a notion about eternity

[Derek]

"In order for something temporal to exist, it must reside within something non-temporal. Anything non-temporal must be infinite, since it has no limits. Since this implies that there is such a thing as eternity, this must mean that I will exist again in some form eventually because all possibilities become infinitely probable after a long enough time. In addition, my perception of time will cease when I die, therefore I will begin to exist in another form immediately upon dying."

Is that nonsense?

[goldentone]

Yep. 

[forzaitalia250]

I love it =D not going to lie

[ted]

No, I do not think it is nonsense. Two books very close to your ideas and well worth reading are:

"An Experiment With Time" - J.W. Dunne

"Over the Long High Wall" - J.B. Priestley

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_with_Time

[pianistimo]

i sense a little bit of a challenge here not to write pages and pages.  but, for myself - i believe that eternity is something God-like and He chooses who will be eternal and who will not.  otherwise - the scripture 'oh death where is Thy sting, oh grave Thy victory...but, Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ....'

[ahinton]

i sense a little bit of a challenge here not to write pages and pages.

And (so far!) you've responded to it brilliantly!

but, for myself - i believe that eternity is something God-like and He chooses who will be eternal and who will not.  otherwise - the scripture 'oh death where is Thy sting, oh grave Thy victory...

Ah, well - at least one would not have to add "oh Pianostreet, where is thy Pianistimo?", because she's always there, holding God's hand and promoting Him at the least opportunity and none...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

hello again, alistair.  i was beginning to get a bit worried about you.  went on another vacation, i assume.

[timothy42b]

Sentences 2, 3, and 4 follow somewhat logically though there are some missing steps.

But they depend on Sentence 1 which is a bald and completely unsupportable assertion.

Not only is it not necessary that anything temporal be embedded in something nontemporal, there is no basis for assuming nontemporality itself can exist. 

So, yes, it's nonsense, and very similar to Zeno's paradox. 

[counterpoint]

"In order for something temporal to exist, it must reside within something non-temporal.

Why?

[Derek]

Why?

I suppose my reasoning was that the non-temporal must be the converse of the temporal. You can't have one, and remove it, and not have the other.  Actually, I think it only goes one way (haven't fully thought this one through though): If you have something temporal, remove it, you must have something non-temporal. However if you have something non-temporal, remove it, you don't necessarily have to have something temporal. So it is fortunate that we exist, or I wouldn't be able to form this idea!

[pianistimo]

perhaps it's the natural 'yin/yang' we see around us.  light/dark.  cold/hot.  up/down.  in/out. 

when i am flying in an airplane and looking down - and everything seems so small and insignificant - i think of the words of David... 'what is man that you are mindful of him?'

this also inspires one to just start singing another psalm 'i will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being....'

and the verse in isaiah 55:8 'for My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts...so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth;  it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire....for you will go out with joy, and be led forth with peace, the mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.  instead of the thorn bush the cypress will come up; and instead of the nettle the myrtle will come up; and it will be a memorial to the Lord, for an everlasting sign which will not be cut off.'

eternity seems more than some kind of blissful sleepy existence in the bible.  it seems that we were created as a sort of cocoon and when we become butterflies - we will be able to do much more as spiritual creations than physical.  for one thing - the bible mentions that this earth will be a mess at first.  the 1000 year reign of Jesus (also called the millenium) will be when those who are in the first ressurrection (saints) will be ruling with Jesus Christ and be able to reveal themselves just as He did (and the angels did) and be purposeful about cleaning up the mess and establishing a peaceful government.  then, when the 1000 years are complete - there is mention of a 'new heavens and new earth' in revelations.  perhaps a spiritual one?  where we can see where God actually dwells.  He said 'i go and prepare a place for you - and where I go you may be also.'  and' in My Father's house are many mansions - if it were not so - i would have told you....'

