Doers the Universe Have a Purpose?

[hcap]

/7pL5vzIMAhs?

[Marshall Bennett]

Makes a lot of sense. Humans may be a more precious breed than most think in the universe. Hard to tell sometimes the way we often treat one another.
I've often wondered when man becomes extinct, will there be a history or will it all be eliminated as if it never existed. In ten million years (a relatively short time on the universal scale) what indeed would have been the purpose?

[Greyfox]

The question of this thread is teleological and any answers to it can only be speculative.
To even try to answer "What is the purpose of the Universe?" is such a deep question, it seems to me that even the brightest among us could only scratch the surface and never come anywhere near answering it.
Who are we as tiny earthlings to speculate about such a big question?
(You know of course that boxcar will answer differently.)

For starters, physicists are now starting to think about the possibility of "multiverses" - in effect the universe that we live in may be but one of many, many,many universes. Also, they are envisioning the presence of multiple dimensions, opening the possibility of universes moving through universes without our awareness.

I realize from our discussions in the religious thread, you've read Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

Chardin makes a solid case that the universe, moving from inanimate to animate, and simple to complex, is moving towards higher consciousness.
Of course, it may well be that "consciousness" has always been there and we as humans are just learning to tap into it.

So while I can't speak for what the purpose of the Universe is, I can say that my resolve is to reach the highest levels of consciousness that I can, knowing full well that the level I attain is likely pretty primitive perhaps compared to other forms of life in multiverses.

[hcap]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

...F. Scott Fitzgerald

There does not have to be an answer and there may not be one

[Greyfox]

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

...F. Scott Fitzgerald

There does not have to be an answer and there may not be one

For this question the answer seems to be either Yes or No.
The Universe either has a purpose or purposes, or it does not.

[hcap]

I prefer to think both. Sounds impossible but either side of yes/no may be too small

[Light]

95% of the universe is invisible. So the question and Neil's answer are not accurate or complete.

[Robert Goren]

There is always an answer, but that doesn't mean anyone knows yet. For instance, Humans could always fly, but didn't know how until the Wright brothers did there thing. But then again somebody might know the answer and nobody believes him.

[boxcar]

I prefer to think both. Sounds impossible but either side of yes/no may be too small

For you, 'cap, it's an easy thing for you to hold two diametrically opposing concepts in your mind. With the double-minded, nearly everything is "yes" and "no" even when such a solution applies to the same time, to the same place and in the same sense.

And, yes, there is a purpose behind the universe. And that purpose is revealed in scripture.

Mr. Light, you answered intelligently. The things unseen in this universe represent ultimate reality. The few things seen represent only the form, not the substance of reality.

But for those of you who may think there is no purpose to life, then I must ask this about your mini universe: Do you live your personal life as though there is no rhyme or reason to it? If you do, and your personal life resembles something along the path of "Helter Skelter" (i.e. chaos and disorderly confusion), then at least your life is consistent with your philosophy. Congratulations! But most of us, I think, tend to live our lives (in one degree or another) in an ordered and reasoned fashion because deep down we believe there must be some purpose to the universe and, therefore, to our own tiny world. However, at the same time, in all manner of ways, we deny the Creator who called everything into existence in the first place. To you: No congratulations is in order because your life isn't in sync with your faith in your world view.

Boxcar

[TJDave]

A porpoise, absolutely.

Flipper

[boxcar]

A porpoise, absolutely.

Flipper

That theory is all wet.

Boxcar

[hcap]

For you, 'cap, it's an easy thing for you to hold two diametrically opposing concepts in your mind. With the double-minded, nearly everything is "yes" and "no" even when such a solution applies to the same time, to the same place and in the same sense.No, it is very difficult.

Except for you of course. Evidently you have accomplished this in understanding the age of the universe. Why don't you refresh our memories on how the universe can be very old and young at the same time? Sounds like you agree with Fitzgerald.

[Greyfox]

Why don't you refresh our memories on how the universe can be very old and young at the same time?

Parts of the universe are being born every day. In fact, even some cells in your body are new.

[elysiantraveller]

Parts of the universe are being born every day. In fact, even some cells in your body are new.

Sorta... But the amount of matter in the universe is finite no ?...

Something can't be made from nothing.

[hcap]

Parts of the universe are being born every day. In fact, even some cells in your body are new.I do realize that. It is just that box has done just what I suggested and criticizes me for suggesting it.

[Overlay]

One argument I've heard is that if the universe had no purpose, we (as a part of that universe) would never be questioning whether it had a purpose or not. The fact that we are debating that question amounts to a declaration that we each at least perceive ourselves as having a purpose, or a criterion within ourselves that can question and judge whether something has a purpose.

Another possible line of reasoning is that, even if we knew every imaginable piece of information about how the universe came to its present state, it would still leave unanswered the question of "Why?" That is the gap that religions address through accounts of revelation from a higher, omniscient power -- to supply information that we are otherwise incapable of finding or knowing.

[Greyfox]

Sorta... But the amount of matter in the universe is finite no ?...

.

Only if you say that matter is transformed energy.

[hcap]

Sorta... But the amount of matter in the universe is finite no ?...

Something can't be made from nothing.First cause dilemma. what existed before the big bang, assuming you accept that? There are some concepts using a "multiverse" and our local universe popped into existence from this grander "multiverse." So if your axiom is correct--- (we don't know )---Something cannot come from Nothing---What about God?
Then again what about a God originating from a Multi-God?

Infinite regress in either case.
Base problem is logic fails in the understanding of the very large and very small.

[Marshall Bennett]

First cause dilemma. what existed before the big bang, assuming you accept that?
One theory is that the universe was once closed, would collapse upon its own gravity, explode somewhat like a supernova and repeat the process again and again. For whatever reason, the expansion this time appears to be beyond the point of no return and will never collapse. Experts believe it's expanding at too great a rate now to be harnessed back in by any amount of gravity. Would certainly explain the big bang, however, as well as what was there before it.
One might imagine the process as a pulse in slow motion that has simply always been, so to speak...until now.

[Greyfox]

One theory is that the universe was once closed, would collapse upon its own gravity, explode somewhat like a supernova and repeat the process again and again. .

Nietzsche, a depressed philosopher believed that, and entertained the idea that we were doomed to repeat our lives over and over eternally.

[JustRalph]

In 3000 yrs our sun is going to implode and it won't matter anyway

[Greyfox]

In 3000 yrs our sun is going to implode and it won't matter anyway

3000 years?

Try a few billion.

[elysiantraveller]

First cause dilemma. what existed before the big bang, assuming you accept that?

Irrelevant...

[hcap]

Whether the Universe "oscillates"between expansion and contraction, is born out of a "Multi-Verse", or is created by one or more hierarchy of Gods, there is always a first cause dilemma. Unless you imagine something from absolutely nothing. Or an eternal something that manifests in various forms.

Something from nothing and an eternal something may be the ultimate challenge of F. Scott Fitzgerald's observation.

[boxcar]

No, it is very difficult.

Except for you of course. Evidently you have accomplished this in understanding the age of the universe. Why don't you refresh our memories on how the universe can be very old and young at the same time? Sounds like you agree with Fitzgerald.

I don't need to refresh anyone's memory. Go back and read my explanations. Just because God created everything in a mature, fully developed state does not contradict divine revelation (in fact, revelation teaches this). Shame on "science" for tossing the Creator out of its grand scheme of things, which created the false assumptions that in turn must lead to false conclusions.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

One argument I've heard is that if the universe had no purpose, we (as a part of that universe) would never be questioning whether it had a purpose or not. The fact that we are debating that question amounts to a declaration that we each at least perceive ourselves as having a purpose, or a criterion within ourselves that can question and judge whether something has a purpose.

Exactly right, Overlay. The reason we pose the question is because of what I said earlier about how most of us experience our mini universe, our tiny little world known as our personal life. Most of us live our lives as though it has purpose, regardless of what our philosophy of life is or our world view.

And of, course, the bible does tell us what the purpose is. The link below is to a sermon by John Piper. I have never heard or read a sermon by this pastor that didn't hit the bull's eye dead center. I would encourage everyone to listen, most especially the Christians on this forum. Piper, in this sermons, unpacks from scripture what the purpose is behind God's creation.

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/why-did-god-create-the-world

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

One argument I've heard is that if the universe had no purpose, we (as a part of that universe) would never be questioning whether it had a purpose or not. The fact that we are debating that question amounts to a declaration that we each at least perceive ourselves as having a purpose, or a criterion within ourselves that can question and judge whether something has a purpose.

Another possible line of reasoning is that, even if we knew every imaginable piece of information about how the universe came to its present state, it would still leave unanswered the question of "Why?" That is the gap that religions address through accounts of revelation from a higher, omniscient power -- to supply information that we are otherwise incapable of finding or knowing.

Yes, Science tries to answer what is happening and how. It cannot answer why.

Your first answer though, which boxcar agrees with, is interesting.

Is it possible for either of you to answer the original question posed in this thread "Does the universe have a purpose?" without introducing the concept of God or religion? If not, that's okay too. (I think that there was a reason hcap did not put this in the thread on religion.)

I ask this because, if God exists, the universe is simply a medium to generate a being who at some point will ask hcap's question and others.
If God doesn't exist, we know the universe does.

Independent of whether God exists or not, what is the purpose of the universe?

[Light]

To me the universe is another of the infinite forms of life. Contrary to the ego of man,the universe is not here for man. Its the other way around. Man is here to partake in this life form.

Size matters not for meaning or purpose. At one point before the big bang the universe could fit on the head of a pin. The greatest reality for meaning and purpose in existence cannot be seen. Only experienced. It encompasses all yet has no mass,space or time. The universe is an expression of that reality as we are and everything is, so of course the universe has meaning.

[Greyfox]

To me the universe is another of the infinite forms of life. Contrary to the ego of man,the universe is not here for man. Its the other way around. Man is here to partake in this life form.

Size matters not for meaning or purpose. At one point before the big bang the universe could fit on the head of a pin. The greatest reality for meaning and purpose in existence cannot be seen. Only experienced. It encompasses all yet has no mass,space or time. The universe is an expression of that reality as we are and everything is, so of course the universe has meaning.

I like that answer, but from what I've read of Big Bang theory, the Universe came from a much tinier point than the head of a pin.
You've said that "The greatest reality for meaning and purpose in existence cannot be seen. Only experienced."
I wouldn't dispute that, but while what we experience reality as an expression as we perceive it, does not really answer hcap's question:
"Does the Universe have a purpose?"

[hcap]

I tend to agree with Light's point about experiencing reality.
I believe that the intellect is limited to the local arrangement of the laws of the universe. We are suited to navigate more or less successively in that realm, bur flounder dealing with the very large or small. So intellect can only take us so far.

I do think however that we may have the proper tools to experience other realms, but do not use those tools except in rare circumstances. What I like about Fitzgerald's' point is that in the process of holding opposing thoughts and concepts in ones mind simultaneously, is that sometimes we can see an underlying truth that supports both extremes that we normally don't get. And even if not successful we stretch the thought process by witnessing the inability of only ordinary intellect to be used as the appropriate tool.

BTW, I did post this here instead if the Religious thread because that had devolved into IMHO, counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, and wanted to get responses from some who were not regulars there.

[hcap]

I don't need to refresh anyone's memory. Go back and read my explanations. Just because God created everything in a mature, fully developed state does not contradict divine revelation (in fact, revelation teaches this). Shame on "science" for tossing the Creator out of its grand scheme of things, which created the false assumptions that in turn must lead to false conclusions.

Of course it does. But the fact that you make the attempt (although in my view, unsucessfully), is what I am refering to.

Another few milenia and you might get it right :cool: :cool:

[Actor]

A porpoise, absolutely.

FlipperA porpoise? Coitainly! Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

[Actor]

Parts of the universe are being born every day. In fact, even some cells in your body are new.Depends on your definition of "new." The matter and energy that make up those cells have supposedly existed since the big bang.

Something can't be made from nothing.That time honored axiom of physics called the conservation of matter plus energy is being re-examined by the scientific community. In the 1990s several teams of astronomers, working independently, each came to the conclusion that the universe is not only expanding but that the rate of expansion is increasing. The universe is being pushed apart as though the big bang were still going on. In attempting to explain this scientists have come up with theories of dark energy and dark matter, which in turn have lead some scientists to speculate that matter and energy are constantly being created.

One argument I've heard is that if the universe had no purpose, we (as a part of that universe) would never be questioning whether it had a purpose or not. The fact that we are debating that question amounts to a declaration that we each at least perceive ourselves as having a purpose, or a criterion within ourselves that can question and judge whether something has a purpose.

Another possible line of reasoning is that, even if we knew every imaginable piece of information about how the universe came to its present state, it would still leave unanswered the question of "Why?" That is the gap that religions address through accounts of revelation from a higher, omniscient power -- to supply information that we are otherwise incapable of finding or knowing.Perhaps the very concept of "purpose" is a human invention, one for which a higher intelligence (either diety or alien) would have no use.


First cause dilemma. what existed before the big bang, assuming you accept that?One's first impression is that the earth is flat. It takes some investigation and logic to determine that it is a sphere. Likewise, quantum physics predicts that the absolute zero of temperature can never be reached, therefore scientists use a logarithmic scale for temperatures near absolute zero.

Perhaps the concept that time is linear is also an illusion. If time is logarithmic then it has been speeding up since the big bang. A time machine going backward would never reach the beginning of time (i.e., the moment of the big bang) because in reality time has no beginning and the big bang is an illusion. There is some evidence for this view. Although scientists continue to discover the state of the universe as it existed earlier and earlier (mere nanoseconds after the big bang) they do not know what was there at the instant of the big bang. This problem goes away if time is logarithmic (or hyperbolic or parabolic or ellipsoidal or ...).

Base problem is logic fails in the understanding of the very large and very small.Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. The reconciliation of quantum physice and general relativity is the holy grail of modern physics, the search for the unifield field theory, the so called "theory of everything."

One theory is that the universe was once closed, would collapse upon its own gravity, explode somewhat like a supernova and repeat the process again and again. For whatever reason, the expansion this time appears to be beyond the point of no return and will never collapse. Experts believe it's expanding at too great a rate now to be harnessed back in by any amount of gravity. Would certainly explain the big bang, however, as well as what was there before it.
One might imagine the process as a pulse in slow motion that has simply always been, so to speak...until now.The "oscillating universe theory" is dead due to the discoveries I mentioned above.

Whether the Universe "oscillates"between expansion and contraction, is born out of a "Multi-Verse", or is created by one or more hierarchy of Gods, there is always a first cause dilemma. Unless you imagine something from absolutely nothing. Or an eternal something that manifests in various forms.One alternative to the oscillating universe theory is the "big bounce" theory, a.k.a., the "one time bounce." In this theory eternity goes both into the future and the past, the universe is infinitely old and up until 13.8 billion years ago it was a collapsing universe. It collapsed into a singularity which then exploded. Thus the big bang was preceded by a big crunch. This explanation resolves the first cause dilemma. This theory is not widely accepted by the scientific community but I think it's elegant.

[hcap]

I was attempting to reduce the logical approach of understanding first cause to it's base components. Always is, or Something from nothing. Logically I do not believe there are any other choices.

However my view is that logic may not be suited to answer these questions.

When I said the very large and very small are not understandable by logic, I meant that there may be other ways of knowing that stands in relationship to logically "knowing" something, as the study of quantum mechanics stands relative to Newtonian physics. And these other ways of knowing are closer to the mystical approach to the world than the scientific. Then again, the grandeur of the Universe, and amazing scientific discoveries can inspire that feeling of awe that may be quite close to the mystical.

Trying to grasp the whole ball of wax as a gestalt experience may be a clue to this type of thinking. A higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get.

[Greyfox]

Depends on your definition of "new." The matter and energy that make up those cells have supposedly existed since the big bang.



Right. So when a supposed "newborn child" is born, he/she is not new.
It's really billions of years old, and so are you and I.

Of course, we have to use the word "new." I don't want to think of driving a several billion year old car. But I am.

[hcap]

Right. So when a supposed "newborn child" is born, he/she is not new.
It's really billions of years old, and so are you and I.

Of course, we have to use the word "new." I don't want to think of driving a several billion year old car. But I am.It all depends on what scale you measure things. The billion year old scale is quite different than the human life scale and has different qualities.

[Greyfox]

It all depends on what scale you measure things. The billion year old scale is quite different than the human life scale and has different qualities.

