Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 6:08 PM
266 online now:
Coragyps, GDR, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 261 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,007 Year: 16,830/29,783 Month: 818/1,956 Week: 321/331 Day: 49/50 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 91 of 268 (642401)
11-28-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
11-28-2011 1:15 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
This is not part of my argument at all. However since it is necessarily true (nothing can be temporally prior to time in the general sense since temporal priority is based on a measure of time) it really doesn't matter.

I take this to mean that you do hold to the unexamined, implicit and false premise which I identified earlier. You suffer from the misapprehension that only the physical realm is real or can have the property of time. What is truly needed is a better definition is the timeless realm in which the Designer/Creator inhabits.

Let's accept for a moment the accuracy of the colliding branes theory. If colliding branes were generating innumerable universes, each would have its own spacetime. Is it possible one universe could have been formed "prior" to another? Of course! Each universe would have no direct time relationship to another but it is conceivable that some being could be outside of all these universes and He could identify which universe came into existence first and which last.

In the physical realm of our universe, time is a function of the universe. But that does not preclude the possibility time does not exist elsewhere. Even a timeless realm could have an arrow of time without beginning or end.

When you contemplate the multiverse you can see that time can have a separate existence outside of our universe. Do you see?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 1:15 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 1:43 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2011 1:48 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 7:16 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 92 of 268 (642402)
11-28-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Straggler
11-28-2011 1:29 PM


Reply to Straggler
I know what a fan of Hawking quotes you are.

I am preparing a thread on Hawking. I hope you will participate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2011 1:29 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 93 of 268 (642403)
11-28-2011 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
11-28-2011 1:19 PM


Reoly to Jon
Not bad! I would like to see your thoughts regarding my Message 91.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 1:19 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 94 of 268 (642405)
11-28-2011 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

I take this to mean that you do hold to the unexamined, implicit and false premise which I identified earlier.

By which you mean the logically necessary statement that there cannot be anything temporally prior to the first moment of time.

quote:

You suffer from the misapprehension that only the physical realm is real or can have the property of time. What is truly needed is a better definition is the timeless realm in which the Designer/Creator inhabits.

You seem to be confused. A timeless realm by definition cannot include time.

quote:

Let's accept for a moment the accuracy of the colliding branes theory. If colliding branes were generating innumerable universes, each would have its own spacetime. Is it possible one universe could have been formed "prior" to another? Of course! Each universe would have no direct time relationship to another but it is conceivable that some being could be outside of all these universes and He could identify which universe came into existence first and which last.

This doesn't address the point. Temporal priority requires time.

As I have stated in other posts in this thread we can postulate other time dimensions which would allow there to be a first moment of "our time" and a temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension). But this is not what you want - because that leaves open the possibility that the cause is temporal, working in the other time dimension. That is why that possibility has not been discussed in detail here.

quote:

In the physical realm of our universe, time is a function of the universe. But that does not preclude the possibility time does not exist elsewhere. Even a timeless realm could have an arrow of time without beginning or end.

So you are saying that it is possible that a timeless realm is NOT timeless ? By definition that cannot be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:30 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 3:50 PM PaulK has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 95 of 268 (642407)
11-28-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
dt writes:

What is truly needed is a better definition is the timeless realm in which the Designer/Creator inhabits.

dt writes:

But that does not preclude the possibility time does not exist elsewhere. Even a timeless realm could have an arrow of time without beginning or end.

So you want to talk about a "timeless realm" in which there is time.

That doesn't really make any sense at all does it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:30 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 268 (642408)
11-28-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by kbertsche
11-26-2011 3:30 PM


I'm still chewing on your quantum mechanics example. Don't see anything wrong with it, so you've made your point for now. I don't believe that instantaneous action at a distance is the only interpretation for the phenomena you describe, but I'm not prepared to discuss it without doing some homework.

But the whole cause/effect thing contains an assumption that we can label everything as an effect. By definition all effects must have causes. I'm not going to just accept the Big Bang as an effect and tautologically say that there must be a cause. That would be begging the question. I don't agree that every event or condition has a cause.

As for effects having causes outside of time, surely that idea is well beyond any possible deductive reasoning. We don't know of any events who have causes outside of the time. Even your polarization example does not go that far.

Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tag


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 11-26-2011 3:30 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 97 of 268 (642414)
11-28-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
11-28-2011 1:43 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
You seem to be confused. A timeless realm by definition cannot include time.

