Originally posted by twhiteheadYou however claim that for every existent object there must be at least one object that is older. You claim this based mostly on your claim that causality is a universal law ie that everything that exists has a cause from a prior time.
I realize that dimensions are not substances, but neither are they non-existent.
What is it that makes the separation between you and me? What is distance?
It is not nonsensical to talk about time beginning or space being finite, so long as we know what we mean. If I say space is finite, then I am saying that anything that exists, is a finite distance a ...[text shortened]... ou have not proven this law, it is not a known law of science, it is just something you believe.
However, you have not proven this law, it is not a known law of science, it is just something you believe.
------whitey--------------------
As you well know , the laws of science are based on observation and evidence. There are countless trillions of examples of things that are known to have causes (or a reason to exist) and not one proven example of a thing that has no cause.
Fairly good odds on which to build a scientific law.
Now I know you will want to say something about quantum physics here , but quantum physics has not shown clearly that it has identified events that are known to be causeless. Talk of quantum particles emerging from so called "nothing" is ill thought out and just conjecture. Nothing is proven , whereas causality is a proven law in the universe.
Also , I do not say that everything that exists must have a cause from a prior time because I believe God exists and is causeless (the reason for this is because He is without beginning). I don't have a problem with something being uncaused per se.
What I do believe is that everything that "begins" or comes into existence does so for a reason and has a cause.
It is an astounding claim to say that the Universe began all by it's tod , for no reason whatsoever and without any cause - basically from nothing.
Things don't just "begin" out of zilch for no reason. It is illogical to think they would. It's not impossible , just very unlikely. Show me sound evidence to the contrary and I will consider it. Until then I don't understand why you think my thoughts on this to be a "belief".
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by knightmeister"My turtle is better than yours..."
You however claim that for every existent object there must be at least one object that is older. You claim this based mostly on your claim that causality is a universal law ie that everything that exists has a cause from a prior time.
However, you have not proven this law, it is not a known law of science, it is just something you believe.
------wh ...[text shortened]... Until then I don't understand why you think my thoughts on this to be a "belief".
2 edits
Suppose I abandon my argument that dimensions must be endless (though I still think I'm on to something).
How about this: any dimension in which velocity and inertia exist must be infinite or looped. Thus cuts out mass, as mass does not have inertia; energy must be added to increase it. Time has inertia and velocity; we move along it as a steady rate unless there are accelerations (forces) involved.
Here is a proof.
Suppose a dimension that was finite and not looped existed. Suppose that an object moved along this dimension at some velocity. If this object came to an end in the dimension, it would move past the end along the dimension it's velocity is in.
However past the end the dimension no longer exists.
Paradox. Thus, there can be no end of time.
However we're more concerned with the beginning here.
Suppose instead of coming TO an end in the dimension, the object came FROM the end in the dimension.
Well, an object (the first bits of matter/energy after the Bang) having velocity and inertia must have come from somewhere; that's what the definition of velocity is - the object moved to this spot from elsewhere at a particular rate and from a particular direction (along the dimension).
Alternatively, all of matter/energy (ME) could have been created at the Bang, but that of course violates conservation of ME.
In fact, Lorenzo Maccone of MIT recently published a paper which points out that time can run backward; there's no reason why it can't. Not only that, it may very well run backward all the time.
However, if it were to do so, all evidence of the future that gets erased will also be erased, even in the minds of any scientists who manage to induce the reversal of time. Thus time in the reverse cannot be observed and subjectively seems like time going forward.
The point is is that there's no reason in physics to assume time can't run both ways and even that it might do so on occasion. In this case we run into the first paradox I pointed out.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut it's just the kalam cosmological argument. Some people think it persuasive because their strong intuition agrees with the central premise: that which begins to exist has a cause. I have looked into it, and I don't find this in the least persuasive. But it takes all kinds, eh?
I think I actually agree with him.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry, that's not a proof.
Suppose I abandon my argument that dimensions must be endless (though I still think I'm on to something).
How about this: any dimension in which velocity and inertia exist must be infinite or looped. Thus cuts out mass, as mass does not have inertia; energy must be added to increase it. Time has inertia and velocity; we move along it as a steady ...[text shortened]... t it might do so on occasion. In this case we run into the first paradox I pointed out.
Also, I think there are errors.