[pianistimo]

i suppose there are many religions and ways of looking at eternity - but, the one in the bible seems the most believable because it has a purpose.  some of the other religions just talk about having 20 virgins or some such reward - but do not relate it to the destruction that most religions believe will happen to this world.  dies irae.  etc.  they get it from ancient man - who was told about the sybelline prophecies through the great man noah.  He, like Christ, evidenced a 'before and after' situation.  and, we have the rainbow to remind us of the mercy of God. He could easily wipe the slate clean and leave us all dead.  But, He mentions a rebuilding and planting of this very earth.

isaiah 2; 'now it will come about that in the last days, the mountain (government) of the house of the Lord will be established as the chief of the mountains (governments), and will be raised above the hills; and all the nations will stream to it.  and many people will come and say, 'come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us concerning His ways, and that we may walk in His paths.'  for the law will go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.  and He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.  nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war.'

[pianistimo]

oh.  and one last thing (i'll make it quick ) those 20 virgins are going to stay that way because the bible mentions that when we are changed - we will be neither male or female.  also, it mentions that we will have no need for the physical things (sun, moon) because we won't be affected by heat, cold, pain, fear - all those things will be 'passed away.'  we will be a 'new creation.'  how we keep our individual identities, as i read the bible, will be according to how we live our lives now.  God will give each of a 'new name.'  perhaps an identifying one or several of our characteristics now?

as i understand it - the people who did not understand and were not preached the gospel will be the ones spoken of in ezekiel's 'valley of dry bones.  they will be ressurrected back to physical life.  those who are ressurrected in the first ressurrection will be helping them understand this new way of living.  yes, it sounds very science fiction.  God is God, though, and can do whatever he purposes.  people are said, in isaiah to live out long lives - and the person who doesn't make it to 100 years of age will be thought accursed.  that is because the world will understand principles of life, health, and living that we were originally given at creation.  because it is appointed for every man/woman to die once (as Christ paid the penalty ever after) - these people, i assume, will be changed - just as at Jesus coming - 'in a twinkling of an eye.' 

those who don't choose to be with God - as I read revelations - do not enter eternity - but die a 'second death.'  this is seemingly final - as i read revelations.  otherwise, the serpent in the garden of eden would be right 'you shall not surely die.'

ps (i realize this sounds like drivel to some)  the millenium is a time when children who have died young can actually play in the streets and not fear any harm.  it is actually a blessing for those who have lost children and they can take comfort that they will be raised in this utopic situation.  many say - 'i'll believe it when i see it' - but why not believe it possible by acknowledging the miracles of creation around us already.  God can do anything!  drug babies, babies who have severe problems at birth and die young, all these children will have a chance to live a healthy life - because the bible says there will be 'no more sorrow...'  i believe this.  and that the lame will walk.  the deaf will hear.  the tongue of the dumb be unstopped.  this is what God CAN do when people learn of Him and listen to what He says.

i might get into trouble on this one - and i don't mean to pick out individuals because we are all sinners and all get individual trials in this life - but do you ever wonder if God was making a point with 'superman.'  the mightiest man is humbled by falling off a horse and being paralyzed.  everything that he had - taken away - much like job.  although, i think his wife was full of faith and gave her witness to her husband to encourage him to 'run the race' as he so powerfully did.  don't you wonder how grateful he will be to acknowledge God as supreme.  there is no other superhuman being like Him.  and when, 'superman' is ressurrected - he'll have a lot more mobility. 

[counterpoint]

I suppose my reasoning was that the non-temporal must be the converse of the temporal. You can't have one, and remove it, and not have the other.  Actually, I think it only goes one way (haven't fully thought this one through though): If you have something temporal, remove it, you must have something non-temporal. However if you have something non-temporal, remove it, you don't necessarily have to have something temporal. So it is fortunate that we exist, or I wouldn't be able to form this idea!

In my opinion, time is not something that exists or not exists - it exists exactly when you think about it. It's an idea, not a real object. So there's no way to "remove" it.  You cannot remove something, that doesn't exist 

[pianistimo]

but, if time didn't exist - we would never die.  we would never be aware of time.  and the idea of backwards (history) and forwards (progress) would not be a concept we are aware of.  also, the idea that the earth had a beginning and most likely will have an end - 'reserved for fire' as mentioned in one book of the bible.  finite means confined by time, to me.  things that wear out.  temporal.  this is the power of time.

