A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

I find it absurd that Ben keep talking about time not being tangible, and therefore not real, when he believe in spirit, which is also tangible yet but real...at least real to him.

That's double standard.

If tangibility is evidence for reality, and time is not real, then wouldn't that mean spirit is also not real?

God (or gods) is also not tangible, but I don't see him say god isn't real.

Ben has the tendency to define things one way or another, depending on only when it suit him or his agenda.

But Ben is not unique in cherry picking meanings or playing semantic games. It is a common and dishonest traits shared by most creationists and those who labeled themselves advocates for ID.

Ok, look at your watch, is time a passive aspect to the phenomenon of seeing the hands move, or is time actively causing the hands to move?

Look at the moon, watch it move across the night's sky, is time a passive aspect to seeing this phenomenon, or is time making it happen.

What precisely do you find tangible about time?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I mostly admire the ones that take the more difficult path of skipping all that pointless education and proceeding right to the free-form speculation.

Education is fine, but only ever repeating that which you have read is not the intent of education, there is more to it. If everyone in the world merely regurgitated what they had read, progress in all areas of human progress would cease. Some humans have a well developed intuitive faculty that allows them to understand things beyond what they have read.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A Universe from Nothing?

That is a meaningless answer, it just makes an unsubstantiated claim. So how did time cause my existence, and how did time cause the formation of galaxies, suns, planets is a consequence?

 

[ChristineM]

That is a meaningless answer, it just makes an unsubstantiated claim. So how did time cause my existence, and how did time cause the formation of galaxies, suns, planets is a consequence?

So you are saying you are not tangible? Earth is nor tangible?

No it is not meaningless, just beyond your scope ( see what can happen? ) Learning about the consequences of entropy will take something more than some notes on a forum so here are a little short of half as million papers on the subject,.

consequences of entropy - Google Scholar

And here is another 160,000 on 'life, a consequence of entropy'

life, a consequence of entropy - Google Scholar

Enjoy

 

[ChristineM]

Ok, look at your watch, is time a passive aspect to the phenomenon of seeing the hands move, or is time actively causing the hands to move?

Look at the moon, watch it move across the night's sky, is time a passive aspect to seeing this phenomenon, or is time making it happen.

What precisely do you find tangible about time?

In your first, its either movement mechanism caused by spring tension or electronics in the form of a crystal oscillator causing the the hands to move.

In your second it is gravity. The moon is always being pulled to fall o earth by gravity, its motion causes it to fall over the horizon.

 

[ChristineM]

Education is fine, but only ever repeating that which you have read is not the intent of education, there is more to it. If everyone in the world merely regurgitated what they had read, progress in all areas of human progress would cease. Some humans have a well developed intuitive faculty that allows them to understand things beyond what they have read.

And most don't

Those that do have said initiative find education invaluable to guide them and hopefully prevent them making too many mistakes in tjheir guesswork

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you are saying you are not tangible? Earth is nor tangible?

No it is not meaningless, just beyond your scope ( see what can happen? ) Learning about the consequences of entropy will take something more than some notes on a forum so here are a little short of half as million papers on the subject,.

consequences of entropy - Google Scholar

And here is another 160,000 on 'life, a consequence of entropy'

life, a consequence of entropy - Google Scholar

Enjoy

I am tangible, the earth is tangible, but the reality represented by the concept of time isn't. How does time cause entropy?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In your first, its either movement mechanism caused by spring tension or electronics in the form of a crystal oscillator causing the the hands to move.

In your second it is gravity. The moon is always being pulled to fall o earth by gravity, its motion causes it to fall over the horizon.

Correct, time is not causing these things, time is only an abstract concept that is a measure of the effect of the actions of universal forces. Time is not a tangible thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, look at your watch, is time a passive aspect to the phenomenon of seeing the hands move, or is time actively causing the hands to move?

Look at the moon, watch it move across the night's sky, is time a passive aspect to seeing this phenomenon, or is time making it happen.

What precisely do you find tangible about time?

As someone else likes to say, time isn't a force.

Let's ask the question in another way. When you see the hands move, is space a passive aspect of that motion, or does space actively cause the hands to move? Whatever you answer for space equally well applies to time. Both space and time measure the motion.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct, time is not causing these things, time is only an abstract concept that is a measure of the effect of the actions of universal forces. Time is not a tangible thing.

There are many things that are not tangible, but are real. And many things that are not tangible, but also not abstract. Time is real, not 'tangible' and not abstract. It is easily measured.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And most don't

Those that do have said initiative find education invaluable to guide them and hopefully prevent them making too many mistakes in tjheir guesswork

Academics, even with initiative, are mostly not in a position to change the curriculum, the books that the particular syllabus uses may be in print by the millions...not easy to change quickly. Professors who attained their degrees according to a particular syllabus tend to teach that which from which they earned their degree.

 

[Polymath257]

Academics, even with initiative, are mostly not in a position to change the curriculum, the books that the particular syllabus uses may be in print by the millions...not easy to change quickly. Professors who attained their degrees according to a particular syllabus tend to teach that which from which they earned their degree.

Syllabi do change regularly as the book used changes. Currently, the publishers tend to bring out a new edition every few years so they can increase sales. The changes are minimal, I would agree. I am mostly familiar with mathematics, where the curriculum is pretty fixed because many of the lower level classes are service courses for other areas. There is some shift between, say, Calculus II and Calculus III and some differences on when 'transcendental functions' are used, but most calculus books are almost identical. But given what the Engineers and others require, the list of topics isn't going to change soon.

Now, in something like Discrete Mathematics, there is a wide range of topics that changes a lot from school to school, or even within the school when the book changes. And when you go to higher levels, the range of topics opens up again. There is a lot more variety once you get past the Calculus sequence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As someone else likes to say, time isn't a force.

