Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
danielost

two choices

966 posts in this topic

With all due respect, MW, basing my opinion on previous examples of your scientific knowledge, I do not grant you authority to determine what science has to say regarding time.

Time is the rate of change, which implies time is also the duration between changes. When nothing changes, time is still in existence - this is merely the duration between changes. Time exists even in the duration between changes. Either change happens - whenever that happens - and time exists, or no change ever happens - in which case there is no universe. Simply put, there is no universe (and no "creation of universe") without time, and there is no time without universe. Both time and universe are perspectives of the same, eternal, reality.

Well that is precisely what i said. There was no universe, and thus there was no time, because time is a consequence of a universe in which change occurs. It is not me defining this. I am just using material from scientific articles

. When i said no change occured, I meant that no change occured, at all /ever, for all that non time (Although ever is also a term loaded with time) Then energy, matter, space, time, etc all suddenly started up. No universe (no anything) / no time; then universe (everything, or at least some thing)/time. Purely, a natural and spontaneous event, but "driven" by the relative nature of "nothingness" versus "somethingness".

I hate to admit it but I am with hawking on this one. In his own words, prior to the big bang time did not exist.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is precisely what i said. There was no universe, and thus there was no time, because time is a consequence of a universe in which change occurs. It is not me defining this. I am just using material from scientific articles

. When i said no change occured, I meant that no change occured, at all /ever, for all that non time (Although ever is also a term loaded with time) Then energy, matter, space, time, etc all suddenly started up.

You misunderstand the point I made, which contradicted the one you were making. No universe means no time - ever. No universe means the universe cannot just 'begin', it can never exist. That a universe exists means there has never been 'no time'.

The premises that a universe can exist where there previously was not one, and that time can 'start', are both so ridiculously flawed in logic they do not deserve to be called premises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAturally humans with evolved self aware sapience construct gods (and many other imaginative constructs)

This skill is not learned but is an inherent and powerful part of every human brain from birth. It is part of how we see our universe and of the thinking and language skills we posses.

BUT that same self aware sapience allows us to recognise, catalogue, and evaluate the wwhole environment around us. It therfore allows us to recognise and perceive gods, just as it allows us to recognise and perceive cats and dogs. So gods come in a number of forms constructs and real entities. This is true for many things in human nature. We even "construct" cats and dogs using imagination. "Mccavity Mccavity a creature of depravity"

I know from personal experience that there is a real, powerful and physicla alien being, which humans call god But i also know humans make up and construct all sorts of gods.

We all, individually, also perceive real things, including god, through the knowledge and filters available to us as an individual and a member of our society. So the one real god, is not seen perceived or understood by everyone in the same way. This also happens with cats and gods Eg culture and individual perception makes a big difference in how a person sees and interprets/perceives a cat. For some it is a pet, for others lunch, and for some a threat; but given the physical nature of god, it is more exaggerated in "his" case.

Ps. I am not at all sure that energy has always existed. Why should that be the case? Once energy existed, then the universe did, but at one point there was nothing, including energy.

Then, if your Ps is true...there was a time when this powerful alien entity you call God did not exist.

There are a couple of problems in your thesis. One problem is that you state emphatically that ...

gods come in a number of forms constructs and real entities.
and the other is that you state
NAturally humans with evolved self aware sapience construct gods (and many other imaginative constructs)

This skill is not learned but is an inherent and powerful part of every human brain from birth.

It is indeed learned. I seriously doubt that...if left to one's own devices...without any outward teaching from anyone about God that one would just naturally come to that conclusion on their own. We are taught 'faith' in entities from birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand the point I made, which contradicted the one you were making. No universe means no time - ever. No universe means the universe cannot just 'begin', it can never exist. That a universe exists means there has never been 'no time'.

The premises that a universe can exist where there previously was not one, and that time can 'start', are both so ridiculously flawed in logic they do not deserve to be called premises.

And yet that is likely the reality. Why, in logic, is it less likely than the idea/concept that everythng existed forever, with no beginning and no end? Given many physical indicators, including the nature of entropy, this is unlkely.

Almost certainly, according to Hawking and other scientists, there was a "time" when there was no time. Time only comes into existence when other things come into existence. Many scientists argue that even now there is no real "thing" called time; (As there are real "things" called space, energy and matter) and that it is only a construct of human observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, if your Ps is true...there was a time when this powerful alien entity you call God did not exist.

There are a couple of problems in your thesis. One problem is that you state emphatically that ...

and the other is that you state

It is indeed learned. I seriously doubt that...if left to one's own devices...without any outward teaching from anyone about God that one would just naturally come to that conclusion on their own. We are taught 'faith' in entities from birth.

