Timeless existence

[lifegazer]

"You think there's a possibility that all changing-existence had an origin from absolutely-nothing and without any cause?"

Yes, lifegazer, that is my position.

And you call yourself a rational man?

... Firstly you expect the readers of your own personal philosophy to believe that there was once a state of absolute nothingness. Zilch. Jack all. Not just empty space, but zero dimensions of anything (space included), and even a mind.
Then, you expect these readers to believe that suddenly, without any cause or reason, a whole universe of diverse relative-order came into being, by itself, into the preceding nothingness.

And what possible justification might you have for presenting this as a reasonable philosophy?
- That in spacetime, individual particles are known to appear from no apparent source, throughout time.
Yet this is not a justification for holding your irrational viewpoint. For when discussing the origin of existence, we are not discussing the pre-existing state of the spacetime arena in which such material events can occur.
In other words, quantum fluctuations are individual material events which occur in pre-existing spacetime. Whereas the origin of the universe is the sudden mass-introduction of practically all of the matter in the universe, into a spacetime that didn't even exist (absolute nothingness, remember?) before that matter existed.

So, your fluctuations occur individually, within pre-existing spacetime. Whereas the origin of the universe considers the origin of mucho spacetime and mucho matter-stuff, simultaneously.

Hence, not only is your belief irrational (something from nothing and without cause, is irrational); but it is also without basis, since
you found your idea upon individual quantum events within pre-existing spacetime. Yet the idea of existential origin must focus upon a realm of absolute nothingness (in your philosophy) combined with the appearance of countless quanta.
Not the same thing squire.
Double fault.

 

[Flatworm]

"Before time" = before change = whilst unchanging.

You can't do it, can you?

Time is not existence. Rather, time is what is occuring to existence. Existence precedes time = unchanging-existence is before a changing-existence.

How can anything "precede" time? The idea is nonsensical. Of course, since I have already demonstrated that change is not the same as time, let's try replacing the word "time" with "change" and see if your argument makes sense:

Existence precedes change= unchanging existence is before a changing existence.

That is to say, that there was some period of time after the beginning of existence during which there was no change. Then, suddenly, there was change.

Is this what you're getting at?

While this is not logically incoherent in and of itself, it's a far cry from a proof. There is certainly no evidence that our universe must have been this way.

If you want me to take you seriously, you need to come up with serious logic- that means getting rid of ambiguity.

• Define your terms clearly (no circular definitions, please!) and adhere to those definitions.
• Find the best word for what you mean and use it- avoid collections of (often dissimilar) terms strung together with backslashes or hyphens.
• Don't say something is logically impossible or irrational unless you can demonstrate that it is so- ask yourself if the idea necessarily leads to its own contradiction.

I'm sure others can add to this list.

As to my mind being bolted down tight, remember that I am the one who admits the logical possibility of many different ways that the effects we see today could have come into being. You are the one who claims to know the one Truth, and who furthermore dismisses all of physics and formal logic offhand.

 

[Tricky]

Geez guys, look it is obvious what was there before time. Look at evolution for your answers. Before time there were little proto-timeoids floundering around in the primordial chronological soup. These simple sequences could barely grasp the concept of order, much less form complex eras and eons.

But as time didn't pass, they grew wiser and more punctual. They learned complex schedules and subtle things like punchline delivery, until they emerged as the modern time scale you see today. It is a triumph of patience that gives us such marvelous things as "Swatches" and "Easy Payment Plans".

But do not denigrate their humble, timeless beginnings. They rose from poor nanoseconds to great millenia by pulling themselves up by their own mainsprings. They took a licking and kept on ticking.

 

[lifegazer]

"'Before time' = before change = whilst unchanging."

You can't do it, can you?

I just did. Time is the perception that existence is in divisible/relative flux (is changing). Before time, is when existence is absolutely indivisible, hence not in perceived flux.
What's so difficult to understand about that?

"Time is not existence. Rather, time is what is occuring to existence. Existence precedes time = unchanging-existence is before a changing-existence."

How can anything "precede" time? The idea is nonsensical.

Time is what happens to existence. So, before time refers to existence when this occurance (time/change/flux/divisibility) wasn't happening. Simple and rational.

My argument is that before time, there was timeless existence.
Time = (relative) change = divisibility.
Therefore, timelessness = absolutely-whole = indivisible existence.

An indivisible existence is God.

 

[lifegazer]

Lead me...in the phrase 'Hence, those that argue that "It is silly to ask what came before time", are incorrect.', what precisely is meant by the word "before"?

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

 

[Upchurch]

And you call yourself a rational man?

Sometimes. More often I call myself **** Upchurch, but that's not important right now.

