A question for knightmeister:
Does the future exist?
If at a given point in time say t=1000, does the point t=1001 exist? If it doesn't as implied by your comments regarding t=0, then does that mean that time is infact finite in the future direction, and thus your claim that time is necessarily infinite is proved false?
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed..….
Ok, so I made the slight error of words saying it is a “point IN time” rather a than saying it correctly as it is a “point OF time” (i.e that point of time is a PART of the time line itself) -no problem -I stand corrected.
-Obviously I am not trying to suggest that time exists IN time!
----------hammy---------------------
First of all thank you t exists as a point of time might be too much as well because at t=0 time doesn't exist.
How so?
… You ADMIT that time itself cannot exist in time .…. (my emphasis)
“ADMIT” ? -it has been my position all the long -stop pretending it isn’t!
…So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so what does it begin in..….
It doesn’t begin “IN” anything.
… It must begin or proceed from a timeless state or timelessness.…
No -and you keep saying this but you give no argument to justify this proposition -WHY must it begin from a “timeless state” or “timelessness”? -there is no logical reason nor evidence to believe there is some kind of mysterious “timeless state” -what is your argument to justify your claim that if there was a t=0 then it must have “begin from a timeless state”? -HOW does one logically follow from the other? -please state your argument (if you have one).
…It cannot proceed from time. …
? what does that mean?
…t=0 , if it exists , cannot exist in time …
correct.
…therefore it must exist SOMEWHERE ELSE.. …(my emphasis)
Firstly, what is the premise for the belief that there must exist this “SOMEWHERE ELSE” other than the universe itself.
And secondly, how does it logically follow from:
1, “t=0 , if it exists , cannot exist in time “
That:
2, “time must exist in this “SOMEWHERE ELSE” “
?
Why does spacetime itself (space and time are inseparable) have to exist “somewhere” other than within the universe it is in?
…I would say that even saying it exists as a point of time might be too much as well because at t=0 time doesn't exist..…
Why does "t=0 not exist"? -please explain your argument (if you have one).
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt doesn’t begin “IN” anything.
[b]…It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed..….
How so?
… You ADMIT that time itself cannot exist in time .…. (my emphasis)
“ADMIT” ? -it has been my position all the long -stop pretending it isn’t!
…So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so wh ...[text shortened]... xist..…
Why does "t=0 not exist"? -please explain your argument (if you have one).[/b]
-----hammy-------------------
So you agree that time is not neccessary for some things to begin then?
So why all your fuss about time and timebased phrases when I was speculating about the Big Bang?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthere is no logical reason nor evidence to believe there is some kind of mysterious “timeless state” ========hammy============
[b]…It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed..….
How so?
… You ADMIT that time itself cannot exist in time .…. (my emphasis)
“ADMIT” ? -it has been my position all the long -stop pretending it isn’t!
…So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so wh ...[text shortened]... xist..…
Why does "t=0 not exist"? -please explain your argument (if you have one).[/b]
It's not mysterious , why do you say that? It's just logical. An absence of time is by definition timeless. How can it not be so?
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKM… It must begin or proceed from a timeless state or timelessness.…
[b]…It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed..….
How so?
… You ADMIT that time itself cannot exist in time .…. (my emphasis)
“ADMIT” ? -it has been my position all the long -stop pretending it isn’t!
…So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so wh xist..…
Why does "t=0 not exist"? -please explain your argument (if you have one).[/b]
HAMMY- No -and you keep saying this but you give no argument to justify this proposition -WHY must it begin from a “timeless state” or “timelessness”?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it certainly didn't begin from "timefullness" did it?! There are logically only two options either some time or no time.There's either time or there isn't.
If I say a plant grows in L (light) =0 then you can be logically certain that it grows in lightlessness (otherwise known as darkness) . Therefore , logically t=0 equals timelessness. How can it not be timelessness? There are only 2 options logically.
Now what timelessness actually is is another matter. It may be a state of existence or it may be nothing. What is clear is that at least one thing in existence (namely time) does NOT require time as a neccessary condition to begin with.
Why are you so resistant to such a simple idea as t=0 means there's no time . Call me naive , but I thought the whole idea of calling t 0 was that t would actually equal 0. Would there actually be any point in calling something mass=0 if it actually weighed something?
I think the onus is actually on you to tell me why on earth t=0 does not mean timelessness , you seem to think that t=0 implies time of some kind , could you explain why? Why don't you at least call it t=0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000001 if you think there is some time there?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy does spacetime itself (space and time are inseparable) have to exist “somewhere” other than within the universe it is in?
[b]…It's much more than a slight error of language though. It's a re-think in how t=0 can be viewed..….
How so?
… You ADMIT that time itself cannot exist in time .…. (my emphasis)
“ADMIT” ? -it has been my position all the long -stop pretending it isn’t!