Of course There was atime when nothing existed and a time when NO sapient life existed in the universe How then could/did god exist?

But huma history and socal observation demonstratres that indeed

gods come in a number of forms constructs and real entities.

Tha tis one reason why humans have constructed so many intepretaions of gods.

The last piece is my personal knowledge (which is shared by many other humans to day and across the past) that indeed there is/are very real, very poweful, sapient interventionist entities, which humans call gods, even though that is not really what they are.

And lastly, modern science in many areas has conclusively proven that humans from birth construct god concepts They need no instruction to do so Instructionmay shpe the fom of god invented or recognised but left alone it is a prt of huan cognitive development to construct create and recognise gods. Look up "the construction of human belief" and also "agents and non agents", to gain and understanding of how and why this ocurs in every human,s early months and years. Humans have to be taught to disbelieve and doubt the existence of gods.

The only caveat here is that humans require language and thought to be taught to them As we learn to speak and think in conceptual and symbolic terms, we have the power and ability to recognise and construct gods in our environment.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If time and space are the samething.(einstein) then niether can exist without the other. Thus if there is no space then there ain't no time and the reverse is true. So if there is no tume and no space there couldn't have been a big bang or an universe. Thus we are all in a computer sim. Someplace, where time and space have always existed. Just think, I just made god ten year old snut nosed kid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If time and space are the samething.(einstein) then niether can exist without the other. Thus if there is no space then there ain't no time and the reverse is true. So if there is no tume and no space there couldn't have been a big bang or an universe. Thus we are all in a computer sim. Someplace, where time and space have always existed. Just think, I just made god ten year old snut nosed kid.

It depends. If you are not talking in absolute values, space can exist without time but not time without space. Taking from the definition of both, space is the distance between matter and matter and time is measured by the matter in motion. If matter remains inert there is no time to figure but if matter is in motion, time is present as an accident of motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. If you are not talking in absolute values, space can exist without time but not time without space. Taking from the definition of both, space is the distance between matter and matter and time is measured by the matter in motion. If matter remains inert there is no time to figure but if matter is in motion, time is present as an accident of motion.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't matter made of atoms? And atoms are made of protons and electrons which are constantly in motion? Even if an object is still, its component parts are in motion, and therefore subject to passing of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course There was atime when nothing existed and a time when NO sapient life existed in the universe How then could/did god exist?

But huma history and socal observation demonstratres that indeed

gods come in a number of forms constructs and real entities.

Tha tis one reason why humans have constructed so many intepretaions of gods.

The last piece is my personal knowledge (which is shared by many other humans to day and across the past) that indeed there is/are very real, very poweful, sapient interventionist entities, which humans call gods, even though that is not really what they are.

And lastly, modern science in many areas has conclusively proven that humans from birth construct god concepts They need no instruction to do so Instructionmay shpe the fom of god invented or recognised but left alone it is a prt of huan cognitive development to construct create and recognise gods. Look up "the construction of human belief" and also "agents and non agents", to gain and understanding of how and why this ocurs in every human,s early months and years. Humans have to be taught to disbelieve and doubt the existence of gods.

The only caveat here is that humans require language and thought to be taught to them As we learn to speak and think in conceptual and symbolic terms, we have the power and ability to recognise and construct gods in our environment.

The concept of God came from Man's early misunderstandings of his environment....plus, the 'coincidences' of life. For ex: Man hears Thunder and lightening strikes...God. A volcano erupts....God. Flood...God. Tsunami....God. Plague....God. Death....God. Life...God. Creation...God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet that is likely the reality. Why, in logic, is it less likely than the idea/concept that everythng existed forever, with no beginning and no end? Given many physical indicators, including the nature of entropy, this is unlkely.

Entropy is a local phenomenon that applies only to closed systems. Because it is a local phenomenon, and because an infinite duration/size universe cannot be a closed system, it has no bearing on the infinite duration/existence of the universe.

Almost certainly, according to Hawking and other scientists, there was a "time" when there was no time. Time only comes into existence when other things come into existence. Many scientists argue that even now there is no real "thing" called time; (As there are real "things" called space, energy and matter) and that it is only a construct of human observation.

Nothing can "come into existence" without time. "Coming into existence" explicitly implies time pre-exists. You have simply misunderstood what some notable scientists have attempted to explain - or perhaps they explained it poorly.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. If you are not talking in absolute values, space can exist without time but not time without space. Taking from the definition of both, space is the distance between matter and matter and time is measured by the matter in motion. If matter remains inert there is no time to figure but if matter is in motion, time is present as an accident of motion.

