Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 158 (556046)
04-16-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-15-2010 11:48 AM


But can anything exist before time? Does existence not require time?
Time is a unit of measuring, time requires humans. It would be like asking, does space require length, width and height? These are things used to measure space, not space itself.
Time is used to measure the interval between two events. The problem IMHO with your question is, the alternative to "exist" is a meaningless concept. There is only existence, nothingness is not definable.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-17-2010 9:37 AM onifre has replied
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 11-07-2010 8:27 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 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 replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 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 replied

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 158 (557780)
04-27-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DPowell
04-27-2010 9:10 PM


Re: First Cause
It makes far more sense to say that before stuff started happening and history began was the existence of the eternal (outside of time), infinite God who then caused everything else in history to have its beginning.
No it doesn't.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DPowell, posted 04-27-2010 9:10 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by DPowell, posted 05-05-2010 1:54 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 158 (558073)
04-29-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Natural_Design
04-29-2010 3:09 PM


Maybe it is a way of communicating on Another Level with Allah?
How do you know it was Allah and not just a regular dude in a bear costume?
After you smoke and the high begins it is like you are lifted to a new plane.
From weed? Pfft. Newbie smokers, so cute.
Anywhoo... How does any of this tie into the OP? So you believe in the name Allah and you have created a concept for him existing solely in your brain - (I advise against this btw, dutch cartoonist comes to mind) - but so what?
Where are your facts pertaining to time?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 3:09 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 158 (558215)
04-30-2010 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Natural_Design
04-29-2010 6:34 PM


We are completely off topic so this is my last reply
He said that he wasn't depicting the prophet Muhammad. It was a misunderstanding.
The point is, though, who cares if he was trying to simply depict the "prophet" Muhammad? Why should that be a big deal to people who don't follow Islamic mythology?
He should have said the truth, which is, "Yes I drew a picture of a particular figure in Islamic mythology, so what?"
And Allah is not an imagination of my brain.
Got a picture of him? Can you point to him and say, "Look, that's him right there"...? No, you can't. Ever. Do any such thing. For all intents and purposes, he lives solely in your brain. I know that's tough to accept cause you really do believe it as though he was real in some way, but fact is, you have no way to prove it. Same with any other invisible entity. Enjoy your fairy tales...
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 6:34 PM Natural_Design has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 158 (558952)
05-05-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by DPowell
05-05-2010 1:54 PM


Re: First Cause
"In the beginning __________________ ..."
Now tell me what happened before that or caused it.
If you mean The Universe, my answer is I don't know. But I'm not going to pretend I know either.
Nor does "God did it" satisfy as an answer. People used to say god caused LOTS of things. Now it's just been reduced to ONLY the Big Bang. To me it seems like a rather dismissive answer, one that requires you to provide no proof. In that sense it is weak as an answer, and pointless to bring up.
If you can't explain how god did it you've explained NOTHING at all.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by DPowell, posted 05-05-2010 1:54 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 1:28 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 93 of 158 (559048)
05-06-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by DPowell
05-06-2010 1:28 AM


Re: First Cause
The explanation of "how" God "could" have done Creation really doesn't seem that difficult to me.
Well then explain it, because even theoretical physicist are having a little trouble with this one.
And on the other hand, it is difficult to say from any materialist/naturalist standpoint anything more than how it "could" have happened...that is all that science is when it comes to looking back at the past, no?
They don't "say" how it could have happened, it is demonstrated mathematically. As with the Big Bang and the model(s) for our universe.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 1:28 AM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:11 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 112 of 158 (559114)
05-06-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:11 PM


Re: First Cause
You do realize we can't/haven't even seen the farthest reaches of the Universe, right?
What does this have to do with anything? You said you could easily explain how god did it, so go right ahead. Explain it.
Go read something.
Go make love to your mother.
The Big Bang, etc., have not been as "mathematically demonstrated" as people would like to think.
You're starting to demonstrate how little you know. You are becoming a waste of time, which I thought at first you were at least trying to debate properly.
If you'd like to explain how god created the universe I'd love to read it, if not, enjoy basking in your own ignorance.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : As per admin request, language was inappropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:11 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lyx2no, posted 05-06-2010 7:07 PM onifre has replied
 Message 119 by AdminSlev, posted 05-07-2010 4:09 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 158 (559124)
05-06-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by lyx2no
05-06-2010 7:07 PM


Re: First Cause
And here I was reconsidering "robins wouldn't eff with 'em."
Maybe I should have reconsidered using such harsh language too... naaaaa.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by lyx2no, posted 05-06-2010 7:07 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 158 (559228)
05-07-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AdminSlev
05-07-2010 4:09 PM


Re: First Cause
This is totally innapropriate language and you should know way better.
I didn't think language was an issue on this site, and I avoided attacking him personally. He suggested I go do something so, I suggested he go do something.
My bad though, I knew I'd get told something for it.
I think just a warning should be sufficient for this time. If you want to discuss this you can PM me
No worries, its all good.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AdminSlev, posted 05-07-2010 4:09 PM AdminSlev has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 158 (585081)
10-05-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
10-05-2010 9:39 AM


Re: Multiverse Problems
In reality?? What observed reality? Multiverses is no more observable reality than science fiction stories concocted up in minds of men/mankind.
Easy tiger. First, he's talking about wormholes, not a multiverse system.
Second of all, "in reality the physics allows for wormholes" simply means that the math supports the hypothesis.
When a relative few science elitists ascribe to unproven mathmatical conclusions
Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?
contrary to logic, reason and real life observations
The theory of relativity does just that, defies logic and reason and real life observations - yet is oh so true. Are you saying Einstein is wrong because logically you can't grasp relativity?
Whether alleged multiverses stack up like pancakes or whether they are scattered there is no model other than abstract mystical math applied by science.
Can you show the rest of the class the actual mathematical errors in the multiverse hypothesis?
In eather case, the logical model problem is multiple spacetimes, whether you stack them or scatter them.
The actual problem is that your words are meaningless and don't make any sense.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 10-05-2010 9:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 10-06-2010 9:01 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 141 of 158 (585198)
10-06-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Buzsaw
10-06-2010 9:01 AM


Re: Multiverse Problems
Oni, I've highlighted the phrases in Bikerman's message implying mystery, undertainty and speculation.
Then you're having trouble comprehending what he has written. The only time "mysterious" shows up is in reference to black holes.
I've also highlighted phrases aluding to multiverses hypothesised as eminating from wormholes.
And you understand that this is one physicist's hypothesis?
The optically visible evidences are more supportive to the Biblical record and entails less speculation than anything in Bikerman's message.
No it is not, it's just easier for YOU to understand because you have zero education in physics and cosmology. Sure, it's harder to understand complex theories and mathematics then stories, but what does that tell you? That hard work has been invested in these theories and thus yeild a higher degree of accuracy in their results. Stories are just stories, and don't do much to explain the finer points.
The Bible just says god did it, it doesn't explain how. All of this - from our universe to a multiverse - could be the guilded creation of your god, but HOW your god did it remains the focus of science. So sit back and enjoy, try to learn some of it, and quit acting like you have any clue as to what you're talking about in these subjects. You make an ass of yourself most of the time and that can't be a good thing for you.
And what do you mean with this new term you're throwing around - "optically visible evidence"? Do you just make things up as you go along? What isn't optically visible? Mathematical equations are optically visible.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 10-06-2010 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024