Let's ask the question in another way. When you see the hands move, is space a passive aspect of that motion, or does space actively cause the hands to move? Whatever you answer for space equally well applies to time. Both space and time measure the motion.

No, that's a strawman because no one said space is the cause of movement of the hands on the clock. But space can nevertheless cause movement, the Casimir Effect for example. Space is tangible, time is not!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Syllabi do change regularly as the book used changes. Currently, the publishers tend to bring out a new edition every few years so they can increase sales. The changes are minimal, I would agree. I am mostly familiar with mathematics, where the curriculum is pretty fixed because many of the lower level classes are service courses for other areas. There is some shift between, say, Calculus II and Calculus III and some differences on when 'transcendental functions' are used, but most calculus books are almost identical. But given what the Engineers and others require, the list of topics isn't going to change soon.

Now, in something like Discrete Mathematics, there is a wide range of topics that changes a lot from school to school, or even within the school when the book changes. And when you go to higher levels, the range of topics opens up again. There is a lot more variety once you get past the Calculus sequence.

I don't doubt you, I was after all speaking generally. The inertia I am talking about covers human society generally, and was noted by Max Planck in this quote ..."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And this from T. H. Huxley..."It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions."

Btw, I guessed you may be an academician, am I correct?

 

[gnostic]

Ok, look at your watch, is time a passive aspect to the phenomenon of seeing the hands move, or is time actively causing the hands to move?

Look at the moon, watch it move across the night's sky, is time a passive aspect to seeing this phenomenon, or is time making it happen.

What precisely do you find tangible about time?

You are ignoring the main points of reply to Polymath about you.

Forget "time" for a moment, and just focus on reality, and god(s) and spirit(s).

If intangible is an indication it is "not real", then why are god and spirit exception to the case?

My problem is your usage of the word "tangible".

Spirit and god are essentially supposed to be "incorporeal", hence "not tangible". So if I am reading you correctly about tangible = real or reality, then intangible = "not real", then spirit and god should fall under the category of not real.

You can't use tangible both ways; you can't say it is "not real" for time, but "real" for spirit or god. There lies your hypocrisy with word usages of what you considered real.

Do you get what I am saying about tangible and reality, now?

Other creationists are the same way. They play the word games or semantics for what is reality.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't doubt you, I was after all speaking generally. The inertia I am talking about covers human society generally, and was noted by Max Planck in this quote ..."A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

And this from T. H. Huxley..."It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions."

Btw, I guessed you may be an academician, am I correct?

Yes, but I am a mathematician. We don't change theories the way the sciences do. We had a few issues about 100 years ago with set theory, but things seem to have calmed down. In particular, math doesn't use the scientific method, but it also doesn't say anything about the real world. It uses formal systems and sees what can be derived from them. If, then, that language can be used in the sciences, that is (usually) someone else's job.

 

[Thief]

Major flaw with that idea, the laws of thermodynamics, and hence causality did not resolve until after the beginning of the universes.

Spirit -alcohol
Drink - one word
The effect - inebriation

and you think the laws of the universe....preceded....the creation?

 

[Thief]

heads up people!!!!!!!

what you call reality did not exist until the creation

at the 'point' of singularity.....your equations mean....... nothing

so all of this around you.....came out of .....nothing

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are ignoring the main points of reply to Polymath about you.

Forget "time" for a moment, and just focus on reality, and god(s) and spirit(s).

If intangible is an indication it is "not real", then why are god and spirit exception to the case?

My problem is your usage of the word "tangible".

Spirit and god are essentially supposed to be "incorporeal", hence "not tangible". So if I am reading you correctly about tangible = real or reality, then intangible = "not real", then spirit and god should fall under the category of not real.

You can't use tangible both ways; you can't say it is "not real" for time, but "real" for spirit or god. There lies your hypocrisy with word usages of what you considered real.

Do you get what I am saying about tangible and reality, now?

Other creationists are the same way. They play the word games or semantics for what is reality.

Gnosis mate, once again I must draw your attention to your lack of understanding of what is your second language. You almost always misunderstand nuance and the context of what is being conveyed, and your posts finish up being up to 90% irrelevant and/or confusing. Adding even more confusion is that you do not understand the meaning of many English words and proceed on the basis of wrong interpretation of what is being said.

For a start, what points are you referring to that I ignored to Polymaths about myself?

Polymaths and I were not discussing god and spirits, so why should are you asking me to focus on them?

"Tangible" does not mean "real", certainly not in the context I have used it, so the rest of your post about real and not real, gods and spirits being incorporeal, etc., etc., is meaningless and a waste of your time, and mine for having to point it out.

Here a a tip, when you read anything in English, always keep a dictionary handy, and never pass a word of which you do not know the meaning. In the passage of time, you will gradually develop a better understanding of the language, and be able to express yourself clearly.

Secondly, always try to say things that are in context, do not go off in another direction not relevant to the context. Perhaps a good idea too, given English is not your first language, quote precisely the words of the other person to whom you want to respond, that way you will be less likely to stray off track or to misdirect the discussion.

Thank you gnosis for your attention, and for your consideration.

 

[Thief]

Isn't that what would be expected? If we hadn't come up with a god concept before the advent of science, we certainly wouldn't have afterward.

It's been said that the religious phase of man is the one connecting the time when he was first intelligent enough to wonder about how the world worked, and the time where he discovered his answers.

take that a little deeper......

at some 'point'....someone stopped
looked around
realized the situation
and said to himself......I AM!

then he realized he was not his own handiwork
not self created

believing ins Someone Greater is common sense
(though it does seem held in common)