Using this then you end up with either no space or no matter.

Matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of particles.

There is space between those particles. But those are made up of smaller and smaller particles until you get down to strings(string theory) which are solid.

So matter on our scale is not solid. Yet energy on the atomic scale is solid. And we com back to there being time without space and space without time.(einstien)

Also according to string theory everything in this universe is covred by one single membrane, like a living cell. Seems I have brought that ten year old kid back but now we are part of his/her body.

But, the real problem is that there is no such thing as time. To us the life span of a single cell is only a few seconds. But how long is it to that single cell. We live up to one hundred years, but how long is that to the ten year old person of which we are a part of. There is and never has been any time. Space is the part of reality that does not change. We use time to keep everything straight as we move around in space.

So if we want to go to the nearest star system we need to do away with time. That is how god moves.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of God came from Man's early misunderstandings of his environment....plus, the 'coincidences' of life. For ex: Man hears Thunder and lightening strikes...God. A volcano erupts....God. Flood...God. Tsunami....God. Plague....God. Death....God. Life...God. Creation...God.

No that is a gross simplification of where the concept of gods comes from, and so simple it is basically wrong.

The concepts of, and the ability to recognise catalogue etc., entiites as gods, comes, in part from within our heads; as part of a very complex and evolved system of thought, but it also comes from people who have had encounters of different types with god(s) and then talk about them and share their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing can "come into existence" without time. "Coming into existence" explicitly implies time pre-exists. You have simply misunderstood what some notable scientists have attempted to explain - or perhaps they explained it poorly.

You are mistaken on this one. The idea of a beginning of time has been bandied about informally in physics for quite awhile. Your objection makes no sense to me. There is no "before time." Time begins when space begins. We use the phrase "coming into existence" when perhaps a more accurate description would be "popped into existence" as there is no implication of pre-existing time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me if I am wrong, but isn't matter made of atoms? And atoms are made of protons and electrons which are constantly in motion? Even if an object is still, its component parts are in motion, and therefore subject to passing of time.

I knew you would forget my statement, "If you are not taking in absolute values." To take in absolute values yes matter is never in the inert state because of the atoms albeit you don't see them. Of course, I am aware that the atoms are constantly in the dynamic state of motion but I meant to speak of visible matter. Yes, time is an accident of the motion effected by the electrons constantly in motion. But you can never teach that to a child because it neither can see nor understand how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entropy is a local phenomenon that applies only to closed systems. Because it is a local phenomenon, and because an infinite duration/size universe cannot be a closed system, it has no bearing on the infinite duration/existence of the universe.

Nothing can "come into existence" without time. "Coming into existence" explicitly implies time pre-exists. You have simply misunderstood what some notable scientists have attempted to explain - or perhaps they explained it poorly.

Perhaps or perhaps not. First entropy is a universal phenomenum. ie it is applied to the whole universe from the big bang to the point where the universe springs back into its pre big bang configuration.The universe, as i understand it, IS a finite and closed system. It has eges around its "spherical skin" at the furthest point of its present expansion form the big bang. Beyond those edges is the same nothingness which preceeded the big bang.

On the other hand wormholes and brane theory suggest that there is more to our simple universe than this. BUT STILL, in all, the universe is finite and eventually a closed system. just more complex than we first thought.

Second, of course something can come into existence without time existing before then, because time then only begins when everything else does.

Ie when energy, matter, etc begins/comes into existence, so does time come into existence, and ONLY then.

Time cannot exist when nothing else exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using this then you end up with either no space or no matter. Matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of particles. There is space between those particles. But those are made up of smaller and smaller particles until you get down to strings(string theory) which are solid. So matter on our scale is not solid. Yet energy on the atomic scale is solid. And we com back to there being time without space and space without time.(einstien)

Also according to string theory everything in this universe is covred by one single membrane, like a living cell. Seems I have brought that ten year old kid back but now we are part of his/her body.

But, the real problem is that there is no such thing as time. To us the life span of a single cell is only a few seconds. But how long is it to that single cell. We live up to one hundred years, but how long is that to the ten year old person of which we are a part of. There is and never has been any time. Space is the part of reality that does not change. We use time to keep everything straight as we move around in space. So if we want to go to the nearest star system we need to do away with time. That is how god moves.

Well, you don't have to go that far if you want really to be that absolute. It is enough to say that there is no time because as the past jumps into the future, it missed the present. There no past because it is gone, there is no present because the past jumped into the future and there is no future because it is still to come. But back to relativity, Space needs matter to identify itself by limits, and time needs matter in motion to be figured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.