[Felix]

I was having an argument with a friend. My friend was saying that in order for things to exist now, there can not have been a beginning, things just always were in existance. I was arguing that, initially, something would have had to come out of nothing for us to be here, which means that the first thing that ever existed had to come out of nothing. Both arguments are incredibly flawed. I thought about it for a while and came up with this: Both these arguments are centered around the idea of time. Time is something that humans invented, an idea that makes things more ordered. But does it really exist? What if there is no actual governing body of constant forward movement that is time, and things just "are" in the now. No beginning no "always has been" no constant forward movement. Things just "are". Things grow and move and die but there is no time, things just exist, and that's it. This is my way of justifying the impossibility of us coming into existance "initially" anyway. Any thoughts?

[Storm]

Time is the 4th dimension. The mere existence of physical things causes Time to exist. This can be shown by the fact that the mass of an object has an effect on Time - as does where the object is in space.

If there was ever nothing, then Time did not exist during period. (Sorry for the clunky language, English sort of sucks when it comes to describing the metaphysical).

[une fille]

I agree with Storm. I recommend you read Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time, seeing as it covers much more than I could properly relay. As Storm said, time is the fourth dimension, and everything in our universe is within the space-time continuum. Time isn't "constant;" it changes as we reach a point closer to light speed, but as Einstein discovered, nothing can move faster than light, so warping the space-time continuum seems impossible.
The only argument Atheists have had trouble with throughout the years concerned the "something from nothing argument." Theists (/Deists) believe that the universe was made by the ultimate Creator, the "uncaused cause." Many Atheists and scientists now believe that the universe could have come about from "nothing" by a quantum fluctuation.

[RBM]

Much has been done to advance physics knowledge since Hawkings book:

Originally Posted by To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. class="bq" cite="http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?s=eabcb27235a235d7a9e89f9b04e1c2db&p=0#post0" dir="ltr"> At the top of Einstein's list of complaints was what he called "spooky actions at a distance". Einstein's "spookiness" is now called nonlocality, the mysterious ability of Nature to enforce correlations between separated but entangled parts of a quantum system that are out of speed-of-light contact, to reach faster-than-light across vast spatial distances or even across time itself to ensure that the parts of a quantum system are made to match.

Emphasis added.
H/T Azael


I can't agree that time is 'the fourth dimension' except at a practical understanding level. Kind of like how we engineer for gravity. We have practical technology, without a scientific understanding.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by une fille To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Many Atheists and scientists now believe that the universe could have come about from "nothing" by a quantum fluctuation.

I take issue with you grouping Atheists and scientists together. For it implies that 1) scientists are not religious (often, but not always, true) and 2) that Atheists have a full understanding of science (often not true), and 3) That the religious or theist or others of faith are at odds with science.

Anyway, obviously RBM knows more about this topic than I do. But, I'd like to ask, what is this "quantum fluctuation?" It seems that if nothing existed, then there could be no time. If there was no time, then how could things change?

[une fille]

	Originally Posted by Storm
	I take issue with you grouping Atheists and scientists together. For it implies that 1) scientists are not religious (often, but not always, true) and 2) that Atheists have a full understanding of science (often not true), and 3) That the religious or theist or others of faith are at odds with science.

No issue needs to be taken, seeing as I wasn't grouping them. I mentioned quantum fluctuations and said that many who identify with either group look to the theory behind these fluctuations to explain how the universe came into being without using the idea of a supreme deity. The statement implied nothing that you listed, but obviously you can read into however you'd like.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
	Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle.

Storm,

I am still sorting most of this out.

I have a personal view from many years of metaphysics interests that science is just starting to develop theories for, e.g. non-locality.

If Azael, who initially provided the link would show back up, I suspect you would get more than what I have to offer which is internet search results.

[jakeordie]

Originally Posted by Felix To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My friend was saying that in order for things to exist now, there can not have been a beginning, things just always were in existance. I was arguing that, initially, something would have had to come out of nothing for us to be here, which means that the first thing that ever existed had to come out of nothing. Both arguments are incredibly flawed. I thought about it for a while and came up with this: Both these arguments are centered around the idea of time. Time is something that humans invented, an idea that makes things more ordered. But does it really exist? What if there is no actual governing body of constant forward movement that is time, and things just "are" in the now. No beginning no "always has been" no constant forward movement. Things just "are". Things grow and move and die but there is no time, things just exist, and that's it. This is my way of justifying the impossibility of us coming into existance "initially" anyway. Any thoughts?

