Re:John C. Mather: “There is no first moment of time” (2017)
by wruza on Monday September 12, 2022 @11:30AM
(#32811838)
Certainly
I certainly have vague ideas about how it works, but it feels like some physicists feel that time is emergent too. Even if not true, consider this thesis: There is no time at all, not before BB, not after. We only “see” our time because it is a consequence of non-euclidity of what we call spacetime, which is otherwise a timeless structure in which one could recognize “entropy” vectors. Then our emergent time could not exist before BB. And when you apply “exist” or any other temporal tense to that structure as a whole, it’s just a semantic error.
I certainly have vague ideas about how it works, but it feels like some physicists feel that time is emergent too. Even if not true, consider this thesis: There is no time at all, not before BB, not after. We only “see” our time because it is a consequence of non-euclidity of what we call spacetime, which is otherwise a timeless structure in which one could recognize “entropy” vectors. Then our emergent time could not exist before BB. And when you apply “exist” or any other temporal tense to that structure as a whole, it’s just a semantic error.