# beginning of time.... (a proof for eternity?)

knightmeister
Spirituality 06 Oct '08 12:34
1. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 12:34
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"

The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.

Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time then time itself could never have got started in the first place.

If we say that nothing can happen outside of time or there is no such thing as a timeless state then its the same as saying that event B has to occur before event B can occur --which is of course a logical paradox.

Therefore either....

A) It is possible for events to occur outside of time (implying timeless states eg eternity)

Or

B) Time itself has no beginning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)

Thoughts?
2. 06 Oct '08 12:50
Originally posted by knightmeister
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"

The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.

Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)

Thoughts?
Does the South Pole exist?
In the dimension consisting of the lines of longitude, does it have a beginning?
What is further south than the South Pole?

How would you apply your thoughts on time to prove that the surface of the Earth is infinite?
3. 06 Oct '08 12:521 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister
Let B represent ---- the event ---> "the beginning of time"

The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.

Therefore if time actually has a beginning then the event B must have occurred in a timeless state. For if nothing can happen or exist outside time t ...[text shortened]... ning and event B never happened (which also implies an eternal time dimension)

Thoughts?
...or we live in a universe with a two-dimensional time-vector. And after the BigBang they became parallel and indistinguishable.

As far I can see a two-dimensional time is not impossible. Noone can deny the possibility.

The point is that if we are allowed to speculate, we can *really* speculate. Universe is not always logical. We can go anywere in speculations, this is the spiritual forum, isn't it?
4. 06 Oct '08 12:52
Originally posted by knightmeister
The event B must have occurred at a point NOT in time or in a timeless state because "prior" to B must have been a timeless state.
Why do you come to that conclusion? Why must an event preceed itself?
5. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 14:33
Does the South Pole exist?
In the dimension consisting of the lines of longitude, does it have a beginning?
What is further south than the South Pole?

How would you apply your thoughts on time to prove that the surface of the Earth is infinite?
I knew you would try a way to avoid seeing the paradox.

I'm not talking about the South pole . The question should be how did the south pole come about in the first place. Please stay on track and address the issue.

Either the beginning of time is an event or it isn't , if it is an event then it cannot have occurred at a point within time.

If it is not an event then to say that time "began" is meaningless. And if time did not begin then that implies that time has always been.
6. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 14:35
Why do you come to that conclusion? Why must an event preceed itself?
Event B cannot preceed itself as that would be paradoxical.

You may not agree with the point I am making but do you at least see the paradox here?

Do you understand why I say that the beginning of time must be an event that occurred outside the confines of time as we know it?
7. 06 Oct '08 14:46
Originally posted by knightmeister
Event B cannot preceed itself as that would be paradoxical.

You may not agree with the point I am making but do you at least see the paradox here?

Do you understand why I say that the beginning of time must be an event that occurred outside the confines of time as we know it?
Does really time (as we know it) have to have a start? I'm not so sure about that.

The same qeustion can be put about temperature. Were do the Kelvin scale start? (Note that zero Kelvin itself cannot exist.)
Is there really a time t=0? time t close to zero exist, of course, but t=0? I don't think so.

twhitehead's parallel about south pole, which also is a singularity point, makes sense.
8. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 15:09
Originally posted by FabianFnas
Does really time (as we know it) have to have a start? I'm not so sure about that.

The same qeustion can be put about temperature. Were do the Kelvin scale start? (Note that zero Kelvin itself cannot exist.)
Is there really a time t=0? time t close to zero exist, of course, but t=0? I don't think so.

twhitehead's parallel about south pole, which also is a singularity point, makes sense.
You seem to be saying that there is no point t=0 , if so , doesn't that imply that time has always been around.
9. Nemesio
Ursulakantor
06 Oct '08 15:31
Originally posted by knightmeister
You seem to be saying that there is no point t=0 , if so , doesn't that imply that time has always been around.
I can assign t=0 to whatever I want. I can assign it to yesterday, and so t=11.5 right now, measured
in hours.

