Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

Yes, the continuation of space to exist is time, and thus it is called spacetime, time being the 4th dimension.

What is real is 3D space existing as spacetime. There 3D space and 1D time. The future is determined by the present events, the present was determined by past events.

No, what is real is the 4D spacetime. The individual time slices experienced as the 'same time' are dependent on observer. They are a fiction.

I am not talking about observers of anything, just the reality of existence.

And the reality is (at least) 4D, not just 3D.

I've explained what time is to you, it is existence continuing to exist.

That is a 3D perspective, not a 4D perspective. As such, it is fundamentally wrong.

I am not talking about an observer of time, once again, for example, if this planet is said to be 4 billion years old, it just means it came into existence 4 billions years ago and has existed until now. It is so simple!

It is more like saying Africa 'continues' for 72 degrees of latitude because it continues from 35 degrees south to 37 degrees north.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, not can any 'I'.

Please rephrase that.

 

[Polymath257]

Eternal means no beginning, there is nothing that had a beginning in nothingness, it is illogical, please get real.

But you previously said that eternal means 'for all time'. Which is it?

Choose one definition of the word and stick to it. Does it mean for an infinite amount of time or only for all time?

The two differ if time itself is finite.

For all time means eternity, who on earth would believe there was a beginning of something from nothing,

You just changed your definition. If time is finite in extent, which definition do you want to use?

Also, saying that time had a beginning, does NOT mean it had a beginning 'from nothing' since it is not necessary that every beginning be 'from' something.

Nothing is nothing, nothing therefore can come out of nothing, except of course nothing.

I agree. It is not a process of becoming if time had a start.

And you want to start time when nothing became something.

Now that is an assumption.

3D space continues to exist, this continuation is called time.

No, 3D is simply a slice of the larger whole of 4D spacetime. It is similar to how a latitude line is a slice of the larger sphere of the Earth. Continents 'continue to exist' from lower latitudes to higher latitudes. And yes, there is both a start to latitudes and a stop to latitudes.

 

[Polymath257]

That is my way of teasing SZ, me and Stephan! Actually I think Stephen's concept of time is nonsense, 'bent time'. But having said that, there are things independent of brains that I know to be true or real, and I will say so despite knowing that it is impossible to convey a subjective experience or realization to someone who has not had the same or similar experience or realization.

Time has curvature as well as space. This is known and measured.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, what is real is the 4D spacetime. The individual time slices experienced as the 'same time' are dependent on observer. They are a fiction.

And the reality is (at least) 4D, not just 3D.

That is a 3D perspective, not a 4D perspective. As such, it is fundamentally wrong.

It is more like saying Africa 'continues' for 72 degrees of latitude because it continues from 35 degrees south to 37 degrees north.

You are playing with words, I say 3D space continuation is spacetime.

Reality is 4D, and observers are an integral of 4D.

No, you are mistaken, existence (3D) continuation (Time) is 4D.

Have you been drinking?

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, it is the same meaning, your source dictionary says eternal means infinite which means without limits, so that means 'everlasting' means infinite and eternal.

That is a popular definition, but it misses a lot of subtleties. There are many things that are infinite and also bounded.

For example, take the points within a circle. That circle is bounded, but the number of points is not.

This shows that you need to be more precise in your usage of the words. The term 'infinite' is one that has been clarified in the last 150 years or so and many of the paradoxes resolved.

And besides, a beginning of time means there is also end of time, the rules of reciprocity mean that everything that has a beginning, has an ending,

Which science supports such a rule of reciprocity? Ans: none.

Do you even know what time really is, please tell me in your own words what you think time is, no copy and paste?

Time is a parameter to distinguish different 'spacelike' slices of spacetime. Alternatively, it can be the 'distance' in spacetime as computed via a Lorentian metric (usually called the 'proper time' of a curve). In the first definition, the parameter is taken so the 4D vector in the direction of the parameter is 'timelike' in the Lorentzian metric.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But you previously said that eternal means 'for all time'. Which is it?

Choose one definition of the word and stick to it. Does it mean for an infinite amount of time or only for all time?

The two differ if time itself is finite.

You just changed your definition. If time is finite in extent, which definition do you want to use?

Also, saying that time had a beginning, does NOT mean it had a beginning 'from nothing' since it is not necessary that every beginning be 'from' something.

I agree. It is not a process of becoming if time had a start.

Now that is an assumption.

