Summations Only

Many words are said.
Not much wisdom to be found.
Nothing from something.

I would just change your wording to "It was created by a natural phenomena (e.g. branes)"
Or maybe call it "existed in a different way" as opposed to "already existed."The "already existed" part is kind of the same fallacy ICANT is falling into when he speaks of "always existed" in some form.The terms 'always' and 'already' imply a usage of time. Time is a property of our universe.
There may be some sort of natural process outside/beyond our universe... but it is an assumption to think that "time" (at least as we know of it) would be a part of that process in any recognizable way.It's very weird to consider... because "time" seems so basic to us.
But, again, that's just because we're us, and we're here in this universe... that has "time."In contemplating uber-universe scenarios, we can no longer assume the properties of our own universe. Even if they do seem basic and necessary to us.
ICANT seems unable to do this (hence his limit to the 2 options), but I don't think that means we should all lower our intellect to the same level... it will only add confusion to anyone actually trying to learn something from all of this.I do agree with your idea, and that your options 3 and 4 are valid. In fact, since this is the beginning of the entire universe, I think it's quite rational to include a "???" option because it is highly likely that something not-based-in-our-universe does not work in ways that we understand from-within-our-universe.
I'm also talking out of my ass (so my point of contention may be wrong as well...) just wondering if I'm understanding things correctly or not. If I'm not, I'm hoping someone will correct my error with an explanation as to why I'm wrong.

Understood. Yeah... a bit dwarfing to ponder.
Or, at least it is to me. Maybe folks like cavediver and Son Goku actually have a bit more inkling in that direction. Maybe that's what they mean when they say "it's all in the maths!" ...the concepts and words havn't been invented yet.
C'mon, astrophysicists, invent concepts and ensure that they are mainstream, already! Slackers.

Thanks for the explanation.I understood your previous mention of "quasi-existence" enough to know that it was a valid idea... but your mention of the extra dimensions reminded me of some stuff I had forgotten. It makes even more sense now.

I do not understand the distinction you're attempting to make. What's the difference between invoking eternity or time? Doesn't the use of eternity imply the property of time?If you're attempting to imply some sort of "time-line-like-thing-that-isn't-time-that-extends-beyond-our-universe"... then you are messing it up as I explained. If not, then you'll have to explain what it is you're talking about."Eternity" is a lot more connected to "time" than the word "always" is. The connection to "time" is the problem. When I say time I mean to refer to time. Anything time-related at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by existence, because you don't seem to be using eternity correctly either... so I can't say if you understand me or not.Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them.
Time is not merely an intellectual structure, it is a property of our universe.It can be determined many ways. The most accurate way is to do it with math using data (example: time = distance/velocity). Generally, though, it can be determined with a simple stopwatch for simple observations. Space, matter and energy are not dimensions of the universe.
Time is not an entity like these, it is a dimension of the universe, as explained above.

Are you sure? Eternity
Dictionary.com says: Infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
Wikipedia says: Eternity (or forever) is endless time.That's the very first phrase, and the very first claim you make.
If we can't get this right, how can anyone understand the rest of what you say?
What sort of definition of "eternity" are you using if it does not invlove time? "Now" is a time. Now
Dictionary.com says: At the present time or moment.
Wikipedia says: Now usually refers to the present time.Without getting these simple definitions straight... all of your other question and ideas could mean anything at all.
What are you talking about? Yesterday, today, tomorrow, before, after, always, forever, eternity, now... by "anything related to time" I mean anything related to time. Yes. "Temporal" means "of or relating to time."
So.. yes... time is considered a temporal dimension because time is "of or relating to time."
Sorry, I thought that would have been obvious, I just didn't mention it because it would have been redundant. There are 3 spatial dimensions in our universe because that's how many dimensions are required in order to locate a physical object in our universe.
But, really, you cannot locate that very same object unless you also specify the 4th dimension of time.
When time is not specified, it's simply implied to be "now" or maybe "recently." That doesnt mean it's not there... it's just not specifically stated.When you say "my car is in my garage." You are actually saying "my car is in my garage now." You just leave off the "now" because it's implied in our everyday speech. When you take your car to work, obviously your car is no longer in your garage.You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.Don't worry, even if your first guess is wrong, we can do this over and over again until you are satisfied. All that exists in the universe also has a time.
You car has a length, width and height... but it also has a time... "now."
Your car did not exist 300 years ago...Please name a single thing that has a length, a width and a height, but does not have a time component necessary to identifying it's location.Even the earth itself did not exist at a certain point in time... You are correct. Time is not a spatial dimension, it is a temporal dimension. But, all 4 dimensions are required in order to identify an object in our universe.If you're looking for Venus, you will need to know the x, y and z distances from our sun (or maybe from Earth). You will also need to know when to look there, as Venus is in orbit (and didn't even exist at some point in time).If you're looking for your phone, you will need to know the x, y and z distances of it's location in your house. You will also need to know when to look there (usually "now").
Even the phone's existence itself has height, width and length... but the phone did not always exist, you will be assuming a time value of "recently."
Even the earth did not exist at some time.
Even the solar system did not exist at some time.
Even light did not exist at some time.Prove me wrong, just identify the location of any object in our universe that does not depend on a value of time.
There was a time when earth and everything on it did not exist...
All things in our universe are flying around space (orbiting this way, or moving that way...) if you don't specify when, you'll be looking at the wrong location as the object has moved.Without height, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "height" is a dimension of our universe.
Without width, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "width" is a dimension of our universe.
Without length, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "length" is a dimension of our universe.
Without time, you cannot specify the location of an object. This is why "time" is a dimension of our universe.Edited by Stile, : You must be mistaken, there is no edit here. Don't look at me like that. Don't look at me!!!!

