Originally posted by knightmeisterYour whole argument is illogical and false.
Talk about misrepresentation! I have never used the phrase t=-1 ! It's entirely your invention , own it for yourself thank you very much.
I do not subscribe to t=-1 nor have I ever said so. I am simply trying to ask how time begins in the first place if there is by definition no time. It must logically be an event that is unlike any other time bas ...[text shortened]... for you to grasp? Could it be that you just don't like the paradox it places in front of you?
Study the Zenon's paradox, which is not really a paradox due to the fact that my sophist ancestor was using the Time as you do, without taking into account the quality of Space.
I repeat: what was the institution in which you learned about your "theory"?
Originally posted by knightmeister-I am afraid that doesn’t work either;
Thus points of time (such as t=0 or t=4.7 etc) cannot be classified as “events”. --------hammy-----------
I'm not saying that t=0 is an event (or any point in time), I am saying that the transition from t=0 to t=1 is an event.
There is no “transition” from t=0 to t=1 ; t=0 always will be t=0 and t=1 always will be t=1 because “t=0” and “t=1” are merely descriptions of points alone the timeline.
Are you implying that the period of time between t=0 and t=1 is an event? A period of time is not an “event“! -think of it this way; I draw a straight line on a sheet of paper -I point to a point along the line -am I pointing to an “event”? -answer -no. now I point to a segment of the line between two arbitrary chosen points -am I pointing to an “event”? -answer -no.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Give me a break. Time cannot be static BECAUSE it is linked with the Universe.
Firstly, t=0 does not “CHANGE” to t=1; t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1 -they are merely statically defined points along the timeline -that is all.-------------hammy----------------
Give me a break. Time cannot be static because it is linked with the Universe. If the Universe is frozen and not in motion then time doesn't exist. You and I both annot invoke this now in your defence , unless you want to play with loaded dice of course.
..…. (my emphases)
How does one logically follow from the other?
How does it logically follow from:
“ X is “linked” with the Universe “
That:
“X cannot be static”
?
-answer- it doesn’t.
… If the Universe is frozen and not in motion then time doesn't exist. You and I both know that time and motion are intimately linked...….
How does it logically follow from:
“time is static”
that:
“Universe is frozen and not in motion”
?
Motion still exists within the universe because, for example, in a given frame of reference, at “time=x” an object y may be 10 feet away from me and at “time=x + 4 seconds” that same object y may be 20 feet away from me -it is not “time” itself that has motion but rather things that exist in spacetime that have relative motion - there is no “motion“ that causes “time=x” to “change” to “time=x + 4 seconds” -
“time=x” will always remain defined as “time=x” and “time=x + 4 seconds” will always remain defined as “time=x + 4 seconds” .
…Anyway , if you say that "t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1" then the word "always" implies an external time reference to t
…
Nope -in this context “t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1” obviously means it that “t=0 will always be regarded as t=0 and t=1 will always be regarded as t=1” -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is refering to.
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle…Your whole argument is illogical and false...….
Your whole argument is illogical and false.
Study the Zenon's paradox, which is not really a paradox due to the fact that my sophist ancestor was using the Time as you do, without taking into account the quality of Space.
I repeat: what was the institution in which you learned about your "theory"?
I think that could be an understatement for much of it is just total gobbledygook!!!
On the forth post down on page 10 he reveals that he thinks a statement like “Universe = 0” makes sense!!!!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHi AH dude🙂
[b]…Your whole argument is illogical and false...….
I think that could be an understatement for much of it is just total gobbledygook!!!
On the forth post down on page 10 he reveals that he thinks a statement like “Universe = 0” makes sense!!!![/b]
We agree. And we have the same situation over the other thread of our friend, titled "foundations of reason".
Then back I had propose to KM to rename his thread into "foundations of faith" in order to get through the obvious opposition to his beliefs but he refused. Anyway, his arguments at both of them threads are false. I do not want to participate more because KM closes his eyes in the name of his faith and therefore a fruitful conversation with him is a summernight's dream. He will forever keep up preaching instead of debating, and yet I am not ready to have myself preached. However I admire you and twhitehead for your patience.
Amici Sumus, best regards!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonUniverse = 0 , is just an expression of the idea of nothing. If we extrapolate the Universe backwards and reverse the expansion we are either left with a static singularity of unimaginable smallness or a Universe that doesn't exist.
[b]…Your whole argument is illogical and false...….
I think that could be an understatement for much of it is just total gobbledygook!!!
On the forth post down on page 10 he reveals that he thinks a statement like “Universe = 0” makes sense!!!![/b]
However, a Universe condensed to a tiny size is still a Universe and the question is has the Universe been around forever or did it pop out of nothing? Did it begin or does it have no need of a beginning?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry , what do you mean by "always"?
-I am afraid that doesn’t work either;
There is no “transition” from t=0 to t=1 ; t=0 always will be t=0 and t=1 always will be t=1 because “t=0” and “t=1” are merely descriptions of points alone the timeline.
