We don't know. Akin to the status of time "before" the Big Bang. May even be a meaningless question we try to provide an answer, but hit upon a cognitive wall. Then we realize we are not asking questions about the world, but are instead asking questions about our form of understanding.

In speaking of the end of time, I am referring to the end of space-time, and its associated laws. — Jack Cummins

When the universe ends—sparse photons left…
that are so far apart that they could not 'see' one another…

The last black holes will whisper to the void,
Their Hawking radiation’s fading song
A requiem for galaxies long dead,
For stars that danced and planets that once bloomed;

Yet in that darkness sleeps infinite seed,
The quantum foam of possibility,
Where virtual particles embrace and part
Like thoughts within the cosmic mind unborn.

The vacuum teems with spectral symmetries,
Mathematics’ ghosts that never sleep,
Platonic forms in timeless hibernation
Awaiting their next chance to manifest.

In this great pause between the cosmic acts,
The stage is empty but the script remains,
Written in the grammar of pure space,
In laws that transcend any single world.

Perhaps some deeper rhythm pulses here
In realms where time itself dissolves to now,
Where every ending holds beginning’s heart,
And death is just geometry in flux.

The constants and the forces hibernate
Like winter seeds beneath dimensional frost,
Until conditions ripen once again
For space and time to blossom into form.

See how the void begins to ripple now
With fluctuations in the quantum deep,
As virtual becomes the actual,
And possibility ignites to mass.

The eternal math starts singing once again,
Its abstractions clothing themselves in fire,
As from the ashes of our universe,
Another cosmos learns to read its lines.

('Stillness', like 'Nothing', cannot be; the quantum vacuum is always up to something.)

The question is a serious one, but I wish it to be considered imaginatively, such as whether the end of time suggests 'nothingness' for eternity. — Jack Cummins

Nothing suggests "nothingness for eternity" like "death" does. The "death of the universe" is an anthropomorphism.

I am not sure that it is possible for time to end. That is partly because I am inclined towards a cyclical picture of the universe and see the idea of 'nothingness' before or after the existence of life in the universe as rather dubious. — Jack Cummins

:up: :up:

How will time end?

Will it?

I see time-space-matter-motion as aspects or points of view that are all the case now that there is more than one thing. Many things in existence, means, time-space-matter-motion, to be crude about it. Where there is one of these, there must be the others. There is no time without matter in motion through space. And there is no motion without some matter moving through space over time. And there is motion. And there are things in motion.

So the question of the end of time is also will motion and the things that move stop moving or cease to be things?

Yet in that darkness sleeps infinite seed, — PoeticUniverse

As one of Kant’s antinomies, we essentially can’t rationalize the “before time” or “end of time.” We can’t conceive “no time “ with our minds and not be generating the time it takes to conceive of anything; even nothingness forever is compounded for “ever” after simply nothing.

I just think that all means we can’t talk about the end of time without sounding like a poet or a mystic.

Many, it seems, would rather stay silent in the face of the non-rational. Maybe prudent, when trying to avoid sounding like a fool, or a poet, or a mystic.

What if it will take forever for time to end?

Is that a rational question?

Personally, if I could be so foolish as to sound like a failed mystic and a failed philosopher, for a moment, (and I certainly could), let’s see if I can speak of eternity. I see eternity as both the wrapping around before the beginning and the end of time, at the edge of time, just as eternity runs through every instant.

Or, put another way, Now, is as good as the very end of time. Now is the pinnacle, end result of all history that has gone before right now. And also, now is the beginning of time. Right now, is the instantaneous moment upon which all that we call the “future” will rest.

Now, is all time, eternal. (Time is actually more like the construct, a watch. A measuring stick.) All that actually exists is Now. So there is no end or beginning of time, because now is always the end and beginning of time. The real raw material we have to deal with is eternity, which resists capturing with words, until we call it “a moment in time” and construct enough duration to wonder about the past and future ends.

See, a failed mystic and/or bad philosopher. Darn those antinomies.

But if you are talking about whether the universe will eventually break apart and will it simply fail one day to support any forms of existence besides a pile of rubble? Maybe.
That won’t be the end of measurable change and motion and time, just the end of anything that could take measure or identify some form to measure any such motion. Like stillness, but for forever. Maybe.