A year was a year billions of years ago, right.
Same scale, different era.

[hcap]

A year was a year billions of years ago, right.
Same scale, different era.Not really what is important.

Scale is basically the one part of the platform we stand on when we observe and anallise. It molds and influences our notions, just like one's cultural background and senses. The condition of observer is a major factor in what is observed.

Don't just take my word for it. Take it up with Albert :lol:

[mountainman]

I think there is a "nature" to things , which we will never realize or understand. In fact, at the level wherein the universe's true nature exists, self-comforting, man-made concepts such as beginnings, ends, chronology and existence aren't relevant. I also believe that the whole idea of cause, effect, reasons and ultimate truth (or chaos) circumvent, rather than address the answers we seek. That's because there ARE no answers, at least that we can comprehend. Thus if somehow, magically, some entity or force completely versed in the nature of things walked into your living room to anser questions, the questions would be unintelligible gibberish. A line from the "mothman prophecies" comes to mind: "Could you explain calculus to a cockroach?" Or, more to the point, could a cockroach ask QUESTIONS about calculus??????????????

[boxcar]

Yes, Science tries to answer what is happening and how. It cannot answer why.

Your first answer though, which boxcar agrees with, is interesting.

Is it possible for either of you to answer the original question posed in this thread "Does the universe have a purpose?" without introducing the concept of God or religion? If not, that's okay too. (I think that there was a reason hcap did not put this in the thread on religion.)

I ask this because, if God exists, the universe is simply a medium to generate a being who at some point will ask hcap's question and others.
If God doesn't exist, we know the universe does.

Independent of whether God exists or not, what is the purpose of the universe?

How can it be possible to answer that question scientifically? Doesn't science impose a limitation upon itself by restricting its studies to empirical evidence. However, as Overlay and I have [essentially] stated in different ways: When we observe how most humans live their lives and structure it and order it, this suggests that at least on the sub-conscious level, most of believe that there is purpose to our lives. Of course, since human beings are walking, talking dichotomies (due to our self-deceived nature), most of us will simultaneously deny that on a conscious level.

Also, science can be of no help here because what are scientists going to say: That the Universe (Time, Space and Matter) is a god and created us and that we're beholding to it? Only religion or philosophy can solve this riddle. And to the best of my knowledge, only the sacred texts of the Hebrew scriptures provide us with clear cut answers. (Of course, that doesn't mean, at all, that most of us will like the answers, but that's an entirely different issue.)

In the end, what "science" will appeal to is the old Moral Relativism cop out. They'll tell us that if it makes us feel better to think that there is rhyme and reason to the universe and our own personal existence, then go for it. If it floats our boat, why not? And if doesn't, so what?

And finally, if God did create the universe (as the bible claims throughout), then how is it possible to have a rational discussion independent of Him? I know this might really sound far fetched and way out there -- but what IF God is the purpose? And if he is the Purpose, then did He communicate that to us?

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

How can it be possible to answer that question scientifically? Doesn't science impose a limitation upon itself by restricting its studies to empirical evidence.

Boxcar

I said earlier science could not answer the question.
I asked if either you or Overlay could answer it without introducing religion or God.
Apparently you can't.

[Light]

does not really answer hcap's question:
"Does the Universe have a purpose?"

Since I made my case for the universe as a meaningful entity, I assumed one would deduce that the purpose of the universe is intrinsic in that meaning.

If nothing else,the universe's purpose is to keep us alive. That in itself should be enough for us. On a grander scale,(which is an illusion,because it once was not and one day will not be any longer),it serves the purpose of supporting other beings that scientist finally agree must exist. It serves the purpose for the creation of life here and elsewhere. It serves as a factory production of raw materials that make up our periodic table without which that life it spawns would not be possible. I could go on about the practical and esoteric purposes of the universe but it's a forgone conclusion as to it having a purpose.

I think the real question is why anything? Why people,why earth,why a universe,why existence itself,why pleasure and pain? For what? The answer is in the nature of the consciousness that pre existed before time and space.That answer is why we look to God or if you don't believe in God, why we created the notion of God(s). However I believe that answer (whether you believe in God or not, in religion or not) is also within us because we came from it. Just like we are made up of stardust,our answer as to the mysteriousness of life is standard equipment.

[Steve R]

I was attempting to reduce the logical approach of understanding first cause to it's base components. Always is, or Something from nothing. Logically I do not believe there are any other choices.

However my view is that logic may not be suited to answer these questions.

When I said the very large and very small are not understandable by logic, I meant that there may be other ways of knowing that stands in relationship to logically "knowing" something, as the study of quantum mechanics stands relative to Newtonian physics. And these other ways of knowing are closer to the mystical approach to the world than the scientific. Then again, the grandeur of the Universe, and amazing scientific discoveries can inspire that feeling of awe that may be quite close to the mystical.

Trying to grasp the whole ball of wax as a gestalt experience may be a clue to this type of thinking. A higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get.
The human perception of time essentially limits how we think about the physical world. For most people time demands beginnings and ends. But as you say, this may ignore "a higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get." Because we create limits to our reality we think of the Big Bang as a beginning when it may be just a point in an infinite existence with no start and no finish. It may have been one of an infinite number of Big Bangs in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction. We have no problem accepting numbers that are infinitely large or infinitely small, but for some reason time must be constrained. A virtue of not believing in a deity that set things in motion is the ability to accept the possibility time may have no beginning and no end. Therefore one may reject out of hand questions about what existed before the universe was "created" or what there will be after the universe "ends". I have no problem accepting the possibility that the universe always was and always will be, regardless of the number of transformations it undergoes. When man discovered the equivalence of matter and energy or particles and waves our perceptions of reality were changed forever, as they were with the unification of space and time into a single manifold.

If one can accept these equivalences then the imposition of a deity becomes irrelevant. You come to realize that an artificial construct to explain what we don't fully understand is unnecessary. We are simply putting boundaries on what we consider understandable. The entire thought process is confounded by the irrational belief that any one set of religious dogma is superior to all the others. That each of the major modern religions has unique geographical, ethnic and racial origins argues that they are opportunistic at best. The one thing they have in common is the imposition of restricted thinking. Absent those restrictions the true wonders of the universe (or universes) are crystallized in the mind and anything is possible.

[boxcar]

I said earlier science could not answer the question.
I asked if either you or Overlay could answer it without introducing religion or God.
Apparently you can't.

Your only recourse, then, is to turn to the philosophers. Good luck with that.

Biblical Christianity is the only world view that is internally consistent with itself and, therefore, not a self-defeating system, unlike all the philosophies of the world.

Boxcar

[Buckeye]

The purpose of the Universe is unknown. To claim otherwise means you know something.

You don't.

[TJDave]

Biblical Christianity is the only world view that is internally consistent with itself and, therefore, not a self-defeating system, unlike all the philosophies of the world.


Porpoise is looking better and better.

[Steve R]

[snip]Doesn't science impose a limitation upon itself by restricting its studies to empirical evidence...[snip]
Boxcar
Not always. If that were true then observation would always precede discovery, which certainly was not the case in much of Einstein's work nor in a lot of the work of today's leading edge physicists. Einstein's proposal that gravity bends light was purely a consequence of the math. He didn't set out initially to prove such a phenomenon existed and it wasn't until some years later that the empirical data was collected to confirm it. IOW, empirical evidence didn't drive the discovery process in this particular instance. Similarly, the existence of black holes was not a driver but a consequence of the general theory of relativity.

[boxcar]

The human perception of time essentially limits how we think about the physical world. For most people time demands beginnings and ends. But as you say, this may ignore "a higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get." Because we create limits to our reality we think of the Big Bang as a beginning when it may be just a point in an infinite existence with no start and no finish. It may have been one of an infinite number of Big Bangs in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction. We have no problem accepting numbers that are infinitely large or infinitely small, but for some reason time must be constrained.

Time is either time or it isn't. If there is no such thing as a continuum of succeeding events, then the Universe itself is eternal; for Time, Space and Matter (or the Universe) can only exist together. Neither of these fundamental elements can exist without the other. (I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?) Also, Gen 1:1 is scientifically accurate. "In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER). These three were commanded into existence simultaneously. In short, the Universe is a TriUniverse; for it was structured after the Triune nature of God. The Three fundamental structures to the TriUniverse are distinct and separate from each other (as are the three Persons of the Godhead), yet neither element can exist without the other. The are so inextricably entwined that they are also One.

A virtue of not believing in a deity that set things in motion is the ability to accept the possibility time may have no beginning and no end.

Jesus Christ (through whom all things came into existence) is called the Alpha and the Omega. Not surprising you would assign divine attributes to His creation.

Absent those restrictions the true wonders of the universe (or universes) are crystallized in the mind and anything is possible.

Would that include the hypothesis that little invisible elves built the universe?
Anything is possible, except for little three letter words that begin with "G"?

Boxcar

[hcap]

The human perception of time essentially limits how we think about the physical world. For most people time demands beginnings and ends. But as you say, this may ignore "a higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get." Because we create limits to our reality we think of the Big Bang as a beginning when it may be just a point in an infinite existence with no start and no finish. It may have been one of an infinite number of Big Bangs in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction. We have no problem accepting numbers that are infinitely large or infinitely small, but for some reason time must be constrained. A virtue of not believing in a deity that set things in motion is the ability to accept the possibility time may have no beginning and no end. Therefore one may reject out of hand questions about what existed before the universe was "created" or what there will be after the universe "ends". I have no problem accepting the possibility that the universe always was and always will be, regardless of the number of transformations it undergoes. When man discovered the equivalence of matter and energy or particles and waves our perceptions of reality were changed forever, as they were with the unification of space and time into a single manifold.

If one can accept these equivalences then the imposition of a deity becomes irrelevant. You come to realize that an artificial construct to explain what we don't fully understand is unnecessary. We are simply putting boundaries on what we consider understandable. The entire thought process is confounded by the irrational belief that any one set of religious dogma is superior to all the others. That each of the major modern religions has unique geographical, ethnic and racial origins argues that they are opportunistic at best. The one thing they have in common is the imposition of restricted thinking. Absent those restrictions the true wonders of the universe (or universes) are crystallized in the mind and anything is possible.A major problem as I see it is language and words. Particularly as we become more educated in the use of language and ironically get constrained by its very use. First pointed out by Alfred Korzybski is the devious trap of confusing the map for the territory.
He remarked that "the map is not the territory", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, i.e. confuse models of reality with reality itself.
Words are our valiant but limited way of drawing endless maps of and not exploring the territory itself. I think we lose track of what we are trying to describe and actually make it worse with worn out words---dogma. Both Religious and Scientific models that create well trodden pathways in our brains/mind are nifty shortcuts to per-digested concepts, but also keep us moving along a very limited road. And it also is why these concepts are not easy to discuss when you try to step outside of the usual neural pathways. So not only do we have the tough job of understanding the universe, but more importantly ourselves the observers.

[boxcar]

Not always. If that were true then observation would always precede discovery, which certainly was not the case in much of Einstein's work nor in a lot of the work of today's leading edge physicists. Einstein's proposal that gravity bends light was purely a consequence of the math. He didn't set out initially to prove such a phenomenon existed and it wasn't until some years later that the empirical data was collected to confirm it. IOW, empirical evidence didn't drive the discovery process in this particular instance. Similarly, the existence of black holes was not a driver but a consequence of the general theory of relativity.

But Einstein knew that Light and Gravity exists through empirical evidence. There is no direct empirical evidence for God. However, there is evidence of his existence through what he has made. Plus there is intuitive evidence for his existence. But no direct empirical evidence, save for the testimony of divine revelation about Jesus Christ (God incarnate).

Boxcar

[hcap]

Time, Space and Matter (or the Universe) can only exist together. Neither of these fundamental elements can exist without the other. (I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?)That is when Steven Hawking asked you on his TV series to solve some minor tensor calculus stuff for him right?

Let me ask you again for those that are not familiar with your broad mathematical abilities,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Components_stress_tensor.svg/300px-Components_stress_tensor.svg.png
The stress tensor, a second-order tensor. The tensor's components, in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, form the matrix :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b/e/fbe5fb36cb1b0cae88c12bcb3250d05a.png
whose columns are the stresses (forces per unit area) acting on the e1, e2, and e3 faces of the cube.

So box, assuming of course the Lorentz transformation describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, different measurements of space and time by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference, how can we solve for the outcomes of varying degrees of stresses on say the e2, and e3 faces of the cube projected and expanded in to 4 dimensional space and above?

[boxcar]

That is when Steven Hawking asked you on his TV series to solve some minor tensor calculus stuff for him right?

Let me ask you again for those that are not familiar with your broad mathematical abilities,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Components_stress_tensor.svg/300px-Components_stress_tensor.svg.png
The stress tensor, a second-order tensor. The tensor's components, in a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, form the matrix :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/b/e/fbe5fb36cb1b0cae88c12bcb3250d05a.png
whose columns are the stresses (forces per unit area) acting on the e1, e2, and e3 faces of the cube.

So box, assuming of course the Lorentz transformation describes how, according to the theory of special relativity, different measurements of space and time by two observers can be converted into the measurements observed in either frame of reference, how can we solve for the outcomes of varying degrees of stresses on say the e2, and e3 faces of the cube projected and expanded in to 4 dimensional space and above?

:lol: :lol: Forget theoretical 4 dimensions because in the REAL world we live in a three dimensional universe. Time, Space and Matter cannot exist apart from one another. And in the real world, we measure things length, width and height. You might live in a four-dimensional house, but no one else here does. :lol: If there's no such thing as Time, and Time is but a figment of our imagination, then the entire Universe is Eternal. And that presents a rather sticky problem, doesn't it? All Life dies, doesn't it? (Doesn't sound very eternal to me.) One would think that an Eternal all Powerful Universe would beget Eternal Life. Life Eternal would be oozing out of every pore of the Universe. But that isn't the case, is it? Also, the Universe is subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, isn't it? Things tend to run down. Things corrode, rust, rot and disintegrate. Doesn't sound very eternal to me either.

So, we're back to square one. Did Nothing miraculously beget Something? With what or how did "nothing" get knocked up? :D

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

:lol: :lol: Forget theoretical 4 dimensions because in the REAL world we live in a three dimensional universe.
Boxcar

Huh? Length, width, height are three dimensions. Time is the fourth.

[thaskalos]

Is it realistic for us to think that we are capable of determining the universe's purpose?

After all...we observe the universe with tools which become outdated every few years.

[hcap]

Forget theoretical 4 dimensions because in the REAL world we live in a three dimensional universe. Time, Space and Matter cannot exist apart from one another. And in the real world, we measure things length, width and height. You might live in a four-dimensional house, but no one else here does. If there's no such thing as Time, and Time is but a figment of our imagination,Sorry bux but I think that for you to say....

"I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?)"

.....if you in fact proved such a high falutin' doctrine of sophisticated cosmology, you could at least give us a mathematical rundown on applying tensor calculus to at least how the 3 dimensions of space are affected by the relativistic changes described by the Lorentz Transformation

According to the principle of relativity, there is no privileged frame of reference, so the inverse transformations frame F′ to frame F must be given by simply negating v.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/b/c/0bcf8e36add43d850d61b19452ffdee2.png

Note that here, the same value of γ remains unchanged. Consequently just give us the solution to my original question without projecting past 3 simple dimensions. The reason, as you know, relativistic effects are crucial to the mathematical analysis in 3 dimensions as well as four and obviously as each tensor shifts relative sizes to a fixed observer vs one in the frame of the moving object as we approach the speed of light, each tensor is acting on each side of the cube, e1, e2, and e3 and nust be described within the well known differential limits of zero velocity and the fixed speed of light. Therefore, and I do not recall, if you indeed PROVED such a cosmological solution you must recall how you dealt with relativistic mathematics of the 3 tensors.

Refresh our memories.

PS: how do watches work?

And I hope your heartbeat is not a figment of your imagination.
It may be that we do not understand time, but there are real world effects that apply.

[boxcar]

Sorry bux but I think that for you to say....

"I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?)"

