Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    What exactly is this "evidence of physics" that point to the non-existence of time?
    Quantum mechanics, ever hear of it? Actually it goes back even further than the quantum. Einstein himself said that the distinction between past, present, and future was just a persistent illusion.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      I think your dislike for MM is seriously clouding your judgement of his intellectual capabilities.
      We might find out if he returns
      By God's will? I'm not really sure what you're asking. You'll have to specify what you think the problem is with creation from a state of timeless eternity before I can even attempt to answer your question.
      How to induce the shift from timeless eternity, which seems to be an unchanging state, to creation, which isn't?
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Quantum mechanics, ever hear of it? Actually it goes back even further than the quantum. Einstein himself said that the distinction between past, present, and future was just a persistent illusion.
        Oh, I'm aware that the belief that Special Relativity has proven that the passage of time is just an illusion. I happen to disagree. SR has proven no such thing. There is a certain interpretations of SR which would imply that the passage of time is just an illusion, but there is also a fully valid interpretation of SR (the neo-Lorentzian interpretation) where the passage of time is preserved as a reality. If we pick Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation of SR, we see that they make exactly the same predictions for every experiment, so there is no experimental justification to pick Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.

        So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.

        As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.
        Last edited by JonathanL; 09-19-2018, 03:08 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          How to induce the shift from timeless eternity, which seems to be an unchanging state, to creation, which isn't?
          If you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            If you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.
            The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

            https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html

            And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

            This is all in the realm of theoretical physics certainly, but there’s evidence to support such concepts; it is too soon to claim their impossibility in favour of the theistic notion of Creation Ex Nihilo, which is no more than a faith-based bald assertion.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              If you're asking the "mechanics" behind God creating the universe from an unchanging state, I don't know. But you also seem to imply that unchanging is the same as unchangeable, a belief for which I happen to think there are no good reasons to hold.
              I don't hold that belief. I do hold that once something is in an unchanging state it will remain so unless there is some external interference. This would mean that something else must have impacted God's "timeless eternity".
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                I don't hold that belief. I do hold that once something is in an unchanging state it will remain so unless there is some external interference. This would mean that something else must have impacted God's "timeless eternity".
                I do think there must be a reason for something to go from an unchanging state to a changed state. But I don't agree that the reason needs to be external. It could just as well be internal, in this case for example God willing/deciding to create the universe. God's will/decision to create the universe would be eternal with Him, but the actual act of creating the universe would not be.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

                  https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html

                  And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.

                  https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

                  This is all in the realm of theoretical physics certainly, but there’s evidence to support such concepts; it is too soon to claim their impossibility in favour of the theistic notion of Creation Ex Nihilo, which is no more than a faith-based bald assertion.
                  That's nice and all, but it's not what we're discussing.

                  ETA: To clarify, it's not what I and Roy are discussing at the moment.
                  Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 06:45 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I do think there must be a reason for something to go from an unchanging state to a changed state. But I don't agree that the reason needs to be external. It could just as well be internal, in this case for example God willing/deciding to create the universe.
                    It it's internal, that means something in an unchanging state changed - which is a contradiction.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      It it's internal, that means something in an unchanging state changed - which is a contradiction.
                      You'll have to unpack your assertion a bit more. There's no contradiction involved in the statement "Something in an unchanging state changed" as far as I can see. We've already established that unchanging != unchangeable, so you must be referring to something else. And as far as I can see there's no logical impossibility for an unchanged state/existence to contain within itself the conditions necessary for it to change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Oh, I'm aware that the belief that Special Relativity has proven that the passage of time is just an illusion. I happen to disagree. SR has proven no such thing. There is a certain interpretations of SR which would imply that the passage of time is just an illusion, but there is also a fully valid interpretation of SR (the neo-Lorentzian interpretation) where the passage of time is preserved as a reality. If we pick Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation of SR, we see that they make exactly the same predictions for every experiment, so there is no experimental justification to pick Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.

                        So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.

                        As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.
                        I believe you are selectively misrepresenting Lorentz's view of time. Your conclusions are not necessarily so.

