Time in quantum cosmology

0:00 There are also a number of fields of study, such as mathematics, geometry, algebra, mathematics, physics, and mathematics. Is at least as much a mathematician and a philosopher as a physicist. Certainly I know that the way he actually approaches the problems that arise, for example, about time, the context of time, are very passionate of a better person. I should say something about the theme of science. It's not a question that I'm going to take very, very seriously. As such, of course, there is a lot of support for this activity in science, and as such, it's incredible and, therefore, quite unbelievable. There's a lot of talk about the power of engineering philosophy, and therefore, also, of course, of course, of course. What I have to do is to produce a gap between them, and unfortunately, it's not totally a bias, but certainly not a belief. I think nonetheless that we have to make that out of the course, I'll tell you. So, I will talk about quantum cosmogenesis, for which I mean the theories and the ideas and speculations about the possibility of talking about the very origins of the universe and so on. So, Jarl was talking about what happened after the work, quite shortly after the work, and some of it will actually happen, I suppose. Now obviously there are certain key questions you have to address at the beginning. First of all, what is it that's actually related to what we're talking about? Normally there are two quite distinct possibilities here. One is what we're talking about is origins of the creation of the map, then something previously placed in time.

2:30 I'll talk about that later. Another is that time and space themselves are in some way related to that kind of origin. In the latter case, from the mathematical alphabet, what does it do with me? Because, talking about the argument of time, it's a process that's going to be complicated to learn. And in particular, it's fairly clear, whatever mathematics we may or may not mean by the creation of time, it's very unlikely to meet the intent of the process of discussing mathematics in the later world. In itself, it's obviously complicated to learn, so we'll talk about the creation of time. It's how long it can take. So, while I'm talking about the creation of time or the origin of time as a temporal process, it's in many ways more appropriate to think about what might call the logical reality of time, that is to say, the origin of time and the logical reality of time. But if I'm just going to write about what I want to talk about in this slide here, there are one basic question which comes out right from the beginning. And that said, do we expect, or do we believe, that the concept of time is in fact a fundamental one, and fit over all conceivable experiences, all conceivable possible behaviors in the universe, in life, in shape, and growth, either experimentally or theoretically? Or, is it more like the concept of pressure and temperature? Now, the notion of pressure is one that's absolutely perfectly valid. Gas, oxygen, gas, the size of the room. Of course, we know that the concept of pressure is very meaningful. But we also know that it exists. Of course, commonplace that we're going to add to physics is that if you study small and small distances, what happens is that eventually, of course, we lose the basis of pressure, and the gas is more on the side of the gas. And instead, you can see the big hub bouncing off. At that point, the concept of pressure simply becomes a problem. Now, that doesn't mean that the idea of pressure is wrong. Of course, it's something that's right in the sense, really, that we have to give it from here, and that particular space, and then use the space as a place. The question I'm really asking about time is not is our current concept of time wrong in some deep sense, as it is, but is it possible that it has to change, and maybe some of the main of our study of the universe, where our current concept of time has more or less pressure on it than it could in a significant way. The problem with this is you can't win with it because you find it too important to you, because if this is the case, and if time in fact isn't much more important than it is, then the question completely arises, well, can the normal system sort of jump and solve the problem? Normal physics doesn't have that sort of physics. On the other hand, if time is not in fact, then why should we expect it to be confused with language physics anyway, because again, it doesn't have that sort of time.

