Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 3:37 PM
132 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, dwise1, Meddle, PaulK (5 members, 127 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 16 of 158 (556132)
04-17-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-15-2010 11:48 AM


JUC writes:

So it seems impossible to me that anything could have always existed. It seems that everything, including time, must have a beginning.

Logic, observed evidence, common sense and the scientific 1LoT are indicative that all existing energy either had to magically become to exist or eternally existed in some form.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-15-2010 11:48 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DC85, posted 04-17-2010 9:02 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 17 of 158 (556135)
04-17-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Flyer75
04-16-2010 6:18 PM


Hi Flyer,

Minor quibble, I know. But I couldn't let it slide.

Flyer75 writes:

I believe God created time and before that it didn't even exist

How can one use the word 'before' when talking about a timeless existence? Words like 'before' and 'after' only make sense on a timeline. To say that God existed 'before' time makes as much sense as saying that he exists north of the north pole.
A better way of putting it might be: "God exists independently of time".

Flyer writes:

Now, how would this apply to evolution (if I assumed the big bang were true). What was time before the event??? Did it exist or did the Big Bang "create" time?

Evolution doesn't concern itself with the Big Bang. I don't know for sure about the rest of the questions, and I don't think anybody does at this point.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 04-16-2010 6:18 PM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Flyer75, posted 04-18-2010 5:32 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 158 (556137)
04-17-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
04-17-2010 7:50 AM


Re: Infinite time.
Hi,

Ok. I'll take another approach. Our sun is burning down it's fuel, and we know that one day, it will 'die'. Therefore, we know that the sun cannot have an infinite past, or it would already had burned all up.

In the same way the universe is somewhat kind of doomed when it's entropy will be at it's maximum. Does this not also tell us that it must have had a beginning ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 04-17-2010 7:50 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-17-2010 11:13 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 3:02 AM slevesque has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 19 of 158 (556156)
04-17-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-17-2010 9:37 AM


I see what you mean, and so in my opinion no intelligent entitiy (aka God) could exist before time - and therefore could not create time.

Just a minor issue. Here again you're treating time as a "thing", which is not the case. Humans experience time, to us it exists as a thing but to the universe it is meaningless. So, even if a god created the universe, it didn't create anything in it called "time".

Objects with mass experience time, from particles to organisms to a star. But to something without mass (light) it does not experience time. But both are found in the universe. So you can see, time as we experience it is separate from the universe.

See cavediver's Re: Infinite time. (Message 12):

quote:
So to sum up - as far as we know, an awareness simply sees passage of time in the region of the Universe where that awareness is located. The Universe could be temporally infinite, semi-infinite (in either direction) or finite, and this would make no difference to how an awareness perceives time.

However, are you or anyone else aware if there is anything (even if only in theory) that can "exist" that is truly inert (i.e. it has no energy, no radiation, etc). If there were such a thing, presumably it would "exist" without time, as there would be no events occuring that could be measured.

I think dark energy would fit into that description, but only because scientist as of yet haven't found a way to detect it. They see it's effects and know of it that way.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-17-2010 9:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 20 of 158 (556173)
04-17-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
04-17-2010 3:14 PM


had to magically become to exist
What is the origin of magic? It seems to me this is a major flaw in theist logic. They insist energy and matter had to have an origin but have no problem with God and magic always existing....

or eternally existed in some form.
Why does either have to be true? Do you understand the nature of the Universe? What does it mean to exist without or outside of time?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2010 3:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2010 10:45 PM DC85 has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 21 of 158 (556182)
04-17-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by DC85
04-17-2010 9:02 PM


Eternal vs Magical
DC, time and eternity go hand in hand together. God, being the source of all existing energy would not exist outside of the universe or outside of time. Did you read my message carefully? Anything eternal would not involve magic, if that be the case whereas if energy came into existence, that would indeed be magical as I understand 1LoT.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by DC85, posted 04-17-2010 9:02 PM DC85 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DC85, posted 04-17-2010 11:08 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 22 of 158 (556185)
04-17-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
04-17-2010 10:45 PM


Re: Eternal vs Magical
As far as I know buzz Science has not made either claim... which is why I questioned you. We don't know the nature of the Universe so how could we make such bold assumptions? I'm not convinced the Universe has a beginning or is eternal. Why does either have to be true? Why not both? why not neither?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 04-17-2010 10:45 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2010 10:11 AM DC85 has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1175 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 23 of 158 (556186)
04-17-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
04-17-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Infinite time.
In the same way the universe is somewhat kind of doomed when it's entropy will be at it's maximum. Does this not also tell us that it must have had a beginning ?

This is not an end to the universe. This is just another phase the universe enters into where it entropy has maxed out (if 100% entropy is even possible). It is not like when this happens a magical clock strikes 12am and the universe disapears or ends.

Douglas Adams in 'The Restauraunt at the End of the Universe' writes:

Ladies and gentlemen," he said, "The Universe as we know it has now been in existence for over one hundred and seventy thousand million billion years and will be ending in a little over half an hour. So, welcome one and all to Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe!...

"But what about the End of the Universe? We'll miss the big moment."

"I've seen it. It's rubbish," said Zaphod, "nothing but a gnab gib."

"A what?"

"Opposite of a big bang. Come on, let's get zappy."

