eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by knightmeister
Prove 'without time there is no causality' . Is this not an assumption? I know that you need a cause and an effect to have causality and that represents itself as time in our universe. But is time needed? If you have a cause and an effect then you can still have causality. Time is a result of causality not the other way round. It is more accurate to s ...[text shortened]... d with it. Its the old chicken and egg argument and you've got the egg before the chicken.

cause and effect requires one thing to happen after another. No time, no before and no after.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
cause and effect requires one thing to happen after another. No time, no before and no after.

Don't think so! The word 'after' is what we use when we see cause and effect happening. Something causes something else to happen and the resulting event we label 'after' . Time is much more an abstract concept than cause and effect. Cause and effect involve real matter and real measurable energy . Time is a man made construct we use to measure the interval between cause and effect. Just as in some senses a mile is a 'real' thing but in another sense is not real at all (who has actually seen a 'mile' other than in their minds). Your concept of time as a real 'thing' is an error in context.

You are using faulty logic. By your reasoning I could say the following ....."you can't have two things moving apart from each other without distance , therefore you require distance in order to cause two things to move apart , no distance , no apart "

Spot the mistake!

(answer- energy moves things apart not distance)

Presumably you think that smoke is the cause of fire because you can't have fire without smoke.?!! DUH?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Don't think so! The word 'after' is what we use when we see cause and effect happening. Something causes something else to happen and the resulting event we label 'after' . Time is much more an abstract concept than cause and effect. Cause and effect involve real matter and real measurable energy . Time is a man made construct we use to measure the int ...[text shortened]... hat smoke is the cause of fire because you can't have fire without smoke.?!! DUH?

ah, yes. All physics is wrong. That;s where we've been going wrong all these years... [pats KM on the head absent-mindedly and walks away]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
ah, yes. All physics is wrong. That;s where we've been going wrong all these years... [pats KM on the head absent-mindedly and walks away]

In order to be able to say 'all physics in wrong ' on the matter of time then it would be neccessary for there to be general agreement on time within physics. No-one would dispute that time is a dimension but the real issue at hand is whether that dimension exists in the same way as matter exists. I don't know of any general agreement about what time is 'made of' (is it energy based / made of quantum particles) or even what caused time.Does time have a mass for example? In the world of physics it seems time is still a mystery unless you have some ground breaking news for me. I can't really say 'all physics is wrong' because I'm not at all clear whether physics really knows what is 'right' anyway. Does physics actually know what time is (apart from being a dimension)?

The issue of dimension versus reality is important here. I would be foolish to say that a 'mile' does not exist because obviously it does , it's a dimension or measurement. But I would also be foolish to say that a mile exists in the same way as a mountain does. Unless physics has found a way of taking a slice of 'time' and dissecting it in a lab to find out what it actually is then the mystery will continue. It seems most likely to me that time will turn out to be less substantial than matter or energy in the end and therefore dependent on them for existence rather than the other way round.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
cause and effect requires one thing to happen after another. No time, no before and no after.

I seem to remember you saying that 'before' the universe there was no time (which incidently I agree with). So if time did not pre-exist the universe how can you then claim time as a requirement of cause and effect? Presumably you would agree that the Big Bang and what followed after was cause and effect? So if there was no time around , how could this happen? According to you, time is a neccesary requirement for anything to happen and yet you still believe there was no time 'before' the Big Bang? OOPS!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
ah, yes. All physics is wrong. That;s where we've been going wrong all these years... [pats KM on the head absent-mindedly and walks away]

...One more thing....is there a single piece of scientific evidence that shows 'time' to be anything more substantial than a dimension , unit of measurement or useful scientific concept?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course vacuums exist . And things that exist ...um...drum roll...well they exist. It is logically impossible to have something that exists and be nothing. It either exists (and is there) or it doesn't exist (and hence is not there). So if a vacuum exists then it exists....but if it's nothing then why does it exist? Philosophically and logically this ...[text shortened]... no matter , no energy.No Nothing. I want you to REALLY , REALLY think about this more deeply.

