07 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf something exists for zero seconds, does it exist? Does a line with a length of 0cm (or metres or kilometres, or whatever) exist? No! Existing for an amount of time is a pre-requisite for existing, as is possessing mass-energy. You seem to want to talk about [edit; causality] independent of time, but that's not feasible. SCOTTY
The point is that everything that exists, must exist within 4 dimensional space, and must have all those dimensions. If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist? Does a line with a length of 0cm (or metres or kilometres, or whatever) exist? No! Existing for an amount of time is a pre-requisite for existing, as is possessing mass-ener ...[text shortened]... pth and duration. A metre is a arbitrary unit of length, but it isn't length per se.
So time has to exist as a pre-requisite for anything to exist eh? So
if time had a beginning then how did it begin ? Is time itself exempt from this little rule of yours ? Or did time create itself first and then allow everything else to exist on the back of it? But it couldn't create itself if it didn't exist? Maybe time is uncaused then? It just......erhem....starts! this all starts to sound paradoxical...but wait there's a logical way out ...time is uncaused and continuous....eternity to the rescue!
07 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo light doesn't exist in its own field of reference?
If something exists for zero seconds, does it exist? Does a line with a length of 0cm (or metres or kilometres, or whatever) exist? No! Existing for an amount of time is a pre-requisite for existing, as is possessing mass-energy. You seem to want to talk about [edit; causality] independent of time, but that's not feasible. SCOTTY
So time has to exis ...[text shortened]... wait there's a logical way out ...time is uncaused and continuous....eternity to the rescue!
08 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNow here is an area where quantum physics already comes into play. You are claiming that a few microwaves in a bell jar can totally fill all the space contained in it at all times. But if microwaves are made from photons of energy then they have discrete positions and fill a finite amount of space. Therefore they cannot fill the full volume.
It turns out that the Greeks were right. First, no matter how good the vacuum, its space is still penetrated by some infrared heat and microwaves from the vacuum's walls and environment. Since energy and mass are fundamentally the same, those waves zipping through space mean that you can't ever have a true vacuum.
If they are thought of as waves then maybe they could, but as I said in earlier posts a wave is a particle which just does not have a definite position. The question is "is its position unknown or does it simply not have one?"
But that's small potatoes compared to this next item. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that a vacuum shouldn't exist, and other theorists argued that the vacuum of space should be filled with a bizarre sort of quantum energy.
They were right, too. Much experimental evidence shows that "virtual particles" - things like electrons and antimatter positrons - snap, crackle and pop out of nothingness everywhere and all the time. Each particle typically exists for just a billionth of a trillionth of a second, then vanishes. If there's an energy field around, a subatomic particle can borrow some of that energy to remain in existence forever. Thus, things perpetually spring to life out of that quantum vacuum.
I still deny that every single possible bit of space is filled with particles popping in and out of existence at all times. Surely that would mean that they are not 'poping' out of nothing nor 'vanishing' as there are no gaps between the events.
But of course quantum physics just shows us that the way we see space (Newtonian mechanics) is actually wrong and we cannot really think about it that way at all.
08 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterLets get back to that one then.
It just......erhem....starts! this all starts to sound paradoxical...but wait there's a logical way out ...time is uncaused and continuous....eternity to the rescue!
How exactly does your concept of eternity solve anything?
Who caused eternity? How did it start? What is outside it?
When you say "time is continuous" do you mean infinite? What does that have to do with your concept of eternity? Does that mean that space is also necessarily continuous? But we already both agree that space is not infinite (or there could be no big bang.)
Why is a zero time paradoxical? Are you sure it is not just your lack of understanding that is the problem?
Let my draw an analogy. The earth has lines of latitude. Can you find a point on the earths surface that is further south than the south pole? Does this mean that the earths surface is discontinuous? Does it prove the existence of a 'latitude creator'?
08 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho caused eternity? How did it start? What is outside it? SCOTTY
Lets get back to that one then.
How exactly does your concept of eternity solve anything?
Who caused eternity? How did it start? What is outside it?
When you say "time is continuous" do you mean infinite? What does that have to do with your concept of eternity? Does that mean that space is also necessarily continuous? But we already both agree that spa ...[text shortened]... at the earths surface is discontinuous? Does it prove the existence of a 'latitude creator'?
There was no cause to eternity , it is uncaused . It didn't start because it has no beginning. There is nothing outside of it , it is infinite in all directions. I agree this is implausible but then we have a choice to make between an uncaused entity that has no beginning or an uncaused entity that has a beginning. I see no reason why an uncaused entiity might need to have a beginning at all since having a beginning suggests it being contingent on something else.
Eternity solves the logical paradox of trying to explain why total nothingness would not just "continue" being nothing (given there would be no reason or substance for anything to exist). It also solves the issue of continuity , existence comes from existence rather than non-existence.
08 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy is a zero time paradoxical? SCOTTY
Lets get back to that one then.
How exactly does your concept of eternity solve anything?
Who caused eternity? How did it start? What is outside it?
When you say "time is continuous" do you mean infinite? What does that have to do with your concept of eternity? Does that mean that space is also necessarily continuous? But we already both agree that spa ...[text shortened]... at the earths surface is discontinuous? Does it prove the existence of a 'latitude creator'?
