|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4839 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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 Message 12:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2454 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Hi CD,
I'll put my argument in a more elegant fashion, it'll be easierthat way. Everything that has an end has a beginningThe 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 beginningThe 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2982 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024