A Universe from Nothing?

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok, now I understand what your issues are with regarding to "time".

Yes, I would say "time" a "human concept".

But time is real and it is measurable.

Without time, there are no change, no wear (or aging), no movement, no energy, no force, etc, and they are pretty much part of reality.

But you got it backward too.

What you don't seem to understand is that this "eternity" you are talking about, is even more so a "human construct".

So far, you have only been rationalising that "eternity" and "eternal" are reality, but not only you are unconvincing, you have no evidences that "eternity" exist.

And because you have no evidences, this eternity is nothing more than your wishful thinking.

And you are misunderstanding the word "timeless".

Timeless doesn't necessarily mean eternal or eternity. It can, but it is not necessarily so.



As shown in the above definition and usage in the example, none of it required "timeless" to be explicitly "eternal".

You are making assumptions that timeless means eternal, but that's not necessarily the case, just as make the faulty assumptions that "time" is a "human concept", but "eternity" isn't. They are both human concepts, except that eternity isn't real, because no one has ever presented any evidence to say it is...including you.

Seriously gnostic, it is evident from your post you are not understanding the precise meaning that applies to the terms I am using, nor the nuance and context. Read my words carefully and use a dictionary where necessary to find meanings that are consistent with what I am explaining.

You are not measuring time per se, you are measuring a finite period of universal continuity and calling it time. Time is the concept to represent an abstracted finite period of reality's continuity.

Eternity is a concept to represent universal continuity, the name is a human concept, but the reality it represents is not.

Eternity implies timeless for it is a term that implies infinity, time on the other hand is a term that implies a finite measurement. As you know, anything added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, etc., infinity remains infinity, so eternity can not seen as eternal time, for that would be an oxymoron, like saying infinite finite, hence eternity is beyond time, ie. timeless. To abstract the concept of time from the concept of eternity, we must establish a beginning, a bb or a divine 'let there be light' moment and bingo, we have a beginning to finite time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is measured by clocks. It does not have mass or energy. I'm sorry if my reply confused you.

So, if there is universal movement, there is time. Movement implies time.

Fine.

So far as our language goes, an observed period of movement does imply a finite period of time, but the movement per se is not the same as time, they are separate things. A meteorite flashed across the sky for ten seconds, the actual movement is physically real and separate from the immaterial timing of the event.

 

[gnostic]

Eternity is a concept to represent universal continuity, the name is a human concept, but the reality it represents is not.

That was dictionary definition to timeless. The dictionary even provided an example of its usage.

You are trying to make timeless and eternal as if they were synonymous, when they actually mean two things.

And even eternity doesn't mean that there are "no time" or that time doesn't exist. It simply mean time is not measurable.

There are no evidences to anything being eternal, let alone eternity. Until you present evidences for such, it is merely speculation and belief.

And I required evidences before accepting to be real, not your semantics or sophistry.

Calling eternity "universal continuity" are just more word game you are playing, and more human construct of unsubstantiated ideas.

Laugh all you want, but it is just more sophistry from you. And you are attempting to present your universal continuity as if they were facts, and yet presented no evidences. They are just words Ben, not fact.

This is what I dislike about philosophy, because it is taken like religion. A philosopher will think and believe that only his reasoning or belief is infallible, and everyone else is wrong. That's exactly the same mentality religious people, especially theists, have, that only their religion or sect are right, and everyone who disagreed with them are wrong.

What you have presented is philosophical position or perspective, that all. The notion that eternity is a reality for universal continuity, but it just one's view of reality that's not falsifiable, nor scientific...meaning no verifiable or testable evidences.

And btw, the word "implied" doesn't mean "is"; it is only "suggestive is".

You wrote that eternity implied timeless and implied infinity. And yes I agreed on both counts, but neither timeless and infinity means the same things as eternity.

And the same goes for "represent"; "represent" is only a model, but model can be flawed or wrong, and alternative model can challenge existing model.

You wrote that eternity "represent" universal continuity, such a view can be questioned and challenged. You only have one view that I am challenging.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That was dictionary definition to timeless. The dictionary even provided an example of its usage.

