The beginning of time was a real point in time: proof!

[Burzum fan]

If time goes back forever, it never would've gotten to the present.

Proof by contradiction: Assume that time had no beginning. Imagine all of time as a countable set of days, and map this set onto the set of all integers. For time to have made it to the present (or any other point in time) would be like counting your way up the set of all negative integers until you got to 0: impossible.

Just as to count numbers requires you to start on a specific number and go from there, time’s progress must have started at a specific point.

P.S. Let's keep this unscientific and purely metaphysical.

[Smaug]

Our "Space" was created during the Big Bang, but we are not so sure about time, even though it is more probable that time was already here, mainly if you are a follower of P-brane and Multiverse theories.

[Edelmann]

That's going to require some elaboration.

[Methmatician]

Time began with the Big Bang.

[Burzum fan]

Our "Space" was created during the Big Bang, but we are not so sure about time, even though it is more probable that time was already here, mainly if you are a follower of P-brane and Multiverse theories.

This isn't a scientific argument, it's purely metaphysical. The point was that it's inconceivable that time had no beginning.


That's going to require some elaboration.

I'll edit the OP.

[Burzum fan]

Time began with the Big Bang.

Maybe, but the let's pretend we live in a world without science. What could even a (smart and curious) man raised by wolves have figured out about time on his own?

Let's do some old school philosophy.

[Burzum fan]

Time began with the Big Bang.

By the way, if you believe that time itself began, where did it come from? Usually atheists seem to think time itself predates the (traceable) universe, which began with the big bang.

[Stefan]

There is the concept of Eternal return, which would fit fine in an infinite temporal universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Your argument is similar to the infinitesimal argument in Calculus, in which you'll never reach an endpoint if you keep cutting the distance moved in half. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes)

Of course, causality would contradict such an infinite series, which I think is a better argument against an infinite temporal universe.

Remember, in Calculus an infinite series can converge finitely.

[Burzum fan]

There is the concept of Eternal return, which would fit fine in an infinite temporal universe.

The problem of infinite regress remains.


Your argument is similar to the infinitesimal argument in Calculus, in which you'll never reach an endpoint if you keep cutting the distance moved in half. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes)

How so?


Of course, causality would contradict such an infinite series, which I think is a better argument against an infinite temporal universe.

Each moment in time is contingent on the previous moment having just passed, so time itself is a chain of cause and effect, even if there are no events.

[Illancha]

You are assuming in your argument that time does in fact exist and is not merely a byproduct of man's perception of the universe.

[Burzum fan]

You are assuming in your argument that time does in fact exist and is not merely a byproduct of man's perception of the universe.

Perception is a process and therefore requires time. If you're going to argue against time's existence, you'll therefore have to refrain from the use of all verbs.

[Stefan]

How so?



They're both infinite processes.


Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the late 19th century. The epsilon-delta version of Weierstrass and Cauchy developed a rigorous formulation of the logic and calculus involved. These works resolved the mathematics involving infinite processes.[31]
While mathematics can be used to calculate where and when the moving Achilles will overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Brown and Moorcroft[4][5] claim that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every issue the paradoxes raise.
Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must itself be infinite–with the result that not only the time, but also the distance to be travelled, become infinite.[citation needed] However, none of the original ancient sources has Zeno discussing the sum of any infinite series. Simplicius has Zeno saying "it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of things in a finite time". This presents Zeno's problem not with finding the sum, but rather with finishing a task with an infinite number of steps: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of (non-instantaneous) events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the beginning of a "last event"?[4][5][6][32]
Today there is still a debate on the question of whether or not Zeno's paradoxes have been resolved. In The History of Mathematics, Burton writes, "Although Zeno's argument confounded his contemporaries, a satisfactory explanation incorporates a now-familiar idea, the notion of a 'convergent infinite series.'"[33] Bertrand Russell offered a "solution" to the paradoxes based on modern physics,[citation needed] but Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion, because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."[4]

[Don Arb]

What's wrong with the theory that time started with big beng? even Hawking in his book 'a brief history of time' support this theory.

[Burzum fan]

What's wrong with the theory that time started with big beng? even Hawking in his book 'a brief history of time' support this theory.

Nothing, but this is an exercise in metaphysical thinking. Of course we can also see if the logical conclusions we reach through metaphysical arguments fit with scientific evidence. If they don't, we know someone's screwing up. Luckily my arguments do happen to fit the Big Bang theory.