But I agree, I think it makes sense that physically there is a cycle. Like Empedocles - things come together and break apart in an endless cycle between love and strife (he was definitely a cult leader). Or Aristotle - Generation and corruption. Or the eastern thinkers’ conceptions of eternity. Or Christianity, where an eternal God made space and time for us to visit eternity, in due time.

I have to say I don’t know what it means to say “the end of time.”

Great poetry, as always. What your writing suggests is that there is inherent order amidst the universe, as opposed to randomness. Also, the idea of the 'void' suggests more than 'nothingness', involving a creative process, or manifestation.

The analogy between the death of the universe and the human experience of death is an interesting one. The question is whether: death=nothingness=unconsciousness? The idea of 'nirvana' is important here because it involves 'a burning out', like a candle, but it may also involve some kind of merging with the transcendent, after cycles of existence. But, whether it is 'the ultimate end' is another issue in the context of the greatest cycles of evolutionary twists and turns.

I am referring to the end of space-time, and its associated laws. — Jack Cummins

The thread title and the OP refer to different concepts. The end of time and the end of spacetime can only be determinable by very different sets of conditions.

Time ends with the end of the last relational intelligence; spacetime ends after the last formulation of a mathematical model of a relativistic continuum.

I am not sure that it is possible for time to end. That is partly because I am inclined towards a cyclical picture of the universe and see the idea of 'nothingness' before or after the existence of life in the universe as rather dubious. — Jack Cummins

Why not? Time is only one dimension we experience, it doesn't mean that anything outside of the reality of our experience wouldn't allow for a timeless existence.

I think this is the fallacy of how we think about our own mortality. Rather than thinking about what happens after death, think about what happened before you birth, where were you? We view the time before out own experience of life as nothing special (in most religions), but there are tons of narratives dedicated to where we go when we die.

The same goes for the universe. We only argue in terms of what we can perceive, experience and define; we think about these things inside of the definitions that allow us to think.

This is why we struggle with what came before the big bang, because it cannot be defined within the conditions of what allows us to think about it. So it becomes a cognitive paradox for us that we cannot solve. The same goes for what happens after time ends. We cannot, by our very function within time, think about what that would be.

Best way I would argue would be to think of it like the block universe theory. That the past is a form of solidified spacetime in which time is a direction just as much as space. Like an axis in which events change in space, but it doesn't move. If possible to walk along this axis you would see space change in its 3 dimensions, but you can only walk back and forth along this axis, like scrolling though a video.

That the future is an undetermined probability function that ends up in a defined state when the present comes in contact with it. Entropy causing the collapse into a state which is defined in relation to everything else in the universe and directly adds to that past block of time axis.

We only experience the collapsing state so we experience time as we do based on this thin edge between possible states and the past solid block of a time axis.

And we can view this past block as a timeless entity. And it may be that its this that exists when time ends, the block ends, it becomes, within a higher existence, a "blob" of spacetime, solid, unmoving.

Like a fuse, burning from one state to another, from high energy to low in a violent present, and then its just the end state, still, unmoving. Maybe the ash blows away, degrades into another state within a higher dimensional existence, part of some other definition of time that is not how we define time, but still moving as a larger entity.

No one knows because this is far beyond the limits of current scientific knowledge. But I think the block time theory, especially if combining it with the quantum physics of the collapsing probabilites, have a lot of logical merit. And it makes a lot of sense when thinking of how time actually functions in general relativity, bending and shifting, but always going forward along its axis.

As for speculation about the idea of the end of time, it may be one of the tangents of metaphysics. Perhaps, it is something of which Wittgenstein would advise 'silence' as it is possibly unknowable from the human perspective. — Jack Cummins

From my point of view, this is the right way to think about it. Assuming there is no way, even in theory, to determine what happens at the end of time and space, or even if there is an end at all, then the whole question is metaphysics. There is no empirical answer. There is no truth or falsity to any of our speculations.

