Spirituality
13 Jun 07
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadSay what? Point A does not exist? How can one call it point A then? This may make sense in the abstract world of mathsobabble but not in the real world. If it doesn't exist you can't use it as a reference point to point B (does it exist?) in terms of the amount of time between point A and point B. You need to get out of your computer models sit down take a deep breath and really think about what you are saying.
Point A might not exist, ie not be part of the universe. For example if time is the set of all positive real numbers then for every positive real number there is another positive real number less than it yet still greater than zero.
Zero itself is not in the set of positive real numbers.
09 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterJust because it confuses you doesn't mean it is impossible.
Say what? Point A does not exist? How can one call it point A then? This may make sense in the abstract world of mathsobabble but not in the real world. If it doesn't exist you can't use it as a reference point to point B (does it exist?) in terms of the amount of time between point A and point B. You need to get out of your computer models sit down take a deep breath and really think about what you are saying.
The existence of Point A is not required for the idea to be feasible. The only requirement is that time and space be infinitely divisible.
09 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut how can there be any time between point A and point B to infinitely divide into? If point A doesn't exist then how can the amount of time between A and B exist as well? Apart from that what the hell is point A even if it did exist? Is it matter or a part of space/time? Unless you had forgotten time happens when physical events occur in sequence (causality). But if point A neither exists or is a physical event what then...? And you thought Christianity was mumbo jumbo!
Just because it confuses you doesn't mean it is impossible.
The existence of Point A is not required for the idea to be feasible. The only requirement is that time and space be infinitely divisible.
11 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioI have retified this now. I have too many threads going for my own good , it's my problem and responsibility . One problem I have is that I get multiple posters vying for my responses. I'm sooo popular you see...LOL
Hey Knightmeister. Stop dodging the other thread. I realize that my
question exposes the incoherency of your position, but take your lumps
like a man and 'fess up about it.
Nemesio
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs I said point A doesn't exist and is not part of time. So stop trying to instantiate it then find problems with it. Point A was only introduced to help you understand the concept. It is perfectly possible to do it all based entirely on positive real numbers without ever mentioning Zero but then it just gets harder to explain and you will get even more confused.
But how can there be any time between point A and point B to infinitely divide into? If point A doesn't exist then how can the amount of time between A and B exist as well? Apart from that what the hell is point A even if it did exist? Is it matter or a part of space/time? Unless you had forgotten time happens when physical events occur in sequence (c ...[text shortened]... her exists or is a physical event what then...? And you thought Christianity was mumbo jumbo!
Do you honestly think Set Theory (a very important branch of mathematics) is "mumbo Jumbo"? Or just its application to physics?
You must remember that there were several preconditions to my hypothesis including:
1. The universe is rather Newtonian with every event being caused by a prior event.
2. Time is infinitely divisible.
I personally think that none of this can properly be applied to the real world as quantum physics has shown that the universe is not Newtonian. But 1. is a requirement for a first cause argument so I am showing that one can disprove the first cause argument without even removing its basic premise (which is probably false anyway).
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadQUOTE-------------
As I said point A doesn't exist and is not part of time. So stop trying to instantiate it then find problems with it. Point A was only introduced to help you understand the concept. It is perfectly possible to do it all based entirely on positive real numbers without ever mentioning Zero but then it just gets harder to explain and you will get even more c ...[text shortened]... irst cause argument without even removing its basic premise (which is probably false anyway).
You must remember that there were several preconditions to my hypothesis including:
1. The universe is rather Newtonian with every event being caused by a prior event.
2. Time is infinitely divisible.
I personally think that none of this can properly be applied to the real world as quantum physics has shown that the universe is not Newtonian. But 1. is a requirement for a first cause argument so I am showing that one can disprove the first cause argument without even removing its basic premise (which is probably false anyway).
RESPONSE---------
The first cause argument is not based on newtonian concepts of time or neccessarily an idea that evry event needs a 'prior' event. What is does entail is that every event has a cause. If we trace an event back to it's cause and then trace the cause of the cause and then trace the cause of the cause of the cause and then trace the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause etc etc we keep going . Whether this means back in newtonian time or not is irrelevant , what is relevant is the ultimate break down of causality whereby one has either reached the ultimate cause or is destined to keep searching further.
For example , the big bang came from (or was caused by) a singularity of some kind. What caused the singularity? Was it the first (ultimate) cause upon which the life itself rests or do we need to look deeper than this?
As for time being infinitely divisible , what does this mean in real terms. I don't believe that time exists. How might one chop time up and what with? Does time have an infinite number of particles which we could divide it into. You have no idea of what time is made of or what it is so your idea of time being infinitely divisible remains conceptual maths only.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I said point A doesn't exist and is not part of time. So stop trying to instantiate it then find problems with it. WHITEY
As I said point A doesn't exist and is not part of time. So stop trying to instantiate it then find problems with it. Point A was only introduced to help you understand the concept. It is perfectly possible to do it all based entirely on positive real numbers without ever mentioning Zero but then it just gets harder to explain and you will get even more c ...[text shortened]... irst cause argument without even removing its basic premise (which is probably false anyway).
So what's the point in mentioning it then? is it important that it exists or not exists? You might just as well have called it a pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster if it doesn't exist.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe existence of Point A is not required for the idea to be feasible. The only requirement is that time and space be infinitely divisible.WHITEY
Just because it confuses you doesn't mean it is impossible.
The existence of Point A is not required for the idea to be feasible. The only requirement is that time and space be infinitely divisible.
