I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[muhammad_isa]

Well, it must be, if the concept of being not eternal makes sense only within it. Spacetimes do not begin at a certain time and at a certain place. For instance, it makes no sense to say that Universe was born at that location. There is no birth location. In the same way there is no birth time. As a whole, the Universe simply is.

Google eternalism or block universe, for more details..

Mmm .. 'eternalism' is a combination of physics and philosophy, isn't it..

While I favour the approach, as it takes 'relativity' ino account, the problem I have is one of our own making..

We have to make definitons (in Physics), and they end up being circular in nature.

For example what are the modern definition of the 'time unit' (seconds) and 'space unit' (metres) ?

 

[viole]

Mmm .. 'eternalism' is a combination of physics and philosophy, isn't it..

While I favour the approach, as it takes 'relativity' ino account, the problem I have is one of our own making..

Yet, it is a consistent view that gets rid of mysterious "beginnings". And supported by relativity, on top of that.

We have to make definitons (in Physics), and they end up being circular in nature.

Such as?

For example what are the modern definition of the 'time unit' (seconds) and 'space unit' (metres) ?

I usually use meters to measure time. To use different units for basically the same thing, would not be very sensible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ben Dhyan]

immutable, yes .. but eternal? No!
Where did you get that idea from?

From logic and reason.....where did you get idea it is not eternal?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I usually use meters to measure time. To use different units for basically the same thing, would not be very sensible.

???
An unexpected reply, and rather confusing for most people..

 

[viole]

???
An unexpected reply, and rather confusing for most people..

Yes. But think about it. We already use time to measure distances in space. For instance, (light) years.

Relativity shows that time and distance can map into each other. And since the factor of conversion is c (a constant) then it is useful to use the same units for both. Doing otherwise would be as subotimal as using kilometers for north-south distances on earth and miles for east-west distances.

For instance, I frequently use meters to measure time. One meter of time is the time light needs to cover one meter of space. Always the same and unambigous. By doing that, I rid the conversion factor (c) from all equations, since c, in these units, becomes 1 (without dimensions).

E = m is more elegant than E = mc^2.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes. But think about it. We already use time to measure distances in space. For instance, (light) years.

I'm aware that there is a relationship between space and time .. nevertheless, it still relies on the concept of our physical definitions. As space is slowly expanding, if we had a ruler, would that expand too, do you think? The same applies to the measurement of time.
Naturally, over a relatively short space of time, the definitions are fine .. yet over billions of years, can we really be certain that 'errors' are not spoiling our model of the universe, or AT LEAST, our comprehension of it?

E = m is more elegant than E = mc^2

Yep .. but as above (our physical definitions are based on linear gallilean concept)

 

[viole]

I'm aware that there is a relationship between space and time .. nevertheless, it still relies on the concept of our physical definitions. As space is slowly expanding, if we had a ruler, would that expand too, do you think? The same applies to the measurement of time.
Naturally, over a relatively short space of time, the definitions are fine .. yet over billions of years, can we really be certain that 'errors' are not spoiling our model of the universe, or AT LEAST, our comprehension of it?

Space and time are not objective things. A little bit of your space can be felt like time from my vantage point. Who is right? Nobody. We both are entitled to come to different conclusions without being wrong. And that is why spacetime counts. That is the objective thing. We will always agree on distances in spacetime, because they are covariant. They do not depend on the choice of coordinates we choose. Space and time alone, do depend on something as irrelevant as the vantage point we choose to measure them. Spacetime does not.

And spacetime does not expand. "Never did". Obviously. It is, by definition, outside space and time. It is even more than eternal, since eternality requires a time context on which things can be defined as eternal, i.e. being there at all time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

And spacetime does not expand. "Never did". Obviously. It is, by definition, outside space and time. It is even more than eternal, since eternality requires a time context on which things can be defined as eternal, i.e. being there at all time.

What you say makes no sense to me .. you are saying that spacetime is outside space and time.
What???
I understand that the universe is the space-time continuum .. you are defining it as 'something else' .. I'm not sure what

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Space and time are not objective things. A little bit of your space can be felt like time from my vantage point. Who is right? Nobody. We both are entitled to come to different conclusions without being wrong. And that is why spacetime counts. That is the objective thing. We will always agree on distances in spacetime, because they are covariant. They do not depend on the choice of coordinates we choose. Space and time alone, do depend on something as irrelevant as the vantage point we choose to measure them. Spacetime does not.