5:00 So either way around, we don't know how much it turns out to be, but if we want to say that time is a basic concept or not, there come to be some immediate problems about the restraints of language physics. So, these are the first sort of general questions you have to ask. And the second question, which I think has already appeared in some of the comments from the other girls, is, well, are such students genuine scientists? And this is a very good question, and it's not so obvious to me what the answer to this is. I'll tell you, what Giles does is certainly genuine science. He couldn't hide that he was more grateful for it, and he certainly wasn't. So, if they are genuine scientists, are they actually legal? And if you actually believe a bit of what I'm about to tell you, I'd recommend you go back to your suppositions of how you've done these funny things. And if not, if you decide, and you may well do, that what can academic physicists do in this domain to keep the unbelievable science, why can't they do anything they're doing? Are they, in effect, just doing some other creative work? Is that what they're saying? Is this the talent, at the end of this century, working out the same old deep-seated human need to construct this about other people? I believe the answer is yes to that question. Of course, there's the R.A.E. I'm trying to say it. Now, just to get it out of the way, time is certainly a fascination project. Let me start off with that fascination. First of all, it's really interesting memory. It is par excellence that one thing has been absolutely gotten clear, that the great interest, quite across the whole field of human development, is clearly an effect of dialectical physics, which is obviously of interest to philosophers, but of course to scientists too, partly because the approach of T.S. Eliot has been an ode to the perception of time as a digital reason. Music, art, psychology, theology, all of these areas are branches of human studies which have been given to them by the use of time. Of course time is peculiar and... I make no excuse for keeping the famous Augustine quote, many of you have seen it before, but it's such a good quote that it's the only time in the history of the Church that one has ever guessed that.

7:30 I don't even know if Richard should say it. It is it. So here's Augustine's remark on time. He says, what then is quote? Well, if no one asked me, I'd know it, obviously. If I want to explain it to a question, I do not know it. But anyway, if I dare affirm it, if nothing passed, there'd be no past time. If nothing were approaching, there'd be no future time. And if that would work, there would be no present time. There's a wonderful paragon of that. It's a particularly interesting one in terms of how important it is. It's a wonderful paragon, and you can use it in fact as a sort of open point. It's a very open point. It's a very open point. It's a very open point. It's a very open point. It's a very open point. It's a very open point. I mean, space may also probably, I mean, when I was a student, I used to sit in the outer hall of some kind of concert, and the outer hall was a very classic place, and I was sitting as I was, right along my way from the student, and the orchestra was down there in the living room, and I used to think, what's in between that and me? It's late to ask a number of people, there's nothing in between, and there's the orchestra, and I used to worry about it. I used to wake up in the middle of the night and worry about it. But nevertheless... I don't want to get into existential angst, but the time is different, and we always worry about that, but we do try to genuinely protect it, even if we spend all that time writing equations about it, because it's too hard. And the second thing, which is actually rather important in mathematics, is that we've never seen a place for the notion of ordering and the notion of cosine, and these are two different aspects of the whole thing. Ordering is the idea of one thing coming from another, that's obviously what that means, and clearly this is part of our view of spiritual science. But also, as we know, there is more than just the ordering of things, there is also the actual process, where living is part of it. And also, I think we can say that Augustine is conscious about it. But either of them was trying to create, in many ways, the churches and the Christian churches, which is a primitive, big obstacle to the matrix, but really an opposition to the Gnostic schools, which were hardly working in those days, and so many different aspects of the time altogether.

10:00 I thought I'd start off actually by giving you an alternative picture of the audience's time, of how the scientists talked about the equation, which I've worked on for the rest of the evening. Now, one of the big advances in geometry... He works in the branches of political physics. It's wonderful to be here today. In fact, Augustine was fully aware that we should see re-appear among the scientists. It's quite fantastic, because I'm going to use the old line here and the past. Here's the lip. Zodiac is the primordial entity being. Therefore, he or she exists in itself, totes of itself, without any space or time. After a while, he or she gets a bit lonely, thinks, I'm about to create something. The question is, how would the ultimate God create something? Well, if you were a subaltern of God, you might make sacrifices to the ultimate God. You could go out with a big cheese and have no option but to sacrifice to yourself. But Zerbanum is a sacrifice to himself. And as a result of these sacrifices, something starts to be formed which is other than itself. Well thought through, this is the absolute tip of the muscle. You suddenly think, is this going to work? I can't waste any more time. And in that moment of doubt, because he's a God, This is the power of doubt, something that arises from that doubt, which itself is in total opposition to what religion is trying to create. This is the power of evil. So this is this particular ancient Russian explanation why you get the word evil. The evil power comes about with itself doubt. Now, both powers of the big and the big are supposed to be essentially the dual brothers, but they're not the dual brothers, they're not the two powers of the big.