Are you implying that the period of time between t=0 and t=1 is an event? A period of time is not an “event“! -think of it this way; I dr ...[text shortened]... gment of the line between two arbitrary chosen points -am I pointing to an “event”? -answer -no.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNope -in this context “t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1” obviously means it that “t=0 will always be regarded as t=0 and t=1 will always be regarded as t=1” -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is refering to.---------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------------
[b]…Give me a break. Time cannot be static BECAUSE it is linked with the Universe.
..…. (my emphases)
How does one logically follow from the other?
How does it logically follow from:
“ X is “linked” with the Universe “
That:
“X cannot be static”
?
-answer- it doesn’t.
… If the Universe is frozen and not in motion then t ...[text shortened]... -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is refering to.
But what you need to do is some joined up thinking here. Let's think about what t=0 actually is in theory. It's the point where the Universe is just about to expand . If the Universe doesn't expand space/time cannot be created. So t=0 actually is the point of expansion of the Universe , the very beginning of time itself.
So , on a very practical level the Universe has to expand otherwise t=1 will never exist and so on and so forth. So the Universe cannot remain unexpanded. So what does "t=0 will always be t=0" actually mean in context.
I think the problem here is that you are a bit stuck in models and theory to think about the realities. Like Whitey , you think of things in geometric mathematical abstracts rather than an actual space/time Universe that is expanding right now.
Originally posted by black beetleAh , the old "gang up on a theist instead of think about what he is saying routine" . Classic. I have not brought up God nor said that this was a foundation to faith , but you insist on putting words in my mouth. I point out that my argument is one that I held before I was a Theist but to no avail.
Hi AH dude🙂
We agree. And we have the same situation over the other thread of our friend, titled "foundations of reason".
Then back I had propose to KM to rename his thread into "foundations of faith" in order to get through the obvious opposition to his beliefs but he refused. Anyway, his arguments at both of them threads are false. I do not wan ...[text shortened]... ached. However I admire you and twhitehead for your patience.
Amici Sumus, best regards!
You talk abut other's prejudices but do you care to exam your own?
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat do you think you do? You think that you are a poor Christian thrown into the arena against the Lions?
Ah , the old "gang up on a theist instead of think about what he is saying routine" . Classic. I have not brought up God nor said that this was a foundation to faith , but you insist on putting words in my mouth. I point out that my argument is one that I held before I was a Theist but to no avail.
You talk abut other's prejudices but do you care to exam your own?
I say that your theory is false because is based on your theology. The refutation to your belief come from the sciense, the logic, the philosophy and the common sense. So kindly please state in which institution you got to know and learn about this "theory" of yours.
Originally posted by knightmeister…Universe = 0 , is just an expression of the idea of nothing. .….
Universe = 0 , is just an expression of the idea of nothing. If we extrapolate the Universe backwards and reverse the expansion we are either left with a static singularity of unimaginable smallness or a Universe that doesn't exist.
However, a Universe condensed to a tiny size is still a Universe and the question is has the Universe been around forever or did it pop out of nothing? Did it begin or does it have no need of a beginning?
Only in YOUR mind does this expression mean something -to everybody else it is just nonsense.
Originally posted by knightmeister…If the Universe doesn't expand space/time cannot be created.. .….
Nope -in this context “t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1” obviously means it that “t=0 will always be regarded as t=0 and t=1 will always be regarded as t=1” -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is refering to.---------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------------
...[text shortened]... thematical abstracts rather than an actual space/time Universe that is expanding right now.
Firstly, time was never “created” because there was never a before t=0 -there merely exists a t=0 and a t=1 etc.
Secondly, yes -the universe expanded then, but what is your premise for believing that that “expansion” is needed to “create time”? -you reasoning makes no sense.
… So what does "t=0 will always be t=0" actually mean in context....….
I have already answered that in my other post: reminder:
“in this context “t=0 always is t=0 and t=1 always is t=1” obviously means it that “t=0 will always be regarded as t=0 and t=1 will always be regarded as t=1” -so no external time reference to t there! -only to the time that t itself is referred to.”
-are you just pretending I didn’t explain this?
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterJust to put the record straight:
Ah , the old "gang up on a theist instead of think about what he is saying routine" . Classic. I have not brought up God nor said that this was a foundation to faith , but you insist on putting words in my mouth. I point out that my argument is one that I held before I was a Theist but to no avail.
You talk abut other's prejudices but do you care to exam your own?
-I think it is just as possible for a theist can make a perfectly reasonable argument as an atheist. I have personally met many theists that are not in anyway anti-science and are able to make perfectly concise and good arguments -I actually have little to argue with those theists.
However, what I find objectionable is when somebody says a load of gobbledygook that sound vaguely like reason and then make out that is all makes sense -and it doesn’t make any difference to me whether that person is an atheist or a theist -if you were an atheist and you said “Universe = 0” then I will STILL have pointed out that that is just nonsense -it makes no difference.