.....if you in fact proved such a high falutin' doctrine of sophisticated cosmology, you could at least give us a mathematical rundown on applying tensor calculus to at least how the 3 dimensions of space are affected by the relativistic changes described by the Lorentz Transformation

According to the principle of relativity, there is no privileged frame of reference, so the inverse transformations frame F′ to frame F must be given by simply negating v.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/b/c/0bcf8e36add43d850d61b19452ffdee2.png

Note that here, the same value of γ remains unchanged. Consequently just give us the solution to my original question without projecting past 3 simple dimensions. The reason, as you know, relativistic effects are crucial to the mathematical analysis in 3 dimensions as well as four and obviously as each tensor shifts relative sizes to a fixed observer vs one in the frame of the moving object as we approach the speed of light, each tensor is acting on each side of the cube, e1, e2, and e3 and nust be described within the well known differential limits of zero velocity and the fixed speed of light. Therefore, and I do not recall, if you indeed PROVED such a cosmological solution you must recall how you dealt with relativistic mathematics of the 3 tensors.

Refresh our memories.

PS: how do watches work?

And I hope your heartbeat is not a figment of your imagination.
It may be that we do not understand time, but there are real world effects that apply.

Look up the thread. It's in the archives.

And you don't need any mathematical formulas. You really can't figure out how Time, Space and Matter are interrelated? Are you serious? And you're the wannabe Einstein on this forum? Hint: Of what three components does Matter exist? Is it not Phenomena, which produces Energy which in turn produces Motion? (Another great example of Absolute Threeness in Absolute Oneness!) And don't these three require Space in which to move and fill? And when Matter is in motion, does not Motion necessarily consist of events which succeed one another from the Past throughthe Present to the Future? Time, therefore, is the successiveness of Motion in or through Space. As I recall saying in my little dissertation: I said this isn't what Time does, but it's what Time is. Can you not understand how it's impossible for Time to not exist, apart from the existence of Matter and Space?

Oh, and you want to know "how" watches work? Seriously? The next thing, you'll be asking is how do calendars work? :rolleyes: Another very stupid human invention, no doubt. :lol:

And one other thing: There is nothing "high falutin about my sophisticated doctrine of cosmology" It's really common sense, pretty much. But this is what you skeptics do best when confronted with simple truth: You try to create a complicated and hopelessly complex monster that most cannot understand. The fundamental structure of the TriUniverse is Time, Space and Matter. PERIOD! And the fundamental structure of each of these components in turn is Past, Present, Future, and then Length, Width and Breadth (to keep it simple) and then Phenomena, Energy and Motion. It's always been that way and it will be this way until the end of the age.

Boxcar

[highnote]

95% of the universe is invisible.

How do you know that 95% of the universe is invisible?

[highnote]

Something can't be made from nothing.

Can nothing be made from something?

[highnote]

Nietzsche, a depressed philosopher believed that, and entertained the idea that we were doomed to repeat our lives over and over eternally.


Woody Allen asked if that meant he would have to sit through the Ice Capades again.

[boxcar]

Huh? Length, width, height are three dimensions. Time is the fourth.

No! Time is separate and distinct. See my last post to Hcap.

I drive a thee-dimensional car. I live in a three-dimensional house. I shop in three-dimensional stores. I worship in a three-dimensional sanctuary. I am talking about the Real World here. When architects, builders, engineers, etc, design or build these things, a "clock" is not part of their dimensions.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Can nothing be made from something?

Yes, if you're a good magician. :D

Boxcar

[highnote]

Your only recourse, then, is to turn to the philosophers. Good luck with that.

Biblical Christianity is the only world view that is internally consistent with itself and, therefore, not a self-defeating system, unlike all the philosophies of the world.
Boxcar


And you have understanding of "all" the philosopies of the world?

[thaskalos]

And you have understanding of "all" the philosopies of the world?
He has a complete understanding of the important ones...

[highnote]

I like your perspective. The only point I might disagree on is that religion imposes restrictions on thinking. Perhaps people impose restrictions on their own thinking or perhaps people allow religion to impose restrictions. Religion is a concept. People are free to believe whatever they want if they are able to be cognizant that religion might impose restrictions. If a person is not cognizant of religion restricting their thinking then you are correct. However, I also believe that religion can offer interesting ways of thinking about being.

The human perception of time essentially limits how we think about the physical world. For most people time demands beginnings and ends. But as you say, this may ignore "a higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get." Because we create limits to our reality we think of the Big Bang as a beginning when it may be just a point in an infinite existence with no start and no finish. It may have been one of an infinite number of Big Bangs in a neverending cycle of expansion and contraction. We have no problem accepting numbers that are infinitely large or infinitely small, but for some reason time must be constrained. A virtue of not believing in a deity that set things in motion is the ability to accept the possibility time may have no beginning and no end. Therefore one may reject out of hand questions about what existed before the universe was "created" or what there will be after the universe "ends". I have no problem accepting the possibility that the universe always was and always will be, regardless of the number of transformations it undergoes. When man discovered the equivalence of matter and energy or particles and waves our perceptions of reality were changed forever, as they were with the unification of space and time into a single manifold.

If one can accept these equivalences then the imposition of a deity becomes irrelevant. You come to realize that an artificial construct to explain what we don't fully understand is unnecessary. We are simply putting boundaries on what we consider understandable. The entire thought process is confounded by the irrational belief that any one set of religious dogma is superior to all the others. That each of the major modern religions has unique geographical, ethnic and racial origins argues that they are opportunistic at best. The one thing they have in common is the imposition of restricted thinking. Absent those restrictions the true wonders of the universe (or universes) are crystallized in the mind and anything is possible.

[highnote]

He has a complete understanding of the important ones...


How do you know if the ones he does not have a complete understanding of are not important? What if he is not aware of some that may be more important than any others? Just because you don't know about something does not mean it is not important.

Or as Robert Goren alluded to -- just because man did not know how to fly did not mean man could not fly. The spirit of flying existed before the knowledge of how to fly existed.

And so the spirit of profound understanding of the universe through a certain philosophy or a perhaps many philosophies may exist, it's just that no one realizes it, yet.

[highnote]

Can nothing be made from something?

The answer must be yes. I have started many days at the racetrack with a bankroll and have been left with nothing. :(

[thaskalos]

The answer must be yes. I have started many days at the racetrack with a bankroll and have been left with nothing. :(
Technically, your lost bankroll wasn't turned into "nothing"...

It just relocated... :)

[Light]

How do you know that 95% of the universe is invisible?

70% of the universe is "dark energy". 25% of the universe is "dark matter". What we see only comprises the remaining 5%. This is a recent discovery from the last 10-15 years aided by the Hubble Space Telescope. Scientists are still trying to understand these new discoveries, hence the adjective "dark".

[highnote]

Technically, your lost bankroll wasn't turned into "nothing"...

It just relocated... :)


Thanks. I feel better now. :D

[Light]

Hey Greyfox

Sorry for a break from this topic but I was wondering if you are the same Greyfox playing in the Remington contest which ends tomorrow?

[Greyfox]

No! Time is separate and distinct. See my last post to Hcap.

I drive a thee-dimensional car. I live in a three-dimensional house. I shop in three-dimensional stores. I worship in a three-dimensional sanctuary. I am talking about the Real World here. When architects, builders, engineers, etc, design or build these things, a "clock" is not part of their dimensions.

Boxcar

Really?

If there wasn't time, there wouldn't be anything- your architects, builders, engineers couldn't build tweet. Your 3 dimensional car wouldn't exist, but if it did, it couldn't move (every mechanism in it demands time.)

[Greyfox]

Hey Greyfox

Sorry for a break from this topic but I was wondering if you are the same Greyfox playing in the Remington contest which ends tomorrow?

Nope. Thanks for asking though.

[hcap]

The fundamental structure of the TriUniverse is Time, Space and Matter. PERIOD! And the fundamental structure of each of these components in turn is Past, Present, Future, and then Length, Width and Breadth (to keep it simple) and then Phenomena, Energy and Motion. It's always been that way and it will be this way until the end of the age.For you to say you have proven this without any math is akin to telling me any of your architects who according to you do not consideer time when they design a building don't bother with math to calculate structural loads to determine what materials, to use, how thick to make beams, and what grade wiring must be run. It is impossible. Any architect saying he dosn't bother doing the math would never graduate, never design a building that would would be taken seriously. Because you have zero understanding of the math involved in the study of cosmology, I can not take you seriously when you bullshit that you have "proven" any of this.

BTW, you are dead wrong about "When architects, builders, engineers, etc, design or build these things, a "clock" is not part of their dimensions"A house built not knowing how long it will stand is not a house.

PS: it is obvious you have know understanding of math, or you would have told me that my mathematical example was a blatant "trick" question, and anyone with the most rudimentary abilities to reason would have spotted it as such.

[hcap]

Since you at least believe in common sense, and I assume observation,
3 wotds......

Speedometer.

Time dilation

[boxcar]

He has a complete understanding of the important ones...

I understand enough to know that all philosophies logically terminate in self-defeating systems.

Boxcar

[hcap]

That may be true. At least the empirical scientific approach has reality checks. It may be limited on questions like why, but does not alter observed and clearly explained phenomena to fit within grandiose explanations like your philosophy does when it dares to venture out into the real world

So? What about speedometers and time dilation, Mr Hawking?

[TJDave]

I understand enough


A fool's paradise

[hcap]

That may be true. At least the empirical scientific approach has reality checks. It may be limited on questions like why, but does not alter observed and clearly explained phenomena to fit within grandiose explanations like your philosophy does when it dares to venture out into the real world

So? What about speedometers and time dilation, Mr Hawking?
Oh yeah, you never posted the link to Harvard U about IQ's.
Don't worry I will not hold it against you if somehow you come up short on your "PROVING" a cosmological principle, way more clever than S. Hawking, or the link to an actual study conducted at Harvard backing your serious assertions .

I will just write it of to God works in mysterious ways. :lol:

[Rise Over Run]

Oh yeah, you never posted the link to Harvard U about IQ's.
Don't worry I will not hold it against you if somehow you come up short on your "PROVING" a cosmological principle, way more clever than S. Hawking, or the link to an actual study conducted at Harvard backing your serious assertions .

I will just write it of to God works in mysterious ways. :lol:

You're actually taking issue with your own quote... and inserting Smilies to prove your point.... That's the first sign of losing your sanity.

[hcap]

You're actually taking issue with your own quote... and inserting Smilies to prove your point.... That's the first sign of losing your sanity.Sorry if you were not paying attention earlier. On another thread boxcar made a claim about IQs. I questioned the link he provided as bogus. I am simply reminding him (boxcar) to post the direct link to Harvard U. His bogus link claimed the study originated there.

I may be losing it but occasionally I pay attention.

[Tom]

hcap is starting to live out the Telltale Heart.
His departure from reality is being noticed by everyone.

Ba-bump.
Ba-bump.
Ba-bump.

[hcap]

You do realize you are ranting and soon you will be foaming at the mouth.

Ok, I get it you can't keep up, and are simply acting like your boys in Congress. Obstructing and Filibustering.

[boxcar]

A fool's paradise

I'm sure you and your mirror are intimately familiar with a fool. Even your pet porpoise would agree with me. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Really?

If there wasn't time, there wouldn't be anything- your architects, builders, engineers couldn't build tweet. Your 3 dimensional car wouldn't exist, but if it did, it couldn't move (every mechanism in it demands time.)

I never denied Time. All I'm saying is that Time does NOT = Space. Time is not a dimension of Space. Nor does it equal Matter. Space, Matter and Time are indeed Absolute Oneness one component cannot exist apart from the other two; but at the same time they are Absolute Threeness because each element is fundamentally different from the other two. They are distinct from one another. In fact, there is a logical and causal relationship among these three fundamental components of the Universe. Matter precedes from Space and Time precedes from Matter (or more, specifically, from Motion) through Space.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

I never denied Time. All I'm saying is that Time does NOT = Space. Time is not a dimension of Space. Nor does it equal Matter. Space, Matter and Time are indeed Absolute Oneness one component cannot exist apart from the other two; but at the same time they are Absolute Threeness because each element is fundamentally different from the other two. They are distinct from one another. In fact, there is a logical and causal relationship among these three fundamental components of the Universe. Matter precedes from Space and Time precedes from Matter (or more, specifically, from Motion) through Space.

Boxcar

:ThmbUp: Agreed, and well said.

Except..... you lost me when you said :

"Matter precedes from Space and Time precedes from Matter (or more, specifically, from Motion) through Space."

Huh? :confused:

[boxcar]

For you to say you have proven this without any math is akin to telling me any of your architects who according to you do not consideer time when they design a building don't bother with math to calculate structural loads to determine what materials, to use, how thick to make beams, and what grade wiring must be run. It is impossible. Any architect saying he dosn't bother doing the math would never graduate, never design a building that would would be taken seriously. Because you have zero understanding of the math involved in the study of cosmology, I can not take you seriously when you bullshit that you have "proven" any of this.

BTW, you are dead wrong about "When architects, builders, engineers, etc, design or build these things, a "clock" is not part of their dimensions"A house built not knowing how long it will stand is not a house.

PS: it is obvious you have know understanding of math, or you would have told me that my mathematical example was a blatant "trick" question, and anyone with the most rudimentary abilities to reason would have spotted it as such.

Whoa, chief, I never claimed that builders and architects don't use math. You're deflecting from the issue. I said that the fundamental structure of the Universe is self-evident and that no math is needed. I also said that no math is needed to demonstrate that Time cannot possibly exist apart from the other two fundamental components to the Universe. And that if anyone going to postulate that Time is but a figment of man's imagination, then he must also say that the Universe itself is eternal, and that theory would open up a very sticky can of worms.

And I have proven this by my last post to you wherein I defined Time. That's all I have to do. It's should be self-evident to everyone that Time cannot exist independently of Space and Matter -- just by that definition alone. Even your boy Moses got it right in Gen 1:14-19. He didn't need any stinkin' math either. :lol: God created the lights in the heavens to "govern the day and the night". Those lights are always in motion, are they not? And aren't they in motion in Space? And aren't those lights Matter? And aren't those lights put into motion by Energy? It's these restless, continually moving celestial bodies that govern Time. We set our watches by them. We determine days. We determine weeks. Then months. Then years. Then decades. Then centuries. Our calendars rely upon these perpetually moving celestial bodies.

But even more than this: Aside from the non-personal nature of Time, it is structured after the Trinity. Time is at once an Absolute Oneness and Absolute Threeness. Following is a portion of the post I wrote several years ago dealing with Time, specifically:

When we ask what time it is, the answer is simple. We needn’t speculate how far Time is an outward reality, or how much it is our way of conceiving things. For whichever it is, (most probably both), the facts about time are so universal, so clear-cut and so familiar as to leave no practical question whatsoever in anyone’s mind. Time, as a matter of simple, everyday experience (as opposed to speculation) consists of only Three constituents: Past, Present and Future. We know these all, and we know them well. We all live and move in (or more accurately “through”) them. They include everything, and they make this a Time Universe.

So, then, how does this third great element in the structure of the Physical Universe compare with that principle of Triunity so strikingly found in the Divine Triunity of the bible? Let’s begin with the question: Is Time an Absolute Threeness?

Must it be no more than Three, and no less than Three? The answer to this seems to be self-evident. For Time consists of only Three things. There are always these Three and these only: Past, Present and Future. There can be no more, nor can there be any fewer. It is essential Threeness.

Is Time, then, such an essential Threeness that no Two of the Three can exist without the Third? Most assuredly! No One of the Three can exist without the other Two. Nor can Two of the Three exist without the other One. Let us examine the reasons for this.

If there is no Past, Time has never existed until this instant, and a moment later this instant will never have existed. If there is no Present, there is never any instant in which Time exists. If there is no Future, time ceases this instant, and, in fact, ceased a long time ago. Therefore, without any One of the Three, Time simply cannot exist. It is indeed an Absolute Threeness.

Is Time, also, an Absolute Oneness? Does it meet the bible’s requirements for the Absolute Unity of God? Are these Three elements of Time – Past, Present and Future -- so much One that Each of them is the Whole? It would seem incredible that there could be, yet, another Triunity in the Physical World which would fulfill that almost impossible and spiritual condition. But…doesn’t Each element in Time include All of Time?

Let us carefully consider: All of Time is or has been Future. The Future includes it ALL. All of Time is, has been or will be Present. The Present also includes it ALL. And all of Time is or will be Past. The Past, too, will include it ALL. At the beginning, all Time is Future. At the end all Time is Past. Between, all Time is Present. Each element of Time, therefore, is the Whole. They are wholly as One as the One is wholly Three. Triunity can go no further that this.