II peter 3:7 'but this present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.  but, do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day....'

the aging process is definately an element that people are aware of with time.  why else would they get face-lifts - buy anti-wrinkle cremes - and generally carry on with youthful vitality that they can muster - even into 70's and 80's.  the thing is - sooner or later - you're going to die.  what then?  you can't change any decisions you have already made.  so time does matter if it relates to your possible eternity.

I john 3:2 'see how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God; and such we are.  for this reason the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.  beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be.  we know that, when He appears, we shall BE LIKE HIM, because we shall see Him just as He is.  and everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself (something to do with time), just as He is pure.  everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.  and you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.  no one who abides in Him (purposely sins - or doesn't repent) sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

[pianistimo]

as i see it - eternity will not be known by anyone who is anti-Christ.  so superman was a rather wishful thought - but impossible - because God grants this eternal life as a gift.  it isn't just a free ticket or something we are born with.

[prometheus]

Time is a dimension. It exists by the grace of things moving on that dimension axis.

And for some reason we all just slide through time. And within our frame of reference this is always at the same speed. And because the speed of light is the same in all frames of references this means the passage of time is relative.


So while time is a dimension and space-time is a geometry things are still left unexplained.


Is this space-time geometry a kind of substance of it's own? Or does it just 'appear' out of nothing when there is matter and energy that need it.

Maybe space-time and matter-energy are tied together.



But as our knowledge stands today space-time is nothing more than a mathematical model. Just like all other scientific theories they don't really try to explain that what really is. But merely to make models that describe as well as possible how nature works.

The idea of space-time explains very well how space and time work. But what they really are at the most fundamental level, that seems impossible to know.

[themockingbird]

"In order for something temporal to exist, it must reside within something non-temporal."

Is that nonsense?

alright, that just sounds like word-play to me

[pianistimo]

this might seem arrogant - but i think i know when space and time cease to matter, prometheus.  it's when a person is baptized for remission of sins and accepts Jesus Christ as their savior.  Paul mentions that he believes this first passing of the 'death barrier' happened when Christ himself was ressurrected from the dead.  which God brought about in Christ, 'when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come.  and He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.

as i see it - if you want eternal life - you have to ask for it.  this matter of space-time is a confinement and configuration of God's to keep us from mixing evil with eternal.  we have to have a 'right spirit' put within us.  basically, it isn't our nature to be 'good.'  But, God is perfect and good and knows how to wash our sins away and create a 'new spirit' within us.  the psalmist David often asked for God to put a 'right spirit' within him.  that means, whatever happens to us physically should not impact the way we view life eternally.  in fact, we should have less fear, doubt, and remorse about this life.  there should be more joy and optimism if we have truly overcome death.  hearing negatives means that we realize there is a seeming finiteness and sorrow to our life here on earth - but blessings and joy forever in the world to come.  Brahms requiem tells of this.  how we are 'like grass which withers and fades....' or something to that effect.  then, he goes on to write 'how lovely are Thy dwellings, Oh Lord of Hosts....'

Jesus Christ, when he died (before His ressurrection) said 'Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.'  now, why would He say that if our body (soul) and our spirit are irreversably connected?  although He was ressurrected and witnessed in the body He was crucified in - so that Thomas could see - but He could transform this body to intense light and brightness so that noone could see Him - as well.  perhaps when ressurrection takes place - we have the ability to be in whatever state of body we wish to appear to others - but generally recognizable as us.  and, without the physical limitations.  basically, like superman.  sci-fi as it sounds.  the saints were aware of this and stephen when martyred - as he died - repeated the words of Jesus 'Lord, receive my spirit....'  so he willingly granted his spirit to God thru Jesus at death.  some might die without being able to speak last words - so this is why baptism is a very good idea for those who want to commit to Jesus before their deathbed.  what if you die suddenly.  then, what do you do? 

