How to prove God's existence the way it's supposed to Part 1

[ThinkingSapien]

Surely acceleration due to gravity at ground level would have doubled?

Hmmm…I think you may be right. I’ll run the numbers.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When you have a completely filled cube of 2 to the third in volume and you shrink it like i described with a certain method to half its height the result is a completely filled cube of 1 to the third and that has not half the weight like you say but a fourth of the weight.

If you wanted to actually reduce the total volume of the cube by uniformly adjusting its size along the three dimensions you would need to reduce its measurements along each dimension be approximately 79.35%

The thing is that you will read my previous post and still will not get a single thing of what i wrote so i also have to point out that it is better for you to adress something i’ve written before here. I have taken the topic to infinite space anyway.

Because you are failing to see everything i wrote.
Is it possible that i am in a room watching tv while everything is being expanded to double its height (the opposite of shrinking) at a constant speed, expanding that takes exactly 10 seconds, so that during those 10 seconds i can’t be aware of any type of change to reality?

I don’t think there’s been any major misunderstanding of the metaphors that you’ve provided to illustrate your point. (Though the phrase “logic goes over itself” seems to be an idiom not understood here). The objection(s) being raised are because the metaphors ( or every day observations that we make with our own eyes in our normal environment for that matter) are already known to be misleading when it comes down to what happens at a quantum level. Newtonian physics was derived from observations that can be made for observers living at our scale in our gravitational frame of reference at speeds and distances that I’ll for now just label as moderate. But as you approach speeds close to light, or are working with gravitational references much larger than our earth Newtonian projects start to produce results that stray further from reality. Likewise when you move to much smaller scales.

We begin with the example of a movie canvas and a movie projector…WHen you follow him and his environment during those 10 seconds you can see that it is impossible for him to detect a change in reality.

It’s not impossible. There would be an accumulation of depth queues, change in luminosity, and other changes that would give away what is going on. Over a small range these changes may not be perceived. But over a larger scale they build up to significant.

Now when we do the opposite of this experiment, now roll the movie canvas back to where it came from at constant speed in 10 seconds the guy is also not able to detect any kind of change.

Once again, over a small range changes may not be noticed, but over a large enough scale they will be.

And as described in this post. The human race is forever convinced that this kind of shrinking did not happen because the tools to detect this are something the human race does not have.

Are you familiar with Doppler Shift.

So when this imaginary force is doing ‘nothing happening’ so far down that the size of a human is now so small that newton does not apply according to your theory,

It’s not the theory of any one here. It was something established before many of us were born.

…an example of logic going over itself to make an impossibility possible…

What does “logic going over itself” mean? It was asked earlier but I don’t think I ever saw a response.

 

[Neverbeendead]

When you have a completely filled cube of 2 to the third in volume and you shrink it like i described with a certain method to half its height the result is a completely filled cube of 1 to the third and that has not half the weight like you say but a fourth of the weight.
That’s why i wrote that sometimes it is easier to just weigh the person and i sometimes include myself.

If you wanted to actually reduce the total volume of the cube by uniformly adjusting its size along the three dimensions you would need to reduce its measurements along each dimension be approximately 79.35%

Another one has stepped inside the debate.
The correct answer is ofcourse 1/8. When you have a completely filled cube on the table that is 2 inches high and you shrink it so that it loses weight to a cube that is half as high you get a completely filled cube of one inch high.
The volume of the 2 inch cube is 2 to the third or 8 and the volume of the one inch cube is 1 to the third or 1. And so with this shrinking process that 2 inch cube has lost 7/8 of it’s weight and that is 87,5 %.
And since you are also not getting a single thing i wrote it is better for you too to adress something else first.

The thing is that you will read my previous post and still will not get a single thing of what i wrote so i also have to point out that it is better for you to adress something i’ve written before here. I have taken the topic to infinite space anyway.