And spacetime does not expand. "Never did". Obviously. It is, by definition, outside space and time. It is even more than eternal, since eternality requires a time context on which things can be defined as eternal, i.e. being there at all time.

Ciao

- viole

I too am interested to learn what you mean by spacetime....you are apparently making a distinction between spacetime and 3d space-time?

 

[Milton Platt]

A benevolent omnipotent deity, yes. And not just this zebra dying this way, but this being a regular thing in the wild.

Don't forget thousands of children starving to death and tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and forest fires and tropical diseases and cancer........lit is too long
But of course, they all deserved to die, right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't forget thousands of children starving to death and tsunamis and earthquakes and hurricanes and forest fires and tropical diseases and cancer........lit is too long
But of course, they all deserved to die, right?

The Lord giveth....and the Lord taketh away.......... Job 1:21

 

[viole]

What you say makes no sense to me .. you are saying that spacetime is outside space and time.
What???
I understand that the universe is the space-time continuum .. you are defining it as 'something else' .. I'm not sure what

I am not. What I mean is that it is is not embedded in another spacetime continuum. It is a manifold not embedded in another manifold, probably. Difficult to visualize. Try to visualize a sphere not embedded in an external three dimensional space. You cannot. Our brains did not evolve with this capability. Nevertheless, mathematically they make a lot of sense.

And since spacetime is not embedded in an enclosing external reality with space and clocks, then concepts like "it is expanding" or "it started" make no physical sense. I would say, they make no sense at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I too am interested to learn what you mean by spacetime....you are apparently making a distinction between spacetime and 3d space-time?

When I talk of spacetime I mean the relativistic spacetime. Not a product of 3 dimensional space and 1 dimensional time, but a mesh between the two. That is, a 4 dimensional manifold with a covariant pseudo-riemannian metric field. I leave quantum mechanics out for simplicity. And ignorance about how it fits in.

Translation: a 4 dimensional surface with an operator, at each point, that allows to calculate distances between nearby points. Pseudo Riemannian means that these distances can be negative when squared. Two points/events whose squared distance is negative are not possibly in causal relationship (that would require transmission of information at speeds higher than light's, a no-go in relativity).

This manifold cannot possibly be subject to dynamics, being the context thereof. It does not change, does not move, did not start, does not expand. It simply is. Eternal. Like all events in them. Including my birth and my death. They are there, fixed and unchangeable, for ever, so to speak.

All this derives directly from relativity. And it is true if relativity is true. As it seems to be.

Ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am not. What I mean is that it is is not embedded in another spacetime continuum. It is a manifold not embedded in another manifold, probably. Difficult to visualize. Try to visualize a sphere not embedded in an external three dimensional space. You cannot. Our brains did not evolve with this capability. Nevertheless, mathematically they make a lot of sense.

OK, thanks for explaining..

And since spacetime is not embedded in an enclosing external reality with space and clocks, then concepts like "it is expanding" or "it started" make no physical sense. I would say, they make no sense at all.

Well, it only makes sense relative to this physical universe .. we are able to measure time as a quantity, which as you rightly say, is in terms of space ie. motion
It DOES make sense to say that the universe has a beginning .. relative to the universe, of course ..

You see space-time continuum as eternal .. there is no evidence to show this..
You could liken it to 'one big dream', if you wish .. it's very real, but not necessarily permanent!
Much like life, really .. we all have to die.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not. What I mean is that it is is not embedded in another spacetime continuum. It is a manifold not embedded in another manifold, probably. Difficult to visualize. Try to visualize a sphere not embedded in an external three dimensional space. You cannot. Our brains did not evolve with this capability. Nevertheless, mathematically they make a lot of sense.

And since spacetime is not embedded in an enclosing external reality with space and clocks, then concepts like "it is expanding" or "it started" make no physical sense. I would say, they make no sense at all.

Ciao

- viole

I have no idea what this all means....but I do get what you said to muhammad_isa....."Try to visualize a sphere not embedded in an external three dimensional space. You cannot. Our brains did not evolve with this capability. Nevertheless, mathematically they make a lot of sense."

This implies a 'background' that is infinite and eternal....a concept that approaches my understanding.... So that there is no confusion....I call this infinite eternal 'background' and all that is embedded in it.....the universe... Cosmic manifestations (that some people call the universe) that exist within it, must have a beginning...but not so the actual universe...it never had a beginning....

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I have no idea what this all means....but I do get what you said to muhammad_isa....."Try to visualize a sphere not embedded in an external three dimensional space. You cannot. Our brains did not evolve with this capability. Nevertheless, mathematically they make a lot of sense."