... Firstly you expect the readers of your own personal philosophy to believe that there was once a state of absolute nothingness. Zilch. Jack all. Not just empty space, but zero dimensions of anything (space included), and even a mind.

But that's not my own personal philosophy. It's the generally accepted scientific theory based on observation and logic. The same scientific theory, I might add, that you say your philosophy (which I'll point out is your "own personal" as you are the only one that holds it) is in complete agreement with.

Then, you expect these readers to believe that suddenly, without any cause or reason, a whole universe of diverse relative-order came into being, by itself, into the preceding nothingness.

Sure. The phenomenon of quantum fluctuation is well demonstrated in nature. Cosmic Inflation is a tad less backed as a theory, but it fits the facts.

Actually, I'd have to take issue with the term "suddenly". "Suddenly" is a time based term and really isn't clear in the boundry situation that we're discussing, but I'm fine using it in the vernacular.

And what possible justification might you have for presenting this as a reasonable philosophy?

It fits with observed phenomenon, as explained above. To say that it is unreasonable is to suggest that observation is unreasonable. That wouldn't bode well for your philosophy which attempts to describe an alternate theory for the source of those unreasonable observations, would it?

- That in spacetime, individual particles are known to appear from no apparent source, throughout time.

Again, happens all the time. We see it in the form of Hawking Radiation which has been detected from here on Earth.

Yet this is not a justification for holding your irrational viewpoint. For when discussing the origin of existence, we are not discussing the pre-existing state of the spacetime arena in which such material events can occur.

I'm not sure what irrational viewpoint you are referring to. My original question was about the possibility that the "first change" (i.e. the beginning of time) was from non-existance to existance. This is supported by observed phenomena and backed by logic. I fail to see how it is "irrational" in regards that it is "without reason".

In other words, quantum fluctuations are individual material events which occur in pre-existing spacetime.

Ah. No. Perhaps this is where you are confused. Quantum flucutuations occur co-existant with spacetime, not pre-existant. Now it is entirely possible that there "were" other spacetimes "prior" to our own. (English is such a poor language to talk about these things.) But those other spacetimes go away with the mutual anilation of the particle pair.

Whereas the origin of the universe is the sudden mass-introduction of practically all of the matter in the universe, into a spacetime that didn't even exist (absolute nothingness, remember?) before that matter existed.

No. You don't understand. Matter/energy and spacetime are interdependent. There is no such thing as one without the other. Their origins absolutely coincide. One cannot proceed the other.

It's a tough idea. People have been struggling with it for less than a century and people who are unfamiliar with the nuances, like yourself, struggle all the more.

So, your fluctuations occur individually, within pre-existing spacetime.

No. Within a co-originating spacetime.

Whereas the origin of the universe considers the origin of mucho spacetime and mucho matter-stuff, simultaneously.

Mucho compared to what exactly?

Hence, not only is your belief irrational (something from nothing and without cause, is irrational); but it is also without basis, since you found your idea upon individual quantum events within pre-existing spacetime.

This has been your strongest argument so far. Congratulations.

I've made no secret that Quantum Mechanics is probably the most frustrating subject in physics for me. I don't understand probably 90% of it. So, in that respect, I do take a lot of what I've read on the subject on faith.

Not a blind faith, however. I know that the people that I read have gone through the same peer review process that all scientific work must go through. If the results are generally accepted, that means it has been verified on many levels by people who are much smarter than I am. It also means that if I truly applied myself (which, for me, would require giving up my current life and devoting years to study), I could verify those results personally. As I happen to like my life as it is, I'm going to take the lazy route and accept what has gone through the process.

So, how do they extrapolate a phenomenon that occurs in a already-existing spacetime (note the correct use of chronological terms) to a non-existing spacetime set? I have no idea. Someone does, though. I might have to take the time to research that someday.

We do know that acausal events occur, disproving the notion that there must be a cause for everything. You, yourself, admit to something (God) being acausal. You just use circular reasoning to justify it. i.e. God doesn't have a cause because God is, by definition, without cause. The scientific theory, at least, uses phenomena that we know and can prove exists and doesn't rely on magical entities of whom we have no evidence.

Yet the idea of existential origin must focus upon a realm of absolute nothingness (in your philosophy) combined with the appearance of countless quanta.

But you haven't discounted it as a possibility. You simply refuse to consider it. So what? How do you know that the first change wasn't from non-existance to existance? You still haven't answered that question.

If you can, just answer it so we don't have to go into "Upchurch's other question".

 

[Upchurch]

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

Actually, time isn't just change. It is a physical axis of spacetime. Something sitting perfectly still, at absolute zero for instance, would still be traveling along the local time axis even though it goes through no change. To speak about time where there is no spacetime is paradoxical because it references something that we've granted doesn't exist.

