Donnadogsoth Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Atheist: Where did the Universe come from? Believer: From the Creator. A: Where did the Creator come from? B: The Creator is timeless and has always existed. A: Why couldn't the Universe be timeless and always existed? B: Because the Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition.
Boss Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, so your claim of "he Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition." could be seen as false The current scientific theory is the universe was created in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. The idea that the universe was created by a timeless "creator" is interesting. As the universe does seem to have timeless principles that serve as a foundation. Like math which is known to be the language of the universe. With that being said, Im guessing one could hypothesize that the universe foundation is timeless. Now obviously I am not a scientist so I have no idea where to even start to unravel the universe. It is a fascinating topic, one that I feel I should spend more time on.
neeeel Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 26 minutes ago, Boss said: Like math which is known to be the language of the universe. Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"?
shirgall Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, neeeel said: Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"? The language of the universe is written in photons, as they are the tiniest amount of information transmitted from any place to another. I think constructions like Boss's post are poetic, but I would instead say Math being the language of the universe lends too much substance to an abstraction. One could say that the rules of math are solid and physical phenomena can be modeled with constructs that follow those rules, and that has led us to wonderful confirmed predictions in the past. In my experience, atheists don't ask the question in the original post. But since I don't hang with atheists that are collectivists, I'm not exactly dealing with the majority. The question I ear asked is "What evidence led you to believe what you believe?" and "What would convince you otherwise?" 2
ofd Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 Quote What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"? Math describes relationships and continuous changes. It removes mental baggage we add to our understanding. That's why it is so useful. If is the universe, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 Is the mathematicl description of it.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 18, 2017 Author Posted July 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Boss said: The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, so your claim of "he Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition." could be seen as false The current scientific theory is the universe was created in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. The idea that the universe was created by a timeless "creator" is interesting. As the universe does seem to have timeless principles that serve as a foundation. Like math which is known to be the language of the universe. With that being said, Im guessing one could hypothesize that the universe foundation is timeless. Now obviously I am not a scientist so I have no idea where to even start to unravel the universe. It is a fascinating topic, one that I feel I should spend more time on. The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist? How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind.
shirgall Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist? How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind. These abstractions are only invented and processed by conscious minds via chemical and electrical processes. When the brains processing abstractions die, those abstractions cease to matter (pun intended). Color of a certain wavelength, and fruit of a particular genotype, exist, but applying a general description and label to such things is not timeless, it's ephemeral.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 18, 2017 Author Posted July 18, 2017 2 hours ago, shirgall said: These abstractions are only invented and processed by conscious minds via chemical and electrical processes. When the brains processing abstractions die, those abstractions cease to matter (pun intended). Color of a certain wavelength, and fruit of a particular genotype, exist, but applying a general description and label to such things is not timeless, it's ephemeral. Do you see any examples that (as per Boss) "The universe has timeless attributes that do not change."?
shirgall Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said: Do you see any examples that (as per Boss) "The universe has timeless attributes that do not change."? A photon is the smallest particle with a lifespan greater than a nanosecond that can impart information.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 3 hours ago, shirgall said: A photon is the smallest particle with a lifespan greater than a nanosecond that can impart information. Are you saying there are constants in the Universe, like the speed of light in a vacuum, or the cosmological constant, or the rules of chemistry?
Boss Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 13 hours ago, neeeel said: Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"? Math is one of the most fundamental types of logic possible. Thus one of the best ways to express the universe. I am sure you know famous equations like E=mc^2 and things like PI which is a mathematical constant. These things will remain true whether humans know them or not. Math is universal, meaning it will remain true to aliens, humans, cats. When an alien, cat or human jumps the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation F = Gm1m2/r2 is true. 10 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist? How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind. Sure, if you show someone who never seen the color yellow before a banana and asks them what color it is, they wouldn't know. However, the wavelength of the color yellow will still exist. Like just because someone is color blind it doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist. The yellow wavelength is there and will continue to exist whether the human mind exists or not. This reminds me of the thought experiment, If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well, yes because there will be sound waves. You could track them with a recording device or not, a human could have heard it or not. The sound waves exist. If all humans go deaf or color blind tomorrow, sound waves and wavelength will still exist
Donnadogsoth Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, Boss said: Math is one of the most fundamental types of logic possible. Thus one of the best ways to express the universe. I am sure you know famous equations like E=mc^2 and things like PI which is a mathematical constant. These things will remain true whether humans know them or not. Math is universal, meaning it will remain true to aliens, humans, cats. When an alien, cat or human jumps the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation F = Gm1m2/r2 is true. Sure, if you show someone who never seen the color yellow before a banana and asks them what color it is, they wouldn't know. However, the wavelength of the color yellow will still exist. Like just because someone is color blind it doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist. The yellow wavelength is there and will continue to exist whether the human mind exists or not. This reminds me of the thought experiment, If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well, yes because there will be sound waves. You could track them with a recording device or not, a human could have heard it or not. The sound waves exist. If all humans go deaf or color blind tomorrow, sound waves and wavelength will still exist Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless? I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe. Would you agree that universal law and mathematics are timeless?
