S
- Status
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I never said outside; thus you argument falls flat.
I never said that the universe is static. I said that if you could view the dimension of time from different dimensions in the universe, relatively speaking, you would not see change, because you would perceive the entirety of time from those other dimensions. There is a difference.
You have not shown this to be case, you are just asserting it. And quite frankly I think it is you that needs to take some classes in logic.
There you go again talking about time and then saying that its not time. You go from talking about relativity to saying that nothing is relative, by saying that objectively there is no change. In reality there is objective change, but this change can only be perceived by a concious being from a relative perspective in the universe. How can the brain create an illusion that there is change when nothing is changing? How is the brain changing? How is that logically possible? A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Simple logic. Change evidently exists, just as much as we evidently exist. your argument is just a confused absurdity that is not supported by scientific discovery. You obviously don’t know what relativity is. What you are speaking about is nothing but a flawed philosophy which attempts to ignore the fact of change at the expense of logic.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
So now your saying potentiality does not exist?
Nobody asked you what happened before the universe. The question is how does the universe exist.
Yes it is contradictory because our existence and observation is caused by the universe, and thus we cannot possibly be the cause of the universe. You have to perceive the already existing universe. So what logical sense does it make to say that the entirety of the universe’s existence, including our own, is contingent upon our observation of it? It makes no logical sense at all. Its absurd.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I do not want weaker thinkers to be brainwashed by such an absurdity, I would not even reply to you, since it is evident that you are not really interested in the truth, but rather your own version of reality; which has nothing to do with science accept for a loose association of words which you don’t appear to understand properly.
Fantasy is good when you got nothing better to do, but please do not confuse it with real logic and science.
You have not told us why we should associate the entirety of the universe with the entirety of existence. As for the universe, I agree that there was no before, but this does not effect my argument; and you have not yet told us why there was no “before” the universe. This statement only makes sense if by that you mean there was no objective “time” before universe. But you are continuously, via a rate of change, typing that there is no time. So what are you talking about? In fact, don’t answer that, since you are obviously acting as an apologist for some ridiculous theory that supports you disbelief, and you will keep alluding me until I can’t be bothered to answer back. You know what; type what you like but don’t expect an answer.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-thought-we-knew.html?pagewanted=1
for the love of my stuffed bear, read the article.
for the love of my stuffed bear, read the article.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
Because it does. im not being snarky. i mean it literally. universal time does not exist. Relative time is like a filing cabinet. you can open a drawer and take out a single file (our view of what is happening now) and read it, but all the other files also exist while you are reading that specific file. The universe did not just suddenly appear. It has always been. NOTHING HAPPENED BEFORE TIME. there was no void. there was no blackness there was no potentiality. there was literally nothing before the universe. the universe has ALWAYS been.
Untill you can grasp the difference between semantics and trying to express an idea that the english language is not built to express, then you have absolutely no hope of understanding the concept, thus you will not put forth an argument that makes any sense whatsoever.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
More assertions hiding behind the boastful pretence of intelligence. You argument contradicts self-evident reality. End of story.
S
Soulewolf
Guest
exactly. This reality you call self evident DOES NOT EXIST! Relativity PROVES it. what you are experiencing now is not the whole of reality but merely a sliver of the whole of objective reality which you apparently cannot grasp the concept of.
in case you diddnt get it the first 2 times
nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-thought-we-knew.html?pagewanted=1
Read the article >.<
J
JDaniel
Guest
Interesting article. Also interesting is that it describes “time” as it relates to God - perhaps the way God perceives it. It further describes the mechanism by which a First Efficient Cause, or, Prime Mover, would work. It may well be another discovery of another aspect of God, or, another attribute of God. In fact, it appears that it proves the Proofs!
As far as Man is concerned, though, we perceive time the way we perceive time, as the measure of local motion of all kinds. For the feeble brains of feeble men, we are stuck with our distant analogies, our imperfect definitions, and our poor understandings of things.