12:30 So Zerban, like all of these gods, is a fair god. It has to admit, well, actually it's his fault that the evil power came into being, he can't just wipe him out. So the evil power has to be given the possibility of the good power, which is others are overcoming, and to do that has to create power. So in this pathology, time is created purely and simply as a means whereby this bi-phonal split, which is harmony in the original creation, can be remedied and restored by quantum physics. Now as a classic Gnostic fit, I might be more interested in this than Gnostic very much, to explain the origin of all of evil, and also why we think time is so not even valuable to do these kinds of things. And that's what Augustine is fighting against, that the end of Gnostic is a way of spotting the theme about the badness of time. Because what could other physicists say about that? Well, you can tell me if you want to hear it. So that's my prediction in terms of that sort of thing. So, let me go back to the general question then about what are spaces of time. Just one thing which is clearly true is that we are really going to talk about the origin of the universe. Really, of course, we have to look at spaces of time and places of time. Well, what can we say about what are spaces of time? There are three main ways in the West in which we have perceived or thought about the nature of space and time. The first one is the psychological objective. The idea is that space and time are not in fact outsiders at all, although we think they are. We are responsible for some way for space and time, not the elements themselves. Of course, Kant is the person who simulates this. He has been able to draw out the nature of space and time. They are the necessary part of the philosophy of which we have to see the truth, and nothing can do about it. Now in our own time, Jorn and I, and I have to admit I'm a great fan of Jorn's, I think, because what will I do at the end? Jorn picked up this thesis in her own sense of the word, and thought it was great to hear about it afterwards, and I wonder what they would have meant by that, because space and time have got limited in some ways, and we have a constant project into the point, and that's much to do, or much to reflect on our own inner science and our own world itself. In fact, Jorn regards himself to a greater sense of the analog of chemistry. There are several places that I've been modest-joking on that I have to say. Well, I think it's great that I wrote it, actually, because I'm trying to bring it to the present-century, and now that it is, and place it in a psychological context. Of course, it's a game I love, it's a game of words. I actually take this quite seriously. But again, as far as the R.E.D. is concerned, I don't think that it's by far the truth of it.

15:00 One of the two scientific pieces that I've told you about is that one says that space and time are in some way substituted in our understanding of the universe. First of all, it's a fair approach anyway, and the second is that they have somewhat of opposite opinions. Now, these are two opposite spectrums, and they both play a key role in quantum physics. And I would say that quantum physics oscillates very uneasily between the two, and that might be why we decided to let go. So, some systems are overriding. Well, I suppose the classic example of that is Newtonian space. Space and time pre-existed, as it were, now come from there. So, I was just looking at that organism in the middle of the article. There really wasn't, in a sense, something between me and the organism. It was in the space. So, that's where that comes from. So, a slightly more conceptual example, I would expect, is to say all this means is that spatio-recentral categories of C-phase and N-phase may have some ontological primacy. So if you want to talk about the universe as a whole, you must first of all sort out your space and temporal parameters. Then you sort out your material parameters. And that's what's implied, I would say, by this particular quote. And in fact, you see this happen in theoretical physics as well. The first physicist who came to follow this line was thinking about space and time first. And then he got rid of some of these. So it's very common to tell you that space is a big container of things. It's a big box, a big bag, a big box full of things. And in thinking, of course, this implies that the moment of empty space is perfectly mean. So if you put me out before, and you move the orchestra, and you move your seats, and you move anything else one by one, there'll still be empty space. Now, I've stood against that, which is that space is, when I'm having a time of really, the top of a certain thing. Now, this is, you might, relationally, you might get a certain view of space, which might be the first one. For example, time helps the opinion itself. It's a sequence of events, so you don't even prevent the events. The events are what's really there. Time is simply a collection of events, not the whole conversation.