It’s like the process called to count to infinity. You can never walk to somebody and say: I’ve done that because it’s a process that never ends. A similar process is our 3 Dimensional space in which we can move around. We will always have that to move around in because nobody can write down how a happening will make it so that one day we will no longer have that and what it will be that came in the place of what we had.
And when this 3 dimensional space will be usable forever by definiton because nothing can change that it means that there hasn’t been a point in history where something changed that. Then the age of this 3 dimensional space turns out to be infinite. If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity and it did but it just did not use logic alone for that. It also used logic that goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with in a topic with the same name as this one except for the number of the part. A topic where it’s about special things going on inside certain places as well.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Another one has stepped inside the debate.

Well, I’m not really intending to debate or try to “prove” your primary point wrong. But I do find your supporting “evidence” to be inconsistent with information on the known universe that I can find in a college physics book. In some places it is contradictory to it.

The correct answer is ofcourse 1/8. When you have a completely filled cube on the table that is 2 inches high and you shrink it so that it loses weight to a cube that is half as high you get a completely filled cube of one inch high.

I didn’t realize that it was a question to be answered. the 79.35% I shared was the amount by which each dimension would need to be scaled to produce something with half the volume (since .7935^3 is about 0.5, or 50%).

And since you are also not getting a single thing i wrote it is better for you too to adress something else first.

I understand most of what you wrote. But as mentioned above it is inconsistent and in some places contradictory to the physical sciences. And where such contradictions and inconsistencies have been found they have been raised.

Ex: If someone said “I have a rocket that can fly from the moon to the sun in 30 seconds” I would be able to understand the sentence, but that is in disagreement with the dun-moon distance and the limits at which objects could move (it takes light about 8 minutes to travel that distance). So I would question any such claim.

There is something that I do find incomprehensible. One is the phrase “logic goes over itself.” Since that phrase has gone undefined the parts of your presentation that are dependent on it won’t be successfully received by your audience here.

Oh well, it was nice talking to you.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible is an expression.

People do not believe in the impossible because it is a word that explains itself and people who do believe that the impossible is possible are therefor no longer using logic.

The people who do not believe that the impossible is possible conclude that everything in reality has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with the impossible being possible.

These people use logic to investigate reality and with their belief they already know that everything they are about to investigate only has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with the imposible being possible.

But there are cases where they can use their logic to investigate reality to conclude that an impossibility is possible.
In a case like that they used their logic to get to an endresult where their logic went over itself to make an impossibility possible.
In a case like that their logic as defined above is no longer their logic as defined above.
It’s just another way of saying that a personal investigation has resulted in a conclusion that an impossibility turned out to be possible.
I have already given many examples which you wrongly called wrong and that’s why i had written down the following:

The thing is that you will read my previous post and still will not get a single thing of what i wrote so i also have to point out that it is better for you to adress something i’ve written before here. I have taken the topic to infinite space anyway.

It’s like the process called to count to infinity. You can never walk to somebody and say: I’ve done that because it’s a process that never ends. A similar process is our 3 Dimensional space in which we can move around. We will always have that to move around in because nobody can write down how a happening will make it so that one day we will no longer have that and what it will be that came in the place of what we had.
And when this 3 dimensional space will be usable forever by definiton because nothing can change that it means that there hasn’t been a point in history where something changed that. Then the age of this 3 dimensional space turns out to be infinite. If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity and it did but it just did not use logic alone for that. It also used logic that goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with in a topic with the same name as this one except for the number of the part. A topic where it’s about special things going on inside certain places as well.

 

[Candide_West]

… half its height the result is a completely filled cube of 1 to the third and that has not half the weight like you say but a fourth of the weight.*

Ok, now you the changes will be a bit different but still plenty enough to kill everyone on earth, so I think we’d still notice something had happened (briefly, before we all died). If you think about it, in this arrangement then the density of everything would have doubled for a starter.*

If the sun halved it radius and quartered it’s mass, then it’s volume would have dropped by a factor of 8. So it’s density would have doubled. That means that the rate of solar activity would increase radically (the sun would get brighter). At the same time the radius of the earths orbit would be halved, so we’d be half the distance from this much brighter sun.*

So what happens if you get closer to something hot and make it hotter at the same time? You get hotter, much hotter. The earth would very rapidly be incinerated to a state much like mercury. And all life on earth destroyed.

That’s why i wrote that sometimes it is easier to just weigh the person and i sometimes include myself.

