Heh, I was all about to start a thread about time, and here you have one already. Maybe in the future I told Satya to start it.
I don’t think time is linear, I think time is a point. But a very dynamic one.
I heard an idea about time that really resonated with me, and it goes like this: Time doesn’t exist, because the past only exists in memory, and the future is only prediction, based on memory. So the only thing that exists is the present.
That totally makes sense to me. No past, no future (kind of depressing thought, but anyway), just the present moment. Then I started wondering why it
seems like there’s time, and I came to the conclusion that it must be our mind’s way of dealing with change. Even if the only thing that exists is the present moment, things are obviously changing. Your eyes are changing position as you read this. So what we perceive as the passage of time is only our mind’s capacity for processing the rate of change of the present moment.
Which makes all those times when time seemed to either speed up or slow down make sense, because all that was really happening was that your mind was changing the way it perceived change, while the true rate of change of the universe remained constant.
I think time is linear, but it contains cyclical patterns, especially if our universe is a Cyclical Model. Time began with the Big Bang, and therefore at one point there was no time at all. But if we had a Big Crunch, then we had a few billion years of time before our current universe began, and the matter involved was the same. So time is linear in repetitive segments. But then, the physical laws of the universe might change with every successive Big Bang, so time travel might have been perfectly normal the last time around. Who knows? It might have been its own spatial dimension back then.
Definitely cyclical patterns, but what if that humongous cyclical pulsing pattern of Big Bang to Big Crunch is happening in a single moment that never had or will have "time," and the only reason we think it takes billions of years (linearly) is because that's all we're capable of sensing about the rate of change of the universe?
As far as whether or not the physical laws of the universe will change in the next go round, eh, I don't know. When I originally read that I thought about evolution and thought: of course,
some kind of evolution must occur between iterations. But for there to be evolution, something has to be carried over. And if all the matter of the universe is getting crunched down into a singularity, I don't really think it's going to be able to carry anything into the next iteration. To me that leaves the question of consciousness. What happens to consciousness at the point of transition between iterations? Can some kind of consciousness survive? If so, then yeah, the laws of physics might change, and in a sort of progressive, pattern based way. But if not... well, maybe they
will change due to random circumstances, but at a basic level, doesn't physics try to describe interactions between
physical matter? And if all the matter is the same iteration to iteration, how can we expect it to suddenly behave differently towards itself?