By timeless, I mean outside the spacetime of our universe. It is not possible to know the exact nature of this timeless realm. Perhaps it has the concept of time but without beginning or end. Or perhaps the realm has an arrow of time but it is possible to move both forwards or backwards and you can remember the future as well as the past. Speculation about the exact nature of the timeless realm is rather pointless as there is no way to settle the question. It is just as pointless to claim that a realm outside of our spacetime cannot have the concept of time as such a claim could never be proven.

As I have stated in other posts in this thread we can postulate other time dimensions which would allow there to be a first moment of "our time" and a temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension). But this is not what you want - because that leaves open the possibility that the cause is temporal, working in the other time dimension. That is why that possibility has not been discussed in detail here.

I must have missed the posts you are referring to. Try reworking your argument while explicitly acknowledging the possibility the big bang is the action of a being in a different time or timeless dimension.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 1:43 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 4:09 PM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 98 of 268 (642417)
11-28-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

By timeless, I mean outside the spacetime of our universe.

If you mean that then say that. Don't say "timeless" unless you mean "timeless". Especially when you are talking about an area where many people say "timeless" and mean it.

And you certainly ought not to argue that other people are making circular arguments when all that is going on is that THEY mean what they say. Unlike you.

quote:

It is not possible to know the exact nature of this timeless realm

Which in fact, could simply be another region of spacetime.

And if we consider the implications of that, it seems that when you argue for a "timeless' and "immaterial" creator you really mean "a cause outside of our spacetime that could easily be temporal and material". That's really not very helpful or likely to lead to productive discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 3:50 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 4:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 99 of 268 (642421)
11-28-2011 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
11-28-2011 4:09 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
And if we consider the implications of that, it seems that when you argue for a "timeless' and "immaterial" creator you really mean "a cause outside of our spacetime that could easily be temporal and material". That's really not very helpful or likely to lead to productive discussion.

My argument for a timeless and immaterial creator was based on the big bang as the beginning of the material universe and a finite spacetime. The main focus should be on the immaterial realm because that is easier to grasp. It is not clear to me that an eternal state (no beginning and no end) cannot be described as both timeless (because of infinity) and said to have an arrow of time.

If colliding branes theory were accurate, then the cause could be physical in a different time dimension. I used colliding branes only as an illustration, not because I think it is a viable theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 4:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 5:04 PM designtheorist has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 100 of 268 (642423)
11-28-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate #69
um i think you should watch the video i posted i know its long but its basically science for dummies 101, it explains why there is no need for god and why god has no where to hide anymore, well maby on the edge of the earth or beyond the rainbow

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:52 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 101 of 268 (642424)
11-28-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 4:51 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

My argument for a timeless and immaterial creator was based on the big bang as the beginning of the material universe and a finite spacetime.

More accurately it required the assumption that our spacetime was the only spacetime. I was willing to go with that for the sake of argument and because it seemed a reasonable possibility. But you've already admitted that your argument requires an "external" time dimension so you're left with no argument against an external spacetime. Which was always a possibility anyway.

Assuming time without space is a step further than I'm willing to go without actual argument. Given the connection between space and time in modern physics it seems somewhat unlikely to me.

quote:

The main focus should be on the immaterial realm because that is easier to grasp.

I'd start with producing a solid argument for it. So far you haven't got one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 4:51 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM PaulK has responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 102 of 268 (642429)
11-28-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
11-28-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
In Message 94 you wrote:
As I have stated in other posts in this thread we can postulate other time dimensions which would allow there to be a first moment of "our time" and a temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension). But this is not what you want - because that leaves open the possibility that the cause is temporal, working in the other time dimension. That is why that possibility has not been discussed in detail here.

I responded in Message 97:

I must have missed the posts you are referring to. Try reworking your argument while explicitly acknowledging the possibility of a Designer/Creator acting from a "temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension)" to the big bang.

You have not risen to this challenge so I will do it for you.

1. Given the possible existence of an immaterial (and otherly timed or timeless) realm where a Universe Designer or Creator God may be said to be active prior to the big bang.
2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This is a false premise from the perspective of the immaterial realm you have postulated for argument's sake.)
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings. (This does not follow)
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition. (Again, this does not follow.)

As you can see, the argument is not logically consistent.

One may argue that we do not know if an immaterial being exists in such a realm as in premise 1, but the existence of such a being has not been disproved. If you argue it is not possible for a Designer/Creator to exist, then you are committing circular reasoning.

