The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
All questions pre-suppose causality.SCOTTY

Good , we have an agreed idea then. There is little point in asking any questions (and expecting an explanatory answer) relating to causality regarding something which is uncaused because by definition it is not caused by anything. However , the question still needs to be asked to find out that it can't be ...[text shortened]... n of this?

Now.... are there any other kinds of questions you think might be permissible?

There is little point in asking any questions (and expecting an explanatory answer) relating to causality

It seems to me that you're throwing in related to causality for no reason. If all questions assume causality, there's no point asking questions of anything said to be uncaused. However most Christians love to ask questions about what they call God, which makes no sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see why my argument is illogical. You haven't pointed out any logical flaws in it.

[b]I'm surprised you missed it. I feel like I have been saying this all along . But then you have not got to the point of resignation yet because you still believe in the 3rd option fudge.
The 3rd option is not a fudge but a viable option that your refuse to ...[text shortened]... y illogical as you have provided no valid reasoning that suggests it to be the case.[/b]

So at which point in the circle did it 'appear'? Why do you still insist on a nothing from which everything must appear with causation. If time is circular then it goes round and round without a beginning or end. Why then must it appear from somewhere?WHITEY

I have some more questions on this. Firstly , where would you place the big bang in your circle of time ? Secondly do you accept the Big bang idea that suggests the universe to be an expanding balloon of some sort (rather than a neat circle) with matter/energy moving outwards from the centre? How do you equate this with your tidy circle? Do you place the balloon within the circle or is the balloon also the circle? How do you get by the time paradox problem of the future connecting up with the past (Einstein though this impossible) ?

Most importantly , would you accept that for time to be in a circle , time would have to be flowing around this circle constantly in motion? If so is the time constantly in motion or has the circle ever been motionless , "waiting" for time to start moving? For it to be time it would have to be constantly flowing and in motion. Has it always been in motion?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Actually, what is measured is duration, time is the unit. SCOTTY

So time doesn't exist after all! It's duration now then . Duration of what may I ask? Duration of time? They can't BOTH be units of measurement one has to exist the other one is just a unit of measurement.

Does length exist? Length, Width, Depth, Duration. They are dimensions.

Go look up Minkowski-space or spacetime in Wiki.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Time is the dimension. Seconds, hours, etc are the units.

[b]Also, of course, considering that there may be an XXX [insert mythical being of your choice] avoids the ridiculousness and meaninglessness of claiming that there may have been nothing before the universe.

There's nothing ridiculous or meaningless about claiming there was nothing be ...[text shortened]... t distances aboive the ground, only one of them or more likely neither of them has an altitude?[/b]

Time is the dimension. Seconds, hours, etc are the units.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. I would say that "time" is merely a word which describes the collective group of time-related units. Duration is how long something exists for, hence I prefer it.


There's nothing ridiculous or meaningless about claiming there was nothing before the universe. It is ridiculous and meaningless to claim that the dimension of time is measurable with respect to time.

Agreed. Of course, the question then becomes is it ridiculous or meaningless to claim there was something before the universe, in the absence of evidence.

You think the concept of altitude has a certain, unspecified number of meters associated with it? Does that mean that of two airplanes flying at different distances aboive the ground, only one of them or more likely neither of them has an altitude?

This just flat out doesn't make sense, ir at best is a misrepresentation. I do think that the concept of altitude has a certain number of metres associated with it. Of course, altitude is defined with respect to a point. Each plane in your example would have its own altitude, since each represents a different point in space.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Does length exist? Length, Width, Depth, Duration. They are dimensions.

Go look up Minkowski-space or spacetime in Wiki.

You said time is the unit you can't get out of it now. A unit of measurement is not the thing itself but an arbitary unit that doesn't exist in reality. If you think time exists and duration exists and you seem to think they can measure each other using one as a unit of measurement.

Like I said a confusing concept time , it changes all the time (or should I say duration) depending on what the latest fad within physics happens to be.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Does length exist? Length, Width, Depth, Duration. They are dimensions.

Go look up Minkowski-space or spacetime in Wiki.

I've told you before I don't think length or depth exist either . A dimension is not a "thing" , it's just a descriptive concept. How heavy is length , does it have any mass? How many lengths are there on earth ? Are they all the same colour?