First, you say mass does not have inertia. Then you say time has inertia and velocity. This just sounds like a rewrite of physics to me. But perhaps you have persuasive arguments and evidence that I have not yet encountered, perhaps your grasp of general relativity is far superior to mine. So please try to explain with baby steps.
It seems that you are presenting the antinomies of space and time. I think that science rather than philosophy will resolve these issues, as with the debate between epigenesis and preformation.
Causality, conservation of energy, space and time are features of the phenomenal world. What lies beyond is formally beyond the bounds of possible human knowledge. Your extrapolations are not valid.
Time, what is it? Is it infinite, looped, or is it a way of avoiding everything happening at once?
Turtles all the way down I fear...
Originally posted by Lord SharkIf you don't find it persuasive maybe you could explain why nothingness would not just continue infinitely being ...erhem...nothing. I see no reason for existence to just "start" existing out of zilch. Why would such a thing happen?
But it's just the kalam cosmological argument. Some people think it persuasive because their strong intuition agrees with the central premise: that which begins to exist has a cause. I have looked into it, and I don't find this in the least persuasive. But it takes all kinds, eh?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I don't know the answer to that.
If you don't find it persuasive maybe you could explain why nothingness would not just continue infinitely being ...erhem...nothing. I see no reason for existence to just "start" existing out of zilch. Why would such a thing happen?
You were wise to put "start" in quotes, but you still let "infinite" through, under the radar. It is a tricky concept to deal with, nothing.
So tricky, that all bets are off perhaps.
Originally posted by FabianFnasthe point is, that if God made it, it is a reflection of the creator, and therefore any attempt to understand it, is an attempt to understand the creator himself, i thought that would have been obvious, apparently not!
Why are dimensions discussed in the Spiritual Forum?
Every question can be answered - "God made it that way, no explications necessasry." So what's the point?
Originally posted by Lord SharkThis Kalam cosmological argument does make sense to me. Causality is never violated as far as we know. Occam's Razor suggests it never will be. That which begins without a cause is as unlikely as the spontaneous creation of matter, or a machine that reverses entropy.
But it's just the kalam cosmological argument. Some people think it persuasive because their strong intuition agrees with the central premise: that which begins to exist has a cause. I have looked into it, and I don't find this in the least persuasive. But it takes all kinds, eh?
Yeah, MAYBE these things can happen; maybe there's an invisible, silent kangaroo who follows me at all times and can fit through the slightest crack.
But somehow, I don't take this possibility too seriously.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe point is, that if God made evolution, it is a reflection of the creator, and therefore any attempt to understand it, is an attempt to understand the creator himself, i thought that would have been obvious, apparently not!
the point is, that if God made it, it is a reflection of the creator, and therefore any attempt to understand it, is an attempt to understand the creator himself, i thought that would have been obvious, apparently not!
I couldn't express it better myself.
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkI don't think you understood what I wrote. We're talking about mass as a dimension, not about the properties of objects that have mass in the spacial and time dimensions.
Sorry, that's not a proof.
Also, I think there are errors.
First, you say mass does not have inertia. Then you say time has inertia and velocity. This just sounds like a rewrite of physics to me. But perhaps you have persuasive arguments and evidence that I have not yet encountered, perhaps your grasp of general relativity is far superior to mine. S ...[text shortened]... or is it a way of avoiding everything happening at once?
Turtles all the way down I fear...
Objects which have a velocity along the mass dimension - their mass changes with time - do not maintain that velocity inertially.
Objects with mass which have velocity along the space dimension do have inertia - along the space dimension, which has no end or beginning.
The concept of the "phenomenal world" is a Platonic one which assumes something outside of that world. There is no reason to believe there is anything outside the phenomenal world by definition - evidence is a phenomenon, isn't it?
Bosse de Nage was musing over some similar ideas recently, you might want to chat with him about it.
Time is either infinite or looped I think. There can be no beginning or end to time.
If everything happened at once then time would exist; the phrase "at once" assumes time exists.
Originally posted by Lord SharkNo - that is the question of why there was once nothing and now there is something. This idea violates all kinds of scientific principles that are extremely reliable otherwise.
This is the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I don't know the answer to that.
You were wise to put "start" in quotes, but you still let "infinite" through, under the radar. It is a tricky concept to deal with, nothing.
So tricky, that all bets are off perhaps.