Proof of God

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff looks under another stone.

Nope, no so-called god again.

Paul

 

[Mobyseven]

 

[Paulhoff]

Are you trying to get somewhere with BJ, forget it.

Paul

 

[Z]

The concept of cyclic time is just what it sounds like - that time exists in a finite amount, curving like the surface of a sphere, in such a way that, if you were to somehow eternally persist, and you marked a point in time, you would eventually wind up right back at that point again. Minus the possibility of certain random events on the quantum level, the implication is that everything that has ever happened, has happened before and will happen again; there's no reversal of time, there's just a curvature that causes you to come back around again to where you were.

It's a hard concept for most people to grasp, and it's only rendered more difficult when we correct our terminology above and refer to cyclic spacetime. We get further confusion when we start looking into singularities, event horizons, time dilation, etc.

It also might be practically impossible to detect whether cyclical time is true or not. Consider travelling the surface of a sphere: if the sphere has fixed, identifiable features, we'll notice when we come back around to old territory. But if, instead, those features are subject to change without warning, we might circumnavigate the sphere a hundred times and never realize it. Of course, given our familiarity with the three dimensions, we could determine the curvature of the sphere, and thus, the circumference of that sphere.

But with spacetime, we lack the tools and knowhow to determine - indeed, even to describe - the curvature; so determining the temporal circumference of the universe might remain impossible for us for a great deal of time. And if there are truly undetermined, random events occuring in the universe, we wouldn't even be able to find key benchmarkers to recognize when we've been somewhere before. Even if our known universe ends in a 'Big Crunch', the collapse leading up to that crunch would still be moving forward in spacetime. We wouldn't know if spacetime's circumference encompassed one Big Bang, or ten, or 3.5. There's just no practical way for us to know.

Some traditional myths have long understood the idea of the cycle of time - a wheel with niether beginning nor ending. And some people even try to capitalize on it - see: Jordan, Robert.

 

[BillyJoe]

The concept of cyclic time is just what it sounds like - that time exists in a finite amount, curving like the surface of a sphere, in such a way that, if you were to somehow eternally persist, and you marked a point in time, you would eventually wind up right back at that point again. Minus the possibility of certain random events on the quantum level, the implication is that everything that has ever happened, has happened before and will happen again; there's no reversal of time, there's just a curvature that causes you to come back around again to where you were.

So, how many times has time cycled then?
How many times has everything been repeated?
Or has time been cycling for eternity?

And how does this solve the problem we started with.
EITHER there was a beginning to these time cyles (something from nothing) OR the time cycles has been going forever (time without beginning).

And we still have no understanding of eternity.
(which is what started off this exchange)

It's a hard concept for most people to grasp, and it's only rendered more difficult when we correct our terminology above and refer to cyclic spacetime. We get further confusion when we start looking into singularities, event horizons, time dilation, etc.

I'm okay with it.
I just don't pretend that we have exhausted the need for explanation.
Time extending back for eternity is hardly any different to time extending back in cycles for all eternity.

It also might be practically impossible to detect whether cyclical time is true or not. Consider travelling the surface of a sphere: if the sphere has fixed, identifiable features, we'll notice when we come back around to old territory. But if, instead, those features are subject to change without warning, we might circumnavigate the sphere a hundred times and never realize it. Of course, given our familiarity with the three dimensions, we could determine the curvature of the sphere, and thus, the circumference of that sphere.

Yes, just a little bit problematic when you're doing science don't you think.
Like multiverse: A really interesting idea and solves a whole heap of problems, but the price you pay is an almost infinite number of dimensions for these universes to reside in; and how the hell do you prove it?

But with spacetime, we lack the tools and knowhow to determine - indeed, even to describe - the curvature; so determining the temporal circumference of the universe might remain impossible for us for a great deal of time. And if there are truly undetermined, random events occuring in the universe, we wouldn't even be able to find key benchmarkers to recognize when we've been somewhere before. Even if our known universe ends in a 'Big Crunch', the collapse leading up to that crunch would still be moving forward in spacetime. We wouldn't know if spacetime's circumference encompassed one Big Bang, or ten, or 3.5. There's just no practical way for us to know.