The next question to consider: Is Time Three modes of being? Absolutely! The Past, Present and Future are Three things which time is, not Three things which time does. They are the essential nature of time. Time is an essential Triunity, as absolute, by all the tests we have applied thus far, as that simple, essential Triunity which we call Space – as absolute as that richer and fuller Triunity we know as Matter – as absolute as that kind of Personal Triunity which the bible teaches.

The next question to consider: Is Time Three modes of being? Absolutely! The Past, Present and Future are Three things which time is, not Three things which time does. They are the essential nature of time. Time is an essential Triunity, as absolute, by all the tests we have applied thus far, as that simple, essential Triunity which we call Space – as absolute as that richer and fuller Triunity we know as Matter – as absolute as that kind of Personal Triunity which the bible teaches.

Now we must delve into the relationships of Time. How does Time exist? What is its Source? But to analyze and explore these relationships, our exploration will lead us down some untrodden paths – paths from which the mind may want to shrink, but which it will accept as Reality once the truth becomes self-evident. We can only safely depart from the beaten paths of those who have discussed the nature of time, if the facts become so obvious that rational minds cannot possibly deny them.

So, then, how does Time exist? And what is its Source? The answer will surprise most here, if not all, by first stating what it isn’t: It’s not the Past! Carelessly, we think it is so. But it’s not. (Remember: Not all things are as they appear.) Many have spoken of the “stream of Time” as flowing out of the Past. Most believe that Time moves out of the Past through the Present into the Future. But this is all backwards! For Time does not come out of the Past; it proceeds from the Future! I have undoubtedly shocked many readers’ minds with this revelation because it militates sharply against the habit of our thinking. Nonetheless, it is the self-evident fact. Now we must examine how this is so.

All we have to do is take a definite date – a definite piece of Time, and trace its course down through the Stream of Time to find at once whether that section of Time proceeds from the Past through the Present to the Future, or whether it proceeds from the Future through the Present to the Past. It would seem that the best place to start our investigation is with the Present; for it alone has the course of Time flowing through it in either of the two possible Time Stream scenarios. Therefore, let us consider that piece of time called “today”.

Today is the day you are reading this post, for example. For a long Time, this day was “next year” – far into the Future. Then it was “next month” – in the nearer Future. Then it was “next week” – in the, yet, near immediate Future. Then it was “tomorrow” in the very immediate Future.

Then it became “today” in the Present – where you are right now, as you’re reading this. Let us continue tracing this stream.

Very soon “today” will become “yesterday” – and slip into the immediate Past. Then it will become a “week ago” – in the recent Past. Then it will become “last month” in the ever receding Past. Then it will become “last year” into the distant Past.

Manifestly, that that section of time we call “today” comes out of the distant Future, then into the near Future, then into the Present, and then continues flowing through the Present as it steams first into the recent Past, then eventually “disappears” into the distant Past. What must be understood is that this is the unbroken, irrevocable, invariable and irrefutable order of Time. Never does Time flow in the opposite direction. Never does “yesterday” reverse its flow and become “today”. “Yesterday” can only become the “day before “yesterday” – two days deeper into the immediate Past. Never does the Past flow through the Present. Or for that matter, the Present into the Future. Never does “today” become “tomorrow”. It is “tomorrow” that becomes “today”. Then “today” becomes “yesterday”.

Therefore, since all this is undeniably true, the Future is the Source – the “reservoir” of Time, which one day will be Present, and then the Past. The Present, then, should be thought of as the “narrow strait”, the “living instant” “the flashing reality” through which the oncoming Future passes into the endless, receding Past.

What is the reason, then, for the common fallacy of thinking that Time flows out of the Past through the Present and into the Future? What accounts for this mistaken impression? There is a ready answer for this. We get this false impression because we can only think of the human race and human history as coming out of the Past. The human race passes from the Past through the Present into the Future. Therefore, we have fallen into the habit of thinking that Time flows the same way. We, as humans, can only relate to the human race in the context of our Past! We can only think of our Origins in terms of the Past – never the Present or the Future. The human race and human history always come to us out of the Past. Whereas, Time itself is actually coming at or to us from the opposite direction. What is happening, then, in a very real sense is that the Human Race is continually meeting Time, moment by moment, instant by instant. What a profound Paradox!

The Future is the Source of all Time. It is unseen and unknown, except as it continually embodies itself and makes itself visible in the Present. The Present is what we see, hear, touch, smell, know, etc. The Present is continually embodying the Future – day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment. It is perpetually revealing the Future, as the Future meets us where we are.

The Future, then, is logically First, but not chronologically. For the Present exists as long as Time exists, and…was in the absolute beginning of Time. Time acts through and in the Present. It is through the Present that the Future makes contact with human life. Time and humanity meet and unite in the Present.

The Past, in turn, proceeds from the Present. We cannot say that the Past embodies the Present; for Time issues from the Present into the Past to become “invisible” again. There is no way for us to seize a moment Past – not in the way we can in the Present.

But while the Past proceeds from the Present, the Present isn’t the Source. As we have seen, the Past issues from the Future through the Present. The Present coming out of the invisible Future perpetually embodies the Future in visible, audible, living form; and returns again into invisible Time into the Past. But the Past plays a very important role in our lives. It continually influences us with regard to the Present. It casts light upon the Present. This is its great function. It helps us to live in the Present in which we know -- and with reference to the Future, which we expect to see.

See, 'cap, no fuss, no muss, no "high fillutin' math -- just a little straight thinking and straight talking with no trick questions needed. So, not only is Time an indispensable component of the Universe, but this component (just as the other two) accurately and precisely reflects the Triune structure of the Godhead, notwithstanding that God is a Personal Being.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

:ThmbUp: Agreed, and well said.

Except..... you lost me when you said :

"Matter precedes from Space and Time precedes from Matter (or more, specifically, from Motion) through Space."

Huh? :confused:

Why does this surprise you? There is a logical and causal order to the Universe (not to be confused with chronology), that precisely reflects the logical and causal order of the Triune Godhead. But the Godhead aside for a moment, if you give this a little thought, I think you'd be able to reason it out logically. Hint: Obviously, Time is a product of Matter (or that aspect of it known as Motion or even more specifically successiveness or consecutiveness of Motion). But Space is needed before anything can move in it, right? How can anything move anywhere if there is no space provided for motion?

If you still have a problem sorting this out, I'll post my argument that I made several years back.

Boxcar

[Light]

I'd like to point out that Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

A quote from him "us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

I came to this same conclusion a few years before I ever read anything about it from a meditative experience. It only lasted about a second. I understood it completely for about another second after experiencing it. Then I tried to grasp what I was realizing and I lost the comprehension to it. I only know it's true. Time is an illusion as Einstein said. There is only a "now" which never goes away.

[hcap]

Forget theoretical 4 dimensions because in the REAL world we live in a three dimensional universe. Time, Space and Matter cannot exist apart from one another. And in the real world, we measure things length, width and height. You might live in a four-dimensional house, but no one else here does. If there's no such thing as Time, and Time is but a figment of our imagination, then the entire Universe is Eternal.

I doubt you clearly understand what a dimension is, ot you would not have stated the above. We of course measure time. Whether the Universe is eternal is an interesting question and I don't necessarily disagree, but that is a separate issue. And how we perceive time is also a problem, but it does not follow that time is a figment of our imagination.

Newtonian physics describe three physical dimensions. A particular point in space, can be moved in 3 basic directions. We can move up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Movement in any other direction can be described terms of just these three. (Moving diagonally is moving in a combination all three.)

In its simplest form: a line describes one dimension, a plane describes two dimensions, and a cube describes three dimensions.

Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" , but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension, and I think that is where you get it wrong. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions. We understand CHANGE of physical phenomena by establishing a frame of reference or "container" that acts as a means of comparing one event to another. Change requires the dimension of time just as a point requires the first dimension of a line to contain it. A plane to contain a series of lines, and a cube to contain a series of planes. Time is a reference container to describe the movement of that cube. And it is just as measurable as the physical spatial dimensions.Are you serious? And you're the wannabe Einstein on this forum? Hint: Of what three components does Matter exist? Is it not Phenomena, which produces Energy which in turn produces Motion? (Another great example of Absolute Threeness in Absolute Oneness!) And don't these three require Space in which to move and fill? And when Matter is in motion, does not Motion necessarily consist of events which succeed one another from the Past throughthe Present to the Future? Time, therefore, is the successiveness of Motion in or through Space. As I recall saying in my little dissertation: I said this isn't what Time does, but it's what Time is. Can you not understand how it's impossible for Time to not exist, apart from the existence of Matter and Space?I will try again. Imagin 3 yardsticks meeting at a point. One going up, one going left, one going right.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Coord_planes_color.svg/300px-Coord_planes_color.svg.png

Using these 3 axis, we can create a very useful mathematical device called a coordinate system. We can describe and predict all sorts of phenomena using this mathematical construct. The reality of 3 dimensions can be measured and if we predict the angles of a triangle by formulas deduced from a coordinate system, we have the means to verify those angles. Our measuring sticks are useful in quantitative analysis.

So the construct is a way for us to understand how the universe works and predict outcomes. But without extending the mathematical construct to another dimension, we cannot describe accurately certain ordinary situations and absolutely not more relativistic phenomena.

First the simple stuff. We all drive vehicles that move in 4 dimensional space. Or there would be no need for speedometers which measure 2 things. Distance covered and the RATE at which it was covered. A watch measures the RATE at which things move. I do not believe you would drive a car without knowing how fast you are going or be without a watch in the business world and screw up an important meeting.

Now for the relativistic stuff. We know that the rate that events change (time) is changeable by how fast (time-velocity) that the object moves relative to the speed of light. This is called Time Dilation. Not Space Dilation, although spatial dimensions also change in relationship to an external viewer watching the object approach the speed of light.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/figures/gr_timedial.gif

It has been observed that sub atomic particles moving at speeds approaching that of light decay at slower rates as they increase velocity.
Of course this is not noticeable at non relativistic speeds...speeds we are used to--much slower The above chart shows this.



From Wik....In physics, our three-dimensional space is viewed as embedded in 4-dimensional space-time, called Minkowski space (see special relativity). The idea behind space-time is that time is hyperbolic-orthogonal to each of the three spatial dimensions.

Space has three dimensions because the length of a box is independent of its width or breadth. Space is three-dimensional because every point in space can be described by a linear combination of three independent coordinates Space-time is four-dimensional because the location of a point in time is independent of its location in space. For instance a thing may stay in one position as described by our three yardsticks, but can also CHANGE it's properties without moving relative to where it first was.

So

1-Time can be measured

2-Without the mathematical construct of at least 4 dimensional space, our ability to understand the universe and predict outcomes fails.

3-Mathematics is required for the quantitative analysis which impinges on the qualitative analysis. In other words, we can not TEST empirically our assumptions without measuring our predictions Math is part of the deal, and you cannot prove involved cosmological models without it. You can speculate all you want and may come up with interesting theories, but that is not enough.

[Greyfox]

First the simple stuff. We all drive vehicles that move in 4 dimensional space.

Huh? Space is 3 dimensional. :confused:

Time adds a fourth dimension.

[boxcar]

I doubt you clearly understand what a dimension is, ot you would not have stated the above. We of course measure time. Whether the Universe is eternal is an interesting question and I don't necessarily disagree, but that is a separate issue. And how we perceive time is also a problem, but it does not follow that time is a figment of our imagination.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said, we can't or shouldn't measure time. Time has been "measured" since its creation.

It was either Light or Stevie who suggested that maybe there is no such thing as Time, indicating that the Universe itself is eternal -- not a surprising theory at all, by the way, since man tends to attribute divine attributes to the physical world, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

And good -- we're in agreement that Time is not a spatial dimension. (Or are we? Never know with you. ) :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I'd like to point out that Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously.

A quote from him "us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

I came to this same conclusion a few years before I ever read anything about it from a meditative experience. It only lasted about a second. I understood it completely for about another second after experiencing it. Then I tried to grasp what I was realizing and I lost the comprehension to it. I only know it's true. Time is an illusion as Einstein said. There is only a "now" which never goes away.

Actually, I think I may agree with you; however, we mortals do not (and I don't believe we can either) experience time in that way. Time flows to us from out of the Future, and we move and live through Time. Time is something that is fluid, not static. But because the Past, Present and Future contain ALL of time (every bit of it), since there is no event that hasn't flowed from the Future, through the Present to the Past, nor will there ever be, then Time is truly an Absolute Oneness.

And no, you will never grasp what you think you experienced because you're trying to comprehend Eternity, which is beyond our finite understanding. We are hopelessly time-bound, while in this age. We will always think of Time in its three "dimensions".

Boxcar

[hcap]

Huh? Space is 3 dimensional. :confused:

Time adds a fourth dimension.Ok, to be more specific, Space-time is four-dimensional, ands it is part and parcel of the world we occupy and Space-time is four-dimensional or "Minkowski space"

Velocity by definition is Distance/Time.

[hcap]

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said, we can't or shouldn't measure time. Time has been "measured" since its creation.

It was either Light or Stevie who suggested that maybe there is no such thing as Time, indicating that the Universe itself is eternal -- not a surprising theory at all, by the way, since man tends to attribute divine attributes to the physical world, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

And good -- we're in agreement that Time is not a spatial dimension. (Or are we? Never know with you. ) :rolleyes:

BoxcarAlmost box, but it is a dimension. The problem is it is not one of the three we perceive easily. Looking at Space Time as a 4th dimension-both spacial and temporal-supports the concept of eternity and what Light called the Eternal Now.

I mentioned that....
In its simplest form: a line describes one dimension, a plane describes two dimensions, and a cube describes three dimensions.

Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" , but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension, and I think that is where you get it wrong. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions. We understand CHANGE of physical phenomena by establishing a frame of reference or "container" that acts as a means of comparing one event to another. Change requires the dimension of time just as a point requires the first dimension of a line to contain it.
Let me clarify that. I did not emphasize ENOUGH an extremely important point Sorry It is not one of the 3 spatial dimensions we perceive easily, however it is a "CONTAINER" for those 3. So that an ordinary object in 3 dimensional space becomes a series of objects that may occupy the same 3 dimensional space, but changes in 4 dimensional Space Time. So that if we could perceive things with a 4th dimensional viewpoint we would understand the object simultaneously as in it's past, present and future. So yes it is not spacial in the sense we perceive spacial, but becomes a larger dimension that has spacial properties from all periods in an objects existence

Consequently to be able to perceive all moments, past, present and future implies an eternal realm. With no divisions by tense. The Eternal Now

[boxcar]

Almost box, but it is a dimension. The problem is it is not one of the three we perceive easily. Looking at Space Time as a 4th dimension-both spacial and temporal-supports the concept of eternity and what Light called the Eternal Now.[/

I mentioned that....
Let me clarify that. I did not emphasize ENOUGH an extremely important point Sorry It is not one of the 3 spatial dimensions we perceive easily, however it is a "CONTAINER" for those 3. So that an ordinary object in 3 dimensional space becomes a series of objects that may occupy the same 3 dimensional space, but changes in 4 dimensional Space Time. So that if we could perceive things with a 4th dimensional viewpoint we would understand the object simultaneously as in it's past, present and future. So yes it is not spacial in the sense we perceive spacial, but becomes a larger dimension that has spacial properties from all periods in an objects existence

Consequently to be able to perceive all moments, past, present and future implies an eternal realm. With no divisions by tense. The Eternal Now

No, it doesn't! We "perceive" the three "dimensions" of time because they are real! Also, Time implies a beginning and end. They do exist. If the Universe is the Great "I AM", then we are in eternity and as begotten children of this cold, impersonal Universe, we should also be eternal. If the Present is all there is, then there would be no need for the successiveness or consecutiveness of Motion, would there? If the Present is all there is, we humans would have no need to plan, to learn, to experiment, to explore, etc., etc. -- all of these activities being the products of the "successiveness of Motion".

If the Present is all there is, all knowledge would instantly and simultaneously reside in us, just like it does in God. This is so because of how the Present functions in the universe. The Present functions in the same manner as the the Second Person of the Trinity does. Just as Christ is the revelation of God and revealed God to the world -- just as Christ is the embodiment of the First Person of the Trinity, so too the Present manifestly reveals Phenomena to us. The Present has and will embody all of time, but it does it not consist of all time. All Time is embraced by the Past, Present and Future in that all time flows through each of these three elements -- but the Present uniquely EMBODIES time -- the Present impacts our senses in a way that the Future and the Past cannot.

