Time as we know it

[Ghosty]

Thanks but problem is scientifically these things are nothing! spirit is not really physical its mental right? So therefore it needs human conscious to be exercised thus showing that it was nothingness. Im not disproving the Catholic faith, I just find it hard to believe that God existed timelessly, when according to you guys there was never nothing… so in order for time you need space or something… Just doesn’t make sense.

There’s no need to bring spirit into it at all. Dimensions, as in length and breadth, are something. They are measurable, and therefore scientifically “something”. Empty space may have no matter within it, but it is measurable.

Anything that can be analyzed in any way, or can be measured, is “something”.

For example, if there were literally “nothing” between the Sun and Earth, the light from the Sun would arrive here instantly. The space between the Sun and Earth contains no matter, yet the light takes a measure of time to reach Earth (about eight minutes, IIRC). This means that there is something between the Sun and Earth, despite there being nothing physical there; this “something” happens to be the dimensions that make distance, and within this distance exists laws like the speed of light.

So “empty space” is merely empty of matter, but it’s very far from being “nothing”. The fact that it can be described proves that it is not “nothing”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nael]

Dear Mr. Steiner,

The question of whether God was created with the universe has already been answered: God is outside of time. To understand this you must understand what time is. Time is change. Where there is no matter there is no change, therefore there is no time. By the definition of God, He is unchanging. Therefore He is outside of time. I hope I have been helpful. God bless

 

[ProVobis]

My understanding is that current cosmology does not see space as nothing. At the Big Bang, time, matter and space were all created. “Before” the Big Bang there was literally nothing, including no space. (hard to understand, I know, but it is the consensus among cosmologists). The Standard, big bang model of the expansion of the universe describes the creation and expansion of space itself. (which is actually pretty fascinating).

So is the existing space now infinite? Or does it stop at the edge of the Universe which is supposedly finite? Just asking. I don’t know the answer myself.

 

[fhansen]

I have been intensively reading the book ‘A brief history of time’ which explains some scientific knowledge explicitly. But I would love to know according to our faith, what occurred before time? I know this is a big question. My philosophical theory is the following, and I have decided to entangle it with religion a bit.

Steiner’s theory

Space as we know it was a bear hub of blackness before the formation of the Universe. Judging by Scientific knowledge, more than 80% of our known universe is literally nothingness; so as to say can it be denoted that time is really occurring in these obscure parts. Let me unleash this remedy once more; since in some parts there is nothingness, can it be that nothing is happening, and thus time is absent. One must say as to why this doesn’t occur outside our Earth’s atmosphere. Well, because we still have elements close enough to us that are able to affect us. How so? Gravitational pull is still in a massive effect as to when were in Nothingness it is barely credible. Also visibility of stars and of other things near us give us the perception that theres something. But it is still in these dark corners between Galaxies that time, in my opinion, comes to a halt because theres nothing there.

Continuing my theory I could acclaim that there was indeed nothing before God created the Universe. If true then why was there God? In my opinion God was created with time itself. Through the relevance of Science and theology which granted enough power to the creation of this universe. God was made with our universe, not only because we believe, but because before there was nothing…

Please discuss.

Why would you think something can come from nothing? Even the concept of nothingness is meaningless except in relation to something. It makes more sense that something always existed.

 

[yppop]

So is the existing space now infinite? Or does it stop at the edge of the Universe which is supposedly finite? Just asking. I don’t know the answer myself.

Hello Pro,

The paradigmatic scientific theory of creation is the big bang theory: the universe emerged from an infinitesimally small object called the singularity, expanded rapidly (several times the speed of light) during an inflationary period, then settled down to a much slower rate of expansion to form the immense universe we live in today.

The BB theory also implies that not only matter, time, and energy emerged from the singularity but also so did space.

Since the dynamics of the big bang, a small universe getting bigger, argues that the universe is finite. If the universe at one point in time was the size of a pumpkin, it was finite then, so must still be finite because it is impossible to expand to infinite size. And if it is finite, the universe must have a border.

Thus we must ask: in what did the singularity appear if it wasn’t space? And if the “physical” space that emerged from the singularity is the space that gives dimension to our universe, then what is the nature of the border? Surely there must be two kinds of space: the physical space that forms our universe and “ontological” space that is infinite and always existed before and beyond the universe.

Fortunately mathematicians identify two kinds of space: discrete space associated with the rational numbers and continuous space associated with the real numbers. Isn’t it plausible that the border of the universe is formed from the two kinds of space; the physical space being discrete, the ontological space being continuous?

Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hello Pro,

The paradigmatic scientific theory of creation is the big bang theory: the universe emerged from an infinitesimally small object called the singularity,

I would say this is for some naturalists the most difficult thing to accept. The reason being, philosophically speaking, a singularity is not actually an object; it is a point where space time and energy no longer exists. There is no such thing as an infinitesimally small object. Thus if the big-bang is true, in my eyes this would be proof that physical reality began to exist; and that what ever caused it was absolutely non-physical in nature. It seems that perhaps metaphysics and science converge at the singularity.

 

[yppop]

I would say this is for some naturalists the most difficult thing to accept. The reason being, philosophically speaking, a singularity is not actually an object; it is a point where space time and energy no longer exists. There is no such thing as an infinitesimally small object.

Hi MOM
Since an “infinitesimally small object” is the essential starting point (pun intended) for the model of dual reality that I presented in my thread “God exists, but how?”, I am philosophically interested in how you know that “there is no such thing as an infinitesimally small object”. Please, give me your reasons for thinking so.

Although no one knows (or possibly could know) what the exact nature of the singularity that spawned our universe is; there a number of different kinds of singularities described in the literature that are often referred to as “objects”. So, I feel no compulsion to refrain from describing the singularity as an object. In the spirit of philosophical discourse, I hope you allow me that.

Infinitesimal means: “vanishingly small and tending toward a limit of zero” or “too small to measure”. This definition also suits my model, which squeezes 10^137 discrete points into an infinitely small object, a scenario that is mathematically plausible, but with which I build a comprehensive model that coherrently describes the entire path of actualization.

Thus if the big-bang is true, in my eyes this would be proof that physical reality began to exist; and that what ever caused it was absolutely non-physical in nature. It seems that perhaps metaphysics and science converge at the singularity.

I agree 100% and this is the main point I am trying to emphasize “metaphysically” with the model I developed. We are on the same team MOM.

Yppop

 

[lemondiesel]

Space as we know it was a bear hub of blackness before the formation of the Universe

Blackness implies the lack of color. Colors are light, and light did not exist prior to formation, therefore making “blackness” misleading.

more than 80% of our known universe is literally nothingness; so as to say can it be denoted that time is really occurring in these obscure parts

Matter is spaced out in our universe, and in between this matter is empty space. This does not however make it “nothingness.”

Can it be that nothing is happening, and thus time is absent

Well time is based on the interpretor, so if there is none, time would be irrelevant. The only thing passing through the emptiness would be light, but time is already absent for light speed.

Well, because we still have elements close enough to us that are able to affect us. How so? Gravitational pull is still in a massive effect as to when were in Nothingness it is barely credible

That is because mass warps the spacetime continum. And Gravity is a direct result of this, but is involved with density. Therefore the larger mass and density, the greater the gravitational pull.

But it is still in these dark corners between Galaxies that time, in my opinion, comes to a halt because theres nothing there.

Haha what? Time would still exist, it just wouldn’t exist as “Days, Months, Years, etc”

God was made with our universe

God is the universe, and He exists as the Eternal Now.

-John