It's not zero time that's problematic it's zero existence. If, as you claim, all existence itself is dependent on time then zero time implies zero anything at all. If I said that all existence was contingent on God and then also said that there once was zero God or non- God you might quite rightly ask "well how did God get there then?" did he create himself? What caused God?
Whatever you say existence is dependent on always presents a problem because if you then say that that thing (let's say it's blancmange) doesn't exist or there is a point of "zero blancmange" then you have taken away the cause on which all existence is dependent and implied a special property for blancmange which enables it to "will" or force itself into existence for no reason other than it just does. By implication you believe in uncaused time what's more you believe in uncaused time from zilch.
I really can't believe I have to explain this to you to be honest.You seem too caught up in mathematical constructs to appreciate the basic philosophical paradox of existence.
08 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are claiming that a few microwaves in a bell jar can totally fill all the space contained in it at all timesWHITEY
Now here is an area where quantum physics already comes into play. You are claiming that a few microwaves in a bell jar can totally fill all the space contained in it at all times. But if microwaves are made from photons of energy then they have discrete positions and fill a finite amount of space. Therefore they cannot fill the full volume.
If they are ...[text shortened]... an mechanics) is actually wrong and we cannot really think about it that way at all.
No not at all , the point is a philosophical one based on good science. If we are making the extraordinary claim of something from nothing (which means the something is uncaused) then we must be watertight in our conditions. The microwaves contaminate the experiment in the same way a crime scene can be contaminated. It becomes no longer a pure vacuum and we are no longer entitled to make extraordinary claims. How can a physicist say we have proved that something can come from nothing if the vaccuum is not totally empty? There could be all sorts of things going on in there ! In any case until we understand all there is to know about existence how can one guarantee that the vaccuum is not full. If a biologist said he had proved that a bacteria can grow from a totally absolutely sterile plate of agar jelly he would easily be refuted if it was shown that even one small single microbe got in. The experiment and proof is immediately invalid. As you guys are so found of saying...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Just admit it it's science trumped up into faith. Nothing is an ABSOLUTE term , get used to it .
08 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow exactly does your concept of eternity solve anything? WHITEY
Lets get back to that one then.
How exactly does your concept of eternity solve anything?
Who caused eternity? How did it start? What is outside it?
When you say "time is continuous" do you mean infinite? What does that have to do with your concept of eternity? Does that mean that space is also necessarily continuous? But we already both agree that spa ...[text shortened]... at the earths surface is discontinuous? Does it prove the existence of a 'latitude creator'?
I'm going to paste something I wrote recently in an email to a friend in response.....(sorry it's a bit lazy)
"What I find hard to comprehend about your position on the origins of existence is how you seem to present one theory as being rational and explainable and the other as so implausible that you are "sure as you can be" it's impossible.
I feel this is a false distinction because the S from N position requires logically that you have something uncaused as a pre requisite as does the eternal explanation. Both positions require something to just "be" or "begin" with no explanation or cause because to have a cause implies something not nothing. So we are faced with the very real probability of an uncaused , non-contingent phenomena that doesn't begin or exist as a result of anything or is dependent on anything else at all. It either exists eternally or begins finitely without any prior cause.
Your belief in an "explanation" for either of these is to me illusionary in the hope that you can escape mysticism with something that will make "rational" sense. To me this is always something that the S from Nothingers do . They seek to de-mystify , but in reality how much closer are we than 500 years ago? Did existence create itself? Did the universe set itself in motion? How so from nothing? A combination of theoretical quasi - mystical physics and woolly concepts of nothing can make us feel that we are closer , but the reality is that it's like saying 100,000 is closer to infinity than 10.
I say this because it seems your problem with eternity is an infinite regress of the old causality problem. How can something be uncaused? But do you not recognise that you have the same problem with S from N.?
The paradox of a non-contingent , uncaused enitity (be it a God or a Universe) remains.What makes eternity implausible also makes S from N implausible.Have you got this far or are you still hanging on to the good ship rationality in the hope that something that just "begins" for no reason from nothing will ever make sense in the way that you imagine?
So , once you have got as far as the inevitability of an uncaused entity either way you then ask yourself "why would something uncaused need to have a "beginning" anyway? (as if something made it begin?) It's not a big leap to then think that something uncaused could be eternal without a beginning. You then get a choice between a finite uncaused something with a beginning or an infinite uncaused something that has no beginning. However , using the most parsimonious approach we can see that there are all sorts of finite things around us that are obviously not uncaused which could suggest that something uncaused might well be infinite.
Ultimately, the other advantage of the uncaused something with no beginning is that the whole something from nothing problem is eliminated. You don't have the problem of explaining ( in futility ) why nothingness would not just continue in nothingness (since there would be no reason for it not to) because there never was nothingness but always somethingness. You don't have to butt nothingess up against somethingness and then explain the transition , it's just a smooth transition of something to something else.
Of course this is a train of thought only possible with the acceptance of the ultimate implausibility of BOTH models and then working from there rather than kidding yourself that S from N does not imply something uncaused. However , there's still a certain logic to mysticism that involves continuity over discontinuity. "