I've been off this site for a while and I hope someone has corrected you. Vaccums are defined by their nothingess, if vaccums exist; "nothing" can exist as well (I just realised that this sentence is ambiguous, I hope you know what I mean by "nothing exists"😉.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I've been off this site for a while and I hope someone has corrected you. Vaccums are defined by their nothingess, if vaccums exist; "nothing" can exist as well (I just realised that this sentence is ambiguous, I hope you know what I mean by "nothing exists"😉.

I do not know what you mean when you say nothing 'exists' . I have already asked on this thread whether a vacuum has been created that is known to be devoid of all energy , matter , sub-atomic particles etc (I don't want to see a single quark in there matey!). The silence on this has been deafening. Creating such a 'thing' would be the equivalent of ripping a hole in the universe itself would it not? Let's say you do point me in the direction of this ground breaking experiment (which even in my ignorance I might have heard of ) then you would still have to show that 'something' came from this 'nothingness' in order to refute my original point. There has to be a cause for everything that has a beginning. I'm off to look up vacuums on the net , catch you later.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I do not know what you mean when you say nothing 'exists' . I have already asked on this thread whether a vacuum has been created that is known to be devoid of all energy , matter , sub-atomic particles etc (I don't want to see a single quark in there matey!). The silence on this has been deafening. Creating such a 'thing' would be the equivalent of ri ...[text shortened]... ything that has a beginning. I'm off to look up vacuums on the net , catch you later.

Nothingness exists in a vaccuum.

I forgot what the whole point of this was anyway.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Nothingness exists in a vaccuum.

I forgot what the whole point of this was anyway.

If you had done your research you would become very very suspicious of the idea that nothingness exists in a vacuum. Just punch in 'nothingness + vaccuums' to google or look into the Brookhaven experiments in New York and you will find there's actually and awful lot of something going on inside this so called 'nothingness'.

You can say the 'definition of a vacuum is nothingness' until you are blue in the face but the experiments seem to show otherwise. I could equally say that the definition of a unicorn is a white horse with a horn on it so therefore unicorns exists (funny , I thought it was theists that were supposed to have cornered the market in circular reasoning?).

The point of the the thread was about the rational probability of eternity , the starting point of which is establishing the extreme unlikelyhood of something coming out of nothing and then following it from there to the logical existence of an eternal uncaused cause. No-one has been able to derail me so far. They either talk about woolly concepts of nothingness which in reality turn out to be something or come up with paradoxical concepts of space/time magically popping out of 'nowhere' with no explanation and then accuse me of fairytales! Then they misunderstand the proper concept of eternity and think that eternity has a 'beginning' or failing that they saw off the very branch they are sitting on ie: the basis for all reasoning and science - every beginning/effect has a cause. The only ones who make any sense are those who have logically realised that either the universe itself must be eternal or something else must be. But as I have said before the uinverse don't look that eternal , more dissappointingly finite I'm afraid.

Now , go and do your research on nothingness please.

I'm sorry to give you such a hard time but you did walk into the room with your flies undone!

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you had done your research you would become very very suspicious of the idea that nothingness exists in a vacuum. Just punch in 'nothingness + vaccuums' to google or look into the Brookhaven experiments in New York and you will find there's actually and awful lot of something going on inside this so called 'nothingness'.

You can say the 'definiti ...[text shortened]... o give you such a hard time but you did walk into the room with your flies undone!

What are you gibbering about? Of course nothiness exists, it is fundamental to physics (i.e. the speed of light through a vaccuum). Scotyt put it right, it is the absence of something.

Secondly, effects do not need causes, time might just be a property of this universe, and eternity can have a beginning. Something can come out of nothing (it has been even been observed!), and this is no way illogical. It justs conflicts with the law of conservation of mass and energy. There is nothing untenable in the idea. No one can derail you because you refuse to accept that something can come out of nothing.