[Svipdag]

You are assuming in your argument that time does in fact exist and is not merely a byproduct of man's perception of the universe.

Kant described time as a "mode of perception" and, IMO rightly so. The following paradox militates against the existence of time as a Ding an sich.
Take the shortest interval of time you can imagine , say 10^-100 second.
Whatever happened just 10^-100 sec ago is already in the past; it's over and done with.

Whatever is about to happen 10^-100 second from now HASN'T happened yet. It is still in the future. The present is only the interval between 10^-100 second ago and 10^-100 second from now or 2 X 10^-100 seconds. But, if we had chosen an even smaller unit of time, say 10^-1000000 second, the duration of the present would be only 2 X 10^-1000000 second. Clearly, then, the actual duration of the present would be ZERO.

THE PRESENT DOES NOT EXIST ! However, if the present does not exist,
WHEN DOES ANYTHING HAPPEN ? What is the time in which I, e.g., can DO anything ? I can't do anything before it happens and I can't do anything after it has happened, and, in fact there being no time in which for it to do so, it can't happen at all.

If the present time doesn't exist and nothing can happen, surely we are justified in assering that TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Perhaps it is just a strategem which we have invented in order to organise and make sense of
our experience.


"Chronon te genesthai eikona tou aidiou" - Plato
"Time was created as an image of eternity"

[Methmatician]

What could even a (smart and curious) man raised by wolves have figured out about time on his own?

He would probably figure out that there was a pattern in his day concerning the distance between certain things that he would call 'time'. He would notice that the sun sets at a certain time (but varies) and it takes a certain amount of 'time' to cook chicken, etc. I don't know what else to say, I can't remember when I first learnt of 'time' so I can't really put myself in this persons mind.

[Methmatician]

By the way, if you believe that time itself began, where did it come from? Usually atheists seem to think time itself predates the (traceable) universe, which began with the big bang.

It didn't come from anywhere. It began with the big bang. There was nothing before the big bang, no particles, no time, no mass, not energy. What brought on the big bang (from what I was taught in school) were certain subatomic particles that could appear and disappear rapidly at any random time. This is where 'something can come from nothing'.

[Svipdag]

Perception is a process and therefore requires time. If you're going to argue against time's existence, you'll therefore have to refrain from the use of all verbs.

Then, how do you avoid the paradox that the duration of the present is ZERO ? That is my point: that assuming the reality of time leads us into an irresolvable paradox.


"INTELLEGO VT CREDAM" - ?

[Smaug]

How so?



Take a jumping ball as an example. If it loses 50% of its energy everytime it jumps, it will jump each time less an less, but will never stop jumping, even if the jump becomes imperceptible.

http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/10757/result_h.gif

But this is a quantum mechanics problem. It doesn't apply to a macro-system, so don't worry about that, this is just to you to visualize what Stefan said.

[arcticwolf]

It didn't come from anywhere. It began with the big bang. There was nothing before the big bang, no particles, no time, no mass, not energy. What brought on the big bang (from what I was taught in school) were certain subatomic particles that could appear and disappear rapidly at any random time. This is where 'something can come from nothing'.

How do you know there was nothing? Where is the proof of that? ;)

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

I think time is a concept of human mind to calculate relation between speed and distance for practical reasons because undivided duration makes it impossible for us to process anything.I don't think time exists outside of human mind. Animals and other beings do not need it.

[Stefan]

He did ask for a philosophical/meta-physical explanation that doesn't involve cosmology(which I consider more a philosophy than a science in some areas) so I didn't reveal my thoughts on time, but they generally align with the concept of "arrow of time" and entropy. The system which we call the universe goes from a lower entropic state to a higher entropic state on a macro-scale. It is our perception of the change in entropy which we measure time by. In local-systems with an addition of work, we can even analyze the reverse situation: higher entropy to lower entropy, yet this still gives us a perception of time. Therefore, it is the analysis of change (which we developed analytically as calculus) that defines time, and our brains just do these algorithms intuitively, giving us a measuring device for change, most notably that of the entropy of a system or subsystem.

[Smaug]

Kant described time as a "mode of perception" and, IMO rightly so. The following paradox militates against the existence of time as a Ding an sich.
Take the shortest interval of time you can imagine , say 10^-100 second.
Whatever happened just 10^-100 sec ago is already in the past; it's over and done with.