The Future is precisely analogous to the First Person of the Godhead, who is invisible, unseen, unknown, "mysterious" -- just like the Future is. We often talk of the Future in terms of "not being able to know" what it has in store for each of us. We do not know what the Future holds for us or what it will bring. The only way we can know for certain is when "tomorrow" becomes "today.

But when "today" becomes "yesterday", now we're dealing with the Past. All the moments of "yesterday" are gone FOREVER! Those moments cannot be sensed or seized in the exactly the same way we were able to do so "yesterday" -- when yesterday was the Present. And the Past is precisely analogous to the Third Person of the Godhead; for the Holy Spirit has this profoundly paradoxical role of revealing the Son (the Second Person). The Father sent the Son to reveal Him in the Him to the world, and the Father also sent the Holy Spirit through the Son to reveal both. The Son proceeds from the Father, the same way the Present proceeds from the Future. And the Past proceeds from the Future through the Present to further reveal (but in a different way) the Future and Present. The Past can often shed Light on things that have transpired. The Holy Spirit is called the Helper in the NT; so, too, the Past and our experiences out of it help us to live in the Present and in the Future.

But the Present, because it has embodied and will embody all Time, plays a very unique role in our existence and and experiences because it's perpetually revealing the Future, which is the Source of all Time. Time acts through and in the Present. It is through the Present that the Future makes contact with us. Time and humanity meet and unite in the Present. Therefore, if the Present is all there is, and the Past and Future are figments of overworked human imaginations, then ALL things should be manifestly revealed to us and be known by us at once! None of our human activity would be time-bound. We would no longer have to think, talk, learn or engage any activity in successive or consecutive stages. Your theory sounds nice, but it doesn't work out too swell when you try to apply it to the real world.

And one other thing about this "fourth dimension" nonsense. This has about the same value as does two dimensional thinking. Two dimensions has its uses in the minds of mathematicians. But in the real world, there is no such thing as two dimensions -- except on paper, and even then the paper has thickness. :D Ditto for four dimensions. Whatever this hypothetical fourth dimension is, it is not the same as spatial dimensions. It is not a dimension of distance or direction; therefore, it is neither Space or even an extension of it. Time can be used to calculate distance, but it's not distance -- therefore, Time is not a fourth dimension of Space.

Secondly, I find it humorous that these brainiac scientists seem fixated on the Time-Space continuum thingy, even though Time proceeds directly from Matter! Time is more closely related to Matter's second element of Motion than it is to Space! It seems to me that scientists should be thinking of the Universe strictly in terms of what it really is: Space-Matter-Time continuum -- and in precisely this order, I might add! Why is this? Because this is they way the Universe works and it just "coincidentally" happens to reflect the precise logical, causal order the Triune Godhead. Space represents the invisible, unseen First Person of the Trinity. Matter represents the Second Person of the Godhead, as Matter (specifically the second element of Motion) is the embodiment of Space. And Time, represents the Third Person of the Godhead because it proceeds from Space through Matter. In fact, it is actually Time that impacts our senses -- that allows us to touch, feel, hear, etc. because varying phenomena impact our senses through varying lengths of vibrations, i.e. successiveness of Motion. Time, therefore, has a "ministry" to the human race, as it were,, uncannily alike to the Holy Spirit's in that it brings and reveals things to our senses. The fundamental triune structure of the Universe, therefore, precisely reflects the structure of the Godhead, as the bible reveals these great truths.

Eternity, 'cap, is beyond our grasp to understand. We are hopelessly time-bound creatures in this age. It's no wonder at all that Paul could write that it has not entered the mind of man what lies before us in the next age. In Eternity, God's people will have eternal life. Therefore, I think it's very safe to say that whatever lies ahead in the eternal universe (New Heavens and New Earth) will be very different from what we know and experience in this age -- radically different.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Time is more closely related to Matter's second element of Motion than it is to Space!
Boxcar

What is "Matter's second element of motion?"

[Greyfox]

What is "Matter's second element of motion?"

That's okay boxcar, you don't need to answer that question.

I taught Physics many years ago and never heard that terminology or at least matter and motion spoken of in that way.
In fact, very few internet sites use that terminology either.

However, I found one site that seems to closely line up with the ideas you are espousing. In fact, I'm wondering if you were the author at that site.

Check out:

http://hissheep.org/messages/secrets_of_the_universe.html

[boxcar]

What is "Matter's second element of motion?".

Motion is the second element. The first is Energy from which Motion is derived, then Motion produces the third element which is Phenomena.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

That's okay boxcar, you don't need to answer that question.

I taught Physics many years ago and never heard that terminology or at least matter and motion spoken of in that way.
In fact, very few internet sites use that terminology either.

However, I found one site that seems to closely line up with the ideas you are espousing. In fact, I'm wondering if you were the author at that site.

Check out:

http://hissheep.org/messages/secrets_of_the_universe.html

It sounds as though the author of that site or page and me might have gotten the material from the same source. Once upon a time, I had an old book titled "The Trinity and the Universe" or the "Trinity in the Universe" (I can't recall the exact title). Anyhow, in my move (a long time ago) I either lost or misplaced the book or lent it to someone who didn't return it. But it was an excellent work because the author asked the same question from outset that I did: Why is the Universe the way it is? He did an excellent job in demonstrating that the Universe is a TriUniverse structured precisely after its Triune Creator, save for its impersonal nature of course. For example, Motion, the Second Element to Matter, perfectly reflects the Second Person of the Godhead in that it embodies the Universe. It gives physicality to the Universe, just as Christ is God in the flesh -- just as "God was in Christ", etc.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

It sounds as though the author of that site or page and me might have gotten the material from the same source. Once upon a time, I had an old book titled "The Trinity and the Universe" or the "Trinity in the Universe"
Boxcar

Thank you.

Any further questions re: the theological side of this discussion, I'll post in the thread on Religion at some point.

[TJDave]

It sounds as though the author of that site or page and me might have gotten the material from the same source.

I'll bet they want it back. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

I'll bet they want it back. :rolleyes:

Chalk that bet up to another losing one. But your thought-provoking, insightful contributions are always appreciated. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Thank you.

Any further questions re: the theological side of this discussion, I'll post in the thread on Religion at some point.

Actually, I have no idea why 'cap, a staunch believer in the philosophy of Materialism would even ask such a question that is the title to this thread. I'm led to wonder if he thinks the physical universe has a mind of its own -- or a center of consciousness. It's not possible for science to answer his question, anymore than science can tell us why the universe is structured the way it is. All they can tell us is that it "evolved" that way. It just happened. :rolleyes: It's truly a metaphysical problem -- and one that biblical Christianity handles the best. As I said in my thesis years ago, God's "fingerprints" are all over His universe.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Actually, I have no idea why 'cap, a staunch believer in the philosophy of Materialism would even ask such a question that is the title to this thread. I'm led to wonder if he thinks the physical universe has a mind 2.of its own -- or a center of consciousness. It's not possible for science to answer his question, anymore than science can tell us why the universe is structured the way it is.

Boxcar

1. hcap- a staunch believer of Materialism or it's philosophy. Doubtful.

2. Physical universe has a mind of it's own. - maybe. Some believe in Gaia.

3. It is not possible for science to answer the question of this thread. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

1. hcap- a staunch believer of Materialism or it's philosophy. Doubtful.

Oh, he is. He's a religious Materialist who dibs and dabs in Buddhism. He's a staunch believer in evolution, isn't he? He believes all the answers can be found in physical science.

2. Physical universe has a mind of it's own. - maybe. Some believe in Gaia.

You have a point there. Wonder if that piece of mythology is part of Hcap's baggage? :D

3. It is not possible for science to answer the question of this thread. :ThmbUp: [/QUOTE]

Or on any other non-metaphysical or non-religious thread.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Box, is there any way you can describe what you are talking about with using the Bible?

And who said anything about "the Present is all there is"?
I mentioned that if one could see past only the present, all distinctions of time that we make, past, present and future would be perceived very differently
Consequently to be able to perceive all moments, past, present and future implies an eternal realm. With no divisions by tense. The Eternal NowThe Eternal Now does not mean "eternal" present only

The past , present and future are contained in a larger dimension of
4 dimensional Space Time. Just like 3 points may be contained by a line, 3 lines by a plane, and 3 planes by a cube. I think you do not understand what a "dimension" is. so I will give you a hand conceptually:

It is our construct to help us understand mathematically, and therefore measure reality in such a way and to be able to verify physical laws and a framework to predict outcomes.

The only way we know for sure how accurate theories and speculations are about physical law, is HOW WELL it jives with what we observe through a process of verification. So although you would like to remove any spatioal quality from time, and it may sound good to you, it can only remain in the realm of speculation unless you can apply your theory to outcomes of real world events. Your theory will remain only a raw theory unless you can support it like EVERY OTHER COSMOLOGIST tries to do with a rigorous mathematical underpinning . Although a "thought experiment" or two might be useful. But before I use that type of test, let me once again explain how the logical construct of a dimension works

"Mathematically, a dimension is an axis across which something can change. Space has three dimensions, because you can change along length, width, or height. Time has a dimension because you can change through time. Saltiness also has a dimension, although it’s not particularly useful for most purposes; but even so, oceanographers treat saltiness as a dimension.

One dimensions represents every possible value of some particular thing. A dimension could be represented with a line, which contains every possible location in one-dimensional space. It could be represented as moving through every possible shade of red, or every possible level of saltiness, or any other measurable thing that you can think of. You can also use this line to represent every possible combination of this thing: you can represent one shade of red along the redness dimension, or you can use two points to represent two shades of red, or three points to represent three shades of red, and so on.

What about when you introduce a second dimension? Now you can represent every combination of two things and every possible set of combinations. The most obvious example is length and width. On a spacial plane, you use a single point to represent length and width, and a set of points to represent many different lengths and widths. You can also extend this into three dimensions, for example with three-dimensional space. Using the axes of length, width, and height, you can represent any point in space. Next, bring it into the fourth dimension".

If the first three dimensions are space and the fourth is time, then we are now able to represent every combination of space and time that can possibly exist. This is called Space Time.


Let me add that a construct is a useful device that may only exist in our mind. For instance in the construct of 3 dimensional space

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Coord_planes_color.svg/300px-Coord_planes_color.svg.png

Applying yardsticks along each axis, and using a coordinate scheme is our construct that enables us to describe and predict aspects of spatial reality. Are there points in space that exist labeled a, b, c, ? Is there a grid with lines that float out there in reality? No. But it is our very useful construct. In fact a yardstick with measuring marks is also a construct. However we know this is a very good approximation of the relationships that exist in the real world, and therefore we use and accept this construct.

More later. Gotta run

[Greyfox]

hcap- Your posts are becoming somewhat redundant with those x,y,z vectors.

[hcap]

hcap- Your posts are becoming somewhat redundant with those x,y,z vectors.Interesting that you choose that to criticize Just sayin'

BTW, for an X physics teacher you seem kinda quiet on faith based physics. :lol: :)

[Greyfox]

Interesting that you choose that to criticize Just sayin'

BTW, for an X physics teacher you seem kinda quiet on faith based physics. :lol: :)

I'm only criticizing because you keep presenting the same material with slight twists.
What you are saying is interesting but it's not really getting any closer to the goal of at least hypothesizing what is the purpose of the Universe.

[boxcar]

Box, is there any way you can describe what you are talking about with using the Bible?

Anyway, why can't you discuss what is really a metaphysical or philosophical topic without using all those stupid graphs and vectors? All those fancy graphs, formulas and theories about 4 dimensions will NOT answer your question as to whether or not there is purpose behind the universe. Only a personal intelligence can purpose anything, i.e. have intent.

And who said anything about "the Present is all there is"?
I mentioned that if one could see past only the present, all distinctions of time that we make, past, present and future would be perceived very differently
The Eternal Now does not mean "eternal" present only

And if IFs and BUTs were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas, too.

The past , present and future are contained in a larger dimension of
4 dimensional Space Time. Just like 3 points may be contained by a line, 3 lines by a plane, and 3 planes by a cube. I think you do not understand what a "dimension" is. so I will give you a hand conceptually:

It is our construct to help us understand mathematically, and therefore measure reality in such a way and to be able to verify physical laws and a framework to predict outcomes.

My reality tells me that we live in a three-dimensional universe -- no more -- no less. Whatever your 4th dimension is, it's not spatial in nature. But I'm always open to learn. Once the film industry starts making 4-D movies, I'll be sold. :lol:

By the way, maybe you should lay off the sci-fi movies. You've been watching too many of them with time machine themes. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

I'm only criticizing because you keep presenting the same material with slight twists.
What you are saying is interesting but it's not really getting any closer to the goal of at least hypothesizing what is the purpose of the Universe.Grey, Sorry, but one of us is saying he has "proven" his faith based theory that time cannot possibly be a " part of the space time continuum". As a ex physics teacher, doesn't it rub you the wrong way that one of us misunderstands a pretty well established theory in modern physics.? And that one of us who misunderstands that, just did not say "here is my concept" like many others have said, but has the ego to say he has proven an alternative without being able to present any math to support that contention?

The standard in modern physics states that:

Special relativity reveals that c is not just the velocity of a certain phenomenon—namely the propagation of electromagnetic radiation (light)—but rather a fundamental feature of the way space and time are unified as space time.

More importantly spacetime or the space–time continuum is a mathematical construct that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one of time. But by going past Euclidean math, combining space and time into a single "manifold", physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels. A manifold is a topological model that may be constructed of n dimensional space, and YES 4 dimensional space and above, and it becomes a framework to mathematically analyze things like the Special and General theory oif Relativity.

And modern physics says this:

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

.... In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur. Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slows at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame. Such slowing, called time dilation,

So the empirical evidence for combining time with space as one continuum, is supported by observing time dilation due to either relativistic velocities or gravitational fields.

[boxcar]

Grey, Sorry, but one of us is saying he has "proven" his faith based theory that time cannot possibly be a " part of the space time continuum".

I never said such a thing. I said that space has no more, nor CAN it have anymore, than three [spatial] dimensions. The physicists can add 10 more "dimensions" to space, but they won't be of the same nature of those that are spatial in nature.

And, yes, I poke a little fun at the great mathematicians with their fancy theories who talk of a space-time continuum because the definition of "universe" is that it's the "whole body of things observed or postulated", so space-time doesn't quite cut it. The UNIVERSE is, as stated previously, a Space-Matter-Time continuum. These three components are the fundamental stuff of which the universe is made. It is of what the universe consist. But these three distinct components are so intricately woven into the fabric of the universe that the Universe itself, while an Essential Threeness, is also Absolute Oneness. The Universe cannot consist of more or less. For from Space through Matter to Time [b]are all things[b] in this universe. ("For from Him and through Him and to Him are ALL things.", cf. Rom 11:36) Remove even one "sub" element from any of these components, and the universe ceases to exist as we know it!

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Grey, Sorry, but one of us is saying he has "proven" his faith based theory that time cannot possibly be a " part of the space time continuum". As a ex physics teacher, doesn't it rub you the wrong way that one of us misunderstands a pretty well established theory in modern physics.? .

You don't get it.

boxcar is going to continue to say that the Universe (including time, space, matter) simply exists as a medium for God's purpose. Full stop.

You or I quarelling about the nature of space, time, quantum mechanics, Newtonian forces and so on has nothing to do with what is the purpose of the Universe. Disputing boxcar's understanding of those concepts doesn't get us any closer either.

At least Nietzsche who thought God is dead, came closer than your or I have come to stating what is the purpose of the Universe in this thread..
I've already advanced one idea that it is to increase consciousness or our ability to tap into a sea of consciousness that may be around us.

Tell us what you think is the purpose of the Universe. Don't tell us about vectors re: time and space. Yes. We use those to explain aspects of the Universe. But they do not answer the question of purpose.

[PaceAdvantage]

If you drink enough Doers, the Universe will certainly seem to have a purpose...or not...

[hcap]

Grey, Sorry, but one of us is saying he has "proven" his faith based theory that time cannot possibly be a " part of the space time continuum".
I never said such a thing. I said that space has no more, nor CAN it have anymore, than three [spatial] dimensions. The physicists can add 10 more "dimensions" to space, but they won't be of the same nature of those that are spatial in nature.
Here is your original statement that I found objectionable
Time, Space and Matter (or the Universe) can only exist together. Neither of these fundamental elements can exist without the other. (I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?)Shortly thereafter you said this doozy:
Forget theoretical 4 dimensions because in the REAL world we live in a three dimensional universe. Time, Space and Matter cannot exist apart from one another. And in the real world, we measure things length, width and height. You might live in a four-dimensional house, but no one else here does.
So:

1-You have NOT proven anything, nor can you.

