The Void of nothing

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nowhere in this list does it mention time as being an objective thing consisting of matter and energy. I might easily say that beauty is a " property " of the universe, but would that make beauty exist for you? You have already said yourself that having matter , mass and energy is a pre-requisite for anything existing

But I've also said that time is a dimension, like length or width. You seem to try and tell us that they don't exist, which is clearly ludicrous. Since you seem to unwilling to look up Minkowski space...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But I've also said that time is a dimension, like length or width. You seem to try and tell us that they don't exist, which is clearly ludicrous. Since you seem to unwilling to look up Minkowski space...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

If nothing is all there is, time would not be there either, unless you want to start telling everyone what is there within nothing, which of course means we are not longer talking about nothing, but something. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If nothing is all there is, time would not be there either, unless you want to start telling everyone what is there within nothing, which of course means we are not longer talking about nothing, but something. 🙂
Kelly

I assume you are talking about a singluarity here? ALL rules break down at that point. We cannot describe it using terms we have, and we cannot imagine it, it is so different to anything we could ever experience.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But I've also said that time is a dimension, like length or width. You seem to try and tell us that they don't exist, which is clearly ludicrous. Since you seem to unwilling to look up Minkowski space...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

I looked it up and although I didn't understand the maths (who does?) I would broadly agree with this 4d space/time view the universe. It's not this I disagree with you. The universe can obviously be looked at in terms of 4 dimensions time , width , length and depth. No argument from me there. BUT...

.......and you need to REALLY think about this bit....and I mean really think.....I do NOT see the universe itself and the dimensions of the universe as SEPARATE objective entities. And why should I until someone takes a dimension and sticks it in a test tube to show me what it is.

It's the idea that the universe somehow NEEDS dimensions to exist "in" as if the objective thing we call the universe NEEDS another objective thing called 4D dimensions to exist "IN" . To me they are not separate entities any more than a metre and a piece of wood exist as objective entities.

A piece of wood does not "NEED" a metre or length to exist "IN". It's the other way round for me . The wood exists and this enables us to define it's existence in dimensional concepts. The woods existence is also it's length. They are one and the same.

The universe does not exist "in" another form of existence called "time" - The universe IS time. They are one and the same. This is my problem. You come up with the idea that "everything is dependent on time existing" , which to me just sounds like "everything depends on the universe existing" . It's meaningless to me. To me the concept of time is dependent on existence , not existence dependent on time.

I know you understand this because I saw how you argued with Marauder about how convinced he was that morality actually existed and you showed him that it was really our conceptualising of evolutionary events.

Time is a very useful theoretical concept but the reality of time is that to me it is matter and energy moving about causing other matter and energy to move about or do something. I see the time conceptually but I know rationally it's just stuff moving about or not moving about.

However , it's just a point of view and time may exist afterall , but I don't see on what basis my position is ludicrous.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I assume you are talking about a singluarity here? ALL rules break down at that point. We cannot describe it using terms we have, and we cannot imagine it, it is so different to anything we could ever experience.

So you don't believe in 'nothing' you believe in the eternal something?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see how long time is, is relevant. You are again claiming an external timescale and space in which the universe and its existence is only a subsection. If the universe existed for a mere second, that would not directly imply that time goes on for a minute and therefore there are 59 seconds unaccounted for. All time is contained in the universe wh ...[text shortened]... otally false claims about edges and simultaneously ignoring the possibility of circles.[/b]

If the universe existed for a mere second, that would not directly imply that time goes on for a minute and therefore there are 59 seconds unaccounted for. All time is contained in the universe whether finite or infinite, it makes no difference. WHITEY

Ok , let's say you're right for a minute , even if all time is contained within the universe why does that logically mean that all existence must be contained in the universe? This asumption only works if you automatically assume that all existence depends on time to exist "IN" --and I don't even believe time is an objective entity , let alone that all existence must rest on time's shoulders.

That's where we miss each other . I don't see existence as time dependent and you do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you don't believe in 'nothing' you believe in the eternal something?
Kelly

I do not believe the words "something" or "nothing" have any relevance within this sphere.

Originally posted by knightmeister
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

I looked it up and although I didn't understand the maths (who does?) I would broadly agree with this 4d space/time view the universe. It's not this I disagree with you. The universe can obviously be looked at in terms of 4 dimensions time , width , length and depth. No argument from me there. BUT...

...[text shortened]... ist afterall , but I don't see on what basis my position is ludicrous.

I think you are correct on so much here, but you seem to think that the "universe" exists as a finite thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , let's say you're right for a minute , even if all time is contained within the universe why does that logically mean that all existence must be contained in the universe? This assumption ....

I made no such assumption.
As usual you are taking my claims that something is not proved impossible to be claims that they are the only possibility. Not the same thing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
That's where we miss each other . I don't see existence as time dependent and you do.