I'm not interested in minkowski space, I am interested in the space I live in , and I ain't ever seen a length.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All I've said is that there is no evidence for anything happening "outside" the universe. Parsimony takes over after that.

Roll up roll up folks it's time to play spot the Scotty self-contradiction again! He's not been man enough to concede he was caught with his pants down and just carried on anyway....5 points if you spot all the contradictions , 2 points if you get only one. The clues are in the capitals folks, but hurry this offer lasts only for a an x time duration of length dimensions but could be turned into a non time dependent offer at the drop of a hat (depending on what book he's reading and which high priest of physics he is deferring to)

(Sorry Scotty I had to do this , it's just a bit of fun really. If I had said this I just know you would have had me for breakfast ....the funniest part of it is that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself! You're too busy trying to be smarter than you are to make sense. )


"there is no evidence for anything HAPPENING "OUTSIDE" the universe" 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?"SCOTTY

"Existing for an amount of time is a PRE-REQUISITE for existing, as is possessing mass-energy." SCOTTY


"You just keep plugging away with "but it must have a cause". This is only true of things that exist WITHIN the universe, but not true to the start of the universe, since it was NOT a time dependent EVENT." SCOTTY

"Time exists only as a dimension of the universe, and cannot be used to describe things HAPPENING WITHIN a singularity. "SCOTTY

" Time is neccesary for anything to HAPPEN " SCOTTY (This is something I remember you saying on the "eternity a clarification" thread - apologies if I have misquoted you slightly )

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]There is little point in asking any questions (and expecting an explanatory answer) relating to causality

It seems to me that you're throwing in related to causality for no reason. If all questions assume causality, there's no point asking questions of anything said to be uncaused. However most Christians love to ask questions about what they call God, which makes no sense.[/b]

If all questions assume causality, there's no point asking questions of anything said to be uncaused SCOTTY

Not true . One can ask whether the uncaused entity has a beginning or has no beginning (or end for that matter) . Is the uncaused entity likely to be finite or infinite. That's two relevant questions for a start.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Roll up roll up folks it's time to play spot the Scotty self-contradiction again! He's not been man enough to concede he was caught with his pants down and just carried on anyway....5 points if you spot all the contradictions , 2 points if you get only one. The clues are in the capitals folks, but hurry this offer lasts only for a an x time duration of ...[text shortened]... y a clarification" thread - apologies if I have misquoted you slightly )

Your "points" here are more to do with the vagrancies of the English language, which did not evolve to deal with events such as the inception of the universe, than any real point.

Point out just one time where I suggested anything other than the fact that for there to be effects there must be causes, and one has to happen after the other. For that to occur there must be time, which is a dimension of the universe.

Again, go look up Minkowski-space.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We have already knocked it down quite conclusively. Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept and so any claims based on it such as 'nothing must continue existing' are invalid from the start.

Your concept of nothing 'existing' is a meaningless concept WHITEY

Now let's get this cleared up once and for all. Is the absolute absence (or absolute non-existence) of all existence logically possible or impossible for you ? Give me your best guess .

NB - and I mean absolute...(and "all" )

Originally posted by knightmeister
I've told you before I don't think length or depth exist either . A dimension is not a "thing" , it's just a descriptive concept. How heavy is length , does it have any mass? How many lengths are there on earth ? Are they all the same colour?

I'm not interested in minkowski space, I am interested in the space I live in , and I ain't ever seen a length.

I've told you before I don't think length or depth exist either .

Yes, but you are clearly an idiot.

Centimetres, metres etc only exist as a concept within our brain, but length definitely does exist unless, of course, you are trying to tell me that an elephant's trunk exists in anything other than 4-dimensions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]I've told you before I don't think length or depth exist either .

Yes, but you are clearly an idiot.

Centimetres, metres etc only exist as a concept within our brain, but length definitely does exist unless, of course, you are trying to tell me that an elephant's trunk exists in anything other than 4-dimensions.[/b]

but length definitely does exist unless, of course, you are trying to tell me that an elephant's trunk exists in anything other than 4-dimensions. SCOTTY

An elephant's trunk exists in air so it is surrounded by the molecules and atoms etc that comprise the air. The air in turn is surrounded by more air which in turn is ultimately surrounded or supported by the matter and energy of the universe. That's what it exists in . The 4 dimensions are what we use to describe this phenomenon of matter and energy because we represent the matter and energy mathematically and conceptually.