You are trying to make timeless and eternal as if they were synonymous, when they actually mean two things.

And even eternity doesn't mean that there are "no time" or that time doesn't exist. It simply mean time is not measurable.

There are no evidences to anything being eternal, let alone eternity. Until you present evidences for such, it is merely speculation and belief.

And I required evidences before accepting to be real, not your semantics or sophistry.

Calling eternity "universal continuity" are just more word game you are playing, and more human construct of unsubstantiated ideas.

Laugh all you want, but it is just more sophistry from you. And you are attempting to present your universal continuity as if they were facts, and yet presented no evidences. They are just words Ben, not fact.

This is what I dislike about philosophy, because it is taken like religion. A philosopher will think and believe that only his reasoning or belief is infallible, and everyone else is wrong. That's exactly the same mentality religious people, especially theists, have, that only their religion or sect are right, and everyone who disagreed with them are wrong.

What you have presented is philosophical position or perspective, that all. The notion that eternity is a reality for universal continuity, but it just one's view of reality that's not falsifiable, nor scientific...meaning no verifiable or testable evidences.

And btw, the word "implied" doesn't mean "is"; it is only "suggestive is".

You wrote that eternity implied timeless and implied infinity. And yes I agreed on both counts, but neither timeless and infinity means the same things as eternity.

And the same goes for "represent"; "represent" is only a model, but model can be flawed or wrong, and alternative model can challenge existing model.

You wrote that eternity "represent" universal continuity, such a view can be questioned and challenged. You only have one view that I am challenging.

I gave you the logical reason why eternity can not be measured by time, time is finite and the other infinite, for that reason, eternity is beyond time, it is timeless in itself.

Think about it...give me an example of time that has no beginning?

Give up...right, time must have a beginning because it is a finite concept. Timelessness otoh is a concept that implies a no beginning of time. If there is no beginning of time, then time does not arise ever...yes? Time can only come into existence if there was a beginning, and there are plenty of examples of that in the physical world of forms, but as to the universe itself, it never had a beginning and thus is timeless in itself, for it is eternal.

 

[Polymath257]

Fine.

So far as our language goes, an observed period of movement does imply a finite period of time, but the movement per se is not the same as time, they are separate things. A meteorite flashed across the sky for ten seconds, the actual movement is physically real and separate from the immaterial timing of the event.

Yes, the movement implies time. It can even be used to *measure* time. And yes, time isn't made of matter nor energy, so it is, in a sense, immaterial.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, the movement implies time. It can even be used to *measure* time. And yes, time isn't made of matter nor energy, so it is, in a sense, immaterial.

Good, I'm happy we can agree...

 

[Polymath257]

Good, I'm happy we can agree...

So we agree that time is real? Great!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So we agree that time is real? Great!

Good grief, it's true you can't kill zombies...

Just kidding, I don't really mean that. I never disputed the fact that time was real as a conceptual aspect of the human mind.

 

[ChristineM]

The logic has nothing to do with time, nor mathematical models, something from nothing is not physically possible, not now, not ever.

Things like 0 = +1 - 1 only apply to a relative absence of something. I had one banana (+1 but I ate it last night (-1), and now I have no bananas today....see, nothing is real.

Show me the scientific evidence of nothing, not as an idea, mathematical model, conceptualization, etc, but in reality? Nothing is nothing, nothing can come from nothing, nothing does not exist! I know of very few people here who adhere to bb theory who think the mass and energy of the universe came from nothing.

You are limiting your knowledge to what you want to know. No matter how much you protest greater minds than yours have indicated something from nothing is possible and I'd rather take the word of experts such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku than some religious guy on a forum.

Your problem is that you discount the fact the laws of causality did not coalesce until after the bb. You may use your limited understanding to pretend you know what happened before that time if that's how cope with not knowing, your problem, not mine.

Not very good at metaphor are you?

Ah right you want me to show you an idea while you block all possible means of showing the idea. Tell you what, you spend about 7 years learning then another couple of decades in refining that education and perhaps you'll comprehend, bur i can't see that happening because it will interfere with your blind faith.