Don’t worry it, doesn’t really matter which value you pick 1/4, 1/8, etc the ultimate affect will be much the same and quite definitely noticeable (extinction). That’s why I didn’t bother to correct you (1/8 would be correct if you wanted constant density).

And that’s just one of the many mistakes you wrote in your previous posts. Too much to mention.
Because you are failing to see everything i wrote.

No I am seeing what you wrote. I’m even replying to it line by line to make my explanations clearer.

Is it possible that i am in a room watching tv while everything is being expanded to double its height (the opposite of shrinking) at a constant speed, expanding that takes exactly 10 seconds, so that during those 10 seconds i can’t be aware of any type of change to reality?

If you mean is it possible to do this with a tv screen by shrinking it but moving it closer, then yes. But the real world is not a two dimensional object which we are looking at. So if to mean shrinking the whole room around you, and you inside it, then no it’s not possible, you’d notice.

The answer is yes. We begin with the example of a movie canvas and a movie projector.
We project a movie of a guy watching tv while standing up on a movie canvas. He’s on the left of the screen looking at a tv on the right of the screen.

Right, so you can do it on a flat screen at least to an extent. But the rest of the world is not just a flat screen. And even with a flat screen problems do indeed arise after a while.

He became bigger but isn’t aware of that because everything became bigger.
He became bigger and needed a bigger type of oxygen to have the exact same experience but that also became bigger the way it was supposed to.

Right, but it also made such a fundamental change to how his body worked that he died.*

heck if you doubled the size of everything but left the charge on protons and electrons the same then nerve impulses would no longer work because they are electrical signals. If you did change the charge on electrons and protons then all the atoms in his body would blow apart.*

He became bigger and the pitch of his voice became a bit lower and louder and he needed a bigger room with bigger acoustics for his voice to stay the same and he got that.

Nope, it’s not about acoustics. Changing the size of the room wouldn’t help

Now when we do the opposite of this experiment, now roll the movie canvas back to where it came from at constant speed in 10 seconds the guy is also not able to detect any kind of change.
And you can use whatever kind of movie you like. People playing on the beach, watching the stars or anything else.

Ok, you keep switching. If you are talking about watching a movie on a flat screen and making it bigger and further away (and brighter etc) then yes, you might be able to trick the viewer into not noticing the change.*

If you wish to talk about expanding or shrinking everything in existence then you cannot get away with it. Things will behave completely differently.*

For the human race there is never a detectable change, not even during the shrinking or expanding.

Yes we would, we’d notice as the seas boiled off in to space for example.

And what is the real change?

Huge, one of scaling.

As said before, an imaginary force draws an imaginary cube that contains every existing object in infinite space.

…And everything changes completely.

…
And when this process with real changes is one that can’t be detected in any way during and after the shrinking the human race has its truth when it says that a happening like that is the equivalent of nothing happening.

Hopefully you can now see that this is not true

And when it is the equivalent of nothing happening it doesn’t matter how far up or how far down this nothing happening goes.
So when this imaginary force is doing ‘nothing happening’ so far down that the size of a human is now so small that newton does not apply according to your theory, logic only says that still nobody is able to detect any kind of change.

People would detect the change, then die. Long before you reached quantum scales. So no, you could never have people appearing and disappearing.

While your logic says that in a case like that we would all be living amongst each other while we sometimes see a whole person disappear into nothing because he’s just a probabilty and later reappear…

Ok, so hopefully you now appreciate that thus doesn’t work because your assumption that the change wouldn’t be detectable is incorrect.*

 

[Candide_West]

Logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible is an expression.
*
People do not believe in the impossible because it is a word that explains itself and people who do believe that the impossible is possible are therefor no longer using logic.
*
The people who do not believe that the impossible is possible conclude that everything in reality has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with the impossible being possible.
*
These people use logic to investigate reality and with their belief they already know that everything they are about to investigate only has a logical explanation that has nothing to do with the imposible being possible.
*
But there are cases where they can use their logic to investigate reality to conclude that an impossibility is possible.
In a case like that they used their logic to get to an endresult where their logic went over itself to make an impossibility possible.
In a case like that their logic as defined above is no longer their logic as defined above.
It’s just another way of saying that a personal investigation has resulted in a conclusion that an impossibility turned out to be possible.
I have already given many examples which you wrongly called wrong and that’s why i had written down the following:

Ok, I’ve never heard that expression before. From what you’ve written above it would appear to be where you find out that something you thought was impossible is in fact possible and indeed what happens in reality.*

In other words it’s the situation you were in when you thought that the stuff that happens at a quantum scale was impossible, then finding out that actually IS how physics works.*

Is that about right?*

The thing is that you will read my previous post and still will not get a single thing of what i wrote so i also have to point out that it is better for you to adress something i’ve written before here. I have taken the topic to infinite space anyway.

It’s like the process called to count to infinity. You can never walk to somebody and say: I’ve done that because it’s a process that never ends. A similar process is our 3 Dimensional space in which we can move around. We will always have that to move around in because nobody can write down how a happening will make it so that one day we will no longer have that and what it will be that came in the place of what we had.
And when this 3 dimensional space will be usable forever by definiton because nothing can change that it means that there hasn’t been a point in history where something changed that. Then the age of this 3 dimensional space turns out to be infinite. If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity and it did but it just did not use logic alone for that. It also used logic that goes over itself to make an impossibility possible and a good one to start with in a topic with the same name as this one except for the number of the part. A topic where it’s about special things going on inside certain places as well.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here, but it appears to be based on the assumption that the universe is infinitely old. Again you should be aware that all the evidence is that this is false and that the universe started around 13.7 billion years ago (give or take a hundred million years - about 1%). Which is a long time but a long way from infinite.*

So again I’m afraid you are incorrect here.*

 

[kboucher]

The terminology is not odd and you are misleading by immediately talking about ‘taking empty space out of empty space’ while the only thing you can do with empty space to get to something different at that empty location is to replace it with its opposite.
One cannot make more empty that which is completely empty.
And so your whole further attempt to try and convince me that it is possible, to take empty spaces out of something, even with a house and bricks, to have a result in a sum of the places in that something that are the non taken out non empty spaces plus the taken out empty spaces that are now not ‘non taken out non empty spaces’ and not empty spaces but a third option that you didn’t even define as the different third option, can’t be done because i know that there is no third option. Because one cannot make more empty that which is completely empty.

I thought Candide did a remarkably patient and thorough job of pointing out the errors in the logic of your proposition. (As there were many.)

In the final statement you make the conclusion that “since life can’t be found in the full part, it must be found in the empty part.”

This is a logical fallacy known as “Affirming a disjunct”. That being the case, I’d agree that the initial slides aren’t really important.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here, but it appears to be based on the assumption that the universe is infinitely old. Again you should be aware that all the evidence is that this is false and that the universe started around 13.7 billion years ago (give or take a hundred million years - about 1%). Which is a long time but a long way from infinite.*

So again I’m afraid you are incorrect here.*

I wrote that the 3Dimensional and infinite empty space we have available to us so that all the existing matter, including ourselves, can move in it has an infinite age.
If it does not have an infinite age that means that there was a time when there wasn’t 3Dimensional infinite empty space, not even a small piece of 3Dimensional empty space.
But you can’t take empty space out of empty space.
You can wave at a fly buzzing in front of you to make it leave but a crazy person bothered by empty space in front of himself can wave at it as much as he wants, there is still that 3Dimensional space in front of him just like all other 3Dimensional space that has always been where it was and has an infinite age, has counted to infinity if it had a voice, has done the impossible.

 

[kboucher]

and there you have again pretended that the separation is possible. Essentially you’ve pretended to make a separation of the full and empty parts, then used the fact that making that separation is impossible to show that life can’t be in the full part.

Exactly.

 

[Neverbeendead]

While Candide has been given a reply in a previous post i will add a quick one for kboucher.

There is life going on in the universe but nobody will say that it is taking place inside the dark empty spaces (completely without matter inside) between planets and stars.
And because they know that, they conclude that it is by definition going on elsewhere.