17:30 Yes, Hurt and Schwann suggest a process to get to the point. There was a famous footnote in one of the white cases, I think it's called the White Supplement, he has a footnote which says that philosophy since the last two and a half thousand years has nothing to do with the series of footnotes. What it seems to me that to be the answer to that is that, despite his aberration, the whole of human endeavour, the whole of that human cultural and personal experience has been hacked with the playing out of mathematics and mathematical physics. I've even seen it when I was in his term, and I said it to him as a colleague or a colleague of his, because the plaintiffs, whom I count myself one, are not the Confederates or the Spaniards. We really don't want to take this perspective. So for us, the platonic model of the universe has pre-existing forms in essence. We're all as entirely filled by it. And then there's the Mercury-Constant Helium theory, in the sense that rubbing stuff down here, that individual thing, is really important. I can't believe anybody could believe that for the last hundred years. And that really is what you make of this. And it's actually true that some of the most violent dispassionate practices of all things about selection practice, despite the insult given by the SDLC, have actually rolled back at the mathematicians and saved their difficult experience. At some point, that was a candidate from the left. No, I didn't. No, I'm not. A truly archetypal culture has been taught out by the representatives of the left. In any event, one thing is clear that this was to say that the period of categories precedes those of the right. So if someone at the university wants to try a problem, you've got to get your concept of matter from that music, sort it out first, and then after that, the notion of space and science may get back to you. For example, any view that wants to regard time as being a second concept, like passion, is likely to take this point of view, because then the notion of time is something like 11 denominators attached on top of a more perfect view of time and on what the power of the mind is. So this is a very clear sort of position of good thought. Now, in particular, if there are no fields around, there can't be any space for time. The space that I'm going to depend on for time, there's nothing present in the very, very space of time. It's very particular. Now, as I said before, quantum physics genuinely oscillates, particularly for a big, big gavel, in cosmology and in this area we've talked about.

20:00 There is, I've mentioned the word quantum, if you say this, there's an additional horrendous plot for the mathematical quantum reality. Already there's a very big, I would say, such a much-needed conjuction of the quantum liquid world. And that's the classical thing. In addition, there's a whole mysterious nature of the quantum world. And the thing about these quantum-quantum genesis is that they are trying to put their reality to use at the same time as the quantum thing, so they are trying to use the quantum thing to save some time, so the thing gets about 10,000 times worse. So really, it asks a very big thing to think about these issues. Now, we'll just start to pick out slowly from this some of the more genuine sort of scientific ideas that we can use to build on to construct our theory of quantum genesis. I said that Augustine was very clearly aware of what he was ordering to make of time. You see, it's fairly obvious, I think, that if you're really going to talk about the origin of the universe, I mean, it can't be the same. Of course, it can't be the same in a sense. It means that the reach of that universe over time is enough competition to know that it can really make sense of it. And the reason why people think it's nonsense is because you have the notion of the ordering of general trends. So if there was a condition there, surely there must be one before the positive. What does this notion of ordering come from? Well, interestingly, arguably, it comes from the interesting view of the nature of time. So the fascination with Flora has been very long. I'm trying to show the way in which the ideas have actually embedded themselves in quantum science. And the idea here is that the notion of time is less of a linear type than you actually have. It's more and more the direction of time. All of these things are themselves a reflection perhaps of a philosophical position. It's certainly true of course in the education of today's Christian heritage that time is corrective, that there's the origin of the universe, and then the universe devolves, fulfills what it's supposed to, and then the sun gets its logical head, which is for me. So there's a single one-off thing. Time is time. The universe plays out its course. Now, from a mathematical point of view, we know that the real numbers have exactly the same order in property, they're given a pair of real numbers, which is true for either H, which is Y is less, or Y is greater than H.