 

[Dancing David]

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

The only point I can make Lifegazer is that you are again just making assumptions about things that can not be known and therefore they will always remain speculation!

It is fine to speculate about what there was prior to the universe that we percieve, but then you go and just assume that 'before change there was no change", now that is just great as speculation but how can you say that you have proved this to be true?

Before time={a set of circumstances that could be a lot of things that we can not examine or find evidence of}

How can you say that before time there was no change, it is very likely that whatever it was that gave rise to the percieved universe that it was changing just as likely as unchanging. there is no way to ever know.

So that leaves you back at the primal cause thing, because you will always regress to the primal cause and then say that the primal cause was unchanging... but this is just pure speculation, because of the closed nature of space time you can not examine the primal cause!

Let me repeat that:

You can not examine the primal cause, so all conclusions you draw are speculation!

There is no way that it is possible to determine what anything was like prior to the percieved universe, that is something a child could understand, are you willing to return to the state of a child?

 

[Upchurch]

I've been trying to think of a good, simple analogy. This may have flaws, but lets take a whack at it.

Imagine a DVD:

LG: "I want to know what happens on the DVD before the movie."
UP: "Well, there is menu and some trailers, I suppose."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "...I guess there might be some formating data."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "What do you mean? Before the beginning of the disk?"
LG: "Yes, what is before the beginning of the disk?"
UP: "Nothing."
LG: "There must be something before the beginning of the disk."
UP: "Uh, no."

and so on.

 

[lifegazer]

It is fine to speculate about what there was prior to the universe that we percieve, but then you go and just assume that 'before change there was no change", now that is just great as speculation but how can you say that you have proved this to be true?

There must be an existence before it can proceed to change.
Very simple and obvious logic really. You err to label my reasoning an assumption.

Before time={a set of circumstances that could be a lot of things that we can not examine or find evidence of}

Time = change. Before change, existence wasn't changing. It's a no brainer, as you lot say. I have no idea why you cannot see it, since I'm sure that you do have a brain.

How can you say that before time there was no change, it is very likely that whatever it was that gave rise to the percieved universe that it was changing just as likely as unchanging. there is no way to ever know.

Consider time in its entirety, stretched before & beyond the big bang if you like. It doesn't matter - my argument remains the same: before time, existence is.

God is so easy to see.

 

[lifegazer]

I've been trying to think of a good, simple analogy. This may have flaws, but lets take a whack at it.

Imagine a DVD:

LG: "I want to know what happens on the DVD before the movie."
UP: "Well, there is menu and some trailers, I suppose."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "...I guess there might be some formating data."
LG: "No, before that."
UP: "What do you mean? Before the beginning of the disk?"
LG: "Yes, what is before the beginning of the disk?"
UP: "Nothing."
LG: "There must be something before the beginning of the disk."
UP: "Uh, no."

and so on.

You and your liberal use of "nothing" will get you into alsorts of trouble as a philosopher.
Before the disk, there was the thought of the disk, and the will to build it.

 

[Upchurch]

You and your liberal use of "nothing" will get you into alsorts of trouble as a philosopher.
Before the disk, there was the thought of the disk, and the will to build it.

Oh fun. you don't understand the analogy either. Well, it certanly isn't worth dumbing down an analogy for you.

 

[Dancing David]

There must be an existence before it can proceed to change.
Very simple and obvious logic really. You err to label my reasoning an assumption.

There must be an existance before it can procede to change.

That right thar, it is an assumption. If existance cames into being from something else that was changing then existance came into being from a process of change.

That is very simple and obvious logic as well. You are merely predicating that unchanging procedes change. there is no proof to it. My logic is as strong and equal to your, for they are the same.


Time = change. Before change, existence wasn't changing. It's a no brainer, as you lot say. I have no idea why you cannot see it, since I'm sure that you do have a brain.

What you fail to pretend to see Lifegazer, and I know that you are just pretending to not understand it is this,
The universe as it exists contains the 'element' of time to it. There is no way to observe anything outside of the universe of perception.
Therefore all discussion of what there was prior to the universe we percieve is speculation.
Whatever is was that the universe came from it may have been changing.



Consider time in its entirety, stretched before & beyond the big bang if you like. It doesn't matter - my argument remains the same: before time, existence is.

And that existance is unknowable, there is no way to know what it might or might not have been or being it is. Before time there may have been existance and it may have been changing.

You assume the stasis.

You can not prove it.
[/b]

God is so easy to see. [/B]

No brainer dude, I already know that.

Where you point the flashlight is important.

 

[lifegazer]

"There must be an existance before it can procede to change."

That right thar, it is an assumption. If existance cames into being from something else that was changing then existance came into being from a process of change.

