Re-writing Relativity

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A number of theists here have posited that time exists independently, yet refuse to give evidence for this.

It is a situation contradictory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, later derivations of the ToR by Hermann Minkowski, who was one of Einstein's teacher in fact.

Here is the challenge. Re-write Relativity. If you want your idea, that time ...[text shortened]... e Einstein wrong, explain why nuclear reactors and stars work, and we'll treat you seriously.

It's not theists that posit time existing independently it's you. You said that everything needs time to exist "in" (I can quote you if you like). How can the universe be "dependent" on time or "need" time to "exist in" if they are not separate entities?And if time is a separate entity from the universe and the universe depends on time to exist then time must be able to exist independently of the universe.

I for one do not even believe time exists independently or otherwise. I think the universe exists and time is a useful theoretical concept for understanding it. Time to me is not a phrase to use to describe existence , the universe IS , time is just a descriptive term for it. You however have a much greater chance of believing that time can exist independently since unlike me you believe it actually exists!

I guess it can't be me you are refering to.

Originally posted by vistesd
The problem is that our thinking itself is limited to dimensional terms. It’s like asking, “What was there ‘before’ there was anything (including the dimension of time), and ‘where?’” Such questions make no sense. (Scotty’s question with regard to spatial dimensionality, as well as time, is spot on, I think.)

I think it was the Spanish philosopher Jose ...[text shortened]... e notion of “[b]a being” beyond, or unbounded by, all dimensionality, is a coherent concept.[/b]

If one believed there was nothing then something, than the cause for the something rests in nothing, since this does not make sense, the whole thought of nothing becomes a nonsensical belief. It only stands to reason that there had to be something that caused it which stands outside of the universe and would also have to be eternal the “Alpha and Omega” as it were, or everything is eternal which eliminates the start or beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Who said time had to be created?
Kelly

For me, this just means that if time isn't a seperate from the universe then it must have been 'created', but more clearly begun, with the universe.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
For me, this just means that if time isn't a seperate from the universe then it must have been 'created', but more clearly begun, with the universe.

Again, why?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not the one pushing time as something that is required to exist within the 'everything' I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter, time is simply a measurement for events so far in this discussion nothing more. I have yet to see anything to suggest time is a force to be dealt with like gravity or electromagnetism, so far it is no different that an 'inch' or the number '5', if it is anything more, define it.
Kelly

It is my understanding that time, much like the 3 dimensions of space, is a dimension that is part of the framework of the universe, as without it the universe would not be able to exist as it does currently.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, why?
Kelly

See my post above.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not the one pushing time as something that is required to exist within the 'everything' I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter, time is simply a measurement for events so far in this discussion nothing more. I have yet to see anything to suggest time is a force to be dealt with like gravity or electromagnetism, so far it is no different that an 'inch' or the number '5', if it is anything more, define it.
Kelly

I know what you are saying but scotty will still think you believe in time and here's why...he unconsciously doesn't realise that it is HE that believes in time's existence as the "force" upon which all existence rests but he just doesn't know it yet. He projects this out onto others but the logic of his statements add up to only one conclusion that he thinks (and says) that time is a pre-requisite for anything existing. He sees time as fundamental to everything happening but will still talk about non-time dependent singularities within which events "happen".


In short he actually believes by implication the very thing he is ridiculing but he doesn't know it , that's why he can't see clearly when he is contradicting himself. I tried showing him this and he didn't see it. But to be fair to him it's true of us all in a way ...we teach what we most need to learn.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
See my post above.

I may being missing it, but it seems to me you told what you believe, not why you believe it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bad wolf
It is my understanding that time, much like the 3 dimensions of space, is a dimension that is part of the framework of the universe, as without it the universe would not be able to exist as it does currently.

Yes but what does "a dimension that is part of the framework of the universe" really mean in real terms ? Where is this "framework"?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
For me, this just means that if time isn't a seperate from the universe then it must have been 'created', but more clearly begun, with the universe.

It's much more embedded than that. Have you ever considered that the universe is time and vice versa? This way of looking at it just says the universe IS and time is a description of it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not acknowledge a before, yet you acknowledge the start. I'd say you have holes in your beliefs you simply refuse to deal with, it isn't that there isn't a before, only that you don't want to, or better said, cannot deal with it.
Kelly

No. Look, I've explained this before. Before and after are only things that happen within the universe. To talk about before the universe is utter lunacy. It has no logical meaning.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
It's not a matter of holes, its a matter of causality IMO.

Assuming the big bang was the start of universe, time started when the universe had the big bang, 'before' then time didn't exist, so the whole idea of having a 'before' before the big bang collapses.

How can there possibly be time before time was even created in the first place?

edit: the English language is very clumsy when dealing with this idea.

Indeed. I agree on both points. I have pointed out to these guys that English is not able to deal with it at all, but they refuse to go out and learn the maths involved!

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think it will be realized eventually that its only US that didn't have a before. That is to say, in that view, the beginning of our universe was only the zeroing of a LOCAL clock. Time was going on fine, thank you very much, before our local clock got started. So in that view there are many many clocks, maybe an infinite #, all starting off at their local ...[text shortened]... here is there are an infinite number of time cycles, each unique to its own structure/universe.

And there is as much evidence for that as there is for God or for fairies at the bottom of the garden. Of course, I'm not saying you are wrong, just that there is no evidence for it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If one believed there was nothing then something, than the cause for the something rests in nothing, since this does not make sense, the whole thought of nothing becomes a nonsensical belief. It only stands to reason that there had to be something that caused it which stands outside of the universe and would also have to be eternal the “Alpha and Omega” as it were, or everything is eternal which eliminates the start or beginning.
Kelly

Hi Kelly! Hope you’re well—I see you beat me back here... 🙂

I don’t know how to talk about “absolute nothing” (including dimensionality; even “empty space” has dimensionality). We always seem to talk about nothingness as if it was a “queer kind of something,” as some philosopher put it. In fact, I’m not convinced that it isn’t nonsensical to talk about that kind of metaphysical nothingness.

Physicists talk about a singularity, beyond which we cannot speak because the physical rules break down, but I don’t think they talk about creatio ex nihilo—everything coming from some metaphysical nihil.

I think I’m saying pretty much the same thing as Bad Wolf here. If we could talk about a “when” “before” time, we could just as well talk about a “where” before there was spatiality—in which case, it also makes no sense to talk about “where” the “nothing” was... And if one posits time as “something” that “always was,” then what are we talking about? Temporal and spatial dimensionality go-with each other.

I think what the scientists are (partly) saying is, “Hey, look—there is a point beyond which we cannot sensibly speak. There are questions that make no sense.” Wittgenstein said the same thing. Just because we can put definable words into a grammatical sentence doesn’t mean we end up with a coherent statement.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Look, I've explained this before. Before and after are only things that happen within the universe. To talk about before the universe is utter lunacy. It has no logical meaning.

"Before and after are only things that happen within the universe."

You telling me that they only exist in the universe is your beliefs. If there was a point where something or everything started, then there is an after, and there was a before, your beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Kelly