22:30 That, of course, exactly captures our instinctive vision of how events are ordered in time, so it's no coincidence that we always have exceptions for the theory of the use of real numbers in property and in time. So here, for example, we are today, maybe yesterday, maybe tomorrow, it might be quite exactly the opposite. Now this should be contrasted with the life of many archetype researchers, in fact, General Lord E. Lewis in general, through his modern hypothesis, which is so possibly a new thesis. It is of course also not confusing, not that this needs a great beginning to read, but the desire to travel in power, which is really, really interesting, to travel in power in the name of ancient civilization. They have a much closer to some type of algebra, but particularly that, there's no sense of history. It's totally opposite to what Christians do today, because nearly half the day, and this was yesterday, it's true that we did most of yesterday, but how many long enough for the coming day to do tomorrow? So the notion of history is bordering certain sense of purpose, and certainly that is sort of the cycle of that. Now, it is sad, I want to be out of time, but it's sad that it's hard to make some reasons. If you like this sort of thing, you can go to a place like Eastern University, which is known for its thermal technology. All of these universities are going around perfect motions of circles and all sorts of stuff. And after a while, they began to get rather weary about this, and the notion of going round and round in circles, rather than being a thesis, but more of a sort of a psychological practice, they made a classic of this. Instead, they put the totality of knowledge into bioethics. And they're very much tied up. So again we're busting spice and date. That's one of the issues, and the other is responsible for developing this analogy, obviously, which will end up with a gallon mark. There's only three of them, so oscillating universes won't go away. And what he says is absolutely right, and the Russians, particularly in the pictures and statistics, won't make it at all. You couldn't have them... They failed, for the better or for the worse, but they don't have a big bang. Subject to some sort of fears for them to make, and whether that's even true is still to be made. They failed them. And so they were almost blind to what they were doing at that time.

25:00 Now, as Jeff says, it's very clear that the mathematical physicists who've come from the West since the time still do the same trick, is to put locks in their own mailboxes. They have to do this, because they don't know anything about physics. But we know that these days, we don't work with this anymore. We think that this is the way to do it. That's what we do have, of course. But the origin of physics, if Brian was religious, the notion of the origin of himself being religious would simply be the eternal eternal. We've heard from the beginning of the time, twice or three years ago, I don't remember what's the term, but of course we have a lot of them, which is related to this. We haven't heard of that, you know, I don't think that's logically, but one thing that's likely to be, let me start now to attract to some of the ideas we've talked about. The first one, Thomas, you've seen this one before. We first met actually at a conference in Africa, organized by a faculty group, talked about exactly these things. It's supposed to be a lot of fun. Sorry. You'd be surprised. It's much easier to go to Graf or work with that than to go to Rachel. So, here is the first place we've talked about. This is the one that played into the time. It was how you go away in time. Now, in this, this is the creation of what? Well, it's the creation in space. So ideas of this type would be to say there exists a pre-existing space and time. As I can see, it's there. And suddenly, at some point, as it were, at some critical point, we've all ensured the continuity was optimally big. So this is created from nothing. We hear nothing here, because there's no thing. And of course, when there's absolutely no space at the time, it's in this empty space, and of course, it seems to be meaningful, I'd say, when that thing is good. So this is no thing. So what we have is a first event in an infinite amount of time. These are, just as with the thyroid gels, musical, space going this way and time going that way. Here's the idea. Now, there's a fairly lively debate to speculate about energy. Energy is a subtle concept. On the far side of it, you can think of it from the third side, and you certainly might think that the universe, what it would be, is actually a matrix of violation and conservation of energy. But there's nothing there whatsoever. It's just empty space. And suddenly the universe is there, which presumably is quite violent. You can't think of it.