Whatever is about to happen 10^-100 second from now HASN'T happened yet. It is still in the future. The present is only the interval between 10^-100 second ago and 10^-100 second from now or 2 X 10^-100 seconds. But, if we had chosen an even smaller unit of time, say 10^-1000000 second, the duration of the present would be only 2 X 10^-1000000 second. Clearly, then, the actual duration of the present would be ZERO.

THE PRESENT DOES NOT EXIST ! However, if the present does not exist,
WHEN DOES ANYTHING HAPPEN ? What is the time in which I, e.g., can DO anything ? I can't do anything before it happens and I can't do anything after it has happened, and, in fact there being no time in which for it to do so, it can't happen at all.

If the present time doesn't exist and nothing can happen, surely we are justified in assering that TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Perhaps it is just a strategem which we have invented in order to organise and make sense of
our experience.


"Chronon te genesthai eikona tou aidiou" - Plato
"Time was created as an image of eternity"

Maybe time last only a tP (Plank Unity of Time), the smallest unity of time, that in seconds is something about 5.39106(32) × 10−44 s. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length (1.616199(97)×10−35 m).

[Stefan]

vLACGFhDOp0

[Methmatician]

How do you know there was nothing? Where is the proof of that? ;)

I'm not a physicist so I can't go into detail. But astrophysics is almost all theory thought :D Physicists can trace things back to the big bang because it leaves and 'echo'. And since there isn't anything pre-dating the big bang, all we can say is that nothing existed before it. There's also another theory that says time and space began after the big bang in this universe, but in other universes (another theory: multiple universes) there was a 'big bang' at a different time. It's very complicated for me to understand not being a physicist and even harder to explain.

[Smaug]

I'm not a physicist so I can't go into detail. But astrophysics is almost all theory thought :D Physicists can trace things back to the big bang because it leaves and 'echo'. And since there isn't anything pre-dating the big bang, all we can say is that nothing existed before it. There's also another theory that says time and space began after the big bang in this universe, but in other universes (another theory: multiple universes) there was a 'big bang' at a different time. It's very complicated for me to understand not being a physicist and even harder to explain.

Big Bang only explains the origins of our universe, but nowadays most of physicists believe in the Membrane and in the Multiverse theory. Some even try to determine the shape our universe, closed on itself. So time predates the existance of our universe at least it seems.

[Burzum fan]

It didn't come from anywhere. It began with the big bang. There was nothing before the big bang, no particles, no time, no mass, not energy. What brought on the big bang (from what I was taught in school) were certain subatomic particles that could appear and disappear rapidly at any random time. This is where 'something can come from nothing'.

Something can't come from nothing. And yes I know there was "nothing before the big bang, no particles, [...]" but but the universe couldn't have started itself. So clearly there was at least a primordial source of creation.


Then, how do you avoid the paradox that the duration of the present is ZERO ? That is my point: that assuming the reality of time leads us into an irresolvable paradox.

Past, present and future are relative, like bigger, same size, and smaller. But the continuum of earlier and later is time.

[Burzum fan]

Big Bang only explains the origins of our universe, but nowadays most of physicists believe in the Membrane and in the Multiverse theory. Some even try to determine the shape our universe, closed on itself. So time predates the existance of our universe at least it seems.

That depends how you define "our universe" but existence itself clearly started at the beginning of time, if that thought has any relevance.

[Methmatician]

Something can't come from nothing.

Yes it can.

[Smaug]

That depends how you define "our universe" but existence itself clearly started at the beginning of time, if that thought has any relevance.

Now we are leaving physics behind and getting into something more philosofical. "Existence started" you said. What was before "existence"? What was before the Universe? What was before the Universes? Can we call it "before"? After all, it simply didn't exist...

[Smaug]

Yes it can.

Only in quantum mechanics problems, in subatomic scale.

[Burzum fan]

Now we are leaving physics behind and getting into something more philosofical. "Existence started" you said. What was before "existence"? What was before the Universe? What was before the Universes? Can we call it "before"? After all, it simply didn't exist...

Time depends on existence, since time can't pass without a world in which to pass. So time and existence are inseparable. Therefore, by definition, "before existence" is an oxymoron as is "before the beginning of time".