…So process of elimination then......time cannot begin "in" time so wh ...[text shortened]... xist..…
Why does "t=0 not exist"? -please explain your argument (if you have one).[/b]
-----------------hammy-----------------------------
Firstly , would you agree that the universe , space and time are all inseparable? Ok , assuming so.
It doesn't have to exist somewhere other than within itself as it stands because the universe is here.
The problem really arises at t=0 , because at t=0 , the U(universe) is also 0 because they are inseparable. So t=0 is also AE(all existence) =0.
You claim that t=0 exists and is a "point" (ie not nothing) , but at t=0 there can be no time by definition and no Universe either. Therefore at the very beginning of t , AE , and U this point you think exists called t=0 must exist somewhere else. It cannot logically exist "within" a universe that is non-existent , so what else can it exist in?
You could try and avoid this by saying that t=0 does not really exist actually but then that means that you are saying it's impossible for time to equal 0 , and that would imply infinite time rather than finite time.
Philosophically what this whole deal is about is contemplating nothingness and the complete absence of space/time. It's an awesome thought because of this central paradox. Why would t=0 move to t=0.00001 at all? Why would the Universe "begin" and kind of pop out of nothing (AE=0)? The most parsimonious way of looking at nothing is to say that nothing stays as nothing because there's nothing and no reason for nothing to stop being nothing.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo a circle is one dimensional? Duh? If I draw a circle on a piece of paper I can measure it's height and it's width!
Yes. Every point on the earths surface can be exactly defined using two co-ordinates. That is the very definition of "Two dimensions".
[b]I thought that would make the earth a circle rather than a sphere......
You would be wrong. A circle is one dimensional.[/b]
By your logic adding another dimension would result in a two dimensional sphere? Yes?
Therefore , what on earth is 3 dimensional?
Every point on the earth's surface CANNOT be plotted and exactly defined just by using two dimensions , the reason for this is that one would require a 3D sphere to do it.
Those old flat 2D maps of the earth never quite worked because they only worked on 2 dimensions. You and I both know that a sphere cannot be accurately laid out on a falt surface properly in the same way. That's why you get greenland looking all huge etc (you know this of course)
That's why we have globes and sphere maps of the world.
If you only gave an alien access to a flat map and he had no access to globes or no undersanding of spheres he would get lost around greenland wondering what the @@@@ was going on. Unless he had an understanding of a spheres.
What you meant to say was that "Every point on the earths surface can be exactly defined using two co-ordinates ON A SPHERE"
You see I understand what you are saying from a mathematical model point of view , but the earth and universe is not a maths exam , it's real and it exists. You have spent too much time on some freaky geometry software and not enough looking out the window.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you ever apply to a graduate program in mathematics, let me know. I feel it would be my duty to the field to write a letter of recommendation for you.
So a circle is one dimensional? Duh? If I draw a circle on a piece of paper I can measure it's height and it's width!
By your logic adding another dimension would result in a two dimensional sphere? Yes?
Therefore , what on earth is 3 dimensional?
Every point on the earth's surface CANNOT be plotted and exactly defined just by using two dime ...[text shortened]... nt too much time on some freaky geometry software and not enough looking out the window.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead========================================
I think you know exactly what I said, but chose to misunderstand me completely. But I'll answer anyway. My point was that you made a general statement about scientists, which by implication should include most scientists even those alive today, yet to support your claim you had to dig into the past for an obscure quote that didn't particularly support you ...[text shortened]... you need to ask the Holy Spirit for help.
I don't see what Galileo has to do with it at all.
I think you know exactly what I said, but chose to misunderstand me completely. But I'll answer anyway. My point was that you made a general statement about scientists, which by implication should include most scientists
==========================================
I said something about some scientists. I gave no statistics on how many.
It is enough to point out that some are vocal about their desire for a loophole way out of a beginning of the universe.
========================================
even those alive today, yet to support your claim you had to dig into the past for an obscure quote that didn't particularly support your claim at all.
========================================
I doubt that you would hesitate to quote some clerical opposer to Copernicus's (not Galileo) solar system to demonstate how the Church is anti-scientific. And that is a lot longer ago then A. Eddington.
And if not you per se, lots of atheists do.
I suppose the point here is, are their any today who have such an attitude?
Tell me then? Why on a board of Spirituality are you, a commited self professed Athiest, so strenuously be debating about implications of the universe's beginning ? Why ? And why debate it here ?
If you go over to www.evcforum.net Evotution Verses Creation Website, you'll see plenty of contempory people, some of them scientists, who argue against a timeless Cause of the universe.
The book that I happened to be quoting from was written, I think, in the 90s.
============================
If you cant see the problem with that then you need to ask the Holy Spirit for help.
=======================================
Of course I need the Holy Spirit for everything.
================================
I don't see what Galileo has to do with it at all.