Meanwhile , back in the real world , point A would have to be the singularity that scientists talk about that "pre-existed " the big bang??? If so point B is as far as the universe has expanded to this day. Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can say through observation that point A does infact exist (singularity) and that point A is either the first cause or requires some causal explanation itself. You may divide the universe into as many bits as you like infinitely but we already have a good idea about what point A is and from there we may still ask the questions what caused it , or is it the first cause? Chopping the universe up into infinite tiny bits solves nothing.
16 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo. Point A doesn't need to exist and if it didn't exist as I am hypothesizing then it could not have pre-existed the big bang. Essentially your argument boils down to "I cant understand what you are talking about so I'll pretend it is wrong."
Meanwhile , back in the real world , point A would have to be the singularity that scientists talk about that "pre-existed " the big bang??? If so point B is as far as the universe has expanded to this day. Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can say through observation that point A does i ...[text shortened]... t , or is it the first cause? Chopping the universe up into infinite tiny bits solves nothing.
Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can say through observation that point A does infact exist (singularity)
Can you back that up with any references or are you just guessing again? Maybe you should write some articles for science magazines since you claim to have seen a singularity.
If time and space are infinitely divisible and if the universe operates on an essentially Newtonian causal basis (ie cause chains over space and time) then it is perfectly possible for infinite cause chains to exist within a finite extent of time. That is a fact and there is nothing you can do about it so the best you can do is try to disprove my axioms because my logic is 100% mathematically sound.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. Point A doesn't need to exist and if it didn't exist as I am hypothesizing then it could not have pre-existed the big bang.WHITEY
No. Point A doesn't need to exist and if it didn't exist as I am hypothesizing then it could not have pre-existed the big bang. Essentially your argument boils down to "I cant understand what you are talking about so I'll pretend it is wrong."
[b]Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can sa ...[text shortened]... best you can do is try to disprove my axioms because my logic is 100% mathematically sound.
So because you "hypothesise " that it might not exist then it could not pre-exist the big bang? Nice logic! So the singularity that scientists seem to talk about doesn't actually exist then. I do find this awfully hard mate. Could you clarify what actually exists in your argument and what doesn't? With your logic I could argue that it doesn't matter or not whether God actually "exists" or not , Christianity is still true because I "hypothesise" it is.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is a fact and there is nothing you can do about it so the best you can do is try to disprove my axioms because my logic is 100% mathematically sound. WHITEY
[b]No. Point A doesn't need to exist and if it didn't exist as I am hypothesizing then it could not have pre-existed the big bang. Essentially your argument boils down to "I cant understand what you are talking about so I'll pretend it is wrong."
[b]Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can sa ...[text shortened]... best you can do is try to disprove my axioms because my logic is 100% mathematically sound.[/b
I have no doubts that it is absolutely 100% mathematically sound to say that time and space can be divided up infinitely into infinite amounts of causal chains but I do feel that I am entitled to ask whther there is a scientific physical limit to the amount of time it takes for a causal event to happen (ie trillionth of a second) and also one can still ask what caused space /time in the first place. Another question might be given that one could in theory divide the universe up into infinitely small events how does that prove that there is no need for a first cause to initiate the causal chain? There may be billions of causal chains trillions or infinite amounts but the problem is still the same -a causal chain requires an initial cause.
If one had a room of a billion dominos toppling but also said that one could place an infinite amount of dominos in the spaces between the dominos , intuitively the fact that the dominos are toppling still suggests that somewhere there is a first domino that was toppled , other wise the dominos would not be toppling. The issue is not how many dominos one has but why are they toppling.
17 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadEssentially your argument boils down to "I cant understand what you are talking about so I'll pretend it is wrong." WHITEY
No. Point A doesn't need to exist and if it didn't exist as I am hypothesizing then it could not have pre-existed the big bang. Essentially your argument boils down to "I cant understand what you are talking about so I'll pretend it is wrong."
[b]Since time and space are defined already for us in the space/time continuum we call the universe we can sa ...[text shortened]... best you can do is try to disprove my axioms because my logic is 100% mathematically sound.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's actually I understand what you are saying but I don't see how it relates to the real world or proves what you think it proves.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs usual you miss the point. I am not saying I have proved my hypothesis or even have evidence for it. But for you to disprove it you must provide concreted evidence, maybe doesn't cut it.
I have no doubts that it is absolutely 100% mathematically sound to say that time and space can be divided up infinitely into infinite amounts of causal chains but I do feel that I am entitled to ask whther there is a scientific physical limit to the amount of time it takes for a causal event to happen (ie trillionth of a second) and also one can still ask what caused space /time in the first place.
However as long as my hypothesis remains standing (ie not disproved) the first cause argument remains a failure in logic as it uses as an axiom the assumption that my hypothesis is false.
Another question might be given that one could in theory divide the universe up into infinitely small events how does that prove that there is no need for a first cause to initiate the causal chain? There may be billions of causal chains trillions or infinite amounts but the problem is still the same -a causal chain requires an initial cause.
I gave as an example addition on the positive real numbers. If we take as the cause for any positive real number, the addition of two smaller positive real numbers then please show how they require an initial cause.
Essentially you don't understand the concept of infinity. You are claiming that an infinite line has a beginning. Thats False and you know it.
If one had a room of a billion dominos toppling but also said that one could place an infinite amount of dominos in the spaces between the dominos , intuitively the fact that the dominos are toppling still suggests that somewhere there is a first domino that was toppled , other wise the dominos would not be toppling. The issue is not how many dominos one has but why are they toppling.
As I said, you don't seem to understand infinity. If you can show that there was a 'first domino' then the chain would not be infinite. So the fact that an infinite number of dominos has already fallen guarantees that there is no first domino. Its a mathematical fact. Live with it.