So to solve the problem of "where" time came from, we need a First Cause. Logic (as I've demonstrated) dictates that all existence can be traced back to a singular moment of creation. It must be a pure creative force, since it predates all creation.

[Burzum fan]

You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: Assume that time had no beginning. Imagine all of time as a countable set of days, and map this set onto the set of all integers. For time to have made it to the present (or any other point in time) would be like counting your way up the set of all negative integers until you got to 0: impossible.

Just as to count numbers requires you to start on a specific number and go from there, time’s progress must have started at a specific point.
You: hi
Stranger: hi
Stranger: one moment, gotta read
Stranger: interesting
Stranger: but im kinda a little too drunk to get that, im sorry
You: lol its ok
Stranger: but what does it mean
Stranger: ah alright
You: it means that time can't go backwards forever
Stranger: i think i get it now
Stranger: yeah that seems true
You: there was a beginning of time
Stranger: true also, in my opinion
Stranger: could be the big bang?
You: could be
You: but even without science, it's possible to figure out that time must have had a start
Stranger: well i got this theory that the big bang was the beginning of time and as the universe expands time always moves forward, and when it reaches a certain point it will retract
Stranger: from wich point time maaaay move backwards
Stranger: until it reaches the 'point 0' or something
Stranger: but thats.. highly theoretical
You: I don't think time can go backwards
Stranger: not right now
Stranger: but just think about it as energys going in one direction and if the main source of energy starts to go in a different direction
Stranger: could that not mean that all other forms of energy reverses its direction
You: to say that anything is going anywhere (like "time going backward") implies that time is going forward
Stranger: so all that happened would happen in reverse?
You: even if everything that happened started happening in reverse, time would still be going forward
Stranger: thats true yes
Stranger: by the definition of time
Stranger: but lets say the point where the everything happens in reverse is ... i.e. 1000
Stranger: then from a perspective of time 1001 would equal the exact state of 999
Stranger: and 1002 = 998
You: yea
Stranger: if we countinue this we cooould argue
Stranger: that we can not know for sure whether we went from 1000 to 2000 or backwards from 1000 to 0
Stranger: as there is no way of telling except for clocks but they would work in reverse too, in this, again, hiighly theoretical approach
You: if that happened we wouldn't know anything about the events that reversed
Stranger: true
You: because our learning would be reversed
Stranger: yeah
Stranger: and if someone would look at it from the outside then he would of course assume time is still moving forward
Stranger: so in the end we really cant know since if we DO know, its still moving forward
You: exactly
Stranger: wow thats interesting and to be honest im just making this up as i go i have not thought about that before
You: so you think time had a beginning now?
Stranger: well ive thought about time a lot but this is new
Stranger: weeell it should have
Stranger: but the question remains
Stranger: if it had a beginning
Stranger: what was before that?
You: I have an idea
Stranger: tell me
You: nothing ever happened before time of course, since "before time" is a contradiction
Stranger: true
You: but time can't have started itself
You: something can't come from nothing
Stranger: yeah
You: so time must come from a source that's independent of time
Stranger: but what is independent of time?
You: nothing in the universe
You: and the universe can't exist without time, since to exist takes time
You: and time can't exist without a universe to pass in
Stranger: so time has to start simultaniously with the existance of the universe?
Stranger: and basically both came out of nothing?
You: the universe has been around since the beginning of time, yes
Stranger: that seems logical
You: and no, something can't come from nothing
You: so they must come from something beyond time and space
Stranger: but where would the universe come from then?
Stranger: please don't say god or something :D
You: ok
Stranger: but you wanted to?
You: no
Stranger: great, then what is beyond time and space
You: well it's not a "thing"
You: all I can imagine it to be is...the source of the universe
Stranger: all i can think of is now a random event which just happened for no reason
You: if it's beyond space and time, it has no body, no origins
Stranger: starting time and the universe so naturally i would assume thats the big bang - but that should have some form of origin?
You: something can't come from nothing
Stranger: yeah so the big bang must have something that triggered it, whatever it might have been
Stranger: and that ie could be the something beyound time and space you think?
You: it must be
Stranger: and what would that be?
You: the source of space and time
Stranger: yeah but source implies that there is something, right?
You: not a "thing" made of matter
You: just a power
You: if it's beyond space and time, it doesn't have to make sense like something in the universe
You: it just has to BE and DO
Stranger: but would you not say that all that is is bound to space and all that does is bound to time?