[thalbergmad]

The short posts did not last long, before you reverted to pages of drivel.

[timothy42b]

I suppose my reasoning was that the non-temporal must be the converse of the temporal. You can't have one, and remove it, and not have the other. 

But there is no reason that the existence of something must force the existence of something else.  You can define it that way, but definitions have to be checked to see if there is any correspondence with reality, and here there isn't. 

Here, let's try a thought experiment.  Does heat exist?................OUCH!.......yup, heat exists. 

Therefore cold must exist.   Oops, sorry, there is no such thing as cold. 

[Derek]

But there is no reason that the existence of something must force the existence of something else.  You can define it that way, but definitions have to be checked to see if there is any correspondence with reality, and here there isn't. 

Here, let's try a thought experiment.  Does heat exist?................OUCH!.......yup, heat exists. 

Therefore cold must exist.   Oops, sorry, there is no such thing as cold. 

I'm not talking about actual things, though. Time is merely a label. Cold and heat are labels as well. Cold has a real meaning: "low heat."  Thus, it is equally reasonable to say that a continuum called heat could have its extreme measurable ends labeled in different ways.  As such, the existence of heat can force the existence of low heat, i.e. "Cold".

Similarly, the passing of time can also be viewed as a continuum. At one extreme end, the passing of time cannot be measured. It seems reasonable to call this non-temporal. Therefore the existence of the temporal, viewed in this way, forces the existence of the non-temporal. Thus my idea is still on non-nonsensical grounds, I hope.

[themockingbird]

I'm not talking about actual things, though. Time is merely a label. Cold and heat are labels as well. Cold has a real meaning: "low heat."  Thus, it is equally reasonable to say that a continuum called heat could have its extreme measurable ends labeled in different ways.  As such, the existence of heat can force the existence of low heat, i.e. "Cold".

Similarly, the passing of time can also be viewed as a continuum. At one extreme end, the passing of time cannot be measured. It seems reasonable to call this non-temporal. Therefore the existence of the temporal, viewed in this way, forces the existence of the non-temporal. Thus my idea is still on non-nonsensical grounds, I hope.

er is this entering into socratic grounds? (i hope it is socrates i'm thinking of, it's been a while)

i've got to disagree with this when applying it to time, though. you say the passing of time is a continuum, fine. but as soon as something infinite becomes less than infinite it is immediately finite, there is no continuum there whatsoever. anything finite, or temporal, can exist within a continuum of different lengths of time, but the infinite, or 'non-temporal', as you call it, is something different altogether.

I see what your reasoning is, but I still think your premise is a little off.

[Derek]

er is this entering into socratic grounds? (i hope it is socrates i'm thinking of, it's been a while)

i've got to disagree with this when applying it to time, though. you say the passing of time is a continuum, fine. but as soon as something infinite becomes less than infinite it is immediately finite, there is no continuum there whatsoever. anything finite, or temporal, can exist within a continuum of different lengths of time, but the infinite, or 'non-temporal', as you call it, is something different altogether.

I see what your reasoning is, but I still think your premise is a little off.

Another way to think about it is the "speed" of time. I think that's what I was really getting at. It can be zero, or something non-zero. When measured as "zero," in other words, nothing is moving relative to anything else so it can't be measured, we have something in the state of being "non-temporal." Since no limits can be defined on this state, it is infinite. I wonder if that helps to refine the idea.

[themockingbird]

Another way to think about it is the "speed" of time. I think that's what I was really getting at. It can be zero, or something non-zero. When measured as "zero," in other words, nothing is moving relative to anything else so it can't be measured, we have something in the state of being "non-temporal." Since no limits can be defined on this state, it is infinite. I wonder if that helps to refine the idea.

well, seeing as speed is something which is calculated using time, I don't think it's particularly accurate to define time by something that requires knowing what it is in order for it to be calculated. the speed of time is a false notion that can only be thought of in human terms. things can be measured in relation to our own understanding of time (e.g. the time it takes to run a race, measured in minutes and seconds, which we created for our own use and nothing else), but time itself cannot be measured.