The question is a serious one, but I wish it to be considered imaginatively, — Jack Cummins

OK, imagination… and the long good-bye…

The Last Chance Saloon

Entropy is always the winner in the end,
When there’s no more energy left to lend;
Meanwhile, we stabilize, in nature’s ways,
Rearranging resources temporarily.

Prelude

Going beyond our very old obsession so vast,
Of how it all began, back in the distant past,
Yet retaining our search for meaning, from that,
We now turn to how will it all end, this and that,
Whether becoming collapsed, expended, or flat.

Is there is some deep meaning in all that?
Yes, for it is there in that future distance,
We’ll find or not the end of our persistence,
Whether or not we are at all forever resistant,

Whether all that was and what was did and done
Will be of any long-lasting benefit to anyone—
Of what destiny awaits, if there ever was one.

Endings are important to us, of what we’re about,
Because we believe that how things turn out
Implies what the beginnings ultimately meant,
Of what or not is our place in the firmament.

…

Time ends with the end of the last relational intelligence; spacetime ends after the last formulation of a mathematical model of a relativistic continuum. — Mww

Which sparked my interest since I am or was a mathematician. I can model the far future in an imaginative way by considering the passage of spacetime as a series of cause/effect steps, say at Planck time rhythm.

Suppose each step is a function operating on the previous effect and all this takes place in some enormous but closed environment. And suppose each function "contracts", brings things a tad closer together. Then, under certain mathematical assumptions, as time moves ever forward, if at each step there is a thing that does not change (a "fixed point"), and these things converge to a specific thing (call it "alpha") as time marches on, the entire structure of spacetime contracts to that singular alpha.

This may conflict with entropy, since objects seem to be moving apart, but maybe not.

Which means no "end" to spacetime, but eventually all is taken to the vicinity of alpha.

Teilhard De Chardin calls alpha the "Omega Point", towards which everything moves.

Heat death is a common extrapolation of big bang theories.
Here, the distant future is ruled by the lonely photon in deep cold, where (other) particles have long since decayed and black holes have evaporated.
The universe doesn't end as such, but keeps fading away, entropy ever converging on zero or whatever background energy / quantum foam.

the entire structure of spacetime contracts to that singular alpha.(…) Which means no "end" to spacetime, but eventually all is taken to the vicinity of alpha. — jgill

Now that got me off on a Planck-scale research trip, I must say. Fascinating idea to be sure, but, if spacetime structure contracts to a single point, for which descriptions of events is complete insofar as there wouldn’t be any more events to describe, wouldn’t that suffice as the end of spacetime?

Granted, only for this particular model, which gets us back to the notion of ending spacetime just is the ending of models representing it. I mean….there was a beginning of spacetime, 1908 or thereabouts, so its ending shouldn’t be all that inconceivable, right?

(Can you hear it? In the background? The whispers? That here, is a perfect example of philosophy getting in the way of science? (Sigh))

Time ends with the end of the last relational intelligence; spacetime ends after the last formulation of a mathematical model of a relativistic continuum. — Mww

I was thinking the same thing. From a Taoist perspective, time ends when naming ends.

Ends are things that can be found in space and time The end of the day, the ends of a piece of string, the end of my life. (I know you rider)

The end of space, or the end of time does not quite make sense. One imagines the clock stopping, but in order for the clock to stop, time must continue while it stands still. So time might have stopped between my typing my first word and my second word of this post for a quintillion centuries, but since nothing happened, it makes no difference - the world - like a paused video, carries on just as before when play is continued. There is no room for experience at the end of time; it does not happen, and it not happening is what it is.

Time is a more of a concept then a physical concrete thing. It’s like a river without beginning or end or perhaps a river that flows in a circle like a clock. The question is, long after minds that perceive time have ceased to be in the universe whether time is still flowing ? Well that’s like asking if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If there's ever a heat death of the universe, time would stop for all practical purposes because nothing would happen. Nothing would change.

Are you saying time only exists if linearity exists ?

Are you saying time only exists if linearity exists ? — kindred

No. The idea is that time and change are the same thing. Carlo Rovelli's view.

I disagree with that view. A system can be in standstill and time will still elapse.

How would you know time elapsed?

