A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

That does not address my question, what is this tangible time substance that can cause this existence?

Substance? You making up! Words for me? It is perceptible, measurable, observable. Whether you understand it is not required

 

[Polymath257]

I mean that, if someone believes the universe is not eternal, since the only other option if it is not eternal is that it had a beginning,

OK, good to here.

and if it had a beginning, it had to come from nothing,

And this is where you make your mistake. Having a beginning does NOT mean that it 'came from nothing'. An alternative is that time itself is finite into the past.

and since nothing does not exist, the belief is in error.

Yes, if someone claims that the universe came literally from nothing (as opposed to, say, an unstable vacuum state--which is what is usually claimed), then they are wrong. But that is NOT the alternative for time going infinitely into the past.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not dispute the benefit to mankind through science in the support of his physical nature. I do also not dispute the benefit to mankind wrt his spiritual nature through religious practice. It' a matter of which master you choose to serve. But you can not serve both without serving one second best, and it works both ways.

I *do* dispute that 'mankind' benefits, on average, from religious practice. In fact, I see it as a HUGE detriment to humans.

 

[Polymath257]

So Christine dear, what form of tangibility does 'the arrow of time' take that we can observe it.....touch, taste, smell, hearing, or seeing?

Why are those required directly of time? We can and do measure changes. We can and do find periodic motion in the universe. We can and do use that periodic motion to help describe how other things move.

Your restriction to 'touch, taste, smell, hearing, or seeing' is *way* too restrictive. Humans cannot see infrared. We cannot hear ultrasound. We cannot detect neutrinos. Yean, and do, build instruments that can extend our senses and allow us to detect all of these things.

 

[Polymath257]

That does not address my question, what is this tangible time substance that can cause this existence?

Whenever someone starts using the word 'substance' in a situation like this, you know that they are way too dependent on old Aristotelian beliefs, even if they are not aware of such. No scientist uses the word 'substance' in anything like the sense that old philosophers did. To require time to be a 'substance' shows a fundamental lack of understanding of not only time, but how the universe works. Space is not a 'substance'. Nor is charge. Yet all of space, time, and charge do, in fact, exist in the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why are those the only ways to be tangible? And why is such tangibility important when we know full well that human senses are limited and fallible?

Why do you not address your questions to Christine, I was asking her about it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Substance? You making up! Words for me? It is perceptible, measurable, observable. Whether you understand it is not required

So how is time measured?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, good to here.


And this is where you make your mistake. Having a beginning does NOT mean that it 'came from nothing'. An alternative is that time itself is finite into the past.

Yes, if someone claims that the universe came literally from nothing (as opposed to, say, an unstable vacuum state--which is what is usually claimed), then they are wrong. But that is NOT the alternative for time going infinitely into the past.

Ok, you seem to be saying that as an alternative to universe being eternal, the universe could exist timelessly as some form of unstable vacuum state or dormant singularity before it starts expanding resulting in the beginning of finite time?

 

[Polymath257]

So how is time measured?

1. Find a periodic process (pendulum swings, days, years) and count the number of times cycles are completed.
2. Find a regular process (sand through a hole, or radioactive decay) and measure how far along the process is.
3. Measure how far something of known velocity (such as light) travels.

The goal in all of these is to make sure that no external influences change the rates involved.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, you seem to be saying that as an alternative to universe being eternal, the universe could exist timelessly as some form of unstable vacuum state or dormant singularity before it starts expanding resulting in the beginning of finite time?

The unstable vacuum state is the typical one (although technically, it would agree with an eternal universe). A 'dormant singularity' suggest you are using a very outdated model. A singularity is just a breakdown of a model. Such are neither dormant or active.

Another possibility that you consistently ignore is that time itself is finite into the past. There is a beginning, but no becoming.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do you not address your questions to Christine, I was asking her about it?

You were the one that introduced tangibility as a criterion. I find that a rather silly restriction to make.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I *do* dispute that 'mankind' benefits, on average, from religious practice. In fact, I see it as a HUGE detriment to humans.

I would like to point out I do not conflate religious human institutions with religious practice. All human institutions become corrupt over time, secular or religious so called.

But that is by the way, concerning your opinion, the same can be said of the science that beings to humanity such dreadful death and destruction in the form of bio, chemical, kinetic, and nuclear weapons.

 

[Polymath257]

I would like to point out I do not conflate religious human institutions with religious practice. All human institutions become corrupt over time, secular or religious so called.

Religious institutions and religious practice are close to identical. Well, the institutions are the formalized practice.

But that is by the way, concerning your opinion, the same can be said of the science that beings to humanity such dreadful death and destruction in the form of bio, chemical, kinetic, and nuclear weapons.

But the benefits are increased food production, treatments for diseases, ability to communicate with others over long distances, indoor heating and cooling, ability to preserve foods, etc.

Now, what are the benefits of religion?

 

[ChristineM]

So how is time measured?

On a human scale, hardly at all, on a universal scale time is measured in epochs and entropy

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why are those required directly of time? We can and do measure changes. We can and do find periodic motion in the universe. We can and do use that periodic motion to help describe how other things move.

Your restriction to 'touch, taste, smell, hearing, or seeing' is *way* too restrictive. Humans cannot see infrared. We cannot hear ultrasound. We cannot detect neutrinos. Yean, and do, build instruments that can extend our senses and allow us to detect all of these things.

Ok, then what do you say time's tangibility is outside of the observation of periodicity and change?

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, then what do you say time's tangibility is outside of the observation of periodicity and change?

Why impose boundaries?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Whenever someone starts using the word 'substance' in a situation like this, you know that they are way too dependent on old Aristotelian beliefs, even if they are not aware of such. No scientist uses the word 'substance' in anything like the sense that old philosophers did. To require time to be a 'substance' shows a fundamental lack of understanding of not only time, but how the universe works. Space is not a 'substance'. Nor is charge. Yet all of space, time, and charge do, in fact, exist in the universe.

Space is the zpe, infinite em energy density, what do we call this universal ocean of em energy if not a substance or essence, aether, dark energy, spirit? As I keep reminding folk, the real is forever on the other side of the names and concepts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why impose boundaries?

Fine, include periodicity and change, but just do it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

On a human scale, hardly at all, on a universal scale time is measured in epochs and entropy

Christine, with due respect, you add nothing to this debate except inane comments. Please try and be relevant if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[ChristineM]

Christine, with due respect, you add nothing to this debate except inane comments. Please try and be relevant if you want to be taken seriously.

Just because you fail to understand is not by problem, but there is no need to stoop to personal attacks to vent your frustration