Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

Well, you do your religion of religion and science. I do another. That means that what I am doing is so unreal that I didn't write this. In fact it is so meaningless that you can't even read this.
You used meaningful. That has no objective referent. You are doing philosophy.

Now if you could consider what it means that you had to write this: "... from the human perspective." or even "The issue is ..."? Then we might be able to figure out what objective and subjective is.

It is obvious you do not understand what ;from the human perspective' means, because you have such a vague subjective agenda you cannot exp[ain it not respond to the meaning in the English language what 'objective versus objective means. You have not acknowledged nor coherently explained 'your religion.'

I do consider all options in philosophy and religion, but without you feet on the ground computers do not work and airplanes do not fly.

 

[shunyadragon]

So if I define God as the creator of the universe that is a fact by definition, but not a fact for another definition of fact. Okay.

Not Okay, just more confusion. So intensely circular it bites you in the butt. If God exists, I have found anyone able to define nor limit God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is obvious you do not understand what ;from the human perspective' means, because you have such a vague subjective agenda you cannot exp[ain it not respond to the meaning in the English language what 'objective versus objective means. You have not acknowledged nor coherently explained 'your religion.'

I do consider all options in philosophy and religion, but without you feet on the ground computers do not work and airplanes do not fly.

Objective and subjective are different relationships involving one or more humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Run away then.

LOL! That is what you do. I pointed out your error to you in my first response. You did not get that and so I explained in more detail. You still could not understand your error. I tried for a third time and went to bed. I am betting that you still won't own up to the errors that you made. The only one "running" is you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So intensely circular it bites you in the butt. If God exists, I have found anyone able to define nor limit God.

Yeah, you have solved Agrippa's Trilemma, because you are special.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That time has always existed since it began is beside the point, before time existed there was no time! Please do not play with words!

I just got up. Do you realize that you were mistaken about what Polymath claimed yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is like asking 'at a point south of the south pole, does the Earth exist or not?'.

Ooh, tough question. Yes? No? Wait! Strawberry! Definitely strawberry.


Okay, and that was before my morning coffee!

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem is, existing theory is not up to the task. The analogy is if we were still at the flat earth theory, we could disprove the idea of anything orbiting the earth. An obsolete dogma can lock your brain out of further and evolving insight.

My theory is we live in space-time, and what we call the beginning of the universe is when space-time first appears, and the universes expands in space and time; space-time. The logical question to ask is, what would happen if space and time were not connected as space-time, but rather space and time could act independently of each other? If I could move in space without any connection to time, I would appear omnipresent. This is a classic attribute of God. Space-time, does not allow this but rather places temporal limits of position in space and time.

If space and time were not connected, we could not have photons of light, since photons have wavelength; d, and frequency;1/t, that are bond together; connected like space-time. Instead we would have wavelength not attached to frequency and frequency not attached to wavelength. These will not be easy to see with current tools that assume connected space and time variables; photons.

If we were in a realm where space and time were not connected, since there are more options compared to the limits imyoised by space-time; omnipresent, this realm would be a state of infinite complexity. Since entropy is connected to increasing complexity, this other realm should be the source of the 2nd law. Our space-time universe is like an ice cube in a warm bath, working it way back to its source; toward infinite entropy within separated space and time.

This theory allows one to do what no other theory can do. I can start the universe before energy, using what would be measured as nothingness within space-time. I do not need to assume the universe was always here, due to weak theory. All I need to do is extrapolate connected space-time, to the original disconnected space-time; time + space.

In terms of applications, if we have a synchronized pair of quantum particles, separated in space, that move as one, independent of distance, we would have the addition of some independent time added to space-time. In their little world, they have their own little clock, that is on top of their space-time clock. Independent space and time makes it easier to address the quantum world, since the quantum world is the half way house to the other realm, where time and space are not connected. Quantum affect often shows both realms interacting.

