Existence

Yes...to both.The problem ICANT, that we;ve been trying to explain to you forever, is that the two are not mutually exclusive.The Universe has existed for all of time, because time is part of the Universe. Therefore it is eternal.Time has a minimum value. In a sense this means that the Universe had a "beginning."At no point in time did the Universe not exist - suggesting so would be like suggesting that there is a latitude on a globe where the globe does not exist. Yet just like the direction North on a globe, time has a minimum value, beyond which the direction (into the past, or North) no longer applies. Why is it a "process?" Why must there be a "mechanism?" Is it not possible that existence is the default state, that the Universe MUST exist in some form? What could precede the existence of the Universe if time is part of the Universe and thus there is no time dimension for a preceding event to occur? We have discussed them.Endlessly. I'm repeating myself in my response above, even - we've gone over this before, and you act as if nobody ever responds to you.You've just been too incompetent to understand what anyone has said.You can ask the questions as many times as you like, ICANT. You still won't get the answers your looking for, because those answers would be wrong.

Thanks. I finally get it.

Dude, you brought up the Einstein thing because it supported your premise of a self existent universe, helloooOOOoo? And then you turn around and say " I did not SAY it, Einstein said it. wtf?And you end with this bit now. Which of course alludes to your original premise again of a self existent universe. At least have the balls to take ownership in what your alluding to.

Post of the month!! I can see ICANTS head implode right now.

Just to stress the point: it may not have a minimum value. The Universe could be past-infinite as some modern extended "theories" suggest. But if the Universe is past-finite, then all that you say carries through. Of course, there are more exotic possibilities that aren't adequately covered by either of these two options Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I'm familiar with the "Big Crunch" hypothesis, which would in a way be past-infinite, though ti thought that had been discounted through the observation that the expansion of the Universe seems to be speeding up.Are there other past-infinite hypotheses? Is the finite-past model still the predominant one, or is something else considered more likely?Unlike ICANT, I'll actually listen to what you say

No, this is future-finite - time in the future will come to an end. Past-infinite is time continues indefinitely into the past - so right through the Big Bang and into some previous domain. This would describe most extended theories at the moment: Ekpyrotic universe, chaotic inflation, some of the cosmology that has come out of Loop Quantum Gravity, etc.The point is, time could extend infinitely far in the past, or it might only extend only finitely far in the past - either way, the Universe did not "begin" to exist, for the reasons you have presented. Having an infinite past is no more of an explanation of why the Universe is here, than it having a finite past. We don't know why there is existence, but the answer does not lie in the past; the past is just one end of the Universe. Any deeper answers will require regarding the Universe as a complete 4d (or higher) unit - past, present, and future are all just different parts of this unit.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi cavediver,Welcome to the universe I reside in. How could time extend infinitely far into the past without having a beginning to exist?If there is no one or no way to mark time, how does time exist?Would it not be better to refer to that infinity as existence or duration? I agree. If the we you are talking about is the scientific community, I agree.But there are hypothesis that do tell us why there is existence. The answer lies in eternal (no beginning or end) existence.How can the past be one end of an infinite universe?There could be no end unless there was a beginning to exist.Why is it necessary to have more than the three dimensions we observe in the universe?Why is space required when what we call space has to be filled with what is called dark energy, and dark matter?Why do we need time when existence is all that is required?Is any life form other than man concerned with what we call time?If you don't want to discuss these questions that I have asked don't go into one of your moments. Just ignore this post.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Are you seriously suggesting that "time" is a concept of the human mind, and isn't real? That it only "exists" because human beings use natural cycles to measure it?

Hi Rahvin, I am seriously suggesting that "time" is a concept of the human mind that we have invented to measure duration in existence.Existence is all that is necessary.Without existence there is non-existence.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Without time how can there be change?Or are you suggesting that the universe is unchanging?

Yet here: you seem to draw a distinction between time and the spacial dimensions. You've done so elsewhere in this thread as well.Time is an integral part of the Universe, just as with the spacial dimensions, or the total mass of the Universe.We sometimes do give locations with only spacial dimensions...but only when the time component is understood to be "currently." I can give my spacial coordinates right now...but in an hour, they will be different. Time is absolutely important in locating a specific point in the Universe. Without time, the spacial coordinates mean nothing - it would be like telling you my longitude without telling you my latitude, you'd have almost no idea where I actually am.I'm sure we could go deeper into why time is relevant by using relativity, but just knowing that you can't locate an object without all four dimensions should be enough for our purposes here.Time isn't just a human construction. Its a dimension, as real as length or width or height. The Earth's rotation and other natural cycles are some of the ways that we measure time, but just as with a ruler measuring length, the dimension is real and present regardless of whether we measure it or not. The measurement, the units of seconds, minutes, inches, meters, are all human constructs used to represent the physically real dimensions.If our human consciousness were not bound by requiring increasing entropy to run the electrochemical reactions that make up our minds, time would look exactly the same to us as the spacial dimensions.The Universe is not "made of" matter and dark matter and dark energy, contained by the spacial dimensions.The Universe is the sum total of all of its mass (some of which takes the form of matter, some of which is energy, etc) and the dimensions of space and time (and possibly a few others as well).

Hi Straggler, As long as you have existence you have change. Without existence you do not have change. No the universe exists therefore it changes.The universe does not count time it just exists.Man counts time which is determined by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So everything is actually happening simultaneously?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Can you explain how change can occur without time? Do you agree that change would occur in the universe regardless of man's existence? Man certainly measures time by observing change. But that is not the same thing as you seem to be suggesting.Are you familiar with the idea of an atomic clock? An atomic clock on a satellite orbiting Earth will show time passing at a different rate (faster) than an equally accurate clock on the Earth's surface.How do you explain this?