Re-writing Relativity

Originally posted by scottishinnz
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.

Stop going round in circles trying to impress people with your mumbo-jumbo. SCOTTY

Good deflection. Who am I trying to impress? I simply find it interesting how you believe time to be so important and fundamental to anything existing or happening and then go back on this with your singularity idea in order to get out of the fix you created for yourself. It's something you still haven't addressed yet apart from to deflect and refer to experts.

It was you who was going round in circles and I proved it too.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Stop going round in circles trying to impress people with your mumbo-jumbo. SCOTTY

Good deflection. Who am I trying to impress? I simply find it interesting how you believe time to be so important and fundamental to anything existing or happening and then go back on this with your singularity idea in order to get out of the fix you created for your ...[text shortened]... flect and refer to experts.

It was you who was going round in circles and I proved it too.

You've never proved anything in your life, except, perhaps, your own stupidity - although I doubt your competence on even that.

Come on, answer the question. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist??

Yes or no.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So it's infinite then? I thought you were saying it had a beginning?

No. Wake up. Stop being such an ignorant fool, just for a moment, indulge me that.

I gave you an example and everything, yet you still managed to misinterpret.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Wake up. Stop being such an ignorant fool, just for a moment, indulge me that.

I gave you an example and everything, yet you still managed to misinterpret.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

Careful, Scott... 😉 Once you use a word like “collection,” someone is going to ask “the wot wherein these collectables are collected, and where they were before.”

But the “collection,” of course, is not a “wot wherein,” but just another word for the totality of all the wots, whereins and whens (which you have been saying all along). The collection is defined by all the things, forces, and their relationships (causality, dimensionality). The totality you cannot get beyond, for there is no “beyond” to get to...

That is the bewitchment of language; and part of it is that the totality has no proper analogy: it is completely described only by all of itself, so to speak (whether we have access to such a complete description or not). All explanations must come from... “within.” 🙁

___________________________

“Before existence began to exist,
there was nothing there, I must insist.”

“But where was ‘there,’” I then might ask,
“wherein this ‘nothing’ might comfortably bask.”

“But there must have been a ‘where,’ you see,
or else there was no-place for nothing to be...” 😳

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Wake up. Stop being such an ignorant fool, just for a moment, indulge me that.

I gave you an example and everything, yet you still managed to misinterpret.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.
SCOTTY

How bizarre ! I thought that a brick was also a collection of things , countless atoms for a start. You think your brick is so different from the universe????

PS- Keep up the insults please , I love it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.
SCOTTY

How bizarre ! I thought that a brick was also a collection of things , countless atoms for a start. You think your brick is so different from the universe????

PS- Keep up the insults please , I love it.

Unlike the universe, a brick is not a collection of everything.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You've never proved anything in your life, except, perhaps, your own stupidity - although I doubt your competence on even that.

Come on, answer the question. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist??

Yes or no.

Come on, answer the question. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist??

Yes or no. SCOTTY

YES is one answer , In theory it is possible for something to exist for zero seconds. If ,for example, the milky way and everything within it stopped moving completely then it would exist for zero seconds.

Another answer might be NO because the phrase "exist for zero seconds" could be said to be paradoxical , therefore whatever is said to exist would not possibly exist anyway.

A further answer would be that it's impossible to know because we do not know or understand what time is or whether time is a useful concept regarding all of existence (within or without the known universe)

An even further answer could be YES because according to you a singularity is a "non-time dependent event" , so a singularity could exist for zero seconds.

But I want to see what you are going to argue so I will accept the pawn sacrifice and go for the gambit...

NO

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Unlike the universe, a brick is not a collection of everything.

It is a collection of all the things contained within the brick . The universe is a collection of all the things contained within the universe. The brick has a beginning, the universe has a beginning.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Wake up. Stop being such an ignorant fool, just for a moment, indulge me that.

I gave you an example and everything, yet you still managed to misinterpret.

The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

You can't even get what is laughingly referred to as your brain around that, apparently.

The universe is not a specific "thing"SCOTTY

But it has a limited amount of energy , it has a beginning , it runs down (heat death) , it's existence can be measured in lengths of time. It goes through various stages of transformation . It's not so special really.

How do you know it is not a thing?

Originally posted by knightmeister
NO

Suddenly, you start to accept that a thing must exist within the time dimension to exist! Finally! I was really losing hope in you KM. Finally, you are starting to accept reality!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Suddenly, you start to accept that a thing must exist within the time dimension to exist! Finally! I was really losing hope in you KM. Finally, you are starting to accept reality!

Oh dear , you think that this logically implies that a thing MUST exist "within" a time dimension. ???!!???