and besides, you're using the same argument in different terms. you're saying that time can move, or it can not move. this isn't a continuum. thing either move or they don't move, they can't be 'sort of' moving. they can move at different speeds, yes, and that's where there is a continuum, but I still think you're getting confused.

then again, i'm no physicist so i could be wrong, but the last I heard was that physicists were just as confused about this as we are, thanks to quantum physics. So if any physicists want to jump in here with any argument at all then I'd be grateful

[Derek]

well, seeing as speed is something which is calculated using time, I don't think it's particularly accurate to define time by something that requires knowing what it is in order for it to be calculated. the speed of time is a false notion that can only be thought of in human terms. things can be measured in relation to our own understanding of time (e.g. the time it takes to run a race, measured in minutes and seconds, which we created for our own use and nothing else), but time itself cannot be measured.

and besides, you're using the same argument in different terms. you're saying that time can move, or it can not move. this isn't a continuum. thing either move or they don't move, they can't be 'sort of' moving. they can move at different speeds, yes, and that's where there is a continuum, but I still think you're getting confused.

then again, i'm no physicist so i could be wrong, but the last I heard was that physicists were just as confused about this as we are, thanks to quantum physics. So if any physicists want to jump in here with any argument at all then I'd be grateful

Let me try to reword it then (and I don't know anything about relativity, though I am using some of the same terms):
An outside observer can perceive if he is moving relative to something else, or if two things are moving relative to each other, right? Only if some sort of movement or change occurs can any time be perceived. Once THAT happens, one can find some sort of relative movement which remains consistent with respect to the observer, and call that a "second" and write it down in the international standards book or whatever. Yes, seconds, hours, etc. are arbitrary, but perceiving the passing of time is not.  Thus, if no change or movement of any kind is perceived, then time, as we define it, is not passing. Therefore, we have something non temporal. Since there is no beginning, middle, or end in this situation, it is non temporal, or infinite.

[themockingbird]

Let me try to reword it then (and I don't know anything about relativity, though I am using some of the same terms):
An outside observer can perceive if he is moving relative to something else, or if two things are moving relative to each other, right? Only if some sort of movement or change occurs can any time be perceived. Once THAT happens, one can find some sort of relative movement which remains consistent with respect to the observer, and call that a "second" and write it down in the international standards book or whatever. Yes, seconds, hours, etc. are arbitrary, but perceiving the passing of time is not.  Thus, if no change or movement of any kind is perceived, then time, as we define it, is not passing. Therefore, we have something non temporal. Since there is no beginning, middle, or end in this situation, it is non temporal, or infinite.

Alright, this is beginning to enter a little too much into an area of quantum physics that I really don't know enough about to talk authoritatively on, and relativity is something I know even less about, so I will try and deal with this in the most basic way possible.

You are still thinking too much about time in human terms, and how we perceive it. Let's say I stare at my bedroom wall. I see nothing moving, does this mean time has stopped? Obviously that's a basic example but human perception is very limited and I would consider it inaccurate to say that we are able to truly 'perceive' time.

Back to the quantum physics. I'll admit this is a bit of a digression but I'm just saying it to illustrate a point, rather than prove it, especially since I have no idea how much this field has progressed since this discovery was first made. I don't know if you've come across this but a while back scientists noticed that when electrons were being observed they behaved like particles, but when they were not being observed they behaved like waves. This was discovered via the double-slit experiment, I won't go into detail about it now but if you want to research it then feel free. But my point is that as far as that experiment is concerned, our perceptions do not necessarily reflect reality.

Returning back to basic, common-knowledge science. Seeing things move is part of an equation. I assume you're familiar with the equation speed = distance / time. If you are watching 2 objects move relative to each other, then they are moving at different speeds, which is something that is a combination of both distance and time, not just time itself. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well...but basically by watching things move that is our own perception of time, it is not necessarily the passage of time itself.