And that turns out to be the non dark planets that are in a certain condition.
Or how empty dark space (completely without matter inside) can always be taken out of the equation and is no longer relevant.

And then i can easily change the order.

A living body has an empty part and a full part. There is no life inside the empty part and now that can be taken out of the equation.
So life has to take place in the full part but that’s only in one solid state and cannot contain life in a logical way. And so its in an illogical way, or way where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible, that life takes place inside the body.

 

[Candide_West]

I wrote that the 3Dimensional and infinite empty space we have available to us so that all the existing matter, including ourselves, can move in it has an infinite age.

I know, and I explained in my previous post, all the evidence at the moment is that you are incorrect.*

If it does not have an infinite age that means that there was a time when there wasn’t 3Dimensional infinite empty space, not even a small piece of 3Dimensional empty space.*

Yes indeed, well done.

But you can’t take empty space out of empty space.

Well we can’t do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.*

You can wave at a fly buzzing in front of you to make it leave but a crazy person bothered by empty space in front of himself can wave at it as much as he wants, there is still that 3Dimensional space in front of him just like all other 3Dimensional space that has always been where it was

Indeed, people cannot make space “go away” what we are talking about here is fundamentals of the universe. So we wouldn’t expect people to be able to meddle with them. But… How can I explain… Ok, do you understand about how space is “curved” by large objects? essentially gravity bends space itself so that straight lines are curved. That why you can sometimes see a star on one side of a massive body (like the sun) and the same star on the other side, because the path of light from the star has curved around the sun due to its gravity.*

In the same way if we get much much bigger objects (stars that are supergiants for example) when the nuclear fusion runs out there is so much mass, so tightly packed that space curves in on itself completely and you’re left with a black hole.*

Now, imagine if we employed your magical shrink ray and applied it to the whole universe, you’d end up with a similar super compact mass, which would collapse in on itself, and keep collapsing. And here’s the important part. There wouldn’t be “empty space” around it, the “empty space” would have collapsed inwards as well. So there would be literally nothing outside.*

This is what people call the “BIG CRUNCH” model of the end of the universe (as opposed to the Big Bang, which is what we call the start of the universe).

*and has an infinite age, has counted to infinity if it had a voice, has done the impossible.

So fingers crossed you now understand that this is not correct. So you don’t need to worry about the universe talking impossibilities to you.*

 

[Candide_West]

While Candide has been given a reply in a previous post i will add a quick one for kboucher.

I’m sure kboucher is perfectly capable of replying to these points, but I thought I’d drop you a few notes about them as well.*
*

There is life going on in the universe but nobody will say that it is taking place inside the dark empty spaces (completely without matter inside) between planets and stars.
And because they know that, they conclude that it is by definition going on elsewhere.*

Like here on earth for example.
*

And that turns out to be the non dark planets that are in a certain condition.
Or how empty dark space (completely without matter inside) can always be taken out of the equation and is no longer relevant.

Well it can’t be taken out of the equation, but as far as we know at least there is no life which isn’t on earth. Personally I suspect there is other life on other planets, but we don’t know either way yet.
*

And then i can easily change the order.
*
A living body has an empty part and a full part. There is no life inside the empty part and now that can be taken out of the equation.
So life has to take place in the full part but that’s only in one solid state and cannot contain life in a logical way.

We seem to have covered this point several times over, neither of your “parts” of the body are living things in themselves, because a living thing is an emergent property of many many atoms together and neither of your “parts” in themselves contain any atoms at all.

To put it another way, they are parts of a living thing, so you can’t find living things inside them.*

Could you tell me what part of the situation you are finding difficult to understand? Then I can try to break it down and make things clearer.

*And so its in an illogical way, or way where logic goes over itself to make an impossibility possible, that life takes place inside the body.

No, logic can’t “go over itself” that is not a meaningful statement.*

If I understand your previous explanation correctly you are referring here to you personally finding out that something you thought to be impossible actually being possible.*

So in this case you thinking that it was impossible for a living thing not to be built out of things which are in themselves living things, then discovering during the course of this conversation that this is not correct.*

Is that what you are trying to refer to here?