2-We all live in a at least a 4 dimensional universe That is at least 4 There may be more. And we measure time as we do things in space. We use things called clocks.

Space time inherits all the properties of all spatial dimensions contained within it, along with time. If there are more dimensions and there is much written about that possibility, those "larger" dimensions will inherit ALL of the preceding constituent dimensions.

[hcap]

You don't get it.

boxcar is going to continue to say that the Universe (including time, space, matter) simply exists as a medium for God's purpose. Full stop.

You or I quarelling about the nature of space, time, quantum mechanics, Newtonian forces and so on has nothing to do with what is the purpose of the Universe. Disputing boxcar's understanding of those concepts doesn't get us any closer either.

At least Nietzsche who thought God is dead, came closer than your or I have come to stating what is the purpose of the Universe in this thread..
I've already advanced one idea that it is to increase consciousness or our ability to tap into a sea of consciousness that may be around us.

Tell us what you think is the purpose of the Universe. Don't tell us about vectors re: time and space. Yes. We use those to explain aspects of the Universe. But they do not answer the question of purpose.You are too easy on boxcar and give him passes too easily.

And for some reason keep missing things that I post. Post #34 :)

However my view is that logic may not be suited to answer these questions.

When I said the very large and very small are not understandable by logic, I meant that there may be other ways of knowing that stands in relationship to logically "knowing" something, as the study of quantum mechanics stands relative to Newtonian physics. And these other ways of knowing are closer to the mystical approach to the world than the scientific. Then again, the grandeur of the Universe, and amazing scientific discoveries can inspire that feeling of awe that may be quite close to the mystical.

Trying to grasp the whole ball of wax as a gestalt experience may be a clue to this type of thinking. A higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get.
You and I had this exchange. Me:
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

...F. Scott Fitzgerald

There does not have to be an answer and there may not be one

You:

For this question the answer seems to be either Yes or No.
The Universe either has a purpose or purposes, or it does not.

[Greyfox]

There does not have to be an answer and there may not be one

There is an answer, but whether we are capable of giving it is another question.

My thoughts are a little along the lines of what Overlay suggested earlier, but slightly different.

The question is "Does the Universe have a purpose?"

Looking around me I see a flock of pigeons and a crowbar on the ground.
The flock of pigeons flys off. They circle above and then move on.
It is clear that their behavior is "purposeful."

The crowbar sits there and does not move.
The crowbar only serves a purpose if I employ it.
I conclude that the crowbar would lay there for 10,000 years if nothing disturbs it. It's only of value when some object with animation (life) moves it.

Looking at the Universe question we come back to 3 ideas that:
1. the Universe is a machine
2. the Universe is a machine that is motivated by a creator
3. the Universe is not a machine, and while it may appear to have machine like operations, it is alive and has an intelligence.

Personally, I've ruled out Option 1.
The fact that there is life with purpose anywhere in it goes beyond anything machines can do, even those with artificial intelligence.

So the question now becomes is the Universe a machine operated by a creator as boxcar might suggest, or is it a living entity on it's own, wherein parts of it are animate and parts are inanimate?

For me, my preference is Option 3, and am open to the possibility of Option 2.
That puts me in the ballpark of people who believe the Universe has a purpose. Answer = Yes.

Of course if the question had been "What is the pupose(s) of the Universe?"
Geez, we might spend eons debating that.

In either of these last two conditions, I would conclude the Universe has a purpose.

[DJofSD]

Just because a person can not perceive dimensions other than the usual does not mean they don't exist. Read Abbott's Flatland.

[Tom]

The crowbar sits there and does not move.
The crowbar only serves a purpose if I employ it.
I conclude that the crowbar would lay there for 10,000 years if nothing disturbs it. It's only of value when some object with animation (life) moves it.

It's purpose is to ward off pigeons.
Damn good at it, to, apparently.

[DJofSD]

Many ways to read "Flatland" here. (http://archive.org/details/flatlandromanceo00abbouoft)

[Greyfox]

Many ways to read "Flatland" here. (http://archive.org/details/flatlandromanceo00abbouoft)

Thank you for that link. Just looking at the Table of Contents it looks interesting and the author appears to have been ahead of his time.

[boxcar]

There is an answer, but whether we are capable of giving it is another question.

My thoughts are a little along the lines of what Overlay suggested earlier, but slightly different.

The question is "Does the Universe have a purpose?"

Looking around me I see a flock of pigeons and a crowbar on the ground.
The flock of pigeons flys off. They circle above and then move on.
It is clear that their behavior is "purposeful."

The crowbar sits there and does not move.
The crowbar only serves a purpose if I employ it.
I conclude that the crowbar would lay there for 10,000 years if nothing disturbs it. It's only of value when some object with animation (life) moves it.

Looking at the Universe question we come back to 3 ideas that:
1. the Universe is a machine
2. the Universe is a machine that is motivated by a creator
3. the Universe is not a machine, and while it may appear to have machine like operations, it is alive and has an intelligence.

Personally, I've ruled out Option 1.
The fact that there is life with purpose anywhere in it goes beyond anything machines can do, even those with artificial intelligence.

So the question now becomes is the Universe a machine operated by a creator as boxcar might suggest, or is it a living entity on it's own, wherein parts of it are animate and parts are inanimate?

For me, my preference is Option 3, and am open to the possibility of Option 2.
That puts me in the ballpark of people who believe the Universe has a purpose. Answer = Yes.

Of course if the question had been "What is the pupose(s) of the Universe?"
Geez, we might spend eons debating that.

In either of these last two conditions, I would conclude the Universe has a purpose.

If number 3, then how come this intelligence hasn't been discovered by now? And is this "intelligence" eternal or did it have a beginning? Is this "intelligence" a prisoner of Time, as we are? Don't forget: We humans aren't the Universe. We're in the Universe. We occupy a very infinitesimal portion of the Universe, but we are not WHAT the Universe IS.

I have previously defined what the Universe is because I asked the specific question, which was: Why is the Universe what it is? So, in order to answer that presupposes that we first know what it is. Then maybe, we can get to the bottom of the "why" part. The most fundamental structure to the Universe, we have identified as a Space-Matter-Time Continuum. Then I proceeded to define each component in my thesis years ago. I defined what each basic component is, not what it does or how it does it. I was not at all concerned about how the Universe works, or even why it works the way it does. I was only concerned with what it is and why it is that way. Is there a discoverable reason behind its basic structure, or is it all pot-luck chance?

I think a lot of the confusion has come into to this thread because Hcap (primarily) keeps veering off on the tangent of scientific theories about unperceived dimensions which scientists like to banter around and write on chalk boards in order to understand better how the Universe works. But the "how" of it all was never my concern. Just What it is and Why.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Here is your original statement that I found objectionable
Shortly thereafter you said this doozy:
So:

1-You have NOT proven anything, nor can you.

2-We all live in a at least a 4 dimensional universe That is at least 4 There may be more. And we measure time as we do things in space. We use things called clocks.

Space time inherits all the properties of all spatial dimensions contained within it, along with time. If there are more dimensions and there is much written about that possibility, those "larger" dimensions will inherit ALL of the preceding constituent dimensions.

In THEORY only! In the real world, i.e. the perceivable world, there are only three Components. And Space has only 3 SPATIAL dimensions. I don't live in a four-dimension spatial house or work in a four-dimension spatial office or drive a four-dimensional spatial car. Space and Time are uniquely different components, yet at the same time they are necessary to one another, just as Matter is necessary to each of those two also. If there is such a thing as a "universe", then all three components are each the whole AND are necessary to each other to be the whole, i.e. the cosmos, the universe.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

2-We all live in a at least a 4 dimensional universe That is at least 4 There may be more. And we measure time as we do things in space. We use things called clocks.

Really? So, let me see...er, my office SPACE measures 25' x 10' x 8' high. Please advise soonest to what I should have my atomic clock and my 'puter clocks set to., and after I have reset them to your recommended settings, please advise what that will do to my 25 x 10 x 8 office.

Space time inherits all the properties of all spatial dimensions contained within it, along with time. If there are more dimensions and there is much written about that possibility, those "larger" dimensions will inherit ALL of the preceding constituent dimensions.

"Inherits", eh? So, there was a time before its inheritance that "space-time" didn't have all those properties, eh? They weren't always intrinsically there from the very beginning, eh? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

If number 3, then how come this intelligence hasn't been discovered by now?

Boxcar

The same question applies to #2.

Intelligence (albeit low level) has been discovered.

#2 assumes God is behind it working through a mechanical universe
#3 assumes it may be the Universe itself behind it, working as a living organism

[Greyfox]

Really? So, let me see...er, my office SPACE measures 25' x 10' x 8' high. Please advise soonest to what I should have my atomic clock and my 'puter clocks set to., and after I have reset them to your recommended settings, please advise what that will do to my 25 x 10 x 8 office.




Boxcar

If your office is in a vehicle travelling at very high speed, that cesium (atomic clock) will slow down, compared to a cesium clock left behind in an office that is not moving. Fact.

[DJofSD]

Time is similar to gravity: you experience it every moment of your life but you can not define it. Sure, you can describe the effects but can you actually say what, at its essence, is time or gravity? No, you can't.

[hcap]

Really? So, let me see...er, my office SPACE measures 25' x 10' x 8' high. Please advise soonest to what I should have my atomic clock and my 'puter clocks set to., and after I have reset them to your recommended settings, please advise what that will do to my 25 x 10 x 8 office.

These are concepts of Einstein and other post Newtonian physicists and mathematicians. Pre-20th century Newtonian physics used euclidean math. However consider this. According to euclidean geometry of 2 dimensions, the sum of the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. Draw that same triangle, same proportions, blown up a thousand times on the surface of the Earth and that is no longer true. Drawing on a 3 dimensional curved surface changes the assumed prior understanding. We know these things because we can measure, and quantitative analysis can support or not support speculations of all sorts.

Modern physics includes time in space time, and says we live in at least a 4 dimensional universe, and allows us to understand why assumed conclusions from Newtonian laws and euclidean math no longer work in relativistic conditions --speeds close to light speed, or the very large or very small. Cosmology and quantum physics would not "add up" properly if we applied only Newtonian/euclidean concepts.

[boxcar]

Time is similar to gravity: you experience it every moment of your life but you can not define it. Sure, you can describe the effects but can you actually say what, at its essence, is time or gravity? No, you can't.

Sure you can define it. It IS successiveness or consecutiveness of motion. That's NOT what it does, but what it is. We see and feel the effects of time every day due to the celestial bodies which God has put into the heavens for that purpose. For that purpose, we see and feel and experience the four seasons, also, don't we? SummerTIME. WinterTIME, etc. We would not have day and night if it weren't for this successiveness of motion, etc. This is why Time logically and causally proceeds from Matter. If we didn't have Matter, we would not have Time. And if we didn't have Space in which Matter can manifest itself into Motion, we wouldn't have Matter or Time either. Time "moves" because of Motion in Space.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

These are concepts of Einstein and other post Newtonian physicists and mathematicians. Pre-20th century Newtonian physics used euclidean math. However consider this. According to euclidean geometry of 2 dimensions, the sum of the angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. Draw that same triangle, same proportions, blown up a thousand times on the surface of the Earth and that is no longer true. Drawing on a 3 dimensional curved surface changes the assumed prior understanding. We know these things because we can measure, and quantitative analysis can support or not support speculations of all sorts.

Modern physics includes time in space time, and says we live in at least a 4 dimensional universe, and allows us to understand why assumed conclusions from Newtonian laws and euclidean math no longer work in relativistic conditions --speeds close to light speed, or the very large or very small. Cosmology and quantum physics would not "add up" properly if we applied only Newtonian/euclidean concepts.

Thanks for the non-practical answer to my very specific practical problem. Again, you have just proven what I have been stating: Scientists have come up with their theories to try to better understand how things work in the Universe. But that was never my concern. Now let's move on to another practical problem to which I'm certain you'll also provide a non-answer.

You said earlier that this hybrid that scientists call time-space continuum is the fourth dimension of SPACE because at the end of the day, Time or Space have "inherited" each others properties -- clearly suggesting, incidentally, that there was a "time" when this wasn't always the case. :D But that aside for a moment, if Time and Space are one and the same components, then explain to me why we can "measure" Time, but have never been able to measure Space. Why is it that no brainiac to date has been able to put a "yardstick" to Space? Why hasn't anyone been able to drop the plumb line through the depths of Space? Why hasn't anyone come it with Space's spatial dimensions? I have a reasonable answer for this, but do you?

Now, here's something else that is enigmatic about Time: We can measure time but -- but only as it streams through the Present and passes into the Past. Therefore, we can measure only because of the Present -- because the Present (the Second Element) reveals the physical world to us -- through our senses. But we cannot measure all of time because the Future is totally mysterious and unknown, since the Future represents pure, unseen, unknowable spirit, which the First Person of the Trinity is. So, we can only measure Time to the extent that we're either alive to do so (streaming for individuals) or Time has not ceased altogether (i.e. the end of the age has come upon the world).

I'll be waiting with bated breath for you to come up with the spatial dimensions of Space, since in your world Space = Time, apparently. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

I'll be waiting with bated breath

I'd suggest underwater. :ThmbUp:

[DJofSD]

Sure you can define it. It IS successiveness or consecutiveness of motion. That's NOT what it does, but what it is. We see and feel the effects of time every day due to the celestial bodies which God has put into the heavens for that purpose. For that purpose, we see and feel and experience the four seasons, also, don't we? SummerTIME. WinterTIME, etc. We would not have day and night if it weren't for this successiveness of motion, etc. This is why Time logically and causally proceeds from Matter. If we didn't have Matter, we would not have Time. And if we didn't have Space in which Matter can manifest itself into Motion, we wouldn't have Matter or Time either. Time "moves" because of Motion in Space.

Boxcar
Ugg.

You just proved my point. Telling me how you experience time and space does not define it.

Here's one for you: why do we always experience time in a linear and forward manner? Why does time not go backwards?

Read some of Hawkings books then get back to me.

[ceejay]

Ugg.

Here's one for you: why do we always experience time in a linear and forward manner? Why does time not go backwards?

Who says it can't go backwards? Just because We do not experience it backwards does not mean that it can't go that way.

Just because you cannot measure something doesn't mean it can't exist

[DJofSD]

True, true.

I guess we can ignore the second law of thermodynamics.

[ceejay]

I have always been a little oppsed to entropy! :lol: :D

[boxcar]

Ugg.

You just proved my point. Telling me how you experience time and space does not define it.

No! I proved nothing of the sort. I defined Time. From MW's Collegiate:

1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Dictionaries don't describe things -- they define things. Are you in such denial, that you're going to tell us that Night does not follow Day due to cosmic activity? The only thing Webster got wrong was the logical, causal order of things. Are you really going to tell me that the successive events in the heavens don't determine seasons? Seriously?

Now, I live in south Florida. Thus far, we haven't had much in the way of a change of seasons; yet, the days are much shorter, my lawn only needs to be cut every 5 to 6 weeks (vs. weekly!), certain trees are in bloom as normal, while others are also normally shedding their leaves, etc. -- all without an appreciable change in weather! I think what I have just [i]described are the effects of time[/b]. I am experiencing a different season. Have you experienced Fall, yet?

Here's one for you: why do we always experience time in a linear and forward manner? Why does time not go backwards?[/quote]

I explained this. It's because the stream of time is [b]in front of us. We meet the stream moment by moment as it is heading toward us. The stream flows to us from out of the Future, and it's a one way stream. Time flows from the Future through the Present to the Past. That is logical, causal and irreversible order. But please be sure to let me know the moment you experience "yesterday" today in the same exact way that you experienced "today". But as for me and my family, we look forward to experiencing "tomorrow" when or if it arrives here and makes itself present to us.

Read some of Hawkings books then get back to me.

Oh yeah...he was also the brainiac who "proved" the bible was full of contradictions, wasn't he? Be sure to talk to PA about that. I'm sure he'll let you know how Hawkings worked out for him when he introduced a small sample of the man's brilliance to me on the "Religious" thread. Trust me: I wasn't impressed.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Who says it can't go backwards? Just because We do not experience it backwards does not mean that it can't go that way.

Just because you cannot measure something doesn't mean it can't exist

So, just because we haven't seen or experienced the tooth fairy doesn't negate his or her or its existence, does it?