Are you saying that "God" is a physical object that exists at specific co-ordinates for everyone to see and touch? We do have to note that you didn't even specify any co-ordinates for God. That's the task... you specify the co-ordianates, and I specify the time.
I do understand, though... it is difficult for you to show this one...
Of course, if you can show this one, you'll do a lot more than prove time is not a dimension... you'll also get a Nobel Prize for finding God. Good luck. "Something" existed "in a well known form"?
Really?
First of all, all "well known forms" do not exist in a single location for all of time. That's exactly this exercise.
Secondly, you've stated "for all of the duration of it's existence"... so then at the time when it didn't exist... it obviously wasn't there.
Thirdly, the elevation specification of 1015 will refer to different heights as the Earth was different sizes at different times in the past. In fact, there's a point in the past when the Earth didn't even exist... therefore these co-ordinates didn't even exist. Therefore... there's a time where this this could not have existed at this location.Keep trying, though, if you can think of anything else.
The more leeway you try to take, though... gives me more leeway to simply shrug off your non-specific examples. It would make it more difficult to reject your suggestions if they were more specific.
But, of course, it's impossible... because time is a dimension, and all physical things do have a time component required to describe their location. The frame, for one. No, you can't.
If you don't specify a time, then there is no guarantee that the object will be there when I look. If it's not there... then you're not specifying it's location. You're guessing, and getting it wrong.
That's why you've failed in your previous two suggestions.
But feel free to keep trying, if you'd like. All you're doing is further strengthening the case that time actually is a dimension.

Again, this is what we're doing:

quote:

---

There are 3 spatial dimensions in our universe because that's how many dimensions are required in order to locate a physical object in our universe.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.

---

Your first attempt is "God." Are you saying God's location x, y, z co-ordinates are "everywhere" and that he has a physical body similar to mine?
Okay, then.
God exists "now," apparently, where you can see Him.
God does not exist "2 seconds ago" in my office, where I cannot see Him. And yes, I did look.
We can continue with this if you'd like... but it may be best to use a physical object we both actually agree exists in the first place. Otherwise, it's fairly easy for me to simply tell you that God doesn't exist anywhere, anytime... and this will be enough to falsify the suggestion as I'm sure you cannot prove God exists in physical form at any specific co-ordinates... or else you would be more popular with the American media (to say the least).
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Your second attempt is an unspecified "well known form" existing at some specific longitude, latitude and elevation co-ordinates. I didn't see where... but okay.
Time it exists at those co-ordinates: The specific year that ICANT specified (I'll take your word for it).
Time it does not exist at those co-ordinates: The time of 10 years before the planet existed. There is no elevation, therefore your specific co-ordinates don't even exist. Therefore, the object can't be there because the location cannot even be identified.
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Your third attempt is your house. I agree that your house exists "now" and "recently." Those are the implied time values when you speak colloquially in this way. Perhaps even a few hundred years old (depending on when it was built).
Time your house existed: "now" or "recently"
Time your house did not exist: 1000 years ago, say the year of 1012. Your house was not built yet, so it did not exist at that location. Therefore, yes, I am saying that you cannot give me the co-ordinates of your house without the dimension of time (and I'm showing it to you, as well).
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Keep trying, though.
All you have to do is come up with one single physical thing where you can specify the x, y and z co-ordinates for it's location and have it not depend on time. Do that, and I'll concede that time is not a dimension.
Of course, with all your continued efforts failing, it is only adding to the evidence that time is, in fact, a dimension. By all means, please continue. No. I'm telling you that your car's frame did not exist 300 years ago. Are you moving the goalposts to now ask about the materials that were used to create your car's frame? That is irrelevant to the true statement that your car did not exist 300 years ago. The frame will have a serial number on it. You can use that serial number to look up the exact date the frame was created.

