travel into the future..

And besides, to do that, you'd have to travel at the speed of light or faster. Which is impossible, and probably will be for a few centuries.

[illriginal]

And besides, to do that, you'd have to travel at the speed of light or faster. Which is impossible, and probably will be for a few centuries.

That my friend is true... it's impossible, the G-force alone would probably knock the craft right out of Earth's Atmosphere.

By the way, I do have knowledge on String theories and 11 dimensions lol don't worry :)

[*mipadi*]

Traveling faster than the speed of day or 24 hours around the world would make you travel into the future. If you travel from california all the way around the world back to california in 1 hour instead of 24 hours or longer everyone else will be 23+ hours behind you. Because you went faster than what the sunrised and sunsetted (is that a word?) and rised again.

If I start in California and take one hour to travel around the world back to California, I didn't travel into the future; I just traveled approximately 25,000 miles an hour. So if I start at 12 AM, I arrive back in California at 1 AM, and it's still 1 AM for everyone else, too.

[illriginal]

Yeah I dunno why I used that as an example with california.

And for some reason I have a brain fart, basically speaking the way to travel to the future is to go faster than the hands of time.

LOL I need compare my ideologies with my buddy again just to jog my memory... this time I'll write everything down lol

[HiTheyCallMejOsh]

No no no!
Time is completely irrelevant. Time is continuous; one hour is one hour. If you want to 'travel ahead in time', as one would call it, you must change your speed; that is, approach the speed of light. The closer you are to the speed of light, the further ahead you will 'advance in time'. This is not literally because time is moving faster, but because you are literally making light....well....you're not really making time slow down, but it's just not catching up to you, in a sense.

Picture this.

Imagine we can travel at 20 light years in one second. In case you aren't sure what a light year is, it is the distance light travels in one year. In the case I am presenting, it would be the distance light travels in 20 years.

Remember; light is a moving thing. It moves at (I haven't checked, and I don't intend to give an exact amount, as it's pretty irrelevant.) roughly 186,000 miles every second. Like I said, this is not an exact amount, it's somewhere up there. Because it moves so fast and is everywhere, we generally do not think of it as moving; it is just light.

Now think about it.
Say we start at Earth.
We travel that 20 light years in one second.
The light from the Earth is literally 20 years behind us.
When we look at the Earth, we are seeing the light from the Earth, 20 years ago. We aren't literally in the future 20 years; we are just seeing the light from Earth 20 years ago. By travelling at higher speeds, we are not literally travelling back in time, but we are literally just "seeing" the past because the light has not caught up to us. But to travel back to that location you started would mean to catch up to that light, and you would no longer 'see the past,' if you will. Therefore, we will never move back in time.

However, I have heard some weird theories on time when approaching the speed of light. I can't really go into detail on that.

[*RubeTheCube*]

The closer you are to the speed of light, the further ahead you will 'advance in time'. This is not literally because time is moving faster, but because you are literally making light....well....you're not really making time slow down, but it's just not catching up to you, in a sense.

From what I understand, it isn't about leaving light behind at all. In fact, exceeding the speed of light is considered by physicists to be impossible, not because it is really effing fast, but because the force required to do so would have to be infinite, according to Einstein's special relativity.

The idea of going forward in time when approaching light speed is from observations made at a particle accelerator (as far as I remember). Basically, a certain particle was observed to decay slower when fired at really high speeds, so it is assumed that time goes slower for the particle but the same speed for everything else around it so the particle is essentially going forward in time.
I just googled it and there is a nice site that explains this stuff much better than I do :P
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Also...If the universe is infinite in time, then the same would hold true: since dividing by infinity, as you stated, results in 0, then no motion would exist if time were infinite. (Then it would follow that a universe of infinite time is a universe where time cannot exist, since motion does not exist.)

I think there is an error in your thinking. You're looking at time and motion as grand, all-encompassing concepts, but they're not necessarily. Even if time is infinite, we can still break it up into finite parts; and motion isn't continuous and all-encompassing, so it, too, can be broken up into smaller parts. Time may be infinite, but it still only takes a finite amount of time for me to move from point A to point B. The fact that I can theoretically do that infinitely many times does not mean that each instance takes an infinite amount of time just because time itself is infinite.

Something that should be mentioned here is that while in all practicality dividing any finite quantity by infinity yields zero, it theoretically is not QUITE zero. No matter how large the number is by which something is divided, there will always be a finite quotient, albeit infinitesimal. While this infinitesimal quantity is always approaching zero, in theory it would never reach 0.

Going back to Josh's logic as quoted above, motion could exist because, even though it is zero in relation to the vastness of the universe, it still is a real quantity.