To me the air and matter and energy ARE the reality and don't NEED dimensions to exist "IN" . The matter and energy ARE the dimensions.

I repeat +++The matter and energy ARE the dimensions but they do not exist IN the dimensions+++ The two are NOT seperate


My problem is that you have SPLIT the dimensional description away from the THING ITSELF and reified dimensions into objective things. But you have no way of showing me what a dimension is any more than you can show me what beauty is.


REIFICATION - The process of regarding something abstract as a material entity, Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness," e.g., the mistake of confusing a system, which is a construct, with the physical entity described in its terms
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/REIFICATION.html

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Your "points" here are more to do with the vagrancies of the English language, which did not evolve to deal with events such as the inception of the universe, than any real point.

Point out just one time where I suggested anything other than the fact that for there to be effects there must be causes, and one has to happen after the other. For that ...[text shortened]... here must be time, which is a dimension of the universe.

Again, go look up Minkowski-space.

Point out just one time where I suggested anything other than the fact that for there to be effects there must be causes, and one has to happen after the other. For that to occur there must be time, which is a dimension of the universe. SCOTTY

NO problem...you said this..

"Time exists only as a dimension of the universe, and cannot be used to describe things HAPPENING WITHIN a singularity. "SCOTTY

You described your singularity as a non time dependent event within which something was "happening". An "event" sounds like something's going on in there as well. But according to you nothing can be happening because you have not placed your singularity within time or the universe.

It's so obvious. On the one hand you say that for anything to happen you are dependent on time and then you say that you can have a non-time dependent event with something happening within it.

In short you say that every happening is dependent on time but something can still happen within a non time dependent singularity.

The problem was you made an absolute statement and then exempted something from it. You know full well you can't do that if you want me to take you seriously.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You said time is the unit you can't get out of it now. A unit of measurement is not the thing itself but an arbitary unit that doesn't exist in reality. If you think time exists and duration exists and you seem to think they can measure each other using one as a unit of measurement.

Like I said a confusing concept time , it changes all the time (or should I say duration) depending on what the latest fad within physics happens to be.

ime (tīm) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
2. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
3. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
4. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
5. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
2.
1. An interval, especially a span of years, marked by similar events, conditions, or phenomena; an era. Often used in the plural: hard times; a time of troubles.
2. times The present with respect to prevailing conditions and trends: You must change with the times.
3. A suitable or opportune moment or season: a time for taking stock of one's life.
4.
1. Periods or a period designated for a given activity: harvest time; time for bed.
2. Periods or a period necessary or available for a given activity: I have no time for golf.
3. A period at one's disposal: Do you have time for a chat?
5. An appointed or fated moment, especially of death or giving birth: He died before his time. Her time is near.
6.
1. One of several instances: knocked three times; addressed Congress for the last time before retirement.
2. times Used to indicate the number of instances by which something is multiplied or divided: This tree is three times taller than that one. My library is many times smaller than hers.
7.
1. One's lifetime.
2. One's period of greatest activity or engagement.
3. A person's experience during a specific period or on a certain occasion: had a good time at the party.
8.
1. A period of military service.
2. A period of apprenticeship.
3. Informal. A prison sentence.
9.
1. The customary period of work: hired for full time.
2. The period spent working.
3. The hourly pay rate: earned double time on Sundays.
10. The period during which a radio or television program or commercial is broadcast: “There's television time to buy” (Brad Goldstein).
11. The rate of speed of a measured activity: marching in double time.
12. Music.
1. The meter of a musical pattern: three-quarter time.
2. The rate of speed at which a piece of music is played; the tempo.
13. Chiefly British. The hour at which a pub closes.
14. Sports. A time-out.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Point out just one time where I suggested anything other than the fact that for there to be effects there must be causes, and one has to happen after the other. For that to occur there must be time, which is a dimension of the universe. SCOTTY

NO problem...you said this..

"Time exists only as a dimension of the universe, and cannot be used to de ...[text shortened]... ng from it. You know full well you can't do that if you want me to take you seriously.

Invent for me some new words then. I explained it's the inadequacies of the English language that is the problem.

However, as usual you choose to ignore the real issues.