Re: religion

Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1136900927.606227.97620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... 
>
>     I think there are some very large conceptual problems with a volume of
> space without time surrounded by a volume of space *with* time.

Sorry Oliver, I did not mean a volume of space without time existing in
a volume of space with time. What I was thinking of was a universe
without time. Sorry, my sloppy use of English.


> First, let's
> assume a discrete change from time-ness to timeless-ness, and a well defin
ed
> border between the two regions of space. Any matter (e.g. the atoms that
> make up the matter that composes the organism) attempting to enter the
> region would be unable to do so, because to do so would change the content
s
> of space at that point, and change implies the existence of time. So if th
at
> point of timeless space had matter, that matter could never be moved, and 
so
> you could never, for example, push that matter aside to insert your finger
.
> If that point contaiend empty space, that empty space could never be fille
d.
> So what would happen if you tried to touch this empty space? Would you fee
l
> something pushing back to stop you? It seems to simply not make sense.

Aside from my comment above, there is the belief in science that some
parts of the universe are bubbles of space running at different rates
of time compared to our local space. I think that was one of the
explanations for our being able to see parts of the universe purporting
to be older than the universe or at least outside of our light cone
(sorry but we are reaching the limits of my knowledge).

As to borders around such bubbles of space, I think it unlikely that
there would be a rigid defined border, rather a gradient and that
probably compressed in the direction of travel. A gradient would be
passable. But that is academic as I am happy living in three
dimensions.

>
>     A more "realistic" situation would be a continuous transition between
> time and timelessness. For example, well outside the boundaries of the
> timeless space region, time progresses "normally", but as we approach, tim
e
> seems to progress more and more slowly, until at some point it the
> progression of time reaches zero, and we are in the timeless-region of
> space. Like Zeno's paradox, an organism trying to enter this region of
> timeless-ness could always get closer, but never actually reach that point.[/color
]

I wonder what would happen to Zeno's paradox if time does not exist?
Perhaps the hare would race past the tortoise with ease?

>
>     Isn't this what is thought to happen near a black hole anyway?

I always thought that it was the observers' perception of the falling
object that it perpetually falls in to the hole but never quite gets to
the event horizon. I think that the object does fall in and at
increasing speed.


If time does not exist, could I argue that speed limits have no meaning
in law?

>
>     - Oliver