All matter (all "things") is simply energy in different forms, and energy is neither created nor destroyed as it changes form. The human construct "time" is how we perceive the rate of change, much the same as the human construct "sound" is how we perceive vibration. Realise that energy changes form whether we perceive it or not, much as the tree falling in the forest causes vibration whether we perceive the sound or not.

As for whether there is an original source or creator of energy, don't ask.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PunkinA]

Felix,

I am not sure if this addresses your concern, but philosophy of science has always struggled with the problem of induction. Does a finite number of observations justify the conclusion that all observations will match the observed data? Another way of stating this is, can we be certain that the laws we observe in the present will continue to apply in the future? Do we assume that they have always applied? Do the laws of nature observed in our local part of the universe necessarily hold throughout the universe? Generally all science, and all definitions of time answer the above questions as yes, yes , yes, and yes.

On the other hand, all observed data seems to fit the model of a consistent time, that is constantly marching forward, measurable by noting the increasing entropy of the universe. Personally I would not bet against time.

[RBM]

@ PunkinA

	On the other hand, all observed data seems to fit the model of a consistent time, that is constantly marching forward, measurable by noting the increasing entropy of the universe. Personally I would not bet against time.

QM suggests that time may not just go forward, either.

[Visum]

I am in the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
camp.

[Azel]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Time is the 4th dimension.

Actually, space is the fourth dimension. Formally speaking, when n = 4, the set of all such locations is called 4-dimensional Euclidean space. You are confusing the fourth spatial dimension with that of the concept of the time dimension of spacetime.

In regards to the "something from nothing argument" you really have to think about if there is really nothing (e.g. quantum foam). Overall, you seem to be talking about causality in space. As such, I will give the description of the causal relations of a Lorentzian manifold.

x chronologically precedes y (often denoted
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) if there exists a future-directed chronological (timelike) curve from x to y.
x causally precedes y (often denoted
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) if there exists a future-directed causal (non-spacelike) curve from x to y or x = y.
x strictly causally precedes y (often denoted x < y) if there exists a future-directed causal (non-spacelike) curve from x to y.
x horismos y (denoted
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
or
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) if x precedes y and
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

I won't bother to go into causal structure and topological space (d(a,b) <= d(a,c) + d(b,c)) but this gives an arbitrary understanding of causality and the space-time metric.

[Felix]

I'm so convinced that humans have invented this "idea" that is time that I'm having a great amount of difficulty fathoming that times perception actually changes at light speed, or at all. Does that mean that our thoughts at light speed are faster/slower? Is it just the aging process or the actual perception of time that changes?

"Quantum fluctuations" are an interesting concept, but I believe nothing is still something, in the sense that it suggests that there is a "before" something, still suggesting that time existed while there was nothing. Did time exist while there was nothing or come into existance at the same point that something did? Would there be a point to time existing when there was nothing? If there was then how would the mere existance of time cause something to happen from nothing? The more information I seem to come across, the more I think that the idea that time is real is actually impeding a lot of scientific progress and debate.

I'm going to read the suggested Stephen Hawking book, or any others that anyone can recommend, and then comment further. Thanks for all your comments everyone!

[Synchronicity]

	Originally Posted by Felix To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm so convinced that humans have invented this "idea" that is time that I'm having a great amount of difficulty fathoming that times perception actually changes at light speed, or at all. Does that mean that our thoughts at light speed are faster/slower? Is it just the aging process or the actual perception of time that changes?

Well, our perception of time varies greatly, of course. Time flies when you're having fun, etc. When you get a rush of adrenaline and your mind kicks into high gear, the world seems to slow down.