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 04-17-2010 3:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 24 of 158 (556205)
04-18-2010 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
04-17-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Infinite time.
Our sun is burning down it's fuel, and we know that one day, it will 'die'. Therefore, we know that the sun cannot have an infinite past, or it would already had burned all up.

The "Sun", in one form or another, has been around since the beginning of the Universe. It is only in the past 4.5 billion years that it has had the form of a hydrogen burning ball of gas. All we can extrapolate is that prior to 4.5 billion years, the Sun had a different form. We cannot determine a beginning.

In the same way the universe is somewhat kind of doomed when it's entropy will be at it's maximum. Does this not also tell us that it must have had a beginning ?

And in the same way, no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 04-17-2010 3:22 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 04-19-2010 6:42 PM cavediver has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 158 (556236)
04-18-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by DC85
04-17-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Eternal vs Magical
DC85 writes:

As far as I know buzz Science has not made either claim... which is why I questioned you. We don't know the nature of the Universe so how could we make such bold assumptions? I'm not convinced the Universe has a beginning or is eternal. Why does either have to be true? Why not both? why not neither?

DC, I did not extrapolate bold assumptions on science's claims, perse. I commented on energy, eternal and temporal, relative to the first thermodynamic law of science.

How can something be both eternal and temporal? How can something be neither?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by DC85, posted 04-17-2010 11:08 PM DC85 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by DC85, posted 04-18-2010 11:35 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 26 of 158 (556239)
04-18-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
04-18-2010 10:11 AM


Re: Eternal vs Magical
How can something be both eternal and temporal?

Why not? Why do you assume time is liner? We perceive time as in this way but that doesn't mean it is this way. We can also only sense 4 dimensions but we suspect at least 10.

Why can't the Universe's future also be it's past? Why not a Multiverse? Why not both of these?

I don't understand why everyone assumes eternal or a beginning are the only two options.

Edited by DC85, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 04-18-2010 10:11 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 27 of 158 (556269)
04-18-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Meldinoor
04-17-2010 3:18 PM


hey meldinoor,

Well, in my post alone you have what's wrong with the human mind and trying to comprehend endless time, or a timeless existence. I don't think the human mind is capable of truly grasping something that doesn't have a beginning nor an end so we still end up using terminology that we can understand such as "before" or "after". It's all we know from a truly personal experience. We were born, we will die as does, will, everything we can sense.

That being said, I understand your point on the terminology I used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Meldinoor, posted 04-17-2010 3:18 PM Meldinoor has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 158 (556408)
04-19-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-15-2010 11:48 AM


Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:

Surely if time goes infinitely back, and something had always existed, it would never get to any point in the future. It couldn’t, because it would have to wait for an infinite amount of time to get to any point in the future.

Then it should also seem impossible for you that time itself could continue forever. After all, an existing object need only exist for an hour while time continues forward for that hour; if the object will never make it to infinity then neither will time itself.

What this comes down to is a fundamental lack of understanding infinity, it is an argument from incredulity and thus largely worthless. In order to substantiate such a claim you would need to give a compelling reason why an object must cease existing after a finite period of time.

Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:

But can anything “exist” before time? Does “existence” not require time?

Existence itself does not necessarily require time. A change in something that exists necessarily does in order to contain the two states of the subject, a "before" and "after" state at the very least. This is why I don't consider it reasonable to say that something outside of time created something as a finite action; it can either exist without creating or as creating, it cannot transition between the two states or even have two states.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-15-2010 11:48 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-20-2010 4:34 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 29 of 158 (556419)
04-19-2010 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by cavediver
04-18-2010 3:02 AM


Re: Infinite time.
Hi CD,

I'll put my argument in a more elegant fashion, it'll be easierthat way.

Everything that has an end has a beginning
The sun has an end
therefore the sun has a beginning.

Classic Modus Ponens. Now, you reply to me by equivocating the word 'sun', so that it now does not mean 'the star of the solar system that includes planet earth' but rather ''the matter that make the star of the solar system that includes planet earth''.

I'm having a hard tme putting this into words, but I hope you see the equivocation. Our word 'sun' refers to the assembly of all that matter, but would not refer to it if it weren't arranged that way, we wouldn't still call it 'sun'.

This equivocation permitted you to say that we cannot determine a beginning only because it let it slip out of premise no1, that is that since we don't know if it has an end, therefore we cannot know if it had a beginning.

Of course, I can go around this equivocation simply by precising my premise no2.

Everything that has an end has a beginning
The current form of the sun has an end
therefore the current form of the sun has a beginning.

g2g, but I'll continue this later on (The Canadiens are playing tonight)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by cavediver, posted 04-18-2010 3:02 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 04-19-2010 7:24 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 04-19-2010 11:10 PM slevesque has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 158 (556421)
04-19-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by slevesque
04-19-2010 6:42 PM


Re: Infinite time.
Everything that has an end has a beginning
The current form of the sun has an end
therefore the current form of the sun has a beginning.

It seems this would be equal to trying to pin point the precise moment orange becomes red in a color spectrum, it can't be done. You can only take a specific point in the color spectrum and say it exists as color-X.

There isn't a point where orange ends and red begins, just as there isn't point when it stops being an accumulation of matter and starts being a sun. You can only point to a specific time in the past and say it exists as X.

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by slevesque, posted 04-19-2010 6:42 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 04-19-2010 10:56 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019