You dont seem to be too sure what existence is dependent on. At one moment you say it is dependent on matter and energy and now you don't? Or are you saying that matter and energy can exist independently from time?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I think you are correct on so much here, but you seem to think that the "universe" exists as a finite thing.

I think you are correct on so much here, but you seem to think that the "universe" exists as a finite thing SCOTTY

All your talk about singularities and some kind of beginning to space/time suggest most strongly to me that you thought it was finite. So I'm a bit surprised about this. I see only three viable options

a) The universe has a beginning and an end and as such is around for a temporary duration of time (finite)

b) The universe has a beginning but no end or vice versa (partially finite/infinite)

c) The universe has no beginning and no end (eternal) and stretches out infinitely without definition or limitation of any kind (time or otherwise)

I find b) dissatisfactory because if the universe was capable of infinite existence of any kind then I see no reason why it would need to have a beginning or and end of any kind.

So , to me if you say the universe is not finite that's Ok because I would then regard you as positing the universe as probably eternal.

Am I not right in assuming that most physicists believe the universe to be finite? I fail to see how a S from Nothinger cannot believe the universe to be finite in at least one respect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I made no such assumption.
As usual you are taking my claims that something is not proved impossible to be claims that they are the only possibility. [b]Not the same thing.[/b]

I apologise for misunderstanding you but the problem I have is that you don't really make any affirmative assertions about what you even think is probable regarding existence . It sometimes feels like palaying chess with someone who leaves his pieces between squares. I also end up having to make inferences on what you really think in all this based on what you negatively argue against. For example I still am not clear on whether you think the absolute absence of existence of any kind a possibility? Is non-existence possible?

If you don't make clear moves I will end up inevitably trying to guess which squares your pieces are on , and I will get it wrong from time to time. You will accuse me of making assumptions but what choice have I got ? It's like boxing with jelly at the moment.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you are correct on so much here, but you seem to think that the "universe" exists as a finite thing SCOTTY

All your talk about singularities and some kind of beginning to space/time suggest most strongly to me that you thought it was finite. So I'm a bit surprised about this. I see only three viable options

a) The universe has a beginning ...[text shortened]... see how a S from Nothinger cannot believe the universe to be finite in at least one respect.

What I mean is that "the universe" isn't a single article, but everything! Lots and lots of individual things.

I don't think a singularity can be described as either something or nothing, those words don't apply, I believe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You dont seem to be too sure what existence is dependent on. At one moment you say it is dependent on matter and energy and now you don't? Or are you saying that matter and energy can exist independently from time?

You dont seem to be too sure what existence is dependent on. At one moment you say it is dependent on matter and energy and now you don't? Or are you saying that matter and energy can exist independently from time?WHITEY

It's only fair I stick my neck out after my other post. The way I see it is this. I think it's inevitable through logic to assume the strong likelihood of some entity that is uncaused and eternal without beginning. This to me would imply the existence of something that exists in a radical and incredibly different way than our known universe. Beginningless eternity is such an awesome idea because it implies unlimited power and absolute permanence of existence.

So for me all matter, energy , mass , time (?) , "fabric" of space etc etc and the entire universe depend on this entity of uncaused existence. It may consist of matter of some kind , it may not . Within my faith I believe it consists of God's unlimited holiness and power. If you ask me what God is made of I will say scientifically I don't know but faithwise God is love , so one could say he is made of love.

Within this known universe , I believe matter and energy to be the fundamental base of everything (including time) . Time for instance seems to be influenced and changed by the motion and speed of objects consisting of matter , so this again suggests to me that matter is more fundamental to existence than time because if it wasn't time wouldn't be effected by it , it would be motion and speed that would change according to time not the other way around.

We know that if we fiddle with speed and motion of objects time is affected , so to me it would be far more logical to say the motion and speed are fundamental to existence than time. However , motion can't happen unless there is matter to move and energy to move it .

So I would say quite strongly that matter and energy are fundamental to our known universe upon which everything else is dependent. But since I do not believe that our known universe is all that exists I do not see matter and energy as fundamental to all of existence (known and unknown).

It also seems likely that at the beginning of the universe (scotty's singularity) matter and energy were motionless and so time hadn't started so I do agree with scotty's non- time dependent singularity in a way. However , I am free to believe in a non-time dependent singularity because I don't think you need time for existence to exist "in". Scotty and you are not because you see everything as time dependent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So because you cant measure one dimension with the units of another dimension you declare the dimension to not exist?
So this energy you claim does exist, how heavy is it? What colour is it? what is it's length? Keep in mind that I am talking about all types of energy including potential energy.

So this energy you claim does exist, how heavy is it? What colour is it? what is it's length?WHITEY

Matter can be weighed and then converted to energy .

Fires can be yellow , red , sometimes blue.

A lightning bolts can be different lengths and wattages (and colours also)

The sun is shining on my face right now and I can even feel the energy from the sun. It's kind of crimson right now , I'm sure if I had the right equipment I could measure some waveLENGTHS.

That was easy , what a funny question to ask ? Ask me about matter now , please do!