Originally posted by knightmeisterany event is happening in time. if something is happening, we can assign a moment on the timeline for it. therefore there is a first event which marks the beginning of time.
My argument is based on a process of elimination. The jist of it is that Event B cannot occur within time , so therefore we have to ask ourselves in what state of existence does event B occur.
Event B cannot happen "in time" (and hammy has already corrected himself on this) in the way that we think of normal events occuring "in time" . It cannot oc ...[text shortened]... ime" or b)"not in time" . Event B cannot begin in time because time is not there.
Originally posted by knightmeisterKM dude you think that we are in front of a paradox -your “paradox”-, however it is yourself that is stuck in the middle because of your inability to realise what you know and what you ignore.
My argument is based on a process of elimination. The jist of it is that Event B cannot occur within time , so therefore we have to ask ourselves in what state of existence does event B occur.
Event B cannot happen "in time" (and hammy has already corrected himself on this) in the way that we think of normal events occuring "in time" . It cannot oc ...[text shortened]... ime" or b)"not in time" . Event B cannot begin in time because time is not there.
Everything starts from a problem. And what we do with a specific prob? We try to understand the problem itself, along with every parameter that has to do with it. Then we try to pass from the physical world (in which we detected the problem) to the mental world (to the world of our psychical, conscious and unconscious situations and conditions), and then to promote our concept by scientific means to the mind world (to the world that contains the ideas behind all the results and the products of the Human thoughts). Popper used to refer to these three “worlds” as World 1 (physical world), World 2 (mental world) and World 3 (mind world).
So actually a decent scientist tries to conceive a quality that belongs to the World 3, and in order to find the solution he usually applies to his scientific bibliography or he uses other means of his field or other well accepted theses based on scientific finds and evidence from other scientific fields. But obviously you are not a scientist, and also you have not the slightest scientific find and evidence on which you base your “theory”. If you have, kindly please show us your bibliography and do educate us.
On the other hand you appear to think that your “paradox” -which is a sophism and not a real problem mentioned in a scientifically accepted theory- is transferred to the World 1 due to complications in the known theories; but in such a case you have to elaborate on your own for you must achieve a better understanding of your “paradox”, better than every other previous theory could allow. And over here you fail again due to the fact that until this very moment you cannot elaborate; in addition, your “paradox” cannot be transferred to the World 1 and therefore it causes not the slightest complication in the known theories.
Leaving aside the fact that your opinion is not scientifically backed up, my above mentioned comment is the philosophical refutation to your sophism -a sophism which is profoundly false and troubles nobody but you.
Originally posted by black beetlehe will not understand what you said.
KM dude you think that we are in front of a paradox -your “paradox”-, however it is yourself that is stuck in the middle because of your inability to realise what you know and what you ignore.
Everything starts from a problem. And what we do with a specific prob? We try to understand the problem itself, along with every parameter that has to do with ...[text shortened]... cal refutation to your sophism -a sophism which is profoundly false and troubles nobody but you.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is too advanced for me!
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?
🙄
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut can that first event occur in the very time that is beginning? The beginning of time must be by definition the first event ever in existence. It cannot be initiated "in time" because there's no time for it to happen in until it happens.
any event is happening in time. if something is happening, we can assign a moment on the timeline for it. therefore there is a first event which marks the beginning of time.
I agree with you in essence but the first event cannot occur "in" time in the same way as other subsequent events do. Would you at least agree that the first event ever at t=0 must be by definition a very different catagory of event from subsequent events that occur in pre-existing time?
Originally posted by black beetleI have never claimed this to be a scientific argument so it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
KM dude you think that we are in front of a paradox -your “paradox”-, however it is yourself that is stuck in the middle because of your inability to realise what you know and what you ignore.
Everything starts from a problem. And what we do with a specific prob? We try to understand the problem itself, along with every parameter that has to do with ...[text shortened]... cal refutation to your sophism -a sophism which is profoundly false and troubles nobody but you.
You have not addressed the paradox though. Although it may not be a paradox for you. If you believe that some events can occur outside of the normal time frame we know of then I have no argument with you.
However, some people here seem to think that event B occurs at "a point in time" , which is logically impossible. How can an event which is the very beginning of a timeline occur at a point on a timeline which be definition cannot exist until event B occurs. What some people seem to forget is that at the point t=0 there is no time , otherwise why call it t=0.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister==========================================
So you think my idea that something happened at t=0 is flawed?
It seems to me that something must have happened at t=0 because otherwise there would be no time.
Maybe you think that time didn't begin and that time is beginningless. Maybe you think that time did actually begin. If you do then you still have the problem of figuring out how time b interesting that Theists and Atheists interpret physics to suit their position?
Logic dictates that time cannot begin in time and that the beginning of time cannot rely on itself to happen because time hasn't started yet.
=============================================
I think that Stephen Hawking realized the obvious necessity for a metaphysical proposal in order to address the problem of the creation of the universe.
He came up with something called "imaginary time" which when pressed he addmitted was "just a proposal". That is a metaphysical proposal.
All the theories including a proposed "imaginary time" have not been able to explain what happened in real time.
In the mean time Hawking states "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
Originally posted by jaywillImaginary time is a time with two coefficients. Then it looks like my two-dimensional time isn't so out of mind, after all.
He (Stephen Hawking) came up with something called "imaginary time" which when pressed he addmitted was "just a proposal". That is a metaphysical proposal.
If Hawking came upt with this idea, then I'm not far behind Hawking in thinking, am I? 😏
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleEducated dude,
KM dude you think that we are in front of a paradox -your “paradox”-, however it is yourself that is stuck in the middle because of your inability to realise what you know and what you ignore.
Everything starts from a problem. And what we do with a specific prob? We try to understand the problem itself, along with every parameter that has to do with ...[text shortened]... cal refutation to your sophism -a sophism which is profoundly false and troubles nobody but you.
Could you explain this puzzle to us with your superior scientific education?
What caused the beginning of time ?
Stephen Hawking - "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is not paradox. And you cannot be serious. When you say that time began at the point t=0, then the time began at that point. bbarr and the other friends of ours showed to you countless times. What's wrong with it, and what's wrong with you? You never went to school? What they teach you in America?
I have never claimed this to be a scientific argument so it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
You have not addressed the paradox though. Although it may not be a paradox for you. If you believe that some events can occur outside of the normal time frame we know of then I have no argument with you.
However, some people here seem to think that e ...[text shortened]... people seem to forget is that at the point t=0 there is no time , otherwise why call it t=0.
Of course you know very well that Andrew Hamilton pointed out more than once what exactly he meant when he reffered to "a point in time". How can you repeat yourself so dully? What is your intention?
Furthermore you admit that your "paradox" has nothing to do with a scientific argument. Excellent. For your information, I tell you that your "paradox" was answered countless times by beans of clear scientific arguments, however either you do understand not a thing or your education permits you not to understand these arguments.
Finally, you appear to think that you are quite smart when you state that your "paradox" is not a paradox for me "...because I believe that some events casn occur outside of the Time". All these nonsense of yours are perfectly addressed from many people -myself included- here at this thread and of course at the other masterpiece of yours, the thread titled "foundations of reason", which of course you would better rename it into "foundations of Meisty's personal theology".
When you are talking about issues that they have to do with Time/ Space, with scientific finds and evidence and with philosophy, you must at least be educated enough in order to understand the basics. Keep up with your theology though.
Originally posted by jaywillHi jaywill.
Educated dude,
Could you explain this puzzle to us with your superior scientific education?
What caused the beginning of time ?
[b]Stephen Hawking - "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." [/b]
It began at the point t=0;
2 edits
"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."
[ Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers ]