Let this be a constant reminder... drugs are bad mmmkay

:p

My interpretation of time; is that it is the fourth dimension. According to the extent of our scientific knowledge; all dimensions and everything we know that exists is within the context of the big bang.

Therefore the beginning and end of time would be within that context.

It is currently believed that the universe is expanding due to the big bang; but the expansion is slowing and eventually will begin contracting back into singularity. Conceptually; at that point; none of the 4 dimensions we know about would exist at that point; but no one knows for sure.

time doesn't extend infinitely into the past. the universe is only 14 billion years old. but i guess from the point of view of human history, that's really the same as eternity.

NERD ALERT

not to nitpick code, but the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing, and according to the best science we have today, it will not collapse again into a singularity.

From a human point of view this universe is of limited age.

If we accept the big bang to be caused by something, there has to be this cause prior to it - maybe this form of universe it a periodic happening, expanding, ending (one way or the other)...

Happy metaphysics and religion gossiping :-))

I don't really follow how saying that something is infinite equates to it not existing at all. If I imagine an infinite line that never ends in either direction, I can still move along it relative to other points in space. If I imagine an infinite 3 dimensional spatial universe, the same would apply--I can still move in relation to other things, even if I'm not getting closer to the "edge" of the universe.

You perceive time, just as you perceive the three spatial dimensions. You experience moving through space, and perceive your place in it relative to other things, just as you move through time and perceive the current time, relative to other points in time. Although you cannot as easily control your movement through time, you nevertheless perceive your movement through it.

If you accept that, then I think your arguments are irrelevant, at least for most practical purposes. Saying that something doesn't exist because it does not have boundaries seems rather nonsensical to me.

Now, when you say time is not passing, I could buy that--but that's just a matter of perspective. More accurately, I would say you are passing through time, rather than time passing. Saying that time passes is a more self-centered point of view, which implies that you are constant and time is what is changing, when really it's the other way around, in the same way that a point in space doesn't change, though the objects passing through that point do (over time...). Saying that time passes is similar to saying that you don't ever move, but rather the places around you are moving.

bildircin hurmalar kicimi tirmalar

You are right Boogy; apparently after additional research; I found that I was referring to only one of like 15 different theories that scientists have right now.

Some say expand forever; some say eventually collapse to singularity; some say other things. All this stuff I beyond my ability to conclude in any meaningful way. Thanks for the additional information; here is the theory i was talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

my time says 317pm