No, 3D is simply a slice of the larger whole of 4D spacetime. It is similar to how a latitude line is a slice of the larger sphere of the Earth. Continents 'continue to exist' from lower latitudes to higher latitudes. And yes, there is both a start to latitudes and a stop to latitudes.

Both, no beginning though.

Time is eternal, no beginning,

No change, time is eternal.

There was no beginning, there is no objective proof of it.

Something from nothing does not cut, get real.

 

[Polymath257]

You are playing with words, I say 3D space continuation is spacetime.

Reality is 4D, and observers are an integral of 4D.

No, you are mistaken, existence (3D) continuation (Time) is 4D.

Have you been drinking?

No, I am stating the current understanding of modern science. Time is a parameter, like latitude or longitude. But so are spatial directions. The 4D whole is the reality, not any particular time slice (your 3D existence).

Stop and read what I have been saying. Think about it a bit and see the analogy between the geometry of the Earth and spacetime. In this analogy, time is represented by the latitude and space by longitude.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Polymath257

Like that one:
"
The opinions of 10 000 men are worthless if they know nothing about the subject.

Marcus Aurelius"

The claims of 10 000 men about knowledge are worthless, if they haven't checked if knowledge has a limit.

Skepticism is not limited to religion. It is about all words and their relationship with the idea of knowing what objective reality really is.

 

[Polymath257]

Both, no beginning though.

And how do you know that time had no beginning?

Time is eternal, no beginning,

Prove it.

No change, time is eternal.

By which definition? If all you mean is 'for all time', then this is trivial. If you mean that time is infinite in extent, then you need to prove it.

There was no beginning, there is no objective proof of it.

But there are very good theoretical reasons to believe it may have had a beginning. The point is that we do not know, but you are rejecting one of the open possibilities for no good reason.

Something from nothing does not cut, get real.

I agree. That is not what happened (no 'from'), even if time is finite.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And how do you know that time had no beginning?

Prove it.

By which definition? If all you mean is 'for all time', then this is trivial. If you mean that time is infinite in extent, then you need to prove it.

But there are very good theoretical reasons to believe it may have had a beginning. The point is that we do not know, but you are rejecting one of the open possibilities for no good reason.

I agree. That is not what happened (no 'from'), even if time is finite.

Good post.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time has curvature as well as space. This is known and measured.

Only as an abstraction, the universe continues to exist and that is time, human relative observations don't count.

 

[Polymath257]

Given the "laws" of nature (or the universe) does not mean that there is no Creator involved.

True. But it might mean no creator is required to understand.

 

[Polymath257]

They could not have if there was nothing existing. The fact that there is existence means that existence is eternal.

If you mean 'for all time', then this is true. If you mean 'for an infinite amount of time', it might be false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only as an abstraction, the universe continues to exist and that is time, human relative observations don't count.

That is a relative observation made by a human, because that count is yours as a human.

 

[Polymath257]

Haha, it means there are an infinite number of whole numbers, not that whole numbers are infinite. .

Um,it means the &collection* of whole numbers is infinite. No particular one is.

There is no limitation to infinity.

An ancient and discarded view.

SZ says "I gave you an example. I used a better source than you did and it showed a "limited infinity." See Post # 1,384

 

[Polymath257]

Only as an abstraction, the universe continues to exist and that is time, human relative observations don't count.

No, in reality. You are fixated in a 3D perspective and can't seem to make the intuitive jump to 4D. Try harder.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And how do you know that time had no beginning?

Prove it.

By which definition? If all you mean is 'for all time', then this is trivial. If you mean that time is infinite in extent, then you need to prove it.

But there are very good theoretical reasons to believe it may have had a beginning. The point is that we do not know, but you are rejecting one of the open possibilities for no good reason.

I agree. That is not what happened (no 'from'), even if time is finite.

Because there is no nothing, if nothing never was, then existence has always been. Universal existence is my proof, if you want to prove me wrong, make something become nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Well don't winge about me, go do daily meditation for a few years and see for your self. The transcended mind state is a subjective experience, free from thought.

Yawn, and clearly from understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

Because there is no nothing, if nothing never was, then existence has always been.

In the sense of 'for all time'. That does NOT mean that time is automatically infinite.

Universal existence is my proof, if you want to prove me wrong, make something become nothing.

Again, whether time is finite or infinite is unknown, but there are very good theoretical reasons to think it is finite into the past. You reject that possibility with no good reason.