Hello ICANT. I hope your day is going well, mine is going great. This is not true. Time is a dimension.
And we have developed a test to show that is, in fact, a dimension:

quote:

---

You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.

​

Message 382

---

So far you have proposed 3 suggestions.
I have already done what I said I would do for all 3 of your suggestions (give you a time when the object exists, and a time when the object does not exist). Therefore you have yet to show that time is not a dimension.
However, we do seem to be stuck on the 3rd one, so we will continue: Claim: Your house exists at x, y, z.
Time your house exists at x, y, z: Nov. 26, 2012.
Time your house did not exist at x, y, z: Nov. 26, 1012 (or "1000 years ago").I am able to show a time when your house did exist at this location, and a time when your house did not exist at this location.
Therefore... your house's location does indeed depend on a time value.
Conclusion: Time is a dimensionYes, you've offered 3 suggestions for time not being a dimension. But all 3 suggestions have failed as I have shown that all 3 do depend on time.
Conclusion: Time is in fact a dimension.If you are now convinced that time is a dimension, then we can continue the discussion.
If you are not convinced that time is a dimension, feel free to provide a 4th suggestion and we can continue.
Please, do continue to offer suggestions. The more things I show to be dependent on time, the more evidence piles up that time is in fact a dimension of our universe.The fork has been stuck in this turkey for a very long time, ICANT. Science has understood that time is a dimension of our universe for longer than you have been alive.But, as I said before:

quote:

---

Don't worry, even if your first guess is wrong, we can do this over and over again until you are satisfied.

​

Message 382

---

We can stop if you are satisfied that time is a dimension.
If not, feel free to try some more suggestions.

Yes, I understand.
Even your ownership of the house depends on time.
There is a time you did not own the house.
There is a time you did own the house.Here's another example:We have a room with a ledge in it.
The ledge top is located at x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left and z = 3 feet high.
A video camera is fixed so that it is pointing at this specific location. It records from 9am until 3pm.
At noon, a spoon is placed on top of the ledge. What is a dimension?
A dimension is a required piece of information in order to describe a physical object.
In our simple case, we're discussing the required information in order to describe the location of a physical object. Describe the location of the spoon
After the experiment, at 5pm, we decide to analyze our data:

0 Dimensions
If we don't see anything, obviously we cannot describe the location of the spoon.

​

1 Dimension
x = 6 feet in.
If we simply look at "6 feet in"... there will be nothing there except floor and the far wall.
This is obviously insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just this one dimension.
We need another dimension.

​

2 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left.
If we look at "6 feet in and 2 feet left"... we will see the base of the ledge and the spoon on top and the ceiling. There is one "level" where the spoon is present. But there are many "levels" where the spoon is not present.
We are doing better, but this is not accurate for all observations of this 2-dimensional location.
This is also insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just these two dimensions.
We need another dimension.

​

3 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left, z = 3 feet high.
We look at "6 feet in, 2 feet left and 3 feet high"... and we see the spoon on the ledge and nothing else! Wonderful! But wait... the video camera... there is some time where the spoon is present and some time where the spoon is not present at the same location on the ledge.
This is much better, but this is still not accurate for all observations of this 3-dimensional location.
This is still insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just these three dimensions.
We need another dimension!

​

4 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left, z = 3 feet high at 2pm.
We look at the camera for "6 feet in, 2 feet left, 3 feet high at 2pm"... and we see the spoon and nothing else!
This is fantastic, the spoon is present for all possible observations of this 4-dimensional location.
This is completely sufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on four dimensions.
We don't need any more dimensions.