27:30 It turns out it's not really true, or at least we're very close to the argument, I'm very close to what you mean by being close to the argument, but all of the positive energy in the universe at the moment is actually balanced out, but the negative gravitational energy has always existed, and the total energy is actually zero. Now it's not exactly great, and I've been involved in a lot of things with this, but it does show you the extreme importance of the notion of gravity. Because gravity is the only force in the world that has its own ability to watch with every pair of objects, whatever they may be, at sea-time and gravitation, and have this negative energy. And then, everything in the sense that its total energy bound to stop to zero. Any other force wouldn't do. And while this is true, and there seems to be some knowledge arising in more modern physics, is that gravity gain is the central key to truth. And that's one of the lessons that we have learned in our term of linguistics. I think that gravity can be the key to truth. Now, what that's been is what you might call demiurgic theory. The idea of the demiurgic is part of work on pre-existing math, sorry, pre-existing form anyway. So, in that sense, if I can draw something from Giles, because he had, I like the combination, but I didn't mention it in the book, but he wrote this part of the math theory. It's really what this means. And in the real sense, this is true, it is true. Then the urgent creation, or may or may not be the creation, is in fact the creation of that. That, as it were, is what's there, I can use the phrase, here, and suddenly what's up there, or the particle, is created on that. And that's obviously what we're going to talk about. So this will be a meditation lesson for you, and I'll pass it to you in writing. It's important to see what you think of it. Thank you. There was something that was, as it were, outside of God, namely the pre-existing potentiality of B, which is the vector of matter and space, which appeared to diminish God's almighty power. And of course, Augustine wouldn't like that. The Greek is quite happy with it, of course, in front of him. But that was his reason for doing it.

30:00 Now that we've pointed out the kinemagia, it's not important what it is. It's still a good thing. It's about them. Keep them away or away from you. If this picture were really good, what could possibly determine the quantity of time between the quantities of space that exist directly between the two places? What it's saying actually explicitly is that there is an infinite amount of math in the past five years or so. And we've had this very, very high amount of math in the infinity of the last 21,000 centuries. And it's been in and through a lot, but it's absolutely true. So if you slide this picture up and you have the math in your face, the math couldn't possibly tell the difference. And therefore no scientific theory, which is right now, could possibly ever actually tell the difference. And that is actually a reflection of what's happening in the world, and that's what's happening. All of these are examples of the way mathematics works, and I don't need to explain this to you, but I've talked about it before in previous lectures as well, and that's something I'd like to talk about. Now, grasping Spain's evolution of it was so much closer to what we would do finally. It's put all of Spain's production of chaos over, and there, nothing was really done, not even sociology, it was totally non-fiction. Now, in reality... And the page for that course was just even inverted commas. So this is an Augustine view, was the creation of nothing but the form of human beings. So the idea was that space and time were themselves created in some way. Now, this is obviously very distant now from the beginning of time, not just the beginning of material events, but that is in and of itself part and parcel of the great universe. And of course this raises the obvious question of what was there beforehand. And the etymosis of the universal time cycle began. You cannot psychologically resist the question of what was there beforehand. And then comes the answer, there or where? The answer is that space was created the same way. There wasn't even any way for it to leave the environment for everybody. So it was a mini-perpetual assumption.

