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
"In physics and mathematics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is the mathematical setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime. Minkowski space is named for the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
There are a whole universe of things out there that exist for no seconds.
Originally posted by knightmeister Yes but what does "a dimension that is part of the framework of the universe" really mean in real terms ? Where is this "framework"?
I don't know, I don't think anyone really knows, there are many theories that try to explain the way the universe wholly works through the idea of higher dimensions, modified gravity, string theory, etc.
But fundamentally, on the most level, we don't know where these dimensions ultimately come from and how it really works; all we can seem to see is the effects we see in our 4 dimensions.
Originally posted by knightmeister 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 t ...[text shortened]... e me you believe it actually exists!
I guess it can't be me you are refering to.
You really are the most willfully ignorant person I have ever met - and I've met (online, at least) dj2becker!
It IS you positing that time exists independently of space! I'm the one who has been saying that everything which exists requires 4 dimensions to exist in. There is nothing - nothing - which physically exists which isn't 4 dimensional.
Originally posted by scottishinnz 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!
And not just English. Maybe I’m just blind-minded here, but I find it impossible to cognize either absolute non-dimensionality or an absolute “metaphysical” nihil. Non-materiality is another thing...
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
Cause requires time - time didn't exist - cause doesn't require to exist.
Originally posted by vistesd 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 a ...[text shortened]... ut definable words into a grammatical sentence doesn’t mean we end up with a coherent statement.
Singularity
A singularity is something is it not, so having a singularity is not having a point where there is nothing.
I'm not sure what the difference between 'nothing' and 'absolute nothing' is, maybe you can enlighten me. 🙂
I can understand about the physical rules breaking down in the minds of men, but that does not mean much does it? Something is either real or not, our understanding isn't required. If we are forced to admit there is a place for the metaphysical it isn't my fault that people want to reject that.
Kelly
Originally posted by knightmeister 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 t ...[text shortened]... e me you believe it actually exists!
I guess it can't be me you are refering to.
Oh, and you still haven't progressed past the idea that the "universe" is not a finite thing, like a brick.
Originally posted by vistesd And not just English. Maybe I’m just blind-minded here, but I find it impossible to cognize either absolute non-dimensionality or an absolute “metaphysical” nihil. Non-materiality is another thing...
Originally posted by knightmeister 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 ...[text shortened]... be fair to him it's true of us all in a way ...we teach what we most need to learn.
Stop going round in circles trying to impress people with your mumbo-jumbo.
Once you let go of the universe being a finite entity, and realise that it is a collection of things, you'll see how stupid your entire argument is.
Originally posted by scottishinnz You really are the most willfully ignorant person I have ever met - and I've met (online, at least) dj2becker!
It IS you positing that time exists independently of space! I'm the one who has been saying that everything which exists requires 4 dimensions to exist in. There is nothing - [b]nothing - which physically exists which isn't 4 dimensional.[/b]
Originally posted by vistesd 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 a ...[text shortened]... ut definable words into a grammatical sentence doesn’t mean we end up with a coherent statement.
Re-writing Relativity
21 Feb '07 22:40
Back to Top