Yes, fascinating speculation, I agree.

Some traditional myths have long understood the idea of the cycle of time - a wheel with niether beginning nor ending. And some people even try to capitalize on it - see: Jordan, Robert.

 

[BillyJoe]

Here, this may help:

 

[Robin]

So, how many times has time cycled then?
How many times has everything been repeated?
Or has time been cycling for eternity?

How many times does a circle go round?

Incidentally, do you assume that the meaning of "eternity" is "an infinite amount of time"? Or non-temporal?

 

[Ali]

What is something and what is nothing?
In fact, what is anything?

 

[BillyJoe]

How many times does a circle go round?

Exactly.
My car wheel goes around 40,000 times in 10 minutes on the way to work each day.

Incidentally, do you assume that the meaning of "eternity" is "an infinite amount of time"?

Yes, of course!

Or non-temporal?

No, we are talking science here, not theology!
....aren't we?

 

[BillyJoe]

It's called logic.
Things happen over time. No time. Nothing happens.

Actually that is not called logic, that is called assumption. In order for it to be logic you would have to include some actual logic.

So you think there can be time during which nothing happens?

Okay, so during the last ten seconds nothing happened.
The galaxies stopped rotating around their axes. The Earth stopped revolving around the sun. Everyone on Earth stopped dead in their tracks. And all machinery, clocks and watches on Earth stopped operating.

How is this different from nothing happening in no time?
What, really, is the meaning of time during which nothing happens?

 

[BillyJoe]

Replies are in bold:

You have posted the sentence so many times, do I need to cite every time you have repeated it?

Okay, it is clear now which sentence you were referring to.
But it wasn't clear from your post, because it seemed unnecessary to make such a distinction.

Or perhaps do you know the sentence I am talking about? If is simply not clear from the context which meaning of "beginning" you are using.

It should be perfectly clear.
The word to use is origin.

By analogy, the "beginning" of a ruler is the bit that has the "0" written on it. The origin of the ruler is the ruler factory, (or the tree it was made from).

What's the beginning of a piece of wood?
Or a ruler without "0" written on it?

You might imagine a ruler created in a circle with ticks but no numbers. There you would have a ruler without a beginning.

Just like a ruler without ticks or numbers written on it.
Or just like a piece of wood.

But it still has an origin.

Fine.

Similarly you might imagine an eternal ruler...

Or you might NOT be able to imagine an eternal ruler, but be able to fool yourself into thinking that you can imagine it.
That is one of my points.

....or a ruler that came from nothing.

Or you might NOT be able to imagine a ruler that came from nothing, but be able to fool yourself into thinking that you can imagine it.
That's my other point.

Thus you could have a ruler with a beginning but no origin.

Again, it is insufficient to just say so, you must be able to demonstrate that you know what this actually means, if anything.
Z has declined, MobySeven hits his head against a stone wall....
...what about Robin?

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe:
Also, if you have a proof that there was never nothing (that there is at least one thing that had no origin), I'd be happy if you shared it with me.

You need to think about this sentence for just a little longer.

"At least one thing had no origin" does not imply "there was never nothing".

If something "came from nothing", then it would have no origin ("nothing" isn't an origin). If something had no beginning then it would also have no origin..

Good one Robin.

Firstly and foremostly, if something has an origin, it means it was not there and then it was there.
(As opposed to something which does not have an origin, meaning that it has always been there.)
Okay?

Okay.
So now, as you say, we will add in the fact that, generally, there must be something for this thing to originate from.
However...

If the thing that "was not there and then was there" was the first thing ever to come into existence, then there was nothing for this thing to originate from and, therefore, it must have come into existence from nothing.
Okay?

So, this is the problem and the basis of my question:
How could something have come into existence from nothing?

The answer to this question is definitely not:
It couldn't have an origin because there was nothing for it to originate from.