32:30 It was the victims of the peripatetic reference. Now the problem here... This is clearly partly why I'm angry. It is unfortunately true that since we've been in England, we are obliged to use the verb in terms of tense. You see, you can't talk about theology of the universe, except when you use the past tense, you won't be curious. You can talk about theology of the universe in particular terms, and see what's right and what's wrong. And yet, clearly, what we mean by saying it cannot really be the case, is that in some serious sense, we want to talk about theology of the times in terms of the present tense. We need to be tipped, based on the past, to be able to reconcile these two things. So, they can't really be in the sense of before or after the process. And anyway, after this, they've got some kind of a conflict of time that's changed, but it's that one. Now, the thing is, the general denominator of this is that, from a physics perspective, that in order to discover the early universe, you had to look backwards, and you had to do it. And you had to disrupt the world, and then you couldn't see. And as part of it, you can't see at all. It's just too bad that it happens without that. You can't do it. But what's at a conceptual point of view is that the second one applies. We cannot get outside of the universe. So it's not about the beginning of time, what was there before time. It sounds as it is. You can step outside the whole universe and say, ooh, look, there's the universe. Or beforehand. But of course you can't. You're in it. Well, your categories are constructed in it. You have to work in that way. And then there's the key, at the conceptual point of view, what in fact, they don't necessarily do, but they do work in this area, is that they trust those which, in principle, you actually make totally sense of what I say about them. I don't want to say it, I don't want to be mean, but I'll say it, I don't want to challenge the others. They expect them to be constantly making this. They may have a few new tricks and new challenges for themselves. What is that theory to be? They certainly need general relativity. It means we do know that the only branch of physics we know of which actually can talk about space and time is sort of the life of their own. They are not capable of being creative with this general relativity. Special relativity means that it's a space-time system. You want to create spaces, I don't have the time for that. And for whatever reason I was saying, I don't want you to be constantly doing this. You really ought to be able to get all kinds of these questions through, and that's difficult, but I'm just going to pass this on. Now, I'm not, since I always talk about general ideas here, I'm not going to talk about ideas, I'm not going to talk about general relativity, but I'm going to say something about the subject to convey what is out there. Here's a picture of Einstein's planet, about...

35:00 It wasn't very hard, but the piece view of gravity. This is directly related to the point, there's no downside to the problem. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory of gravity. There's also a theory of space and time. Now, I marked five minutes ago that anyway you can see that gravity is going to be important, because it's the only way you can balance the positive and negative to get zero. But now, for a totally different space, which is the only known theory of space and time. Now, it's not a coincidence, I'm sure. It's not that they are on the face of it, it's just that they're on the face of it. Okay, so here's what Einstein said. Einstein's idea was that space and time are not flat, they're curved. So the picture that Jarl drew, the picture that I drew just now, was flat. Now, flat is a condominium, and down is a flat. But nonetheless, we tend to think flat is flat. So where's the flat going to be? It's a comparison. It's like, turn it round. It's curved. So, that's the curve of space-time. Now, earlier there was a timidly space-time curve, but that's not meant to be drawn here. You want to think of this as a circuit view. Now, I don't want to destroy one of the Imperial College's precious comfort plants that you can't eat. And while I could be there to do so, I could crunch it in the middle, you see. You think of time going up like that, so space is going this way. This is actually, this is like the state of the state of the universe. I thought it was going to be the state of the universe. The impossible riddles are coming in anyway. The side of this going on like that is what the universe is going to say. Now, if the universe were getting bigger, the thing would become more like an ice cream cone. It would go down like that. It's getting smaller. That's what this is meant to represent. So here we are. The universe is getting smaller for some reason. It's getting bigger again. I'm not saying this isn't worth it. I think the main thing particularly is that it's worth it. Now, Einstein... I think about space and time as curves, and they say, what happens is that time is always going to explain life. Now, is this really happening as a force, or a point, or a cosine, or a point, or a point? It's really not going to be a point, it's going to be a curve.

37:30 Yes, it's going in a curved line. That's the same thing as a straight line. Right, I'm not set for that. So, the little idea, the brilliant idea, is that it's not a curved space in time. It's actually where everything really goes in a straight line. So all of your light is going in a straight line. But, what happens is that the space gets curved by the presence of curves. And so you end up with... Okay now, physics in that course is not trivial, I don't want to go into too much detail, but it does have some very, very important implications of Cosmic Genesys and space. Now let's ask, within the context of this particular subject, what led to the concept of time? It's a space-time thing. This is an apocalyptic thing. Now you're like this with the, uh, like everything backwards. We're going to talk about it eventually now. So he had time, he had space. And so on and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth, And so on and so forth. I have taken this two-touch surface and sliced it like this. These circles on the outside of the surface are meant to be one dimension of space, which we've been looking at. So that's how I actually draw them. So it looks as if, as I said, it's a dimension of space. On the other hand, the whole thing is sort of a mathematical system in itself.