The inflation period where the early universe appeared to expand faster than the speed of light, would simply be a variation of omnipresence; extra distance potential added to universal space-time, apart from the distance within space-time. The laws of physics being the same in all references; Einstein, is an omniscience affect, where there is extra time potential added to space-time; synchronized in time independent of frame of reference in space-time.

Proof of independent space and time can be seen via the human imagination; connected to consciousness and information. The frontal lobe can process neural data in ways where the output is outside of the laws of space-time; science fiction. For example, I can imagine a wet spaghetti bridge a mile long. This is not possible in space-time due to gravity and shear force. But, if I built this in space, independent of time; stop time, so the force of gravity can not act without time, the bridge could remain.

You need to back up, and realize that science does not prove anything. Yes, some of what you stated concerning time and space concerning our universe and all possible universes is true. The Quantum existence does not contain the continuous time of the time/space relationship of our universe, but their is Quantum time for individual Quantum events.

In many ways we agree, but nonetheless you did not really respond to my post.

 

[Polymath257]

So if I define God as the creator of the universe that is a fact by definition, but not a fact for another definition of fact. Okay.

Yes, it is a fact that a God would be the creator of the universe. You would still have to prove the existence of a god. And, with that definition, the uniqueness of such a creator.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, you use angels. Now as long as you don't claim that tells you how I ought to live with in effect the Truth, then okay.

The Bible speaks of angels. Angels can give true messages and false messages. I speak about what the Bible says and how I understand it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The Bible speaks of angels. Angels can give true messages and false messages. I speak about what the Bible says and how I understand it.

Yes and does that allow you to pass judgment on me?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, you use angels. Now as long as you don't claim that tells you how I ought to live with in effect the Truth, then okay.

If you believe that Jesus was here on the earth at the time period specified in the Bible, then his message is certainly one to listen to above all other messages especially from those who receive private messages from whatever, gods-angels-the universe-voices-etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you believe that Jesus was here on the earth at the time period specified in the Bible, then his message is certainly one to listen to above all other messages especially from those who receive private messages from whatever, gods-angels-the universe-voices-etc.

Well, I have faith in a different God, so it doesn't apply to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes and does that allow you to pass judgment on me?

Let me ask you a question in return. Do you pass judgment on what the Bible says? In other words, do you believe it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let me ask you a question in return. Do you pass judgment on what the Bible says? In other words, do you believe it?

Well, I don't believe it is false nor true. I don't know. I have a different faith.
As for what the Truth is, I leave that to God, if there is God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, I have faith in a different God, so it doesn't apply to me.

OK, thanks, you answered my previous question. I don't pass judgment on you in certain terms as to whether I think you are telling me messages from God that I worship, trust and believe -- but I do decide who I listen to. For instance, I do not go to fortune tellers, I do not offer food sacrifices to gods and so forth. Hope that helps about judgment.

 

[YoursTrue]

@mikkel_the_dane Oh, and I don't read or believe in horoscopes any more. Or palm reading.

 

[We Never Know]

It seems to me that you are the one playing with words here. There was no 'before time'. The whole concept is nonsense.

You seem to be trying to bring 'non-existence' into existence. If time had a beginning, there simply was no 'before'. So time did NOT 'come into existence'. There was no 'transition' from 'non-existence' into 'existence'. There was no 'because' since there was no 'cause'.

If there is no time, no space, no space-time....

How does something start?

 

[Polymath257]

If there is no time, no space, no space-time....

How does something start?

Once again, at no point was there no time, no space, etc. Any time something exists, all of those things exist.

The universe 'started' only in the sense that there is an earliest time (in the BB model).

 

[We Never Know]

Once again, at no point was there no time, no space, etc. Any time something exists, all of those things exist.

The universe 'started' only in the sense that there is an earliest time (in the BB model).

To me you are dancing around.

You say "at no point was there no time, no space, etc"

You are saying it all started with the BB but yet the BB couldn't have started unless it was proofed into ignition so to speak. IMO