===================================
Maybe I meant Copernicus.
Here we go again. Lots of Athiests like to hold up the Catholic Church's opposition to Copernicus as proof of the historic anti scientific attitude of the Christian faith.
Sure you do. I know you're concerned about your professional posture here but you should know that Athiest's reach way further back for thier evidence of the "anti - scientific" attitude of Christians.
How many debates have you and your Athiest counterparts had on this Forum arguing against the probability of a supernatural cause to the beginning of the universe ?
Gotta go now. I'll give you a place to find more recent quotes about the matter when I have time.
Originally posted by knightmeisterKnightmeister, please stop. You're seriously embarrassing yourself.
Every point on the earth's surface CANNOT be plotted and exactly defined just by using two dimensions , the reason for this is that one would require a 3D sphere to do it.
The surface of the earth is indeed two-dimensional. The way we
indicate position on the earth is with a two-number system: latitude and
longitude. If the surface of the earth is three dimensional, then what
precisely is the third dimension? Going up constitutes leaving the
surface in the direction opposite the sphere's center, going down
constitutes leaving the surface heading towards that center.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterFrom the very first time we started discussing time I pointed out that you do not understand the concept of dimensions. I have repeated that claim numerous times. I find it remarkable that you have never once thought to get on the internet and find out what dimensions are.
So a circle is one dimensional? Duh? If I draw a circle on a piece of paper I can measure it's height and it's width!
By your logic adding another dimension would result in a two dimensional sphere? Yes?
Therefore , what on earth is 3 dimensional?
Every point on the earth's surface CANNOT be plotted and exactly defined just by using two dime ...[text shortened]... nt too much time on some freaky geometry software and not enough looking out the window.
Originally posted by jaywillMy mistake, I thought you were generalizing.
I said something about [b]some scientists. I gave no statistics on how many.[/b]
It is enough to point out that [b]some are vocal about their desire for a loophole way out of a beginning of the universe. [/b]
Enough for what? The fact that one scientist thought it would be easer for him to understand evolution if it had had an infinite time to get started tells us what exactly? Notice also that despite his desire he did not go along with it.
I doubt that you would hesitate to quote some clerical opposer to Copernicus's (not Galileo) solar system to demonstate how the Church is anti-scientific. And that is a lot longer ago then A. Eddington.
You are wrong.
And if not you per se, lots of atheists do.
And they would be wrong to do so.
And you are wrong to emulate them.
Tell me then? Why on a board of [b]Spirituality are you, a commited self professed Athiest, so strenuously be debating about implications of the universe's beginning ? Why ? [/b]
Because knightmeisters logic is flawed.
And why debate it here ?
Because kightmeister started it here. I guess he could have started it in the science forum if he thought it was science, but he was hoping to point towards a creator which would not have gone down well in the science forum.
If you go over to www.evcforum.net [b]Evotution Verses Creation Website, you'll see plenty of contempory people, some of them scientists, who argue against a timeless Cause of the universe.[/b]
And how is that relevant?
The book that I happened to be quoting from was written, I think, in the 90s.
And you quoted it a few days ago. What difference does that make?
Maybe I meant Copernicus.
Here we go again. Lots of Athiests like to hold up the Catholic Church's opposition to Copernicus as proof of the historic anti scientific attitude of the Christian faith.
Sure you do. I know you're concerned about your professional posture here but you should know that Athiest's reach way further back for thier evidence of the "anti - scientific" attitude of Christians.
And when talking about historic attitudes they would be fully justified.
If you think you have shown a historic anti-finite time attitude in the scientific community then you are sadly mistaken.
Originally posted by knightmeisteri think i can see your problem. you think that t=0 implies quantity of time? so if it is 0 there is no time? hope you are not that messed up. t=0 suggests an order on the time line ie "that which has occured first". if something did occur, then time exists, we associate an event with a position on the time line.
How so? Explain your reasoning please. If I arbitrary assign a value of a point of time as t=0 then how is it that t=0 “by definition” does not exist!? -explain. ----------hammy--------------
Because t=0 is not any old point of time , it is the non existence of time. If time existed at that point it could not be t=0. Any more than if a scale has any ...[text shortened]... t on it it could be w=0.
I find it almost ridiculous that you think that at t=0 time exists.
"I find it almost ridiculous that you think that at t=0 time exists"
i find it entirely ridiculous that you are certain you discovered Nobel Prize material here and everyone is just to stupid to understand you.
Originally posted by knightmeister…An absence of time is by definition timeless. ..….
there is no logical reason nor evidence to believe there is some kind of mysterious “timeless state” ========hammy============
It's not mysterious , why do you say that? It's just logical. An absence of time is by definition timeless. How can it not be so?
Correct -so now explain what is the premise for your claim that this “timelessness” exists?
-that was my question.