You: within the universe, yes
Stranger: yeah but even outside if that power does anything there should be a point where that power started doing something
Stranger: so there is a progress in time from starting to do to finish doing something
You: but this is like the one independent variable of cause and effect
You: if it's independent of time, it doesn't need time for anything
Stranger: so it can do something without physically doing anything or consuming any amount of time?
Stranger: that does not seem very logical to me as a student of mathematics and physics
You: if time and space came from it, it must be able to do anything without taking time or physically doing anything
Stranger: but what if it has not
Stranger: i just made up a different theory
Stranger: lets assume again that the big bang is point 0 and we are at 1000
Stranger: and 'time' starts going backwards from a non existing outsider point of view
Stranger: back to zero
Stranger: now the energy produced by going back from 1000 to 0 is enough to move it furhter back from 0 to -1000 at wich point all energy is lost
Stranger: and we start moving forward to the no energy - no time - point 0
Stranger: and if we reach that one we have gained enough energy to move forward in time again from 0 to 1000 - as energy is always existent and does not fade away or anything
Stranger: so if that were true
Stranger: you could argue that there really is no absolute zero but just a long long period of time which moves forward and backwards in cycles
Stranger: going from beyond the big bang to whenever the universe stops to grow and goes backwards
Stranger: it would basically be a neverending loop
You: you still get the problem of infinite regress
Stranger: ß
Stranger: ß
Stranger: ?
You: let me explain
Stranger: go ahead
You: so you've got the countable set of all times that the world goes through that loop
You: map that set onto the set of all integers with this time being time 0
Stranger: yeah
You: for the world to have gone through that loop all the previous times to get to the present is like...counting your way up through the set of all negative integers to 0
Stranger: that would be the case if you would assume that you had to count upwards
Stranger: but thats not even possible
Stranger: if we are 0 than the beginning would be at -∞
Stranger: meaning that it really has no beginning
Stranger: and no end either
Stranger: take a ring and map our time right now at the top
Stranger: you cant really find a beginning now
Stranger: you can go backwards on the surface of the ring until you reach the opposite point
Stranger: and further backwards until you reach this point again
Stranger: but you cant really find a beginning or and and
Stranger: *end
You: but...
You: you go through the loop again and again right
Stranger: yeah
You: if you were to watch from the outside, you could start counting 1, 2, 3...
Stranger: yeah but there is nothing on the outside so that really does not matter
You: yes it does matter
You: the point is that time is still moving forward
Stranger: because every point 0 could be the definite 0 of an outside perspective
You: your idea of a loop is just to confuse the perspective of anyone inside it
Stranger: but you cant be outside, thats the point
Stranger: i dont think anything can be outside of time and space
Stranger: and in my therory nothing has to be
You: of course no one can perceive all of time
You: but the fact remains, if time has been going on forever, it never would've gotten anywhere
You: whether events (not time itself) go in loops or not
You: for eternity to have passed to get to the present, is like someone counting up to 0 through the set of all negative integers: impossible
Stranger: yeah it does not get anywhere
Stranger: yeah but even if it is impossible to count through the set of all negative integers
Stranger: there still is a set of all negative integers
Stranger: you cant deny that.
Stranger: and so there just is an infinite amount of time that passed from an outsider perspective
You: here's the difference...
Stranger: i like my theory. im gonna stick with that, sorry :D im drunk, i just came up with it and now it makes total sense to me
You: the set of all negative integers is just a static set that always was and always will be, while time is a process
Stranger: and i think im gonna ask my prof after the holidays what he thinks about it but now im gonna go watch tv and drink some more :D
You: ok, but im just sayin to turn the set of negative integers into a process like time...
You: you have to think of counting them
Stranger: you cant
You: one after the other, like how time passes
You: exactly, you can't
Stranger: and time is not a process here anymore
You: like how time can't have been going on forever
Stranger: its just a rubber band contracting and expanding for all eternity or something
Stranger: well it has
You: you're confusing events with time
Stranger: because you could always ask "what was before that"
Stranger: and something had to be
Stranger: nah, i'm happy, im done
Stranger: if you come up with a better theory you can email me at [edit] (not kidding, real address)
You: lol, tell me your asl stranger
You: just curious
Stranger: but i gotta go watch some tv now ;)
Stranger: 21/m/german
Stranger: you?
You: 19 m canada
Stranger: feel free to mail me though, you got some interesting thoughts ;)
Stranger: but too much right now, again: i'm kinda drunk
You: ok maybe when your mind becomes more clear, so will my brilliant logic
You: bye
Stranger: bye