The clue to your wayward reasoning has been highlighted. One state-of-existence emanates from another. It does this by changing. But changing doesn't precede the thing that is changed. Change is not tangible. Only existence itself is tangible.

 

[Dancing David]

The clue to your wayward reasoning has been highlighted. One state-of-existence emanates from another. It does this by changing. But changing doesn't precede the thing that is changed. Change is not tangible. Only existence itself is tangible.

That assumes that the case for the promal cause is the correct case. It is just as likely that there is an infinite recursion of causes that feed back into themselves and end up chasing themselves and creating themselves. A circular cause is just as likely a linear one, because there is no way to determine the case for the ultimate cause.

I hate to tell you this LG but all oberservable existance is predicated upon change, there is no way as of yet to determine if the promal cause is linear or circular.

Can you point to 'existance' which is consious that is not predicated upon change?

That is why your speculaton is speculation, if I stated that the universe went back in time and created itself, then that would be speculation as well.

They are both speculation.

 

[Upchurch]

Scribble must be wearing off on me. I keep hearing a certain movie line in my head. And I actually think I'm going to listen to it this time.

 

[lifegazer]

An infinite number of effects cannot cause anything to happen, since an infinite number of effects themselves never happen.
No infinite process is ever completed. None. You cannot say that this post is the completion of an infinite process. That's ridiculous, and anyone with a modicum of sense and sincerity would acknowledge it too.
Everything that exists has an origin, or is a primal-cause without origin. The effects of time are not a primal-cause... they have an origin within one though.

You guys are fooling yourselves. You avoid accepting the most obvious logic so that you don't have to believe there is a God. You're all insane. Completely crazy.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Before time = before change/divisibility/flux/etc. = at indivisible existence... changeless existence... timeless existence.

Before = "prior to". So prior to change, there was no change.
Sound logic.

Sorry. I am confused.
According to my dictionary (Chambers 20th Century), before (ignoring its positional aspect) means "Sooner, earlier than, in the past, formerly, previous to the time when..."

Prior means "previous (as an adjective) or previously (as an adverb)."

All of these equivalents are references to linear time.

The phrase "Before time" , while grammatically well formed, is literally meaningless, like "Solecism flavour" or "White smelling".

You cannot , meaningfully, argue like this; at least not in English.

There is no word in English which refers to the phenomenon you are trying to describe here. This does not mean the phenomenon does not exist, merely that the concept is undefined in English.
And, I suspect, undefinable.

Perhaps in mathematics?

 

[uruk]

No infinite process is ever completed

That's right. It just keeps going on and on. no start or end

It's just our limited human perception that thinks there has to be a start and end. QM shows that the univers does not operate on what we would consider common sense or causality.

The problem with all the arguments here is that we are using our human notions to describe this univers. Granted we have no other way of percieving the universe, but that does not mean the univers follows our wishes. The Michelson/Morely experiment comes to mind.

 

[Flatworm]

I just did.

Really? Let me refresh your memory:

I said:

Try to define "before time" without using time-related adjectives like "before", or "preceeding".

and you replied:

"'Before time' = before change = whilst unchanging."

"Before" and "whilst" are time-related adjectives.

Time is the perception that existence is in divisible/relative flux (is changing). Before time, is when existence is absolutely indivisible, hence not in perceived flux.
What's so difficult to understand about that?

Time is what happens to existence. So, before time refers to existence when this occurance (time/change/flux/divisibility) wasn't happening. Simple and rational.

No, it's not rational. If you define time this way, then you can't rationally talk about "before" change, nor can you say that "before" time is "when" this wasn't happening, because "before" and "when" only make sense in the context of time.

It seems in your head, you have created the definition "time=change", but then continue to use a different definition of time so that you can talk about the universe "before" change. If time starts at some point, you cannot 'rewind' time to before that point and talk about "before"- because time doesn't extend that far.

Remember what I said about choosing one definition and sticking to it?

My argument is that before time, there was timeless existence.
Time = (relative) change = divisibility.
Therefore, timelessness = absolutely-whole = indivisible existence.

I see you've completely disregarded what I said about ambiguity. I also wish you would do away with such abuse of the "=" symbol. If Time= change, Time = (relative) (What do the parentheses mean, anyway?), and change = divisibility, then divisibility = (relative). I guess that would mean your God-concept is indivisible to you but might be divisible to other observers.

I would also like to see your proof that change is equivalent to divisibility. Imagine what it would be like if the universe had only one dimension and had finite length, call it 1 unit, and had only one point in time. Imagine that the only things that exist are two entities (call them "particles"), one located at either end of space. Clearly here existence is divided, yet does not change. Can you give a physical reason to support your assertion?