But we have ways of objectively measuring time. Radioactive decay, quasar emissions, the movement of astronomical bodies. The passage of time will seem quite different for someone being forced to stare at a clock versus someone engaged in a mentally stimulating activity, but in that time the universe will have aged the same amount for both of them. I don't know what it would be like to travel at near the speed of light and how the passage of time would affect me, but as far as I know the only accepted theory is that the passage of time is actually accelerated and not a perceptual thing. It seems strange, but science is full of strange, unintuitive concepts (quantum mechanics, anyone?)

I regret that I never continued my education in theoretical physics, but this seems worth studying more. I read A Brief History of Time many years ago (there's an updated version, A Briefer History of Time, which I own but have not yet read) and highly recommend it. In fact, it's the book that first got me interested in theophys.

[jakeordie]

	Originally Posted by Felix To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm so convinced that humans have invented this "idea" that is time that I'm having a great amount of difficulty fathoming that times perception actually changes at light speed, or at all. Does that mean that our thoughts at light speed are faster/slower? Is it just the aging process or the actual perception of time that changes?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Time is not changing, only the rate at which light enters the eye of the observer.

Originally Posted by Felix To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I believe nothing is still something, in the sense that it suggests that there is a "before" something, still suggesting that time existed while there was nothing. Did time exist while there was nothing or come into existance at the same point that something did? Would there be a point to time existing when there was nothing? If there was then how would the mere existance of time cause something to happen from nothing?

If we define time as energy's rate of change, then no energy means no time. I don't believe humans are able to conceive "nothing", only the absence of things which we are aware of.....there's infinite difference.

[Venificum]

I have always heard that time exists as a dimension just as any of the other dimensions we are familiar with (however not necessarily the fourth)- existence is- there is a beginning to time just as there is a beginning to any road.

consider it like this- in one of those flip-animation-books, you have two dimensional figures (the drawings on the paper), on many pieces of paper. consider the book as a whole their existence. if the stick figures had conciseness, they would only experience one page of the book at anyone particular time, even though it all exists already.

it is the same as our universe, we think. time as we know it must have "begun" at some point, but the existence as a static figure (like the book) simply is.

also, without something to experience time, its only a bunch of pages in secession, not the fluid reality we see.

excuse the ramble.

[Sequoia]

I have had many debates with friends on the nature of time. The more I consider about it and also about nonlocal events in quantum physics, the less I feel I know. I have seen all of the arguments presented above many times before.

Since this is the philosophy and ethics thread, I am going to ask one slightly of topic question. If there is no time, how can there be free will?

[Venificum]

well- there can still be free will, per se- only the outcome will be the same.

its really a debate of wether freewill is simply an illusion created by the processes in our minds, or if it is the result of a "soul" . i think there is room debate, as the question of wether or not such a thing a souls exist is unanswerable.

if souls do exist, then the only explanation that would still fit with my earlier statement is that souls and the plane they exist in is also bound by the same (or similar) rules as the one we experience, and freewill is the result of two existences clashing in such a way that they create the possibility of multiple paths that can be followed.

that was entirely off the top of my head, so i doubt it will make too much sense, but there it is

[acyckowski]

	Originally Posted by Azel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, space is the fourth dimension. Formally speaking, when n = 4, the set of all such locations is called 4-dimensional Euclidean space. You are confusing the fourth spatial dimension with that of the concept of the time dimension of spacetime.

A distinction between theoretical science and engineering to be made here. Sure, in Euclidean space, you can extend to n-dimensions with ease....but in the real world, there are a finite set of "dimensions," more properly stated as variables, which define things. Position in space account for the first 3, time is generally considered to be the 4th, and you can expand the variables somewhat to include mass, heat, and entropy. Whether or not time is the "fourth dimension" is purely a naming convention.

Until somebody pulls off the Grand Unification Theory, nobody has absolute claim to how reality is defined. The core question, then, is...is time infinite? Our observations of the other dimensions/variables indicate that they are immense, yet finite. Why, then, should we believe that time is infinite?

It is a non-sequitur to argue that time is merely a measure by which we define the passage of mass through space...in a truly consistent argument, mass and position of space would be equally as arbitrary as time. As une fille pointed out, the crux of the issue is that the laws of the currently observable universe were apparently violated at its origin...quantum fluctuations, as an explanation, are still somewhat lacking, inasmuch as QM is a set of laws derived from observation of the same universe which appears to be inconsistent.