[Illancha]

Stranger: please don't say god or something :D
If that is not God then I don't know what is or can be.
By definition the true nature of God cannot be perceived by humans, there is nothing like God nor will there ever be in our universe as that would make the creator a part of his own creation which cannot happen.
God is an external 'nothing' and I say that because since I declared there is nothing like God in our universe then he cannot be a perceivable entity as that would make him 'something'.
We can only ever know what God is not rather than what God is.
Personally when I start to think about such matters I have been able to draw many comparisons between God and what we call 'energy'. That is not to say I believe God is energy nor to refute the claim, it's just an exercise of the mind.

[Svipdag]

What does ? Eternity, endless being. Our sensory organs are not equipped to observe eternity nor are our minds able to comprehend it. If I may use a mechanical/optical analogy, perhaps it is as if we observe reality through a narrow moving slit. As aspects of reality become perceptible through the slit and we become aware of them, we say that they "happen".

In eternity, they have always been there waiting to be observed and will always be there after we have ceased observing them. There are difficulties with this explanation. It implies predestination and it denies causality. However, it is the only explanation which I have been able to arrive at by decades of thought and reflection to account for the illusion of the "present" which, in reality, can have no duration.

IF time is just a device which we use to organise our experience, then verbs, Zeitworten in German, "time words", are conventions which we use in decribing our experience and behavior. They imply the existence of time because they must: that is the way we think. We are forced to use the concept of time even though it involves the time paradox which I discussed previously.

However, all we really know is the conceptual model which we have constructed from limited sensory experiences and thought. We can and do know NOTHING of the reality which exists outside our skins. That is the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and we cannot know it. All of our aids to perception from magnifying glasses to electron microscopes and radio telescopes serve only to refine that conceptual model. THAT is our reality.
To understand our perceptions, we have had to invent time.

That it is not real is proven by the paradox that the present, when everything happens, cannot exist.


"NIHIL SINE RATIONE FACIENDVM EST" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

[Burzum fan]

If that is not God then I don't know what is or can be.
By definition the true nature of God cannot be perceived by humans, there is nothing like God nor will there ever be in our universe as that would make the creator a part of his own creation which cannot happen.
God is an external 'nothing' and I say that because since I declared there is nothing like God in our universe then he cannot be a perceivable entity as that would make him 'something'.
We can only ever know what God is not rather than what God is.
Personally when I start to think about such matters I have been able to draw many comparisons between God and what we call 'energy'. That is not to say I believe God is energy nor to refute the claim, it's just an exercise of the mind.

Of course the Creator, being beyond time, by definition can't be created or destroyed, just like energy (within the laws of the universe) so I see the parallel there. However, if energy is defined as something which acts upon matter, then I'd say that's not what God is. God is the source of both matter and energy. I say that because I've determined that matter and energy must have a source, and I'll call that source God.

I'd say we're talking about a pure creative power, the uncreated Creator. I used to think monotheism was an unappealing idea, but now I'm seeing the beauty in its logic.

It's interesting to see I'm agreeing with a muslim on matters of God.

[Insuperable]

I think time is a concept of human mind to calculate relation between speed and distance for practical reasons because undivided duration makes it impossible for us to process anything.I don't think time exists outside of human mind. Animals and other beings do not need it.

Time is a concept which is very much real. Any scientists out there will tell you that (especially if we discover one day that time is quantized). Space exists so does time.

[Smaug]

What does ? Eternity, endless being. Our sensory organs are not equipped to observe eternity nor are our minds able to comprehend it. If I may use a mechanical/optical analogy, perhaps it is as if we observe reality through a narrow moving slit. As aspects of reality become perceptible through the slit and we become aware of them, we say that they "happen".

In eternity, they have always been there waiting to be observed and will always be there after we have ceased observing them. There are difficulties with this explanation. It implies predestination and it denies causality. However, it is the only explanation which I have been able to arrive at by decades of thought and reflection to account for the illusion of the "present" which, in reality, can have no duration.