40:00 And in fact, when I was starting to show it, it was almost like it was a particle. You can slice this picture up in every way. Imagine having a red knife in this sort of shape. If you cut it like this, you can cut it that way as well. But if you cut it this way, obviously it's a different thing from what I get from a series of ellipses. I own the series of circles, the series of ellipses. That then looks like the history of the elliptical universe. It doesn't look like we've been circling through all these dreams and desires. If I cut it this way, and back to the universe, it looks like an ellipse. So that would look as if we were talking about the universe as the history of the ellipses. And I wish I'd shown it correct, and answered both of these questions. And I'd have had a greater space of help. Now Newton did not say that. Newton was absolutely perfect. Newton resented the script. He said, yeah, okay, I'll tell you what the problem is. But I insist, he cut it. However, that's not what I'm telling you. There are many possible slices of it. And in fact, there's a big totality of ways of cutting out this script. It itself has got patterns in it. So whenever we're able to allow the script, it depends on which way we're able to put it. For example, if I have all the sizes of people in the library and I'm about to shut down, he walks three feet toward me. As he's doing so, he changes my notion of time. I mean, of course, he could have given it away. It wouldn't have happened otherwise. But I'm not even allowed to call it time. I'm changing it for a simple reason. He is changing the gravitational field, isn't he? He doesn't. It's an incredibly small change, but it's there. Of course, we've started to look at the universe, and it's very, very big, and it's very, very compact. It's highly flexible, and it's very, very powerful. So, they've now started to depend on that, and of course they're making different choices. So, at this point in time, this is a very anti-processing thing, because in the old way, a lot of the universities, a lot of the universities, recognize and do, they're not a single state, they're not limited. They should be there in a way, some 1.5%. We are simply stuck on one of these choices. So, from that point of view, the notion of now looks like we're going to continue to be losers. Now, you cannot deny that we've all been made to know the pieces of mathematics that we've discovered. True. But nonetheless, there certainly isn't enough mathematics made to encourage certain types of logical, topological, viewpointal things, and that's what the pieces of mathematics suggest. I'm sorry, but at the moment, we've now just been more than that. It hits us with all the pieces of mathematics. Okay, what then of the Big Bang? You know, it's pretty simple. After all, the big part of that text is related to this question.

42:30 If we're here, right, so I suppose a thousand years ago it was this size, then two thousand years ago it was even smaller, so it's actually this size, and so on, so we get right back to what? Well, we get right back to the time. So the future of space and time, in traditional psychology, is very rough, like this, like the ice cream factory in the United States. Now, on the face of it, this is wonderful. It's been done. Surely I have explained a lot in time, but look, here's a piece of mathematics I've been memorizing for weeks, so I can tell. Here's the prejudice that we've had. I buy this philosophy because I can't go back to the fact that it is up here, but surely I know the mathematics, I can go back to that, and study the fact that it's up here. I can do what you all do, I can look back at things later and reconstruct what is happening there, or I can immediately extrapolate the mathematics to see what's happening there. They're both valid, valid, valid ways of doing science, and of course they all change. It really becomes tricky if you do this, you'll get there, you know. So, in particular, I might as well come and talk about this theory. And then, of course, in particular, discuss what was there before that. Now, to make this wonderful, in its own way, to try and deal with these concepts, I'm going to go down the same path. It turns out, at the exact point where you want to ask a really interesting question about how to use those things to do, at the exact point, you're not going to break down. Having these ingenious ways, that's because the mathematics is exactly consingulate, then you can't extrapolate that way. It's all just stuff. So not only can you not see, but you can't figure out how to extrapolate that either, because you really haven't got a thought. In any way, there's a problem with knowing algebra. Move towards the theorem of the genesis, please, I should say. The theorem of the genesis. Give me that. In fact, all of my career, officially speaking,