Good job! God bless,
jd
S
Soulewolf
Guest
Exactally! Objective time does not exist. Relative time as a dimension does. Physics is just another aspect of the divine through which we can learn more about him and Divine Nature.
Though i diddnt quite catch the description of the “first efficient cause”. can you quote it?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Soulewolf:
I used this in a previous post and took it from the internet translation of St. Thomas’ Summa Teologica, found with the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. We can get into it further, but, suffice to say, the so-called causal chain is not that same as a causal chain as we understand from the fact of local motion. This more properly defines motions such as coming-to-be.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
God bless,
jd
4
4Horsemen
Guest
For anyone who is interested, read the article below, which is a short 3-page thesis, about the space-time continuum written without mathematics for the purpose of visualizing the concept. Despite lacking scientific background, I thought it interesting (although I’ll have to re-read it), paticularly how the author spoke of a ball of yarn gradually increasing in size being the best analogy of an object in space-time. I found the last page surprising in that the author considers a possible future in time travel. (Coordinates were mapped out in page 2). Time portals could already be in place. It reminds me of the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis. He mention Dune by Frank Herbert.
This may be the stuff of science fiction movies, but, nonetheless, it’s of some interest, even for a person with little scientific background.
west.net/~ke6jqp/spacetime/spacetime3.html
(Welcome back jd)
This may be the stuff of science fiction movies, but, nonetheless, it’s of some interest, even for a person with little scientific background.
west.net/~ke6jqp/spacetime/spacetime3.html
(Welcome back jd)
S
Soulewolf
Guest
i dunno. This is all well and good for relative time WITHIN the universe, but this kind of logic does not exist outside of the universe or “before” the universe existed. That is in “nothing” there is no such thing as cause and effect which means that (1) its not possible for the universe to have had a cause outside of itself or (2) the universe had no cause and always existed.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Actually, no. This in no way implies relativity WITHIN a universe. It refers to a causal sequence that is instantaneous. It can be likened to turning-on a television set. Notwithstanding that the monitor might need a moment to “warm up,” the electronic parts do their thing instantly. At the speed of electricity, at least - which, for us, seems instantaneous.
The causal activity of, for example, coming-to-be occurs in a mere moment, as though picture cards are stacked atop one another. God is not immersed in time. For God his entire activity occurs in an ultra-fast Now. Much like the time of Relativity.
God bless,
jd
S
Soulewolf
Guest
I dunno if we are saying the same thing or not. just in case we arent, i’ll say that im not saying that there is any implication for relativity. I’m using relativity as a premise because we already know that time is relative inside the universe through which it would appear that there is such a thing as causality.
Through the idea of objective time (which is non existant, and can also be known as how god views the universe) it logically follows that if the universe exists everything that has happened is happening and will happen already exists which logically follows because of relativity. This means that god doesnt view everything “ultra fast”, he views everything at once. past present and future in the same instance. That is, all points in “time” are parallel to each other in the objective universe… The universe is a static entity. It doesn’t change.
outside the universe, the rules of relative causality do not apply. there is no time period for a cause to occur and an effect to take place. That is, within literal “nothing” something already exists and has always existed, or nothing exists and will continue to not exist. Because the universe “exists”, that logically implies that it has always existed.
all this is kinda ironic for two distinct reasons
1 The universe has always existed
1a God has always existed
2 The universe has no objective time, thus all things within relative time happen parallel to each other. Objectively the universe is static
2a God is omnipresent
2b God never changes.
lol >_> personally i think science and religion are ultimately saying the same thing in a different language.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
What you are talking about here is nothing more than some philosophical sophistry pretending to be science. The real theory of relativity does not teach us that change is an illusion. Your argument in fact contradicts the science of relativity and even theories such as evolution since these theories unavoidably involve the principle of change.
How we perceive time is relative to ones motion.
- Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
- Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer’s
“stationary” clock. - Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
- Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
- Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line can travel faster than light.
- Status