Why do you think that the Big Bang necessarily means that t=0 and that no events preceded it?
There's no evidence for that.

If we're measuring the age of the universe, then the Big Bang is t=0. If we're measuring my
father's age, then t=0 the day he was born. If we're measuring the inception of RHP, then t=0
corresponds to 21 February 2001, and so on.

Why are you bothered if time has always been around?

Nemesio
10. 06 Oct '08 15:321 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister
You seem to be saying that there is no point t=0 , if so , doesn't that imply that time has always been around.
Time is not infinitely divisible but, in any given frame of reference, is separated into units of Planck time just like matter is not infinitely divisible and consists of sub-atomic particles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

There must have been a “one Plancks time” after the big bang but I am honestly uncertain if there was a “zero Plancks time” because I do not quite remember what was said about this in my advanced physics courses I did at university but there certainly was no fraction of a Planks time after the big bang. -either way, the universe had a “beginning”.

… doesn't that imply that time has always been around...…

“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.
11. 06 Oct '08 15:34
Originally posted by knightmeister
You seem to be saying that there is no point t=0 , if so , doesn't that imply that time has always been around.
I'm just producing think food to chew on.

We do speculate. We're using logic without backgrounds. We have know much about the universe until the last fraction of a second after t=0, but can we ever come to the point to the time began, when t=0 and not only close to =0?

Is this science at all? Or is it outside the domain of science? Is it possible ever to get an answer of this question, of these kinds of questions?

I think - here is where science ends and religion can take place. But we should also be aware of that when science come up with an answer, then religion has to move further. Like we now know what a rainbow works. Until Newton it was religion (Genesis 8:12-14), now we know.

But we can still speculate, it's good for the digestion.
12. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 17:23
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Time is not infinitely divisible but, in any given frame of reference, is separated into units of Planck time just like matter is not infinitely divisible and consists of sub-atomic particles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

There must have been a “one Plancks time” after the big bang but I am honestly uncertain if there was a “zero Pl ...[text shortened]...
“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.
“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.----hammy------------

Therefore , the event B (the beginning of time) did not occur in time but in some timeless state? Time itself must exist without the need of time to "exist in" . However , you have claimed in the past that nothing can exist or occur outside of time or without time.

Everything for you has to occur at a "point in time" does it not? But event B must be an exception to this rule otherwise time would have never begun.
13. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 17:25
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Time is not infinitely divisible but, in any given frame of reference, is separated into units of Planck time just like matter is not infinitely divisible and consists of sub-atomic particles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

There must have been a “one Plancks time” after the big bang but I am honestly uncertain if there was a “zero Pl ...[text shortened]...
“Been around” at what time? There is no evidence that time exists in some other kind of time.
.................but there certainly was no fraction of a Planks time after the big bang. -either way, the universe had a “beginning”.

-------hammy--------------

And did this beginning occur at a point in time?
14. knightmeister
knightmeister
06 Oct '08 17:28
Originally posted by Nemesio
I can assign t=0 to whatever I want. I can assign it to yesterday, and so t=11.5 right now, measured
in hours.

Why do you think that the Big Bang necessarily means that t=0 and that no events preceded it?
There's no evidence for that.

If we're measuring the age of the universe, then the Big Bang is t=0. If we're measuring my
father's age, then ...[text shortened]... ebruary 2001, and so on.

Why are you bothered if time has always been around?

Nemesio
Why are you bothered if time has always been around?---------------------------neme--------------------------

If it hasn't then time must have begun at no point in time and as such was an event that did not require a point in time in order to happen. This is a fly in the ointment for those who claim that nothing exists or can occur outside of time.
15. 06 Oct '08 17:56
Originally posted by knightmeister
I knew you would try a way to avoid seeing the paradox.

I'm not talking about the South pole . The question should be how did the south pole come about in the first place. Please stay on track and address the issue.
Yet again you show your dishonesty in this debate. You simply will not answer the question will you, because you know it shows up the problem with your argument.

What I have done is to abstract the problem and ask "are all dimensions necessarily infinite?".