Gavitor Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Donnadogsoth said: Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless? I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe. Or can you cite an example of unchanging parts of the Universe? The amount of energy in the universe.
Boss Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said: Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless? I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe. Or can you cite an example of unchanging parts of the Universe? the equation to determine sound waves should not be changing. So 1 billion years ago and 1 billion years in the future the sound waves equation will still hold true in determining sound, thus, you could say the way to determine sound waves is timeless. However, I am not 100% certain on the current equation to determine sound waves. I understand there is a lot of factors like moisture in the air, surrounding etc, however, a true equation will remain true regardless of time. Math is not really changing. Humans understanding of math might be. However, 2+2=4 being true didn't change 1 billion years ago and won't change 1 billion years in the future. Thus, math is timeless.
shirgall Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: Are you saying there are constants in the Universe, like the speed of light in a vacuum, or the cosmological constant, or the rules of chemistry? My point was that concepts exist only when brains exist to think about them.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 9 hours ago, shirgall said: My point was that concepts exist only when brains exist to think about them. Neither brains nor the concepts they think about are timeless, then? If not them, what? As I said, universal law? But in that case, in which timeless book are these universal laws--or Law--written? In other words we need a mind to retain this Law, or else why would it work when we're not thinking about it?
shirgall Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 11 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said: Neither brains nor the concepts they think about are timeless, then? If not them, what? As I said, universal law? But in that case, in which timeless book are these universal laws--or Law--written? In other words we need a mind to retain this Law, or else why would it work when we're not thinking about it? Word salad is not nutritious.
Donnadogsoth Posted July 20, 2017 Author Posted July 20, 2017 Just to sum up, the contenders for timelessness amount to various aspects of Natural Law. This Natural Law is timeless, unlike the Universe, which changes continuously. But, how can a law exist outside of a mind? The atheist will reply that the word “law” is a metaphor. Natural law just describes how the Universe is, it doesn't imply a consciousness the law is in. Here we find a brute fact: “Natural law just is”. Since this violates the principle of sufficient reason, we can ignore it, and proceed to the only rational conclusion, namely a Creator who contains the timeless Law.
Gavitor Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 On 7/20/2017 at 9:56 AM, Donnadogsoth said: Since this violates the principle of sufficient reason, we can ignore it, and proceed to the only rational conclusion, namely a Creator who contains the timeless Law. How is that the only rational conclusion?
Donnadogsoth Posted July 22, 2017 Author Posted July 22, 2017 39 minutes ago, Gavitor said: How is that the only rational conclusion? Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power. Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well. At this point we are talking about the Creator.
Gavitor Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 Just now, Donnadogsoth said: Since no power can be without mind How did you come to this conclusion
Donnadogsoth Posted July 22, 2017 Author Posted July 22, 2017 28 minutes ago, Gavitor said: How did you come to this conclusion Mindlessless is inconceivable. What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness? That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument. Ergo, no substance can lack mind.
Gavitor Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 Just now, Donnadogsoth said: Mindlessless is inconceivable. What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness? That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument. Ergo, no substance can lack mind. What do rocks think?
Donnadogsoth Posted July 22, 2017 Author Posted July 22, 2017 14 hours ago, Gavitor said: What do rocks think? Probably something relatively simple, like "Hardness! Grrr!" They wouldn't be self-aware, but might experience sensations when broken or melted.