 

[Neverbeendead]

Now, imagine if we employed your magical shrink ray and applied it to the whole universe, you’d end up with a similar super compact mass, which would collapse in on itself, and keep collapsing. And here’s the important part. There wouldn’t be “empty space” around it, the “empty space” would have collapsed inwards as well. So there would be literally nothing outside.*

Here you literally write that where there was once ‘3Dimensionalness’, there now isn’t because there is now literally nothing outside.
Let’s shorten the name to 3dness.
And in your wrong model you write that taking 3dness out the universe to the maximum results in a very compact mass with the 3dness of that very compact mass and that is the universe at its mininum.
That means that the universe has never been less than at its minimum and has an age of infinity, has counted to infinity, has done the impossible.

You will write that you wrote that the universe at its minimum was not at its minimum because it keeps on collapsing in itself until all existing 3dness and all existing matter is no longer existent.
Or how the age of the universe is not infinite because there was a time when there wasn’t a single piece of 3dness and matter existent.

Then it was that time that came to the conclusion one day to start making some 3dness and matter there were there litteraly is no 3dness and matter.
Could it have picked a day earlier? Ofcourse because the operation is called a point in time changed itself into something that made people conclude that there was 3dness and matter existent after that point in time.
and so you can go back in time as much further as you want to check this reality that is not yet changing itself into the existence of 3dness and matter.
If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity, done the impossible, and one day will add an impossibility called creating 3dness and matter where before there was nowhere 3dness and matter.

 

[Candide_West]

Here you literally write that where there was once ‘3Dimensionalness’, there now isn’t because there is now literally nothing outside.

Right, that would be the big crunch, with everything collapsing down to a point with zero dimensions.

Let’s shorten the name to 3dness.
And in your wrong model you write that taking 3dness out the universe to the maximum results in a very compact mass with the 3dness of that very compact mass and that is the universe at its mininum.

Not just “very compact” it’s infinitely compact, there is literally no volume there.

That means that the universe has never been less than at its minimum and has an age of infinity, has counted to infinity, has done the impossible.

Again, not quite. See time is the flow of physical processes. So if there were no physical processes (no change etc) then there is no time. The universe started about 13.7billion years ago, so the length of time that has occurred to date is about 13.7 billion years. There was no “before” that point because there was no time before that point.*

You will write that you wrote that the universe at its minimum was not at its minimum because it keeps on collapsing in itself until all existing 3dness and all existing matter is no longer existent.

If the universe goes to a big crunch, then yes, matter as we know it certainly will stop existing.

Or how the age of the universe is not infinite because there was a time when there wasn’t a single piece of 3dness and matter existent.

That’s not really a valid sentence, there wasn’t a “time” before the universe when nothing existed. Time is the flow of processes in the universe. By definition without a universe there could NOT have been time.*

Your question is akin to asking how many corners a square circle has.*
*

Then it was that time that came to the conclusion one day to start making some 3dness and matter there were there litteraly is no 3dness and matter.
Could it have picked a day earlier?*

No, because there wasn’t any time to be earlier or later than.*

Ofcourse because the operation is called a point in time changed itself into something that made people conclude that there was 3dness and matter existent after that point in time.

Yes, time, and matter came into existence at the big bang.*

and so you can go back in time as much further as you want to check this reality that is not yet changing itself into the existence of 3dness and matter.

No, because there is no “further back in time” to go to. You reached the start.*

If you find this hard to imagine, think about walking north. You can walk due north from anywhere you like and eventually you’ll reach the north pole and you cannot walk north any more, because there is no more “northness” for you to walk into. At this point you can walk in any direction you like but they’re all “south”.

The same thing here, you go further and further back in time until you get to the big bang, then there’s no more time to go into.*

If it had a voice it would say that it has already counted to infinity, done the impossible, and one day will add an impossibility called creating 3dness and matter where before there was nowhere 3dness and matter.