I don't have the answer to this question.
(How could something have come into existence from nothing?)
And neither do you.
And neither does anyone.
And this is my point.

 

[BillyJoe]

Unfortunately, Billy really really wants there to be a metatime that overlies the concept of cyclic time as well. However, this just goes to illustrate that he has no real grasp of the concept of time. And with no grasp of the concept of time, how can he come to understand much of anything else, on the metaphysical? So of course, as men have done for millions of years, in the absence of understanding, he finds God.

Maybe that's what it all boils down to - God is the manifestation of incomprehension.

Maybe you can explain metatime.
Maybe you can explain time.
Maybe you can explain eternity.



Or maybe you won't explain anything.
(That's more your style isn't it?)


(there, I've said it)


BillyJoe

Please remember to attack the argument and not the arguer. I have removed the insults and left your argument intact.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Z]

Maybe you can explain metatime.
Maybe you can explain time.
Maybe you can explain eternity.



Or maybe you won't explain anything.
(That's more your style isn't it?)


(there, I've said it)


BillyJoe

Edited by prewitt81: 

Edited to remove quoted incivility.

I was being perfectly rational. It's clear that you don't understand the idea of cyclic time - you've said so yourself, though not in so many words.

Yet the best you can come up with to reply, after restating your insufficient understanding of the concept, is to call me a fake and a liar. A fake what? Where did I lie?

Therefore, I am both reporting your post, and placing you on ignore for the time being.

 

[Z]

For the sake of the Gentle Reader...

So, how many times has time cycled then?
How many times has everything been repeated?
Or has time been cycling for eternity?

This demonstrates BJ's misunderstanding of the concept. In the theory of cyclic time, there may be no answer to the question, 'how many times has time cycled', since that would automatically imply a metatime which overlays spacetime. Time simply goes round and round - there's no 'eternity', no 'number of times'.

And how does this solve the problem we started with.
EITHER there was a beginning to these time cyles (something from nothing) OR the time cycles has been going forever (time without beginning).

This, again, is a direct result of his failing to understand. In the cyclic time theory, time has no beginning and there is no forever for time to cycle through. It's a close circle, which has neither beginning nor ending.

And we still have no understanding of eternity.
(which is what started off this exchange)

Eternity is not that hard to understand, conceptually. Neither is infinity. But to visualize it...

I'm okay with it.
I just don't pretend that we have exhausted the need for explanation.
Time extending back for eternity is hardly any different to time extending back in cycles for all eternity.

There's no need to explain it, until there's more information available. And time would extend back into the future, if you think about it...

Yes, just a little bit problematic when you're doing science don't you think.

Mankind is not sufficiently advanced enough to tackle eternity via science.

Like multiverse: A really interesting idea and solves a whole heap of problems, but the price you pay is an almost infinite number of dimensions for these universes to reside in; and how the hell do you prove it?

I see no problem with a vast number of dimensions not perceivable by us. As for a proof - why do you need to prove it? If the theory has sufficient predictive power to be useful at this time, that's good enough; and if its predictive power fails us, we change the theory. No problem at all.

 

[BillyJoe]

I was being perfectly rational. It's clear that you don't understand the idea of cyclic time - you've said so yourself, though not in so many words.

Yet the best you can come up with to reply, after restating your insufficient understanding of the concept, is to call me a fake and a liar. A fake what? Where did I lie?

Therefore, I am both reporting your post, and placing you on ignore for the time being.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Content removed.

This is your second warning. Drop the personal attacks and stick to the issues. Failure to do so may result in a suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[BillyJoe]

For the sake of the Gentle Reader....

Aw, how cute.

So, how many times has time cycled then?
How many times has everything been repeated?
Or has time been cycling for eternity?

This demonstrates BJ's misunderstanding of the concept. In the theory of cyclic time, there may be no answer to the question, 'how many times has time cycled', since that would automatically imply a metatime which overlays spacetime. Time simply goes round and round - there's no 'eternity', no 'number of times'.