Once you postulate that a Designer/Creator MAY exist (as you did in Mesage 94) in a "temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension)," then your argument is logically inconsistent because the Designer/Creator is "prior" to the big bang being outside of the material realm and spacetime of our universe.

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 5:04 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 9:44 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2011 1:59 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 112 by Larni, posted 11-29-2011 4:25 AM designtheorist has responded
 Message 114 by frako, posted 11-29-2011 7:25 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 103 of 268 (642436)
11-28-2011 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Not bad! I would like to see your thoughts regarding my Message 91.

Sure.

You suffer from the misapprehension that only the physical realm is real or can have the property of time.

I think it dishonest to call this a misapprehension. It is the logical conclusion to draw from an empirical standpoint that only physical things have properties, non-physical things being entirely nonexistent.

What is truly needed is a better definition is the timeless realm in which the Designer/Creator inhabits.

I'm not sure how that would help us much. We cannot separate ourselves or our observations from time, and so even a Creator/Designer who exists, at least in part, outside of time would be wholly inaccessible to our senses and we should find no scientific reason for concluding that such a Creator/Designer exists.

Let's accept for a moment the accuracy of the colliding branes theory. If colliding branes were generating innumerable universes, each would have its own spacetime. Is it possible one universe could have been formed "prior" to another? Of course! Each universe would have no direct time relationship to another but it is conceivable that some being could be outside of all these universes and He could identify which universe came into existence first and which last.

You still cannot speak of things outside of time with terms such as 'prior' and 'before'. It's just nonsensical. If the only place where Time exists is within the separate universes, then it truly is not possible for one universe to exist 'prior' to another. If it is possible, we must conclude that there is some Master Time realm in which all of these many universes exist and against which they can all be measured in regards their temporal relationships with one another.

In the physical realm of our universe, time is a function of the universe. But that does not preclude the possibility time does not exist elsewhere.

Exactly; but it would, by your own definitions, require that such a place where time does not exist be the same as such a place where the physical realm does not exist. And any place like that is simply inaccessible to the inquiries of science. Science cannot probe the non-physical. So any theory that postulates non-physical things is, by definition, unscientific.

Even a timeless realm could have an arrow of time without beginning or end.

And this makes no sense. How does something which is timeless have any time whatsoever? If there is 'an arrow of time without beginning or end', then the realm is not really timeless.

When you contemplate the multiverse you can see that time can have a separate existence outside of our universe. Do you see?

Exactly like I said above: to speak of the temporal relationships between the multiple universes requires that some form of time exists outside of all of them and in common with all of them.

But this, of course, only pushes the question back even further and solves nothing. Because we can just as well consider all of those multiple universes and the Master Time realm that contains them to be a single super Universe, in which case all of the questions currently asked about our own universe get asked about the super Universe.

So the solution solves nothing. Do you see?

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:30 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 11-28-2011 8:20 PM Jon has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4530
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 104 of 268 (642441)
11-28-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jon
11-28-2011 7:16 PM


Reality of Time
Hi Jon

Just a couple of real quick thoughts.

Jon writes:

It is the logical conclusion to draw from an empirical standpoint that only physical things have properties, non-physical things being entirely nonexistent.

What about an idea. It is real and can affect our physical reality. It exists and as it can, and does have an effect on the physical and in that sense we might even say it has properties.

Jon writes:

You still cannot speak of things outside of time with terms such as 'prior' and 'before'. It's just nonsensical. If the only place where Time exists is within the separate universes, then it truly is not possible for one universe to exist 'prior' to another. If it is possible, we must conclude that there is some Master Time realm in which all of these many universes exist and against which they can all be measured in regards their temporal relationships with one another.

Some science suggests that our universe is an emergent property of a greater reality. If that greater reality has, for example, 3 time dimensions then our whole idea of "prior" could mean something altogether different.

We can draw an analogy between our 3 spatial dimensions and a universe with 3 time dimensions. It could be the equivalent of taking a hypothetical line in space and then moving in one direction along that line. There would be backward and forward but there would be comprehension of backward existing on the other side of the beginning of the line. We might be moving in a single line of time within a greater reality with 3 time dimensions leaving us with no idea, (at least at this point), of how to understand any concept of prior in relation to the beginning of time.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 7:16 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 10:09 PM GDR has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 105 of 268 (642442)
11-28-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
As you can see, the argument is not logically consistent.

You have not explained the specific relevance of your ability to produce illogical arguments. We know you can ---indeed, we've hardly ever seen you do anything else. Is there any reason why you wished to do so on this particular occasion, or are you just keeping in practice?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018