This implies a 'background' that is infinite and eternal....a concept that approaches my understanding.... So that there is no confusion....I call this infinite eternal 'background' and all that is embedded in it.....the universe... Cosmic manifestations (that some people call the universe) that exist within it, must have a beginning...but not so the actual universe...it never had a beginning....

It's simple. Time it self is not an event that occupies a position in it self, nor is it an object flowing through it self.

Rather than thinking of time flowing in some direction, think of things that exist as occupying some position in time. Viole is saying that spacetime doesn't exist in some other spacetime. But I think what she's really trying to say is, time doesn't flow through it self. Time it self, is not an event that occupies a position within it self. So asking something like "what happened before time" doesn't make sense. You can only ask what happens before things that occupy a position in time, but you can't ask what happens before time it self. Time simply exists as a dimension that contains events. Only the things inside of time have things that happen before and after it, but time it self doesn't.

It doesn't mean that existence started at the big bang. There can be other spacetimes, but it wouldn't make sense to say that they existed before or after the big bang. They just simply exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's simple. Time it self is not an event that occupies a position in it self, nor is it an object flowing through it self.

Rather than thinking of time flowing in some direction, think of things that exist as occupying some position in time. Viole is saying that spacetime doesn't exist in some other spacetime. But I think what she's really trying to say is, time doesn't flow through it self. Time it self, is not an event that occupies a position within it self. So asking something like "what happened before time" doesn't make sense. You can only ask what happens before things that occupy a position in time, but you can't ask what happens before time it self. Time simply exists as a dimension that contains events. Only the things inside of time have things that happen before and after it, but time it self doesn't.

It doesn't mean that existence started at the big bang. There can be other spacetimes, but it wouldn't make sense to say that they existed before or after the big bang. They just simply exist.

Yes, I have the same understanding about time as you describe...but I hold that matter and energy that can be found inside of time that have things happen before and after it.....if when traced to the position before it, step by step, back to the theoretical singularity....the amount of energy get less and less..(which is a miracle in itself but not the point)...until the singularity at time =0...there is nothing except that which I call the universe that is not in space time.. Nevertheless the mass of matter and energy that exists now in this so called big bang could not come from absolute nothing, therefore the infinite eternal background must not be absolute nothing....

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Nevertheless the mass of matter and energy that exists now in this so called big bang could not come from absolute nothing, therefore the infinite eternal background must not be absolute nothing....

There's nothing to show that this is true .. it's merely an opinion..
Some things are physical and part of the physical universe, and some things are not .. a thought, for example, is not a physical thing.

You are making the mistake of thinking that because our observations of the physical universe show that "matter can neither be created or destroyed" (or its energy equivalent), that this still applies at the time of the singularity .. I doubt it very much myself..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There's nothing to show that this is true .. it's merely an opinion..
Some things are physical and part of the physical universe, and some things are not .. a thought, for example, is not a physical thing.

You are making the mistake of thinking that because our observations of the physical universe show that "matter can neither be created or destroyed" (or its energy equivalent), that this still applies at the time of the singularity .. I doubt it very much myself..

But if the physical law that matter can not be created or destroyed does not apply at some point....then it is not a law after all. Also if matter and energy can be created and destroyed...as evidenced by this big bang singularity.....then it follows logically that there is nothing to prevent infinite numbers of these physical universes be created every moment for eternity....yes?

So your suggestion that matter and energy can be created and destroyed is also just an opinion as there is no scientific method available that can destroy matter and energy...nor to create it..

Lastly...and the most important question is.....regarding the theory of creation of matter and energy via the singularity....what in your own words existed or did not exist at pre time = 0 of the singuality? Iow....where did the singularity come from?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But if the physical law that matter can not be created or destroyed does not apply at some point....then it is not a law after all.

Not so .. all 'physical laws' need qualifying ie. the conditions for the law to be true need to be given

Also if matter and energy can be created and destroyed...as evidenced by this big bang singularity.....then it follows logically that there is nothing to prevent infinite numbers of these physical universes be created every moment for eternity....yes?

Well, of course .. so parrallel universes could exist .. why not?

Lastly...and the most important question is.....regarding the theory of creation of matter and energy via the singularity....what in your own words existed or did not exist at pre time = 0 of the singuality? Iow....where did the singularity come from?

How do you expect me to answer that? The only thing that I can suggest is that this physical universe did not exist .. I can not tell you more other than the lack of a physical universe does not mean that 'there is nothing' .. ie. non-physical things can still exist