IF time is just a device which we use to organise our experience, then verbs, Zeitworten in German, "time words", are conventions which we use in decribing our experience and behavior. They imply the existence of time because they must: that is the way we think. We are forced to use the concept of time even though it involves the time paradox which I discussed previously.

However, all we really know is the conceptual model which we have constructed from limited sensory experiences and thought. We can and do know NOTHING of the reality which exists outside our skins. That is the Ding an sich, the thing in itself, and we cannot know it. All of our aids to perception from magnifying glasses to electron microscopes and radio telescopes serve only to refine that conceptual model. THAT is our reality.
To understand our perceptions, we have had to invent time.

That it is not real is proven by the paradox that the present, when everything happens, cannot exist.


"NIHIL SINE RATIONE FACIENDVM EST" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

Very interesting, but in my conception, "present" exists, but on the contrary of majority beliefs, it is not a "period of time" that can be measured, but rather a transition. It's when Future becomes past, instantly.

It's like New Year. When on Dec 31 your watch changes from 23:59 PM to 00:00 AM, it will instantly change 2012 to 2013. There's not a period between the years, it just instantly changes. That's present.

[Illancha]

God is the source of both matter and energy. I say that because I've determined that matter and energy must have a source, and I'll call that source God.
Once again I'm going to say I'm not claiming this is the truth it's just pure speculation, but let us assume for now that God is in fact energy. If that is the case then the whole of creation becomes an intuitive result through E=mc^2.
In order to do anything (in our universe) there must be energy. Given that one possesses a large enough amount of energy (infinite) and the ability to harness it at will then it must be possible to achieve anything and everything that ever was and will be in our universe.


It's interesting to see I'm agreeing with a muslim on matters of God.
You see the thing is if any religion claims to be true then there must be no contradictions between its teachings and the laws that govern the universe as they are both the creation of God and God's creation cannot contradict itself.
I consider myself both a scientist and a Muslim and I have a lot more to talk about. The greatest problem facing religion, and I know this is certainly true of Islam, is that the supposed experts and scholars who preach religion to the masses have no understanding of science and the scientists have no understanding of or interest in religion. I genuinely believe that the two are harmonious.
If you are familiar with both it opens up a whole new world and I could go on for ages about this throwing around examples and stuff. Maybe someday I'll sit down and write a book.

[Burzum fan]

In the sense that each moment's coming to pass is contingent upon the previous moment having just come to pass, the passing of time is in itself a chain of cause and effect. No such chain can have an infinite regress.

I think this debate is pretty much settled. :cool:

[Svipdag]

Very interesting, but in my conception, "present" exists, but on the contrary of majority beliefs, it is not a "period of time" that can be measured, but rather a transition. It's when Future becomes past, instantly.

It's like New Year. When on Dec 31 your watch changes from 23:59 PM to 00:00 AM, it will instantly change 2012 to 2013. There's not a period between the years, it just instantly changes. That's present.

That transition has no duration. As you just said, it takes place instantly. However, everything that happens or is done, takes place in the present.
How can anything happen or be done during an instant ?

The paradox remains. I cannot now do something in the past; it's gone by. The future is not here for me to do anything in it. The present, as we have both said, has no duration, so, when do I do anything ? And when does anything I don't do happen ?

I think that we could agree that the present is the dimensionless boundary between future snd past. But, this provides no time for anything to happen or be done.

[Illancha]

Therefore no action requires time to occur in. It follows that time does not exist as its only purpose is to measure the non-existing interval between events.
The implication of this is that I am constantly doing everything I have ever done and will do. Meaning the past, present and future are not seperate things, but it is the only way our limited intellectual capacity can make sense of the universe.
This I believe is what leads to predeterminism.

[Burzum fan]

Things happen within intervals of time, not at points in time. I don't see a paradox with regards to things happening in some non-existent present.

[Smaug]

That transition has no duration. As you just said, it takes place instantly. However, everything that happens or is done, takes place in the present.
How can anything happen or be done during an instant ?

The paradox remains. I cannot now do something in the past; it's gone by. The future is not here for me to do anything in it. The present, as we have both said, has no duration, so, when do I do anything ? And when does anything I don't do happen ?

I think that we could agree that the present is the dimensionless boundary between future snd past. But, this provides no time for anything to happen or be done.

Exactly, that's what I meant: present has no duration, because present is just a transition between future and past.