Not at all and I'll show you why. Let's assume that "if something exists for zero seconds then it does not exist" . The way this is phrased suggests subtly that it is the absence of time (0 seconds) that is causing the thing to not exist. Which would mean that the existence of the thing is dependent on a "time dimension".

HOWEVER , if you turn it around and ask "if something does not exist how many seconds does it exist for? = answer 0" then you get a different meaning . Suddenly the fact that there are 0 seconds to measure depends upon the non-existence of the thing.

The question here is does the fact there are zero seconds cause the thing to not exist OR does the non-existence of the thing cause the zero seconds?

To me time and the universe are inseparable so it makes no sense to say "a thing must exist within a time dimension" because time doesn't exist. It's just a way of looking at the universe and if something doesn't exist then of course it doesn't exist for zero seconds...but it's not the zero seconds that's stopping it from existing it's the non-existence that's stopping the seconds from being measured.

To me you have the whole thing upside down. The universe doesn't "need" time , you need a universe to exist first before you can start arbitarily comparing the movement units of your watch with other movements and conceptualising them as time.

Originally posted by vistesd
The way I am trying to express things may be “fuzzy,” but I am actually trying to avoid fuzzy thinking by pointing out what cannot be thought clearly. The following questions, for example, are incoherent, nonsensical:

“Was there a time before time?”

“Where was everything before there was ‘where’ (i.e., spatial dimensions)?”

“Is there an unca ...[text shortened]... r both)—more like Beethoven than like biology—and that is where I think it’s justification lies.

“Was there a time before time?”

You know without a shadow of doubt that time had a beginning, that there was a “before time”? I know Scott believes that is the case, he hasn't given me any reason to believe it, just spouts off that I need to come up with a new theory of relativity.

“Where was everything before there was ‘where’ (i.e., spatial dimensions)?”

That is another question I have been asking, and getting no where.


“Is there an uncaused cause of causation?”

I'd say no, if there was a cause of causation then it by definition couldn't be uncaused. Much like square circles by definition it defeats itself.

“Is there anything beyond the totality of everything?”

No, but that doesn't mean that everything there is in our universe either, only that which is apart of it, is a part of it.


Like Scotty, and others, I use the word “universe” to mean—by definition—the totality. However, I am happy to use just “totality” or “the whole” or “All.”

Which again I disagree with Scott, if there is something not apart of our universe but outside of it, it is apart of everything yet again has nothing to do with our universe.

"If the singularity is the “reference point” for time-space dimensionality, then it makes no sense to ask where and when beyond that point. Where and when are questions of dimensionality. Similarly if the singularity is the reference point for causality. The singularity is the point beyond which we cannot coherently speak. The error is to think of the universe as a collection of things that exist “within” dimensionality, when dimensionality is a property of the universe: they are not separable, just as my smile is not separable from my face. "

Yes, it does make sense to ask, it becomes more important than the so called singularity itself in my opinion. If all causes and effects rest inside the so called nothing with everything in it, that which bound it, held it, reduced it, kept it in place until such time it blew would be completely interesting since it not the singularity, rather it is the real eternal realm. It doesn't change with the whim of time and space, it remains constant, it becomes very interesting in my opinion yet it is a waist of time to your thinking? I find that odd!

I don't think such a place is real, since I do believe in a eternal God, but to think you'd write off before the BB as uninteresting is odd to me.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The universe is not a specific "thing", like, for example, a brick. It is a collection - a collection of all things.

Careful, Scott... 😉 Once you use a word like “collection,” someone is going to ask “the wot wherein these collectables are collected, and where they were before.”

But the “collection,” of course, is not a “wot wherein,” but j ...[text shortened]... here must have been a ‘where,’ you see,
or else there was no-place for nothing to be...” 😳[/b]

“Before existence began to exist,
there was nothing there, I must insist.”

“But where was ‘there,’” I then might ask,
“wherein this ‘nothing’ might comfortably bask.”

“But there must have been a ‘where,’ you see,
or else there was no-place for nothing to be...”


Did you write that? I really liked it!
Kelly

Originally posted by knightmeister
Oh dear , you think that this logically implies that a thing MUST exist "within" a time dimension. ???!!???

Not at all and I'll show you why. Let's assume that "if something exists for zero seconds then it does not exist" . The way this is phrased suggests subtly that it is the absence of time (0 seconds) that is causing the thing to not exist. Whic ...[text shortened]... its of your watch with other movements and conceptualising them as time.

You can also ask, can something exist outside of time for 2 seconds?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can also ask, can something exist outside of time for 2 seconds?
Kelly

Yes , I can see how you could although the phrases inside or outside of time mean very little to me other than expressive terms because I don't believe time exists in the same way scotty does.

To me it's a bit like asking whether a painting can exist outside of beauty.