Fascinating idea to be sure, but, if spacetime structure contracts to a single point, for which descriptions of events is complete insofar as there wouldn’t be any more events to describe, wouldn’t that suffice as the end of spacetime? — Mww

It would just take spacetime closer and closer to alpha without ever reaching the point of completion. The component of time would shrink, but not collapse.

Just doodling with a theorem of mine in Banach space. Pay no heed.

Well that’s like asking if a tree falls In the woods does it make a sound if there’s no one to hear it …and the answer is it does even if there’s no observers to hear the sound.

If time is a concept and the environment was frozen and in standstill it would still elapse with no discernible changes happening. Time is like an invisible clock that ticks even if there was no change in the environment.

It would just take spacetime closer and closer to alpha without ever reaching the point of completion. — jgill

I haven’t the slightest clue regarding Banach space, but I recognize the common version of Zeno’s Paradox when I see it.

Happy doodling.

time would stop for all practical purposes because nothing would happen — frank

There'd be motion of sorts (undecayable photons) and perhaps simmering micro-chaos (quantum mechanics).

A question that sometimes comes up, is whether this situation could make something else come about, say, could the expansion separate particles and anti-particles from the background micro-chaos, so they don't cancel back into the background microcosm? Or, it's all just idle speculation and conjecture. :)

Probably so. I'm not sure what you said, but, probably so.

could the expansion separate particles and anti-particles from the background micro-chaos, so they don't cancel back into the background microcosm? — jorndoe

It is supposed that that is what happened during inflation.

would advise 'silence' — Jack Cummins

We can estimate what happens as the universe expands… unto the final silent dark after the stars have gone… but first:

As an ambitious species of nurture and nature
We now and have always pointed toward the future,
For, of the three forms of the chimpanzee:
The common chimp, the bonobo, and us, we
Are the only chimp who went beyond the trees…

And more importantly, ever out of Africa freed,
By that exodus, which laid down, indeed,
From that experience, the urge and the need
To move on, exploring, ever planting another seed.

The horizons on Earth sufficed us through time
For many millennia but now the horizons’ climes
Have broadened, through cosmology and physics,
And so they can well inform us of our prospects.

The future matters to us for very basic reasons:
We wish to offset our mortality, our pleasin’s,
To know if humanity’s works for every season
Will be remembered or lost—all for nothing, even.

The Final, Silent Dark Marches On…

Time hurls a million waves of its displacements
At us, yet we are still here—the replacements.

Time, ever gray with age, hurls its changes then,
‘Gainst existence’s rock, time and time again,
The entropic seas denuding the sands,
Yet energy is preserved via nature’s wands.

Reminiscence had weathered but could ne’er wither,
For, in the mists of time, yesteryear yet appeared,
Since, without future, ‘past’ is all they’d have.

Would the prospect of a ‘Big Crunch’ bring on mania,
In an ever more confining claustrophobia?

Seems a better thought, somehow, though no picnic,
But more pleasing if the universe were to be cyclic,
Although then all would still be really crushed,
And forever lost, gone headlong into the rush.

We expect cycles, for all the days and seasons
Embedded this in our ancestors, into our reasons,
Since at least the periodic supplies some rhythm,
A pattern—the rolling hills of lives onward driven.

As for cyclic, endless repetitions, they too
Would seem to revolt more of us than just a few;
As too perhaps would some infinite abyss of time,
Which both grant us neither reason nor rhyme.

Does the drama go on forever, or does it end?
What do the visions of the future portend?
Doesn’t it all have some purpose meant—
A goodly end that all of it to us might it present?

Is our higher mammal time certainly
But of such a short parentheses within eternity?

It’s only a finite time then, which too tends
To horrify so many, as the universe ends,
Such as told by Robert Frost, a name of chill:
In heat or in cold, known as fire or ice, still.

If there's ever a heat death of the universe, time would stop for all practical purposes because nothing would happen. Nothing would change. — frank

That's what I was thinking. There is time because stuff happens, things change. In the unimaginably extremely distant future, there will come a final moment when nothing more happens and time will have stopped. Alles kaput. So...

If you have something that must be done, then you should get at it pretty damn quick--given the great inconvenience of having lists of unfinished things to do just when nothing more can possibly be done ever again.