I am one of them who don't think the universe came from nothing, but that is besides the point, it is feasible whether you like the idea or not.

Interesting that you chose not to argue against the other scenarios don't you think?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are limiting your knowledge to what you want to know. No matter how much you protest greater minds than yours have indicated something from nothing is possible and I'd rather take the word of experts such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku than some religious guy on a forum.

Your problem is that you discount the fact the laws of causality did not coalesce until after the bb. You may use your limited understanding to pretend you know what happened before that time if that's how cope with not knowing, your problem, not mine.

Not very good at metaphor are you?

Ah right you want me to show you an idea while you block all possible means of showing the idea. Tell you what, you spend about 7 years learning then another couple of decades in refining that education and perhaps you'll comprehend, bur i can't see that happening because it will interfere with your blind faith.

I am one of them who don't think the universe came from nothing, but that is besides the point, it is feasible whether you like the idea or not.

Interesting that you chose not to argue against the other scenarios don't you think?

You can take the word of any expert you want, I merely rely on direct understanding, no belief involved. It is not my intent to try and persuade you to believe anything, but just to point out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs, good luck with your faith.

Feasible that something can come from nothing? If that is the case then surely all religious devotees should worship nothing, the creator of not nothing....

 

[Polymath257]

Good grief, it's true you can't kill zombies...

Just kidding, I don't really mean that. I never disputed the fact that time was real as a conceptual aspect of the human mind.

We just agreed it was necessary for movement. So it is real *in the universe* and not just in the human mind. Movement doesn't depend on the human mind.

 

[Thief]

So you have no explanation. Seems about par for your course

and you are hoping this is a word game

 

[Thief]

Time is measured by clocks. It does not have mass or energy. I'm sorry if my reply confused you.

So, if there is universal movement, there is time. Movement implies time.

sooooooo close!

movment is MEASURED by time

 

[Thief]

Evidence?

good reasoning

you have seen it here in this thread

 

[ChristineM]

You can take the word of any expert you want, I merely rely on direct understanding, no belief involved. It is not my intent to try and persuade you to believe anything, but just to point out that your beliefs are just that, beliefs, good luck with your faith.

Feasible that something can come from nothing? If that is the case then surely all religious devotees should worship nothing, the creator of not nothing....

So still no evidence then, just as i said 3 weeks ago, getting to be really boring . why do you refuse to consider that the laws upon which you base your argument did not exist so your argument is flawed from the beginning.

What is the point in this discussion if you are unwilling to even consider experts in the field we are discussing because they pop your bubble.

And then you go into another ridiculous and irrelevant metaphor.

 

[ChristineM]

and you are hoping this is a word game

I was actually hoping you had something to discuss on a discussion forum.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We just agreed it was necessary for movement. So it is real *in the universe* and not just in the human mind. Movement doesn't depend on the human mind.

We have agreed that time was necessary for movement, the meteorite flashing through the night sky does not depend on some human seeing it and then calculating the 'time' according to human developed counting system. The movement is a physical event, the timing a mental one, there is total separation and the time is not real in the physical world except as a mental calculation.

 

[ChristineM]

We have agreed that time was necessary for movement, the meteorite flashing through the night sky does not depend on some human seeing it and then calculating the 'time' according to human developed counting system. The movement is a physical event, the timing a mental one, there is total separation and the time is not real in the physical world except as a mental calculation.

Time also moves, in precisely one direction. And not just mental but a fundamental property of this universe which you demean by confining it to human intellect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So still no evidence then, just as i said 3 weeks ago, getting to be really boring . why do you refuse to consider that the laws upon which you base your argument did not exist so your argument is flawed from the beginning.

What is the point in this discussion if you are unwilling to even consider experts in the field we are discussing because they pop your bubble.

And then you go into another ridiculous and irrelevant metaphor.

What is the point of our discussion if you are not prepared to use your own God given mind to find out, relying instead on what others have said? Monkey knowledge about a subject is no substitute for independently understanding it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time also moves, in precisely one direction. And not just mental but a fundamental property of this universe which you demean by confining it to human intellect.

Apparently you can not even understand a simple explanation about the concept of time, please do some more work on you language skills.