The Void of nothing

Originally posted by lausey
Einstein predicted and calculated time dilation using his theories of relativity. This has even been experimentally observed to his predictions. If time didn't exist, then time dilation could not even be observed.

It is observable like length, width and depth. Without matter, the dimensions still exist, just that neither will be measurable.

As for Zeno' ...[text shortened]... t is to do with our limited capability in describing infinitesimal values within mathematics.

Without matter, the dimensions still exist, just that neither will be measurable



...and you can prove this how?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, because there was no time for that "point" to exist in, before the universe existed.

No, because there was no time for that "point" to exist in, before the universe existed. SCOTTY

So time must have pre-existed the universe in some fashion or other because otherwise your point of "singularity" wouldn't have had anything to exist "in". Your statement implies that time must exist first in order to allow something to exist "in" it . However , what does time exist in? Itself? There is no proof that the universe needs "time" to exist in , it could easily be argued that you need a universe for time to exist. You have no proof of time , or what it does , or what it is made of.

The irony is that nothing can't "exist" in the way you understand it because nothing actually "non-exists" and as such doesn't need any time to exist in because it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Time is a property of the universe. They did not 'pop' into existence from nothing and it is meaningless to talk about 'before time'

it is meaningless to talk about 'before time' WHITEHEAD


....only if time really exists which is unproven. To me it seems meaningless to talk about time existing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
it is meaningless to talk about 'before time' WHITEHEAD


....only if time really exists which is unproven. To me it seems meaningless to talk about time existing.

Does '5' exist?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All things within the universe at the non-quantum level are subject to cause and effect, because of the presence of time. This is not true of the universe itself, since time is a property of the universe.

All things within the universe at the non-quantum level are subject to cause and effect, because of the presence of time. This is not true of the universe itself, since time is a property of the universe.SCOTTY

Classic stuff. just when I thought you had run out of contradictions. I thought you had said earlier that everything (remember the italics) needed time in order to exist "in" which makes the universe dependent on time , however , here you are saying the universe does not need time , it is free of time and cause and effect. It can exist in a timeless space and does not need the presence of time because the universe is uncaused.

So if the universe CAN exist free of time then how can "what came before the universe" be a meaningless question. You have admitted that at leest one entity can exist in a non time dependent state. So why can't nothing (non) exist in a non-time dependent state. ?

At least you have got as far as realising that an uncaused entity must be timeless in some way.

I won't ask you how you have measured the "presence" of time.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Does '5' exist?
Kelly

Whoose side are you on?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
There are these wonderful things called books - I think you'd enjoy reading them, and would benefit greatly from the experience.

You can get quite a lot of them from this website www.amazon.com

Yes they are really good. Full of expertise to defer to when you tie yourself in knots in a debate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.

But if we start to call it God it might confuse a lot of theists.

Well then I am giving the universe of an example of something with a beginning which is not caused.WHITEY

...BUT will you accept that what preceded the beginning of the universe must therefore be non-existence of anything. Or do you think that when the universe began there was already something there?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why are your arguments allowed to flaunt the laws of logic, yet when we provide a logically consistent (albeit difficult concept such as a universe springing into existence with no precursor, although this isn't a problem, since there was no time for a precursor to exist in) you reject it out of hand, using a very strange brand of logic based, as far as I can see it, solely on opinion, rather than any body of physics or knowledge?

albeit difficult concept such as a universe springing into existence with no precursor, although this isn't a problem, since there was no time for a precursor to exist in SCOTTY

And there's the problem......you eliminate the need for a precursor because it needs time to exist in. But in that case the universe must also need time to exist in. And if the universe needs time to exist in then it's nonsense to talk about the universe "springing into existence" because it must be time that springs into existence first to make the universe possible to exist. But time would have had to have sprung into existence without having to rely on time to exist first. So therefore it is possible for an entity to exist in a non-time dependent way. So it must also be possible for any precursor to exist in a non-time dependent way. Therefore , you have no right to say that the problem of the precursor just "goes away" because it has no time to exist in.


Presumably this precursor either exists or it doesn't . If it doesn't then there is nothingness (non) existing in timelessness.

In any case to me it's all bunkum because i don't think anything needs time to exist in .

Originally posted by knightmeister
No, because there was no time for that "point" to exist in, before the universe existed. SCOTTY

So time must have pre-existed the universe in some fashion or other because otherwise your point of "singularity" wouldn't have had anything to exist "in". Your statement implies that time must exist first in order to allow something to exist "in" it . Ho ...[text shortened]... xists" and as such doesn't need any time to exist in because it doesn't exist.

As I point out in the thread "re-writing relativity", feel free to re-write relativity. You'll need to do that before any of your crackpot ramblings make sense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes they are really good. Full of expertise to defer to when you tie yourself in knots in a debate.

You could do with reading one on the theory of relativity.

No-where have I tied myself in knots - I maintain that your argument pre-supposes time, which is not in accordance with anything we know about physics.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In any case to me it's all bunkum because i don't think anything needs time to exist in .

The you are going to have a full career re-developing the whole field of physics before anyone takes anything you say seriously.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Whoose side are you on?

Not on a side.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
So God is a definition not an actual entity in this context. Fine. However as he is merely a definition he cannot be used as an example of something that is in reality.
You have still not yet defined eternal.

You on the other hand define the universe as HAVING A BEGINNING, but NO CAUSE. The NO CAUSE part does NOT logically follow since something wi inning by definition then you are not talking about a real entity thus it is an invalid example.

So God is a definition not an actual entity in this context.

Since when does a non-actual entity have a definition?

However as he is merely a definition he cannot be used as an example of something that is in reality.

Definitions are given to real entities that are a part of reality.

You have still not yet defined eternal.

e·ter·nal
–adjective
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphysics. existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.
–noun
5. something that is eternal.
6. the Eternal, God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eternal

I never said that the no cause part was a logical result of the universe having a beginning. I merely stated it as fact.

In order to state something as fact you need to produce reproducible evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Since when does a non-actual entity have a definition?

You need to brush up on your logic.
A definition is when you specify a set of properties. The definition itself is a list of properties and not a real entity. A real entity may fit the definition, but is not the definition itself. Thus you cannot instantiate a real entity merely by defining it as you were attempting to do. You cannot say: God is eternal by definition whilst simultaneously claiming that God is a real entity.
You could say: The definition of GodDef is "An eternal being" and there exists a real entity called GodEnt that fits these properties.
A definition can perfectly well exist without any real entity matching its properties.