​

We are now safe to tell our supervisors the location of the spoon.
If we had told them that the spoon was present based on just the 3 dimensions... it may be possible that the spoon was removed from the room (maybe the guy who put it there wanted it back). And then we would look silly telling people that the spoon was there.

​

The time dimension may often be implied to the point of even being ignored. But it is still required for an accurate description of the location of any and all physical objects.

​

Your inability to provide an example of a physical object's location that does not depend on time is proof of this concept.

​

Conclusion: Time is a dimension

Sure.
And, technically, you are correct.
I was referencing the top of the ledge, where the spoon woud be placed with x, y and z.
Whenever a spatial reference (the first 3 dimensions in the example) to the spoon sitting on top of the ledge is made, you can call this the following:Instead of "x", use "x + f(a)"
Instead of "y", use "y + f(b)"
Instead of "z", use "z + f(c)"Explanation:f(a), f(b) and f(c) are functions. They can be as simple as a constant, or as complex as an algebraic description of specific curvature (or anything else).

f(a) would be the + or - value in the x co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

f(b) would be the + or - value in the y co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

f(c) would be the + or - value in the z co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

Because they are functions, you can use them as place-holders to get from "on top of the ledge" to any specific point in the spoon (maybe the tip, or middle, or even the centre of gravity of the spoon) that is sitting on top of the ledge. Or you can use them as place-holders to get from "on top of the ledge" to the actual spatial description for the specifc size and shape of any spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge.

​

I will leave the exact numbers and equations up to you... this will allow you to describe the spoon's spatial location on top of the ledge in any way you wish.

​

tl;dr (Too Long; Didn't Read):
It is technically correct to add this pedantic addendum to the example. But it is irrelevant to the point being made about how dimensions are required information in order to describe the location of the object... and that the 2nd and 3rd spatial dimensions are required (to restrict confusing observations) in the same way the 4th dimenstion is required (to restrict confusing observations). Therefore, you can add/subtract whatever values you prefer in order to get from "on top of the ledge" to "the spoon that is on top of the ledge."

​

---

​

I notice you don't seem to have any more suggestions for the location of objects that do not depend on time.

​

The test is still available, you can continue whenever you're ready:

​

quote:

---

Time is a dimension.
You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.

​

Message 382

---

​

All you need to do is come up with a single physical object that has a location that is independent of time. Surely if time is not a dimension, this should be an easy task for you?

​

Colour is not a dimension. I can fully describe the location of a spoon, or your house, or lots of other things without referencing colour in any way. It doesn't matter what colour it is, that information is not required in order to describe the location of the physical object. See? It's easy for things that are not dimensions.

​

It's not easy for "time" because time actually is a dimension.

​

If you have any more suggestions, please continue. We can go over your suggestions as long as you'd like.

​

Or, if you're satisfied that you cannot describe the location of a physical object that is independent of time... if you're satisfied that time is, in fact, a temporal dimension of our universe just as x, y and z are spatial dimensions of our universe... we can continue with our original discussion about time and eternity and the beginning of the universe, if you'd like.

​

Whenever you're ready.

This is just a general thanks to the likes of NoNukes, Onifre and Son Goku.Having these concepts explained like this is very helpful for someone like me to read. I appreciate the time and effort you're putting into your posts and I just wanted to say thanks for spelling it out. Sometimes the strict science-threads get a bit over-technical and these basic ideas are "assumed to be known."I, for one, appreciate going over these basic concepts. I mean, I knew they were valid concepts, but I didn't really understand why (or perhaps I had just forgotten...), and these basic descriptions are helping me get a firmer grasp of the subject. I may not be the designated specific audience... but when you exlain why certain questions don't make sense, or how to correct the simple errors in some basic incorrect assumptions... it is helpful for my understanding of the subject matter.Just wanted to say that your efforts are appreciated...And no, I'm not a pansy. I just play one on the internets

You keep claiming this. And yet, you aren't able to articulate a reason for it to be valid.There is still a simple test available, you can continue whenever you're ready. You don't have to understand higher math, or the foundation of relativity (GR or SR), or how GPS systems work. This test is really very general and basic. There's not too much to it. I'm pretty sure the concept is used in grade school science classes. Maybe highschool.

quote:

---

Time is a dimension.
You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.

