4 ms·
The way I understand it, time is defined in terms of entropy- the points in the space of configurations of the universe adjacent to ours are all possible, but t
by fallingfrog 4y ago
The way I understand it, time is defined in terms of entropy- the points in the space of configurations of the universe adjacent to ours are all possible, but the ones that are most likely are all possible future points and the ones that are least likely are points in the past. Entropy is always increasing, on the macro scale. (The past, like the future, is uncertain and there could be many past states leading to this point.)
But, in the early early universe, all the configurations are equally likely, or rather there are no points any more unlikely, so there is no past, every direction is the future.
That’s not very precise but basically as I understand it that’s why there is no earliest moment.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoYes but it wouldn’t matter because for us it’s strictly equivalent to experiencing time linearly. That’s the epistemological limit of science. Physics don’t concern itself with truth, only empirical evidence and models. That’s also why for all his brillance John C. Matter is very wrong here. "[…] we have no equations that show how true nothingness turns into somethingness. So, since the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form." is a conclusion which doesn’t follow from its premise. We just have no idea and no way to test anything.