1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    11 Jun '08 23:22
    I have heard many on this forum argue that something being outside "time" is a silly idea. I have been told that it's incoherent or illogical. But what is time exactly...

    1) I define time as a description of a sequence of events in the known universe.

    2)So , if there are parallel universes then presumably those universes would also have their own sequences of events?

    3)If 2) is true then it's entirely logical to imagine that in some universes those sequences might not run concurrently with our universe's events.

    4) Each universe could have it's own "time" with some universes running longer or faster than others.

    5) A being within such a parallel universe could be logically said to be "outside" the realm of the time of our universe. Such a being would not be confined or restricted by our time.

    6) Do we think that there would be one great big TIME overarching all the universes or lots of individual "times" all existing within separate universes?

    7) I reason that if there are millions of parallel universes (or even just one) then all there would have to be is one sentient being in such a universe and he would be the equivalent of "God" , ie a being outside of the time of our universe and not constrained within it.

    8) So you have a choice , either abandon parallel universes as a silly idea (even though the scientific community seems to think it's not a bad one) or accept that a sentient being could logically exist outside of the time (sequence of events) within our known universe.

    9) The only other option would be to adopt some mystical , pseudo Newtonian TIME that covers all the universes possible , but that would require further explanation because such a TIME would be outside our time anyway.

    10 ) My position is that once we understand that time is not really a big deal , it's simply an expression of causal events in our universe then it's not so fantastical to think that something could exist outside of this time. We could of course say that nothing can exist "outside of time" because the known universe is all that there is. But we don't really know whether that is true or not. For all we know our universe may only be a speck in the corner of some greater reality (God or otherwise)

    11) If scientists are allowed to speculate reasonably about parallel universes without being labelled as "incoherent" then cannot a theist also speculate about the concept of "outside of time".

    12) Before you adopt and unthinking kneejerking Atheist stance on this , just think for a second. What is there in what I have said that is soooo ridiculous?
  2. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    12 Jun '08 01:10
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I have heard many on this forum argue that something being outside "time" is a silly idea. I have been told that it's incoherent or illogical. But what is time exactly...

    1) I define time as a description of a sequence of events in the known universe.

    2)So , if there are parallel universes then presumably those universes would also have their ...[text shortened]... or a second. What is there in what I have said that is soooo ridiculous?
    Number one is where your definition fails. I don't have to read any further.

    Time is a function of entropy change, and have nothing to do with events.
  3. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    15954
    12 Jun '08 05:042 edits
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Number one is where your definition fails. I don't have to read any further.

    Time is a function of entropy change, and have nothing to do with events.
    Please cite. I will buy "sequence of events" before I buy "entropy change".

    The second law of thermodynamics only says entropy increases in a closed system.

    *edit* the universe cannot be considered to be 'closed'
  4. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    12 Jun '08 06:161 edit
    Originally posted by forkedknight
    Please cite. I will buy "sequence of events" before I buy "entropy change".

    The second law of thermodynamics only says entropy increases in a closed system.

    *edit* the universe cannot be considered to be 'closed'
    The universe isn't closed?? That's news to me!! Pray tell, what exists outside the universe?!?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Jun '08 06:43
    You are all wrong. Time is a dimention of the universe similar to the spacial dimentions. It is the arrow of time that is a result of entropy change and that creates the illusion that we are moving through time in a specific direction. In reality information can flow in both directions through time but flows much better in one direction than the other.

    The reason we object to knightmeisters concept of an entity outside time is that it implies that the universe is contained in a larger entity, and that in that larger entity the universe is static. That tells us that we have only one future and one past and most importantly renders all talk of 'potential' meaningless.
  6. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    12 Jun '08 08:55
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Time is a dimention of the universe similar to the spacial dimentions.
    Precisely. Minkowski-Einstein Space-Time.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Jun '08 09:35
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    8) So you have a choice , either abandon parallel universes as a silly idea (even though the scientific community seems to think it's not a bad one) or accept that a sentient being could logically exist outside of the time (sequence of events) within our known universe.
    If the universe is essentially a static object in the large time frame, then the being in question would not be interacting with the universe but would effectively have to make any decisions about his 'interactions' before the universe is made. He also would not 'know' anything about the universe untill after the universe is made and thus from the perspective of the universe, he does not 'know' anything about the universe (except what he possibly preplanned to put in it.). If he did not exert any control over what 'happened' in the universe then he cannot recieve feedback from the results until after the universe. Most importantly he cannot take feedback from the universe and return it to the universe (ie prophesy based on knowledge).
    Esentially your claim that God 'knows' the future is indistinguishable from the claim that you know the future based on the fact that you will exist in the future and know the past from that perspective.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Jun '08 10:52
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    The universe isn't closed?? That's news to me!! Pray tell, what exists outside the universe?!?
    we don't know. pink fluffy bunnies? other universes?

    although as far as we are concerned, the universe is closed for us
  9. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    12 Jun '08 12:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You are all wrong. Time is a dimention of the universe similar to the spacial dimentions. It is the arrow of time that is a result of entropy change and that creates the illusion that we are moving through time in a specific direction. In reality information can flow in both directions through time but flows much better in one direction than the other.
    ...[text shortened]... only one future and one past and most importantly renders all talk of 'potential' meaningless.
    But what about the argument I put forward about parallel universes?
  10. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    12 Jun '08 12:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If the universe is essentially a static object in the large time frame, then the being in question would not be interacting with the universe but would effectively have to make any decisions about his 'interactions' before the universe is made. He also would not 'know' anything about the universe untill after the universe is made and thus from the perspec ...[text shortened]... on the fact that you will exist in the future and know the past from that perspective.
    I meant a sentient being like an alien living in a parallel universe that is not ours. What relationship might such a being have with the time dimension of our universe?

    Just try and forget God for a minute.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Jun '08 12:25
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    But what about the argument I put forward about parallel universes?
    What about it?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Jun '08 12:27
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I meant a sentient being like an alien living in a parallel universe that is not ours. What relationship might such a being have with the time dimension of our universe?
    None whatsoever. A parallel universe does not interact with our universe or falls within the same timeline (ie not the same sort of parralel you were thinking of.)
  13. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    12 Jun '08 13:05
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    None whatsoever. A parallel universe does not interact with our universe or falls within the same timeline (ie not the same sort of parralel you were thinking of.)
    So therefore such a being would be outside of time as we know it or outside of our timeline. There would in effect be 2 times and not one TIME?
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Jun '08 13:271 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    So therefore such a being would be outside of time as we know it or outside of our timeline. There would in effect be 2 times and not one TIME?
    I think so yes.

    Also:
    1. Such a being could not be your God.

    2. The existence of such a being guarantees that our timeline is single and complete (ie does not branch infinitely) thus the future is predetermined (ie it is meaningless to claim that Hitler had other potential futures).
  15. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    12 Jun '08 14:08
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think so yes.

    Also:
    1. Such a being could not be your God.

    2. The existence of such a being guarantees that our timeline is single and complete (ie does not branch infinitely) thus the future is predetermined (ie it is meaningless to claim that Hitler had other potential futures).
    What is your PROOF for statement 2 ? Do you have one or are you just stating it as self evident?

    I see that 2 could be true but I don't see why a complete timeline could not be created by events that potentially could have been different but just.....ehrm...weren't. Can you tell me why I CANNOT be right or alternatively retract the catagorical nature of your statements.
Back to Top