​

Message 382

---

You seem to have stopped replying to this exercise and merely returned to claiming that time is not a dimension... and then getting lost in the maths and concepts of SR and GR.I can think of a few reasons why:1. You are trolling: Message 3582. You are not able to think of any physical thing that does not depend on time. Therefore, you actually do know that time is a dimension, but you won't say so because you think that being wrong on this idea is detrimental to something you hold as an extremely high priority to yourself (I don't know what, or why). Since this test is basic, it's difficult to hide from. The maths and concepts of SR and GR are more complicated, so you think there's a better chance to find a place to hide there.3. You've decided that the test itself is at fault, therefore all the results are irrelevent. If so, we can discuss the test itself, why the 3 spatial dimensions are required (in basic terminology), and why the 4th temporal dimension is required in the same basic way. Kind of like what is done in Message 436.4. You have a lot of people posting to you, and you have to make some cuts because you're only one man. It's okay, the test won't disappear or anything. Feel free not to respond for months or years even, if needed. Sometimes I can get impatient... but that's my problem, not yours.

---

You keep coming back to this, ending your posts with it and such... as if it's a big important point or something.
What do you think it means?I mean, it's wrong.. and it's been shown to be wrong. But I really don't even see why it matters?
Let's say it's totally correct. You're awesome and these are the only two options possible. What does that mean? Anything? Is there some fantastic truth of the ages you think this proves? Do you think this somehow shows that God exists or that the Bible is true or something like that?Or is it simply "if this is true, then ICANT's pet theories about the universe are correct, and ICANT can sleep well at night"? Even though it doesn't really have anything to say about anything larger than you having a smile on your face? We do have a humour thread, if that's what you're looking for...I just don't see why you're defending any of this and constantly returning to that one point anyway. Is there a reason?

I didn't see a point worth contending from the Opening Post.
I don't mind being called a creationist or a non-creationist or whatever else anyone would like to describe me as. To me, it's the idea that matters, and to claim knowledge of something we just don't know about yet ("Creation is absolutely impossible in any way, shape or form") is a hint that he isn't looking to have an honest discussion.

---

As for ICANT and the resulting time discussion... I think Catholic Scientist has summed ICANT up fairly accurately (Message 494).
I like to hope that maybe there's some sort of idea in ICANT's head and he's just not able to get it past the language barrier he's created over years of misusing technical terms. And then... maybe that idea does have some level of honest question to it.I attempted to get into the simple and basic errors of ICANT's ideas. But when it became too obvious that his ideas had large basic flaws that he could not explain... he chose to continue using the basic flaws as a way to confuse higher level ideas instead of dealing with the basic flaws so that others might be able to understand his thoughts.The simple challenge remains for anyone not convinced that time is a dimension of our universe: the way to show that time is not a dimension is to describe a physical object that does not depend on time. (See Message 382 for details).Time being a dimension of our universe, means that time might not be a dimension of anything "outside" our universe (if anything like that exists). Or that anything resembling time outside our universe might be very different from how we know time within our universe.
This means that all temporal terms such as "before, from, after, eternity, eternal, existence, infinite..." may or may not have any meaning when applied to "the beginning of our universe."
Then, it is simple to recognize that ICANT's dichotomy:

quote:

---

Either the universe has existed for an infinite eternity in some form.
OR
The universe had a beginning to exist in and from non-existence.

---

Cannot be valid because the terms are too dependent on things within our universe in order to apply to anything outside our universe (like it's "beginning," if it can have one).
Therefore, there are many more options available as the rest of the participants have explained.Without this central basis of ICANT's ideas, his conclusions no longer apply and we're left in the same position we were in at the beginning of the discussion... We cannot know if anyone is correctly labelled as a "creationist" or "non-creationist" because we don't know enough about the start of the universe in order to talk about it with any sort of authority.It's fun to discuss and imagine and theorize... but we don't currently have the necessary data in order to come to any conclusions. The necessary data may very well be impossible for us to obtain... but we don't know that yet either, as we are making progress in the research. If this thread has shown me anything, it has shown me that all the logic, reasoning and philosophy put forward by Alfred Maddenstein and ICANT is completely useless unless it is based off of actual, realistic, objective data. Without that data to link it with reality, all the ideas about reality are simply imagination. Just as it was in the time of Aristotle.Edited by Stile, : Strange how switching "may" to "might" makes things a lot clearer on what I was trying to say.