I say it can't go backwards because if someone had experienced it, it would have been well documented and the experience would have been repeatable and verifiable. But feel free to continue to believe in Santa Claus on what amounts to an "argument from silence" -- or better yet, pure, unadulterated conjecture.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I'd suggest underwater. :ThmbUp:

There's no room for me with you and your pet porpoise under there. And trust me: I'm fine with that. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

Oh yeah...he was also the brainiac who "proved" the bible was full of contradictions, wasn't he?

Boxcar

Hawking is not Christopher Hitchens!

[boxcar]

True, true.

I guess we can ignore the second law of thermodynamics.

Err...so the 2nd Law transports us back into the Past, does it?

And by the way, notice how we so often (without even thinking about it) we unwittingly acknowledge how Time flows. Do we not often say that we look forward to the Future? Very odd language, indeed, if that Future is streaming from behind us. Or very strange if the Future is coming at us from our rear flank, don't you agree? Or how often have we heard the expression, "It's time to move forward"? Again, really strange language if looking "forward" means we must look behind us for the oncoming stream of the Future. It's as though we intuitively know the direction of Time's stream.

Or with respect to the Past, don't we often say things along the line of, "Don't look back"? Or with respect to something that has already happened, Put that experinece behind you once and for all"? Why behind us? Because the Past is where it belongs and we often need to put bad things behind us -- in the stream of the Past where they belong, etc., etc.

My argument in #86 in this thread is irrefutable. It's irrefutable because of the above and because of the way we actually experience and think of Time. We look forward to the Future (when expecting good things) because that is how the Future is flowing. The Future is ahead of us, not behind us. It is streaming to us and meeting us in the Present, and not flowing from behind us. Tomorrow is always ahead of us. Yesterday is always behind us.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Hawking is not Christopher Hitchens!

Thanks for the correction.

So, this guy Hawking -- did he invent a time machine or something and travel back into the past? How did this guy forever change how we think (or should think) about Time?

But seriously --yes, I know he won numerous science awards, etc., but this was a guy who said (essentially) that God is unnecessary to explain the origins of the Universe. At the same time, he acknowledged that the Universe is governed by "laws of science" that may have been decreed by a Creator -- but if so, God would not intervene to break them. (It seems he had zero concept of what "sovereignty" means!) When people employ this kind of syllogistic logic into their thought processes, it diminishes their credibility with me. Spiritually dead people, i.e. people to whom God is dead or all but dead (or if you wish to substitute "unnecessary" for "dead", that's okay), have usually been given a limited amount of light (true knowledge) by God. There may be grains of truth in things they postulate (even some large grains) but there's nothing worse than partial truth because the tendency is to expand it to and represent it as being the whole of the matter, and to make a bigger deal out of something when it's not worthy.

Hawking seemed to be fascinated with Time (because after all, God has set "eternity in man's heart") but even more than this -- also because he seemed to believe that if he could fully explain Time, he would have the mind of God Almighty himself. (But then...why would Hawking covet having the mind of an unnecessary being? I bet this arrogant scientist never considered himself as being "unnecessary"!) It seems, therefore, that Hawking and the Evil One had something in common, for both wanted to be like God.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

It seems, therefore, that Hawking and the Evil One had something in common, for both wanted to be like God.

Boxcar

Hawking has probably had to fight more "demons" than you or I could ever imagine.

He's a very intelligent person and you are looking silly knocking him.

[hcap]

Obviously you do not know who Hawking is
Let alone what Einstein did to alter physics.

I guess you don't understand Time dilation

Did you know that if you were traveling on a spaceship approaching the speed of light, any clock on board your ship, although showing your time as normal to you, depending upon how fast you actually go, to an observer back on earth it would be ticking slower and you moving very slow? When you returned home it would show you had experienced a different rate of "duration" than those of us back on earth. That time aboard your ship flowed at a different rate?

Not only that, but to an observer back on earth, your spaceship and everything on it would appear to have it's spacial dimension along the axis of forward motion foreshortened. Not only that, but the mass of your ship and everything aboard would also INCREASE depending upon your velocity in relation to the speed of light

The mathematics of this has been supported many times by experimental evidence and is a well established phenomena. The math of space time predicts this well whwereas Newtonian math does not.

[boxcar]

Hawking has probably had to fight more "demons" than you or I could ever imagine.

He's a very intelligent person and you are looking silly knocking him.

If he were spiritually intelligent, he would have never said that God isn't necessary to figure out the physical universe. And if he were all that intelligent, he would have at least have figured out that God just might be the sovereign ruler of the universe and is free to suspend his laws that govern the operation of the universe.

The world is filled with highly intelligent spiritually dead people. And whatever Hawking theorized about the universe in general or Time, specifically, it hasn't changed life for me or for anyone else on a practical, experiential level. The hands on my clock are still in motion, and my sundial works just fine, too. The shadows, too, still move on it. ;)

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

No! I proved nothing of the sort. I defined Time. From MW's Collegiate:

1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : DURATION b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

Dictionaries don't describe things -- they define things. Are you in such denial, that you're going to tell us that Night does not follow Day due to cosmic activity? The only thing Webster got wrong was the logical, causal order of things. Are you really going to tell me that the successive events in the heavens don't determine seasons? Seriously?

Boxcar

Dictionaries define the meaning of words. A good dictionary will give additional information such as etymology, pronounciation, usage, etc. The meaning of a word does not explain the true nature of what the word is used to describe. The meaning of a word is not the essence of the thing, it is merely establishing a common point of reference so communication can take place and we will more or less understand one another.

Just because you can look a word up in a dictionary and find an entry does not mean you have a complete understanding of the topic. Metaphysics requires more than just looking up a definition then posting it as a proof.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boxcar can't envision a non 3-D world because his office is measured in such rigid terms, but he's certain of so many other things that require ten times the leap of faith required to imagine. Demons, Devils, Underworlds, Judgment Days... but they're real... because they are in a book.

Seriously Box, I let people go on with their religiousness without unsolicited injections of my own skepticism... but how can you be so practical in defiance of some of these theories because of what you can and cannot observe in reality and yet, you base most of your other beliefs in life on things that are simply that, tangibly unobservable beliefs?

[hcap]

I particularly like the way box claims he has proven stuff in physics and cosmology. i think he should have is own science series on the Discovery Channel and have guys like Pat Robertson on to discuss scientific issues.

Oh wait!, can't have Pat. He just admitted the earth is way older than box claims, and Dinosaurs were not romping freely in the Garden Of Eden :)

[boxcar]

Obviously you do not know who Hawking is
Let alone what Einstein did to alter physics.

I guess you don't understand Time dilation

There are a lot of things in this life I don't understand but I do know what the fundamental structure of the Universe -- the "stuff" of which the Universe consists. And I know that in this world, on planet Earth (anyway) that Space does not = Time. Are they related? Of course, they are -- all three components are. They are so closely related that they are necessary to one another. I have frequently stated that the Universe is a Space-Matter-Time continuum that are so inextricably weaved together that they are Absolute Oneness. But that doesn't make Space and Time equal. They have a different definition and serve a very different function.

The fact that they are very different can immediately be recognized by the fact that no scientist has put a cubic volume number to the Space, nor will that ever be done (although some arrogant scientist one day might claim to have done so). Space is entirely immeasurable, unlike Time. And the reason for this is because Space is analogous to the First Person of the Trinity who cannot be found even if he passed right by you, whose ways are past finding out, whose immensity, power and wisdom are incomprehensible. Space is just like God the Father. Space is so immense, we can only perceive it as being everywhere -- an endless expanse -- having no beginning and no end, just as God is omnipresent. Interestingly, Space is the only component that has no element that reveals it. (In other words, its length, width and height cannot be discovered or measured.) Only the Second and Third Components to the TriUniverse (Matter and Time) reveal Space, just as the Second Person of the Godhead reveals the Father and the Third Person who is sent by the Father through the Son reveals both Father and Son.

Again, my dictionary defines "absolute space" as:

4 a : a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction b : physical space independent of what occupies it called also absolute space

Please note the key words in this defintion: "boundless", "three-dimensional" (signifying spatial properties), "independent" of Matter and Time. Yet, without Space, we would have neither Matter or Time.

So...on a practical level -- on a level on which I and everyone else lives and experience life on this planet -- until the day arrives that someone claims he has measured Space and has proven it, then the whole space-time continuum theory will be just that -- a theory. There might be great value to having that theory laid out on paper to help us understand a little better how the Universe works, but until someone actually measures Space, then Space and Time remain different and independent components to the basic structure of the TriUniverse.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Boxcar can't envision a non 3-D world because his office is measured in such rigid terms, but he's certain of so many other things that require ten times the leap of faith required to imagine. Demons, Devils, Underworlds, Judgment Days... but they're real... because they are in a book.

Seriously Box, I let people go on with their religiousness without unsolicited injections of my own skepticism... but how can you be so practical in defiance of some of these theories because of what you can and cannot observe in reality and yet, you base most of your other beliefs in life on things that are simply that, tangibly unobservable beliefs?

UNOBSERVABLE!? You get on my case for believing in the existence of God because he is "unobservable", yet you at the same time mock me for disbelieving that I live in a 4-D house. I disbelieve because I have never seen such a structure. I have never OBSERVED such an animal. But pray tell, John, do tell us about how your 4-D office differs from my 3-D one. Seriously, John...

Boxcar
P.S. I think it's a riot we're having this kind of discussion because, coincidentally, I have workman on my property erecting a structure on it. I just can't wait to see what the 4th spatial dimension to it is going to look like when they return from lunch to complete the job. :lol: :lol:

[Greyfox]

but until someone actually measures Space, then Space and Time remain different and independent components to the basic structure of the TriUniverse.

Boxcar

Space and Time are independent concepts.

However, to have any idea where you are boxcar astrophysicists have to wed the two together in a Space-Time continuum.

For example, right "now" you are in Florida.
But as you read these statements Florida (and you) are moving around the Sun which is moving around the Milky Way which is also moving relative to other galaxies in the Universe.

It has taken you time to read this passage so far.
In the meanwhile, both you and Florida have moved through Space relative to the Sun (the Milky Way) and so on.

Therefore, for physicists to calculate where you even roughly are, even relative to the Sun, Time has to be introduced as a fourth Dimension on the Space-Time Continuum.

For all practical purposes in your daily life you live in a 3 dimensional universe and time appears to be a separate concept.

But if NASA intends to launch a rocket to the Moon, for their practical purposes, Space-Time vector trajectories have to be calculated.

[DJofSD]

I've posted this link (http://joelaurentino.com/2009/06/what-kind-of-cup-golf-student-are-you/) in another thread.

The question it poses: what kind of cup (golf student), or, in this thread, student in general, are you?

I'm done.

[Greyfox]

I've posted this link (http://joelaurentino.com/2009/06/what-kind-of-cup-golf-student-are-you/) in another thread.

The question it poses: what kind of cup (golf student), or, in this thread, student in general, are you?

I'm done.

Golf and the purpose of the Universe? For some I suppose.

[boxcar]

I particularly like the way box claims he has proven stuff in physics and cosmology. i think he should have is own science series on the Discovery Channel and have guys like Pat Robertson on to discuss scientific issues.

Oh wait!, can't have Pat. He just admitted the earth is way older than box claims, and Dinosaurs were not romping freely in the Garden Of Eden :)

I have proven back in '05 that the Universe is structured precisely after the TriUne structure of the Godhead. You see, if you took biblical revelation seriously, you would discover that bible tells us precisely how the Trinity is structured -- what the relationship is among the three persons of the Godhead. And you would discover that, the Trinity also has a logical, causal order to it. And apart from the Universe being Impersonal, it is nonetheless structured in all other ways precisely (keyword here is "precisely", by the way) after the TriUne Godhead. What a big fat coincidence, eh?

I have already given a few examples of this in this thread. But here's another one. Let's do another Time thingy. Jesus (the Second Person) of the Godhead (who reveals the Father (First Person) is called the Alpha and the Omega. He is the First and the Last. He is the Beginning and the End.

The Present is the Second Element to Time. The Present is what reveals the Universe to us. The Present is what touches all our senses. So, then, when does time begin for us as individuals? Does it not begin with the Present? A person is born, let's say on January 2, 1940 at 1:15 A.M. -- well on that date at that precise hour and minutes when the infant exited the womb, life began for him. That date and time he entered the world was his Present.

And when that person died, let's say July 23, 2012 at 6:57 P.M. that was his last moment in the Present he ever experienced. The Present ended for him precisely on that date, at that hour and minutes. Therefore, life begins and ends for us all with the Present. The Present, like the Son in the Godhead, is everyone's Alpha and Omega. Life begins and ends with the Present. Everyone's FIRST moment in the world began in the Present and everyone's LAST moment in the world ENDS in the Present. The Present (Time's 2nd Element), like the Son (2nd Person of the Godhead), is life's Alpha and Omega.

There are many such precise analogies as these between the Trinity and the TriUniverse, 'cap. It's a shame you're so willfully blind to them.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I've posted this link (http://joelaurentino.com/2009/06/what-kind-of-cup-golf-student-are-you/) in another thread.

The question it poses: what kind of cup (golf student), or, in this thread, student in general, are you?

I'm done.

You know what the big problem is with the dumb Zen cup thingy? When that cup is empty eagerly awaiting to be filled, it can be filled with "junk food" if you're not discriminating. But a far wiser person taught this about "the cup":

Matt 23:25
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
NASB

It pays to very careful and discriminating as to what your put into your cup.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Box, I guess you didn't understand why I posted 3 effects of moving at near the speed of light.

Contained within your spaceship is a time/space/matter continuum that is NOT experiencing the same flow of time or state of spacial contraction or weight of matter as your friend are back on relatively slowpoke earth.

Time therefore is affected by the rate of velocity through space and is not static and constant throughout the universe. Gravity similarly affects space and time . It curves space and slows time. Light will travel a curved path around a massive body because it follow the curvature of space around that body

All of this shows a that time cannot be taken as universally constant, nor the actual dimensions of space, and both time and 3 dimensional space change in direct proportion to velocity. And both the changes in time and space change proportionately to each other and are mathematically interconnected. As though all react as one fabric.

How do you explain these changes in your euclidean non relativistic Newtonian universe?

Space is entirely immeasurable, unlike Time. And the reason for this is because Space is analogous to the First Person of the Trinity who cannot be found even if he passed right by you, whose ways are past finding out, whose immensity, power and wisdom are incomprehensible. Space is just like God the Father.

Btw, here is an easy way to measure distances in space. Use a reflector on the moon and direct a laser beam there and measure the time back and forth.

I have proven back in '05 that the Universe is structured precisely after the TriUne structure of the Godhead.Just can not believe you are as sanctimonious talking science as your bible thumping religion

[Greyfox]

Btw, here is an easy way to measure distances in space. Use a reflector on the moon and direct a laser beam there and measure the time back and forth.



I think hcap that boxcar is saying you can't measure the totality of space, in effect, the whole ball of wax.

In that he's probably correct as Space, as we understand it, is undergoing rapid expansion every instant.

But once again let me say, departures regarding the features of the Universe,
do not address the purpose of the universe, if any.

[hcap]

I think hcap that boxcar is saying you can't measure the totality of space, in effect, the whole ball of wax.

In that he's probably correct as Space, as we understand it, is undergoing rapid expansion every instant.

But once again let me say, departures regarding the features of the Universe,
do not address the purpose of the universe, if any.This is what he said.But that doesn't make Space and Time equal. They have a different definition and serve a very different function.

The fact that they are very different can immediately be recognized by the fact that no scientist has put a cubic volume number to the Space, nor will that ever be done (although some arrogant scientist one day might claim to have done so). Space is entirely immeasurable, unlike Time. Perhaps you are correct. However we were talking dimensions and that is how I took it. I will let him clarify. Note that assuming time can be measured may not be true either considering the concepts of the multiverse and the oscillating universe.

You do realize threads can alter initial direction and they do often. Actually Mr Mathematicians' arrogance knows no bounds. I will not give him a pass as easily as you, especially whem he knows nothing about math and physics and at the same time claims to be able to prove stuff.

[Greyfox]

I will not give him a pass as easily as you, especially whem he knows nothing about math and physics and at the same time claims to be able to prove stuff.

Each of us are prisoners to our own thinking.

Our thoughts and thought levels and processes are stronger than any steel bars that would physically restrain us.

It is understandable that boxcar tries to place a theological template on Time, Space, and Matter.