Oh, I'm sorry, and here I thought you had all the answers.

My wheel goes around 5,000 times on the way to work every morning.
Oops, no, my wheel simply goes round and round - there is no "number of times".

And how does this solve the problem we started with.
EITHER there was a beginning to these time cyles (something from nothing) OR the time cycles has been going forever (time without beginning).

This, again, is a direct result of his failing to understand. In the cyclic time theory, time has no beginning and there is no forever for time to cycle through. It's a close circle, which has neither beginning nor ending.

Edited by prewitt81: 

Content removed.

I mean I know where these guys are coming from. They are simply trying to get a grasp on a problem that really does not have a solution. I get that. But to pretend it is the actual solution to the problem is intellectual dishonesty at it's worst.

Eternity is not that hard to understand, conceptually. Neither is infinity. But to visualize it...

Edited by prewitt81: 

Content removed.

I'm okay with it.
I just don't pretend that we have exhausted the need for explanation.
Time extending back for eternity is hardly any different to time extending back in cycles for all eternity.

There's no need to explain it, until there's more information available.

"There may be no answer."
"no need to explain."
"more information [needed]."

I rest my case.

And time would extend back into the future, if you think about it...

Edited by prewitt81: 

Content removed.

Think about that!

Mankind is not sufficiently advanced enough to tackle eternity via science.

And when you tackle it philosophically....

Like multiverse: A really interesting idea and solves a whole heap of problems, but the price you pay is an almost infinite number of dimensions for these universes to reside in; and how the hell do you prove it?

I see no problem with a vast number of dimensions not perceivable by us. As for a proof - why do you need to prove it? If the theory has sufficient predictive power to be useful at this time, that's good enough; and if its predictive power fails us, we change the theory. No problem at all.

First of all, the theory has no predictive power. It is merely a possible explanation for observed quantum phenomena. Secondly, it is useful only to the extent that it shows us how foolish we are to think that we have even just a little understanding of what might be going on. I will expand on this if you like.

But my point is that we haven't solved the problem. Not by a long shot. We are merely grasping at the very beginnings of a possible understanding of a problem which still largely appears unsolvable.


regards,
BillyJoe

See my warning above.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Robin]

Good one Robin.

Firstly and foremostly, if something has an origin, it means it was not there and then it was there.
(As opposed to something which does not have an origin, meaning that it has always been there.)
Okay?

Nope. if something has an origin it means it has an origin. "Nothing" is not an origin.

Origin: 2 a : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <a spring is the origin of the brook>
Merriam Webster Dictionary

A better word to fit your concept would be "inception""

INCEPTION stresses the beginning of something without implying causes <the business has been a success since its inception>
Merriam Webster Dictionary

So it boils down to "at least one thing had no source". So our choices are "at least one thing had an inception and no source" and/or "at least one thing had no inception".

Okay.
So now, as you say, we will add in the fact that, generally, there must be something for this thing to originate from.
However...

If the thing that "was not there and then was there" was the first thing ever to come into existence, then there was nothing for this thing to originate from and, therefore, it must have come into existence from nothing.
Okay?

Again, no. If the thing "was not there" then where is "there"? The sentence is simply meaningless. Better to say "something began to exist, had no source and was the only thing that existed" (and I stress again that this does not have to be the case). So if you say it "must have come into existence from nothing" what you really mean is "it could not have come into existence from anything".

So, this is the problem and the basis of my question:
How could something have come into existence from nothing?

The answer to this question is definitely not:
It couldn't have an origin because there was nothing for it to originate from.

And nobody ever suggested that it was.

The problem has always been that you have been talking about time and not "something".

The question you have to answer is the same as it was from the beginning: "why do you assume that time could not have a source?"

 

[Robin]

It should be perfectly clear.
The word to use is origin.

Is that despite the ambiguity or because of it?

 

[Mobyseven]

BillyJoe:

If you had no frame of reference from which to observe your car wheel going round and round, how would you measure the number of times it had gone round?