And yet again, you seem to be missing the most basic point I keep trying to make, that what you keep saying does not prove that there is a 'continuum' at all. Either something is moving or it isn't, as I keep saying. If something is not moving, then according to your own logic, time doesn't exist. As soon as it starts moving, time does exist. There is no continuum there. And if we are going to go by your logic, then unless I'm hugely misunderstanding (which I might be), you are suggesting that the faster an object move, the faster time travels, which is rubbish as demonstrated by the equation I mentioned just now.

Another poster pointed out that time is a dimension. As far as I'm aware, there is no 'in between' of dimensions: they are there, things belong in them or they don't. As far as I'm aware, they are not things that we create, but that we perceive according to our own limited knowledge, and to discuss these kinds of concepts purely in terms of our own empirical perceptions is just wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

[prometheus]

but as soon as something infinite becomes less than infinite it is immediately finite

Regardless of this discussion, if you subtract something from an infinite it stays an infinite. Just a smaller infinite.


At least it is this way in the mathematical system we all agreed on using.


Actual things are never infinite. Just like time infinity is a human concept and one should not try to treat it as if it is something that also exists in the universe.


Sure, the universe exists and reality is the way it is. We have science which are our models for this reality. Time is part of our model of reality, which is quite a good model.


You shouldn't take a segment out of your scientific model, twist it around a bit, and then look how it fits in with this different part of reality.

[prometheus]

"In order for something temporal to exist, it must reside within something non-temporal.

This is the premise. The argument can only follow if this premise is correct.


I don't even understand what this means. Time can only exist inside a non-time?

Time is a dimension of our reality. It can only exist in the dimension of non-time? Or the non-dimension of time?

Makes no sense.


So something temporal is a discrete limited section within the dimension of time?


Only way I can understand this is that a segment of time exists within the total dimension of time. All of time would not be temporal. But it isn't infinite.

Anything non-temporal must be infinite, since it has no limits

It has no limits within the dimension of time, but time itself is limited. Just like any other dimension.

Since this implies that there is such a thing as eternity, this must mean that I will exist again in some form eventually because all possibilities become infinitely probable after a long enough time.

Just because time is infinite, which is your incorrect premise, that doesn't mean an infinite number of different realities will be to exist as well.


It's like saying that because life in heaven is infinitely long at some moment you will eventually become Hitler because all possibilities have to happen eventually.

In addition, my perception of time will cease when I die, therefore I will begin to exist in another form immediately upon dying."

This is the most puzzling. I don't see what perception of time has to do with it. And that you will start to exist again immediately upon dying is also strange because the point was that there will be infinite amount of time for it to happen again.

Why doesn't it last an infinite amount of time before you exist again?

Also, if you exist again in another form then that isn't you.


My perception of time can also stop without me dying. Does that regenerate me immediately in another form? For example when I go to sleep?

Or maybe I am a person with brain damage. How does that work?

[Derek]

My perception of time can also stop without me dying. Does that regenerate me immediately in another form? For example when I go to sleep?

Yes, one perceives that one immediately wakes up right after one falls asleep. One does not perceive all 8 hours passing. If there is some kind of afterlife, I think the same thing might apply. Maybe aeons will pass, and then quantum probability will cause the birth of some new creature somewhere in the universe which will continue the thread of my consciousness.

Funny you should mention Hitler, I've had several dreams (nightmares, rather, probably caused by all the chinese food I ate in college) about being him. And no, I don't hate Jews. lol 

With regards to my original premise, let me reword it a little: "in order for anything to have a beginning, middle, and end, there must be something before it and after it." Similar to the reasoning behind mathematical induction, this would imply that time, or perhaps nothingness, is infinite, eternal.  Everything that we can see in this universe has a beginning, middle, and end. To me this says that there is something "outside" the universe that we cannot perceive, which does not have a beginning, middle, or end, but is infinite.

[themockingbird]

Regardless of this discussion, if you subtract something from an infinite it stays an infinite. Just a smaller infinite.


At least it is this way in the mathematical system we all agreed on using.


Actual things are never infinite. Just like time infinity is a human concept and one should not try to treat it as if it is something that also exists in the universe.