He accepts his theories as proven, as they are proven to him.

For me it is a very long stretch to try to explain those scientific concepts as part of a Trinity coming from a "Godhead" and supposedly supported by scripture. When I read the Bible, I don't get that out of it.*
Furthermore, that is not the sort of thing that I'm looking for from the Bible.


*(boxcar- If you feel the need to expand on biblical support for the structure and features of the Universe with scripture , then I suggest that you address it in the Religious Thread, not this one.)

[TJDave]

It is understandable that boxcar tries to place a theological template on Time, Space, and Matter.


Neither understandable or acceptable. Like trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

[boxcar]

Each of us are prisoners to our own thinking.

Our thoughts and thought levels and processes are stronger than any steel bars that would physically restrain us.

It is understandable that boxcar tries to place a theological template on Time, Space, and Matter.

He accepts his theories as proven, as they are proven to him.

For me it is a very long stretch to try to explain those scientific concepts as part of a Trinity coming from a "Godhead" and supposedly supported by scripture. When I read the Bible, I don't get that out of it.*
Furthermore, that is not the sort of thing that I'm looking for from the Bible.


*(boxcar- If you feel the need to expand on biblical support for the structure and features of the Universe with scripture , then I suggest that you address it in the Religious Thread, not this one.)

You don't get that from the bible because I'd bet my last dollar that you don't even see the Trinity doctrine taught in the bible, so how in the world are you going to see mathematical-like precision analogies between that doctrine and the fundamental structure of the Universe?

And for the umpteenth time, the question 'cap posed in this thread is not a scientific one. The physical sciences cannot address purpose (intent or intention) behind the Universe, since purpose is an activity that only rational, intelligent lifeforms can perform. This type of inquiry, therefore, is best suited for the realms of philosophy or religion. Now, if PA objects, and he thinks I'm off-topic, then I'll reply on the Religious thread -- which is where this subject should have been broached in the first place.

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

And for the umpteenth time, the question 'cap posed in this thread is not a scientific one. The physical sciences cannot address purpose (intent or intention) behind the Universe, since purpose is an activity that only rational, intelligent lifeforms can perform. This type of inquiry, therefore, is best suited for the realms of philosophy or religion.
Boxcar

No argument here.

[boxcar]

This is what he said.Perhaps you are correct. However we were talking dimensions and that is how I took it. I will let him clarify. Note that assuming time can be measured may not be true either considering the concepts of the multiverse and the oscillating universe.

You do realize threads can alter initial direction and they do often. Actually Mr Mathematicians' arrogance knows no bounds. I will not give him a pass as easily as you, especially whem he knows nothing about math and physics and at the same time claims to be able to prove stuff.

That's right, Einstein...to be precise, I said earlier that no scientist has taken the "yardstick" to the universe. Do I have to spell that out for you? Yardstick meant no scientist has measured the cubic volume of Space. No one has stated what the spatial dimensions are of space. Therefore, you are totally all wet when you made the grandiose claim about the space-time continuum that each has inherited each others properties. If this were the case, then Space should have been measured many years ago, as this space-time continuum theory is not exactly new. Someone should have told us by now precisely what the spatial dimensions of Space are -- what its cubic volume is.

And, yes, I can and have proven that the TriUniverse is the mirror image of the Triune Creator as revealed in scripture.

And now you're going to tell us that Time cannot be measured? Really? My watches and clocks keep great time, thank you. And my calendars on the wall are spot-on, also. And the seasons change precisely when they're supposed to, etc., etc. And it appears that Nature itself acknowledges the change of seasons (times) with all manner of corresponding changes in growth rates, color changes, etc. If Time cannot be measured, 'cap, throw away all the above time-keeping devices. Try living your life for one week pretending that Time cannot be measured. :rolleyes:

Now, take a deep breath and just answer one very simple question: Does the basic structure of the Universe consist of Space, Matter and Time?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Neither understandable or acceptable. Like trying to force a square peg in a round hole.

So, then, you must believe that the physical sciences can address purpose? If so, what has your favorite sci-fi comic book revealed to you about the Universe's "purpose"?

Boxcar

[hcap]

That's right, Einstein...to be precise, I said earlier that no scientist has taken the "yardstick" to the universe. Do I have to spell that out for you? Yardstick meant no scientist has measured the cubic volume of Space. No one has stated what the spatial dimensions are of space. Therefore, you are totally all wet when you made the grandiose claim about the space-time continuum that each has inherited each others properties. If this were the case, then Space should have been measured many years ago, as this space-time continuum theory is not exactly new. Someone should have told us by now precisely what the spatial dimensions of Space are -- what its cubic volume is.
I did not say "each inherited each others properties"

A points properties is inherited by a line.
A line's properties is inherited by a plane
A plane's properties by a cube
A cube's properties is inherited by a teesract

A generalization of the cube to dimensions greater than three is called a "hypercube", "n-cube" or "measure polytope". The tesseract is the four-dimensional hypercube, or 4-cube.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png/240px-Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png

Therefore the 4 dimensional Space Time continuum contains properties of every subset. The teesaract ia construct to help visualise a 4 dimensional cube. Itl's like taking a time lapse photo of an object varying in time. And it would contain all the properties of all subsets.

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

You are ducking the question.How can your pre-20th century Newtonian physics, euclidean math (and that is giving you more credit than you deserve. You do not know Newtonian Physics nor any geometry) explain all the observed phenomena as things approach the speed of light or exist in a supra gravitational field?

Your objection to not being able to measure space is bogus . The time it takes light to reach us determines BOTH the size/volume of the OBSERVABLE universe and the age of the OBSERVABLE universe: Therefore there is a direct connection of distance/volume and time contrary to your rather convoluted objection.

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

The comoving*** distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 gigaparsecs (46 billion light years or 4.3×1026 meters) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsecs[14] (93 Gly or 8.8×1026 m).[15] Assuming that space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.3×104 Gpc3 (4.1×105 Gly3 or 3.5×1080 m3).

Any more bullshit before you explain relativistic phenomena with arithmetic?

comoving***Feel free to look up that under the general heading of cosmology.

If you cannot explain relativistic effects with your arithmetic, I will assumed you are full of it and this discussion is pretty much done

[Greyfox]

Nova has a very interesting series on Space, and Time.

What is Space? It may seem like nothing but it has qualities.

CD5tBIqJU4U

[hcap]

Nova has a very interesting series on Space, and Time.

What is Space? It may seem like nothing but it has qualities.

CD5tBIqJU4UGreat video. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[TJDave]

what has your favorite sci-fi comic book revealed to you about the Universe's "purpose"?

Freud would have a field day. :rolleyes:

[Greyfox]

Great video. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Yes. The Nova series did a good job in producing that one.
Physicist Brian Greene presents complicated ideas in a manner that can be understood by most of us.

The series also includes "The Illusion of Time," "Multiverses," and "Quantum Leap."

If you get the National Geographic channel or PBS you might pick some of these up even this week.

[hcap]

http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

..Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

And

.....Einstein was followed in history by the colorful and brilliant Richard Feynman. Feynman developed the most effective and explanatory interpretation of quantum mechanics that had yet been developed, known today as Sum over Histories.

Just as Einstein's own Relativity Theory led Einstein to reject time, Feynman’s Sum over Histories theory led him to describe time simply as a direction in space. Feynman’s theory states that the probability of an event is determined by summing together all the possible histories of that event. For example, for a particle moving from point A to B we imagine the particle traveling every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time paths. Each path has an amplitude, and when summed the vast majority of all these amplitudes add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few histories that abide by the laws and forces of nature. Sum over histories indicates the direction of our ordinary clock time is simply a path in space which is more probable than the more exotic directions time might have taken otherwise.

Other worlds are just other directions in space, some less probable, some equally as probable as the one direction we experience. And some times our world represents the unlikely path. Feynman's summing of all possible histories could be described as the first timeless description of a multitude of space-time worlds all existing simultaneously. In a recent paper entitled Cosmology From the Top Down, Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge writes; “Some people make a great mystery of the multi universe, or the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory, but to me, these are just different expressions of the Feynman path integral.”

[Greyfox]

I wouldn't pretend for a second to be able to argue with a physicist like Einstein.

I think for all practical purposes in the human world, we have to employ time as a reality whether it theoretically is or isn't and we have to employ time as having a past, present, and future.

Similarly, a philosopher can prove that the chair that I'm sitting on really doesn't exist - not when we get to the essence of space between electrons on the molecules of the chair.
But for practical purposes, I will continue to treat the chair as existing.

[hcap]

I wouldn't pretend for a second to be able to argue with a physicist like Einstein.

I think for all practical purposes in the human world, we have to employ time as a reality whether it theoretically is or isn't and we have to employ time as having a past, present, and future.

Similarly, a philosopher can prove that the chair that I'm sitting on really doesn't exist - not when we get to the essence of space between electrons on the molecules of the chair.
But for practical purposes, I will continue to treat the chair as existing.
And that may be one of the problems if your concern is more than sitting in it. Newton took us quite a ways in navigating the local universe. But it appears we also live in a universe never imagined by Newton..

I will stick to my previous comment on understanding purpose.

However my view is that logic may not be suited to answer these questions.

When I said the very large and very small are not understandable by logic, I meant that there may be other ways of knowing that stands in relationship to logically "knowing" something, as the study of quantum mechanics stands relative to Newtonian physics. And these other ways of knowing are closer to the mystical approach to the world than the scientific. Then again, the grandeur of the Universe, and amazing scientific discoveries can inspire that feeling of awe that may be quite close to the mystical.

Trying to grasp the whole ball of wax as a gestalt experience may be a clue to this type of thinking. A higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get.

[Greyfox]

Trying to grasp the whole ball of wax as a gestalt experience may be a clue to this type of thinking. A higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get.

Seemingly quite true. :ThmbUp: We live in a very mysteriously exciting Universe with mind-boggling features.

[hcap]

Seemingly quite true. :ThmbUp: We live in a very mysteriously exciting Universe with mind-boggling features.I am sure you know that quantum string theory is now talking about 11 dimensions.
All sorts of stuff is going on at CERN that may give some experimental evidence. Curiously as quantum theory advances it begins more and more to sound like Mysticism.

Strange how not even 10 years ago anyone would/could have imagined the latest string theories. These theories may not hold, but if they do......Oh well!

[boxcar]

Freud would have a field day. :rolleyes:

Yes, he would...with YOU! Let me know when the cold, impersonal, physical universe reveals its purpose to you.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I did not say "each inherited each others properties"

A points properties is inherited by a line.
A line's properties is inherited by a plane
A plane's properties by a cube
A cube's properties is inherited by a teesract

A generalization of the cube to dimensions greater than three is called a "hypercube", "n-cube" or "measure polytope". The tesseract is the four-dimensional hypercube, or 4-cube.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png/240px-Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png

Therefore the 4 dimensional Space Time continuum contains properties of every subset. The teesaract ia construct to help visualise a 4 dimensional cube. Itl's like taking a time lapse photo of an object varying in time. And it would contain all the properties of all subsets.

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

You are ducking the question.How can your pre-20th century Newtonian physics, euclidean math (and that is giving you more credit than you deserve. You do not know Newtonian Physics nor any geometry) explain all the observed phenomena as things approach the speed of light or exist in a supra gravitational field?

Your objection to not being able to measure space is bogus . The time it takes light to reach us determines BOTH the size/volume of the OBSERVABLE universe and the age of the OBSERVABLE universe: Therefore there is a direct connection of distance/volume and time contrary to your rather convoluted objection.

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

The comoving*** distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 gigaparsecs (46 billion light years or 4.3×1026 meters) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsecs[14] (93 Gly or 8.8×1026 m).[15] Assuming that space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.3×104 Gpc3 (4.1×105 Gly3 or 3.5×1080 m3).

Any more bullshit before you explain relativistic phenomena with arithmetic?

Hey, I like that fancy "4-D" cube though. Does your head fit inside the small one? Do you live in one of those fancy cubes?

By the way, Einstein, how did you come with those spatial dimensions of Space? Would you please write out for us the formulas. :rolleyes: The next thing you'll be telling us is that science has an exact count of the stars in the Universe.

Oh yeah...one other thing: Has science observed all there is to observe of Space? Is "observable" space all there is?

And, of course, I'm sure you know that science (or physics in particular) is always, constantly evolving and changing. Science has often reached dead ends -- even when they thought prior to that time that they had a mortal lock one scientific "fact" or another.

Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

If you cannot explain relativistic effects with your arithmetic, I will assumed you are full of it and this discussion is pretty much done

Tell me, 'cap, has all your fancy, complex "arithmetic" revealed to you the answer to the question you posed in this thread? If not, I have come up with one: The purpose to the Universe is to boggle your anal-retentive mind endlessly which works to keep you off the streets and safe at home.

So, answer the question I posed yesterday: Does the Universe consist of Space, Matter and Time? (Hint: No math needed to answer this straightforward question?)

Boxcar

[hcap]

I am not going to answer anymore of your questions. Until you answer how your simplistic view explains relativity.

Oh I know, God works in mysterious ways or one of your variations on the same

Faith based physics, math and science belongs on the Religious thread

[boxcar]

I am not going to answer anymore of your questions. Until you answer how your simplistic view explains relativity.

Oh I know, God works in mysterious ways or one of your variations on the same

Faith based physics, math and science belongs on the Religious thread

:lol: :lol: My simplistic view of what: That the Universe consists of Space-Matter-Time continuum? You don't live in a space-matter-time world? (On the other hand, you might not. :D )

I'm also still waiting to hear from you how your fancy physics has revealed the purpose behind the universe. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

We are done.

[boxcar]

We are done.

:(

[hcap]

Since you misdirected us to your so called "proof" of the Boixcarian dimensional space, without any concern for evidence-something you are famous for, I recommend the Religious thread as an easier place to spin yarns.

And I see you are hard at work there already. Spin away. But please do not pretend you have any knowledge of physics or math.

When you venture out from your isolated cloistered tiny realm where evidence means squat, into the phenomenal world you look like a childish fool.

[mountainman]

The human perception of time essentially limits how we think about the physical world. For most people time demands beginnings and ends. But as you say, this may ignore "a higher dimensional form of thinking that we flat landers don't get." Because we create limits to our reality we think of the Big Bang as a beginning when it may be just a point in an infinite existence with no start and no finish.

Intriguing post. I don't believe in time. I think it's merely man's primitive and completely inadequate attempt to rationalize change, make his own linear existence somehow relevant to the grand scheme of things, and contort what he can't understand until it fits his small mind.

[HUSKER55]

good point!

[boxcar]

Since you misdirected us to your so called "proof" of the Boixcarian dimensional space, without any concern for evidence-something you are famous for, I recommend the Religious thread as an easier place to spin yarns.

And I see you are hard at work there already. Spin away. But please do not pretend you have any knowledge of physics or math.

When you venture out from your isolated cloistered tiny realm where evidence means squat, into the phenomenal world you look like a childish fool.

But I do have knowledge of what the basic structure of the universe is. And no math is needed to draw the numerous parallels between that structure and the Trinity as revealed in scripture.

Tell me, 'cap, what are you ever going to do when the day comes and science finally figures out that Space has always been 3-D? :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Intriguing post. I don't believe in time. I think it's merely man's primitive and completely inadequate attempt to rationalize change, make his own linear existence somehow relevant to the grand scheme of things, and contort what he can't understand until it fits his small mind.

So, you are ageless, are you? Your body will never run out of time?

Boxcar

[hcap]

But I do have knowledge of what the basic structure of the universe is. And no math is needed to draw the numerous parallels between that structure and the Trinity as revealed in scripture.

Tell me, 'cap, what are you ever going to do when the day comes and science finally figures out that Space has always been 3-D? :D

Why are you continuing to post unprovable crap as though it is proven, let alone that it can be proven and insulting us all by saying you have proven it.

You diverted this discussion totally at this point....
Time is either time or it isn't. If there is no such thing as a continuum of succeeding events, then the Universe itself is eternal; for Time, Space and Matter (or the Universe) can only exist together. Neither of these fundamental elements can exist without the other. (I proved this several years ago when I wrote a series of posts titled "Why is the Universe What it is?) Or so you say. You may hold any cockamamie theory you like but you can not prove anything.

Your second question is more applicable when rephrased. "What will you do when faith based pseodo-science adherents realize they have little understanding of the physical world?" Many of us readily admit logic and science is mot the best approach on the why and the purpose.