The universe can also be finite and eternal. The description of the univserse as finite refers to length, while eternity applies to time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Forgive me if someone has already cleared this up but can I point out to Atheists that God did not 'come out of nothing' but actually has no beginning. If you believe the universe is finite or even infinite you still have to explain how it came out of nothing because it has a beginning. The definition of eternal is infinity in both directions (without nite/infinite (and if you do then how do you get by the something out of nothing paradox) ?

For those who are really interested in discussing the 'beginning' read these articles:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html

"...The standard model, or consensus model, assumes that time has a beginning that we normally refer to as the Big Bang. According to this model, for reasons we don't quite understand, the universe sprang from nothingness into somethingness, full of matter and energy, and has been expanding and cooling for the past 15 billion years. In the alternative model the universe is endless. Time is endless in the sense that it goes on forever in the past and forever in the future, and, in some sense, space is endless. Indeed, our three spatial dimensions remain infinite throughout the evolution of the universe.

More specifically, this model proposes a universe in which the evolution of the universe is cyclic. That is to say, the universe goes through periods of evolution from hot to cold, from dense to under-dense, from hot radiation to the structure we see today, and eventually to an empty universe. Then, a sequence of events occurs that cause the cycle to begin again. The empty universe is reinjected with energy, creating a new period of expansion and cooling. This process repeats periodically forever. What we're witnessing now is simply the latest cycle."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/steinhardt02/steinhardt02_print.html

Originally posted by Conrau K
What are you gibbering about? Of course nothiness exists, it is fundamental to physics (i.e. the speed of light through a vaccuum). Scotyt put it right, it is the absence of something.

Secondly, effects do not need causes, time might just be a property of this universe, and eternity can have a beginning. Something can come out of nothing (it has been ev ...[text shortened]... al. The description of the univserse as finite refers to length, while eternity applies to time.

Ok , here goes...have a look at www.ts.infn.it/experiments/pvlas/quantum/html

and for more details..

www.ldolphin.org/energetic/html

If you prefer, punch in quantum vacuum into GOOGLE. There's loads of talk in physics about quantum vaccuums but none of them seem to talk about what I would call ABSOLUTELY nothing. Remember , nothingness only has to have one infinitely small thing in it and the bubble is burst, it's no longer a true vacuum.Please bear this very simple to follow definition of nothing when doing your research. I think you'll find that what you think has been observed has actually not been observed.

..and then tell me whether you think you are confusing 'apparently' nothing with a nothingness buzzing with potential energy and the like.

I can't begin to answer your other points until we come to some kind of agreed definition of what nothingness is. I think it nothing is nothing you seem to think nothing is something. You think I am gibbering on because you don't understand what I mean by nothing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , here goes...have a look at www.ts.infn.it/experiments/pvlas/quantum/html

and for more details..

www.ldolphin.org/energetic/html

If you prefer, punch in quantum vacuum into GOOGLE. There's loads of talk in physics about quantum vaccuums but none of them seem to talk about what I would call ABSOLUTELY nothing. Remember , nothingness only ...[text shortened]... mething. You think I am gibbering on because you don't understand what I mean by nothing.

the problem with your definition is that you are talking about the space-time continuum, and there is no proof of that ever existing.
Essentially, without mass or energy, time does not exist, although space can. The problem with a creator ,that always existed, is that without the thing he created time could not have existed.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Forgive me if someone has already cleared this up but can I point out to Atheists that God did not 'come out of nothing' but actually has no beginning. If you believe the universe is finite or even infinite you still have to explain how it came out of nothing because it has a beginning. The definition of eternal is infinity in both directions (without ...[text shortened]... nite/infinite (and if you do then how do you get by the something out of nothing paradox) ?

According to the bigbang theory (and Daoism), the universe is eternal in that it is cyclical. The universe explodes then implodes explodes then implodes..........