Sure, the universe exists and reality is the way it is. We have science which are our models for this reality. Time is part of our model of reality, which is quite a good model.


You shouldn't take a segment out of your scientific model, twist it around a bit, and then look how it fits in with this different part of reality.

That's a fair enough point. I realise there are holes in the argument I was making, because as I said I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this area of physics (or any area for that matter ) there just seemed to be a gaping flaw in Derek's argument and the only way I could work out to show him was by taking that stance, ie that the difference between something happening and something not happening is not part of a continuum.

I also think that Derek is also coming to conclusions about things that he knows very little about, that may seem logical in one way but aren't really a 'proof' of anything.

Alright, going off on a limb again here so correct me if I'm wrong:

Derek, this is for you. I realise that you are a Christian and believe in souls and so on, but your argument does not prove the existence of them. Take the idea that the universe is expanding as a result of the Big Bang, and that eventually it will begin to collapse again into the point it began with in the first place. In this case, all matter, including human life, has come to being as a result of the Big Bang and is only made of what exists as a result of it (apparently the universe came into being when time = 0, which I assume is also part of an argument that time as we know it is cyclical, not one long infinite line). Therefore when the universe collapses back upon itself (presumably ready for another Big Bang), all of the same matter will return to its original state once more. There is nowhere else for it to go.

So OK, my argument may have problems, but you do seem to be basing your argument that there is life beyond the life that we know on a premise that already believes that to some extent, and you just seem to be finding a way to explain it.

[opus10no2]

[Derek]

I also think that Derek is also coming to conclusions about things that he knows very little about, that may seem logical in one way but aren't really a 'proof' of anything.

Alright, going off on a limb again here so correct me if I'm wrong:

Derek, this is for you. I realise that you are a Christian and believe in souls and so on, but your argument does not prove the existence of them. Take the idea that the universe is expanding as a result of the Big Bang, and that eventually it will begin to collapse again into the point it began with in the first place. In this case, all matter, including human life, has come to being as a result of the Big Bang and is only made of what exists as a result of it (apparently the universe came into being when time = 0, which I assume is also part of an argument that time as we know it is cyclical, not one long infinite line). Therefore when the universe collapses back upon itself (presumably ready for another Big Bang), all of the same matter will return to its original state once more. There is nowhere else for it to go.

So OK, my argument may have problems, but you do seem to be basing your argument that there is life beyond the life that we know on a premise that already believes that to some extent, and you just seem to be finding a way to explain it.

I haven't come to any conclusions (nor has anyone else on this thread), nor did I ever mean to imply that I know anything. In addition, I never said I was trying to prove the existence of anything. This thread is based entirely on my own thoughts. This entire thread was based on a speculation, to which I have attempted to apply logic. Furthermore, I never once mentioned souls, God, Christianity, or anything else of that nature in this thread. *assumes Dr. Evil pose* That seems to be a rather...unpopular? Subject, on this forum.  That's an adorable puppy.

[themockingbird]

I haven't come to any conclusions (nor has anyone else on this thread), nor did I ever mean to imply that I know anything. In addition, I never said I was trying to prove the existence of anything. This thread is based entirely on my own thoughts. This entire thread was based on a speculation, to which I have attempted to apply logic. Furthermore, I never once mentioned souls, God, Christianity, or anything else of that nature in this thread. *assumes Dr. Evil pose* That seems to be a rather...unpopular? Subject, on this forum.  That's an adorable puppy.

I know what your beliefs are, so I don't think I'd be stretching my imagination too much to assume that you base most of your thoughts about eternity etc on those beliefs, whether you mention them or not.

As for it being an 'unpopular' subject, other people might get wound up about it but it doesn't touch a nerve with me, so please don't patronise me. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that what you have to say upsets me in any way, because it doesn't.

[Derek]

*edit* nevermind.

[themockingbird]

oh you tease! And here was me thinking you were going to help me with my insomnia no, really! It's 1:15am here and I have to be up at 6:30 to start my new job.