                        Source: http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-40-05.PDF



                        Ives-Stilwell Time Dilation Li+ ESR Darmstadt Experiment and neo-Lorentz Relativity

                        5 Conclusions
                        The non-null experimental data, from 1887 to the present, all reveal the existence of a dynamical 3-space, with a speed ≈ 500 km/s with respect to the earth. Originally Lorentz proposed an aether moving through a static geometrical space. However the data and theory imply a different neo-Lorentz Relativity, with there being a dynamical fractal flowing 3- space, which possesses an approximate geometrical measure of distances and angles, which permits the geometrical description of relative locations of systems [5]. As well the dynamical theory for this 3-space has explained numerous gravitational effects, with gravity being an emergent quantum and EM wave refraction effect, so unifying gravity and the quantum [4, 10, 13–16]. An important aspect of Lorentz Relativity, which causes ongoing confusion, is that the so called Lorentz transformation is an aspect of Special Relativity, but not Lorentz Relativity. The major result here is that the Li+ ESR Darmstadt experimental data confirms the validity of both Special Relativity and neo-Lorentz Relativity, but only when the 3-space flow is nearly parallel to the NS orientation of the Li+ beam. Then to distinguish between these two relativity theories one could use (15). This report is from the Flinders University Gravitational Wave Project.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Quantum Mechanics and time next. . .

                        In summary time in our universe is general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. At the Quantum level time is universal and absolute.

                        Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-gravitys-time-problem-20161201/


                        In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2018, 09:00 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          You'll have to unpack your assertion a bit more. There's no contradiction involved in the statement "Something in an unchanging state changed" as far as I can see.
                          I think there is. If something changes, it isn't unchanging, by definition.
                          We've already established that unchanging != unchangeable, so you must be referring to something else.
                          Something can be unchanging but not unchangeable if it's changeable by outside influence but won't change without outside influence.
                          And as far as I can see there's no logical impossibility for an unchanged state/existence to contain within itself the conditions necessary for it to change.
                          If something changes solely due to something within itself, it clearly isn't unchanging.

                          It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.

                          Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            I think there is. If something changes, it isn't unchanging, by definition.
                            No, if something changes it it isn't unchanged, any more.

                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            Something can be unchanging but not unchangeable if it's changeable by outside influence but won't change without outside influence.

                            If something changes solely due to something within itself, it clearly isn't unchanging.

                            It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.

                            Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.

                            Well no, it isn't unchanging(or perhaps unchanged is a better word for it?) any more. But it was unchanged prior to the change.

                            We might be operating under different understanding of the word. I'm simply taking unchanging to mean that no prior state of events exists where that something is different to what it currently is. I'm beginning to think the word "unchanged" captures the meaning I'm intending more accurately.

                            I don't think I can provide any non-controversial examples of something that is unchanging, but changes, at least not if you're looking for real world examples. I can only provide thought experiments and hypotheticals. I can for example, envision a state of existence that contain the sufficient conditions within itself to change, but are timeless in the sense that no state of existence exists prior to it. In other words, it has not undergone any change what so ever to get to the point to which it is, so it is by definition unchanged. But it will not continue being unchanged, since if the sufficient conditions for change exists, then that change will necessarily occur.

                            Let's say for example, that we imagine a state of existence which contained a ball, a slope and and everything else necessary for these objects to interact with each other like they do in the real world. If the ball sat on top of the slope then all the sufficient conditions for it to start rolling down the slope would exist. And if no prior state of events existed where the ball did not sit on top of the slope existed, it would by definition be an unchanged state of existence, as per the understanding I gave above.

                            Again, we might be talking past each other with the way we're using the word "unchanging". I'm simply using it in the sense of "unchanged" i.e if something is unchanged it hasn't undergone any change to get to the state it's currently in, but you're apparently using the word "unchanging" in a different sense.

                            On another note, my mind is getting so saturated with the words "change", "unchanging" and "unchanged" that they're starting to lose their meaning to me.
                            Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 10:28 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I believe you are selectively misrepresenting Lorentz's view of time. Your conclusions are not necessarily so.
                              I have no idea how I could have possibly misrepresented Lorentz's view of time when I never even mentioned anything about his view of time. The only thing I said was that a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity allows for the existence of an absolute frame of reference for time, and the passage of time as an actual facet of reality, and not just as an illusion.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                That's nice and all, but it's not what we're discussing.
                                Well it is if what you’re discussing is an eternal natural universe vis-à-vis an eternal supernatural deity. But I'll leave you to it.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 09-20-2018, 11:55 PM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                427 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,510 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X