WorBlux Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 9:42 AM, ofd said: Math describes relationships and continuous changes. It removes mental baggage we add to our understanding. That's why it is so useful. ... Only incidentally and contingently. Math fundamentally is a system of symbols, formal descriptions of relations between those symbols, and rules for manipulating those symbols to other forms. If we trained a computer, monkey or zombie to perform these symbolic transformations we would be more than happy to call that math. It's not like other sorts of descriptive language where the Chinese Room Argument is convincing. http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/ Math only describes relations and continuous changes if the essence of what you attempt to describe meaningfully matches to the formal descriptions of the symbols. On 7/18/2017 at 6:20 AM, Boss said: The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, ... ... Even if true there is a problem to answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are. There is really no reason as far as we can tell that the fundamental physical constants of the universe are they way they are. There are many theories that answer that, but none really proven. On 7/21/2017 at 9:21 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power. Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well. At this point we are talking about the Creator. Define power. I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit. The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic. Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem. The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while. On 7/21/2017 at 9:52 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Mindlessless is inconceivable. What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness? That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument. Ergo, no substance can lack mind. It's precisely like it was before you were born. And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference?
Donnadogsoth Posted August 12, 2017 Author Posted August 12, 2017 14 hours ago, WorBlux said: On 7/21/2017 at 9:21 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power. Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well. At this point we are talking about the Creator. Define power. I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit. The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic. Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem. The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while. A mutable being cannot be timeless, and so not the Origin. On 7/21/2017 at 9:52 PM, Donnadogsoth said: Mindlessless is inconceivable. What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness? That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument. Ergo, no substance can lack mind. It's precisely like it was before you were born. And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference? Do you remember every second of your life to date?
Boss Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 On 8/11/2017 at 6:20 PM, WorBlux said: Even if true there is a problem to answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are. There is really no reason as far as we can tell that the fundamental physical constants of the universe are they way they are. There are many theories that answer that, but none really proven. I am not sure what you mean when you say "answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are" If something is proven true then being true is the only explanation needed.
ofd Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Quote If we trained a computer, monkey or zombie to perform these symbolic transformations we would be more than happy to call that math. That's essentially the Hilbert program which was put to an end by Gödel. Of course, using computers is very useful for proofs and what not, but it seems the human brain, so far, has abilities that exceeds those of Turing machines.
WorBlux Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 On 8/16/2017 at 6:22 PM, ofd said: That's essentially the Hilbert program which was put to an end by Gödel. Of course, using computers is very useful for proofs and what not, but it seems the human brain, so far, has abilities that exceeds those of Turing machines. What Godel showed is that the formalization is necessarily incomplete in non-trivial systems. While not every statement can be decided from a finite set of starting axioms, those that can be may proceed by algorithm. Further just about any sort of math anyone actually uses, may be formalized.
WorBlux Posted September 6, 2017 Posted September 6, 2017 On 8/16/2017 at 6:15 AM, Boss said: I am not sure what you mean when you say "answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are" If something is proven true then being true is the only explanation needed. All that observation will give you is a measure of physical constants that do not change. To say that they can't change, or are unchangeable requires a different sort of reasoning. I find it strange that they would necessarily of themselves be constant, as there are many possible conceivable values they might have. I would find if far less strange should there be sufficient reasons for these constants be be as we find them.
Sir Exotic Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 5:00 PM, Donnadogsoth said: The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist? How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind. The colour yellow is a physical manifestation of light projected on an object (I don't know the technical terms), without the objects, and without the light, 'colors' means nothing. The idea of a banana is not timeless either, since there hasn't always been bananas, and there hasn't always been minds to conceive of a banana and create the idea of a banana internally.
Goldenages Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 On 18.7.2017 at 3:35 AM, Donnadogsoth said: B: Because the Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition. If God were - literally - timeless and would not change, he would not be able to act or even think. His impact on reality could only be exactly zero. Acting or thinking is change and is time. regards Andi
Donnadogsoth Posted October 8, 2017 Author Posted October 8, 2017 On 9/12/2017 at 10:59 AM, Jos van Weesel said: The colour yellow is a physical manifestation of light projected on an object (I don't know the technical terms), without the objects, and without the light, 'colors' means nothing. The idea of a banana is not timeless either, since there hasn't always been bananas, and there hasn't always been minds to conceive of a banana and create the idea of a banana internally. You don't know that. But if it makes it easier then consider A=A, which also exists independently of particular instantiations. The other ideas of colour and banana, etc., exist in God's toolkit when creating the world.
Recommended Posts