So again, hopefully you now understand why the universe hasn’t “counted” to infinity.*

As for the cause of the universe, thats still very much an open question. There are numerous attempts being made to work out how the universe started and gain understanding of it. Scientific theories abound, but none is yet decisive.*

Of course there are numerous religious creation stories as well. Each strongly held by the proponents of that religion.*

 

[Neverbeendead]

You have given your name to your reality or happening that changes the absense of time and space into the presence of time and space: The big bang.
You have also described how the presence of time and space can become the absense of time and space, when matter collapses in on itself, and then we can call that happening the anti big bang.
So let’s say that in the future an anti big bang happens followed by a big bang that results in life in the universe.
Then this anti big bang is not the beginning of time and space because there was our time and space before this anti big bang.
It means that an anti big bang is not defined by definition as something that can never have had time and space before it.
In your logic it is always possible that there was time and space going on before an anti big bang.
So let’s give some reality to a possibility without saying that it was the real reality and say there has always been time and space before all or just the one anti big bang that has occured. Then an infinity has been finished. A counting to infinity has occured, an impossibility has become possible.

 

[Neverbeendead]

Something obvious but unmentioned in my previous post.
Where i wrote that in the future an anti big bang happens followed by a big bang they ofcourse happened ‘at the same time in the absense of time’ according to your logic.
Then the end of my previous post becomes:
In your logic it is always possible that there was time and space going on before a big bang.
So let’s give some reality to a possibility without saying that it was the real reality and say there has always been time and space before all or just the one big bang that has occured. Then an infinity has been finished. A counting to infinity has occured, an impossibility has become possible.
This post wasn’t necessary but it can sound strange to read that it may be possible that there was time and space before an anti big bang when that hapening is about taking time and space out of its existence.

 

[Candide_West]

You have given your name to your reality or happening that changes the absense of time and space into the presence of time and space: The big bang.

I fear you’ve given me rather too much credit. It’s not my name. It was invented well before I was alive.

You have also described how the presence of time and space can become the absense of time and space, when matter collapses in on itself, and then we can call that happening the anti big bang.

Most people refer to it as the Big Crunch actually.*

So let’s say that in the future an anti big bang happens followed by a big bang that results in life in the universe.*

Then this anti big bang is not the beginning of time and space because there was our time and space before this anti big bang.

Well that’s a tricky one, because you can’t organise events in a chronological sequence with a no time between them. After all, what do you put between those points? There is simply no chronological link between the two points. For that matter which was first? The universe “after” the big crunch, or the universe “before” the big bang? There is no meaningful answer to these questions.

And of course there’s nothing to say that in your new universe there would even be such a thing as time.*

It means that an anti big bang is not defined by definition as something that can never have had time and space before it.

True enough, but our big bang is still the beginning of time and space in our universe. Which was the point I was making in my previous post, that you saying that space is infinitely old is incorrect.*

In your logic it is always possible that there was time and space going on before an anti big bang.*

The term “before” doesn’t really apply. But I get what you mean, and you’re right, there’s no way to know what existed or exists beyond the bounds of our universe, not yet at least.*

But in any case space and time did have a beginning.*

So let’s give some reality to a possibility without saying that it was the real reality and say there has always been time and space before all or just the one anti big bang that has occured. Then an infinity has been finished. A counting to infinity has occured, an impossibility has become possible.

Er, I’m not sure what you are trying to to say here. You appear to be saying*

“lets assume that x happened (even though there’s no evidence of it whatsoever) and assume that x is also impossible, so we can be surprised that something impossible happened”.*

This seems rather futile. If it is impossible then it did not happen. If it did happen then it is not impossible. You cannot have it both ways.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that some thing we think are impossible may in fact turn out to be possible. And that of course is true. Arguably the whole history of human advancement is achieving things which were once considered impossible. But it just means that we were incorrect. I have no problem with that, often it’s the best way to learn (My hope is that our conversation here has helped you in this way for that matter.) but what we should learn from that is to be cautious using the word “impossible”. NOT that impossible things can and do happen.

 

[Neverbeendead]

So let’s say that in the future an anti big bang happens followed by a big bang that results in life in the universe.*
Then this anti big bang is not the beginning of time and space because there was our time and space before this anti big bang.

Quote:
Well that’s a tricky one, because you can’t organise events in a chronological sequence with a no time between them. After all, what do you put between those points? There is simply no chronological link between the two points. For that matter which was first? The universe “after” the big crunch, or the universe “before” the big bang? There is no meaningful answer to these questions.

In your logic a big crunch can take time and space and matter out existence.
In your logic a big bang can give existence to the absense of time and space and matter.
So let’s call the absense of time and space and matter situation A.
And the presence of time and space and matter with life in it situation B.
Now let’s take situation B1 that uses its big crunch potential to become situation A.
This situation A uses its big bang potential and becomes situation B2.
Person B1 is in situation B1 thinking about something and person B2 is in situation B2 thinking about the same as person B1.
They are assuming the existence of each other and without knowing are right.
Then they have no other option but to conclude that the other one is thinking the same but sooner or later or at the same time.
They do not know the answer but they do know that the other one can be thinking at a point in time as many years later or sooner as the randomly chosen point in time they are thinking about.
And while you say that you know for sure that there was a big bang that created the first existing time and space and matter (situation C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic) you are saying that you know for sure that person B1 is not thinking the same as person B2 at a point in time where there was time and space and matter before your situation (C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic).
Every time you define your situation (C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic) you are wrong because there may have been a previous situation B where you also have not been.
It means that there is no limit to the possibility of existing space and time and matter the more you go back into the past.
And assuming that there was no limit, that possibility teaches us that if there really has always been space and matter, a counting to infinity has occured by the imaginary voice inside this space and matter that has always been existent or logic has gone over itself to make an impossibility possible.

 

[Candide_West]

So let’s say that in the future an anti big bang happens followed by a big bang that results in life in the universe.

Then this anti big bang is not the beginning of time and space because there was our time and space before this anti big bang.*

Well again you run into problems using words like “before”. Let’s say for example that time in this other universe runs in the other direction. So from the perspective of people in the other universe ours is “after” theirs.*

This is the problem when there is no chronological link between the two points. You cannot state a chronological relationship like “before” or “after”.
*

In your logic a big crunch can take time and space and matter out existence.
In your logic a big bang can give existence to the absense of time and space and matter.

Again, it’s not my logic or my theory. Georges Lemaître (a priest) came up with it a long time ago.*

So let’s call the absense of time and space and matter situation A.
And the presence of time and space and matter with life in it situation B.
Now let’s take situation B1 that uses its big crunch potential to become situation A.

This situation A uses its big bang potential and becomes situation B2.
Person B1 is in situation B1 thinking about something and person B2 is in situation B2 thinking about the same as person B1.

They are assuming the existence of each other and without knowing are right.

Then they have no other option but to conclude that the other one is thinking the same but sooner or later or at the same time.

They do not know the answer but they do know that the other one can be thinking at a point in time as many years later or sooner as the randomly chosen point in time they are thinking about.

It’s not just that they don’t know that they don’t know which is later or sooner, it’s that the terms just don’t apply. It’d be like two people on different planets trying to work out which of them is further west and which further east. There just is no answer.*

And while you say that you know for sure that there was a big bang that created the first existing time and space and matter (situation C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic) you are saying that you know for sure that person B1 is not thinking the same as person B2 at a point in time where there was time and space and matter before your situation (C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic).

I’m not saying I know for sure, nobody does yet. But this is what the evidence points towards.*

Again though, if someone else existed in a different universe, then its not meaningful to ask whether it was “before” this one or “after” this one.*

Every time you define your situation (C-First because of my been there seen that knowledge and logic) you are wrong because there may have been a previous situation B where you also have not been.

Again if other universes outside ours exist, it is not meaningful to ask when they happen.*

It means that there is no limit to the possibility of existing space and time and matter the more you go back into the past.*
And assuming that there was no limit, that possibility teaches us that if there really has always been space and matter, a counting to infinity has occured by the imaginary voice inside this space and matter that has always been existent or logic has gone over itself to make an impossibility possible.

No. Again, if it HAS happened, then by definition it is NOT impossible.*

If it IS impossible, then by definition it has NOT happened.*

It is meaningless to talk about an impossible event that happened. It may be incredibly unlikely, it may be inexplicable, it may seem impossible to us right now, but if it happened, then it was NOT impossible.*