Happy Atheist Forum

time exists?
now exists?
history exists?
god exists before history?

Point of this exists?

Time exists as a construct. I do not think it exists as something physical.

Now is a concept within time used to describe the moment or period of time immideately preceding present, THE present or immediately following present. So yes, now does exist.

History is our "Collective memory". It is used to describe the past and as a point of reference for the present (I am here today because I was born back then)

I do not believe in god(s) before or after history, so my answer here is no. Note that I'm not refering to god the concept used to explain everything unexplained but to god the sentient being)

1. From our point of view, yes.  Time as a dimension most certainly exists, but our interpretation of it may be limited or flawed.  But speaking generically, yes.
2. From our perspective, yes.  Technically, no.  There is no slice of time to define as "now," there is only what has happened.  What we call "now" is a shoddy approximation left lacking by our delayed sensory interpretation, and the different processing rates in different parts of the brain.  Not all information in any one sensory snapshot can be processed all at once.  Obviously, your brain is interpreting signals it got from your ears before it's even forwarded to your consciousness and enters the realm of awareness.   These processes aren't entirely separate, but the key thing to realize is that they aren't instant.  Your perception of "now," is an amalgam of the very-near past.
3.  History is the one thing on this list you can be more certain of than any other.  Unless we were created as is right now, or all perception is horrendously flawed, history is a certainty.  Heck, even if we were created a picosecond ago, we still have a whole picosecond of history.
4.  I guess that depends on whether time is an emergent property, or dimension universal to all reality.  It can certainly be altered based on the contents of a universe, if observed from a different frame of reference, but it always appears to be passing at the same speed to those in the same frame of reference.  If it's universal, God would kind of get the hose.  I mean, sure, you can claim he created the multiverse or that he created time or whatever, always setting him one step before, but if we don't need him to, I mean with certainty, then that'll be a huge blow to God-of-the-Gaps theists.  Now, as to how the hell God would perform a causal action without time, uhh . . .  ya got me.  Creating something has to be done before it exists.  "Before" sets a timeline.  Timelines need functioning time.  Christians could start saying that their God didn't cause the universe, but will shortly, if they want to really give us a headache.   The only "history" God might exist before is human, or written, or ant.  To suggest he is wholly external to time and causality creates a cluster fulcrum (oh yeah, it's about as likely a simple lever with more than one fulcrum, so that statement stands).

And now I'll go disappear again.  Sorry I've been so quiet everyone, I'll return in force sooner or later.

Quote from: "none"time exists?
now exists?
history exists?
god exists before history?

Baffled exists?

Kyu

I am not so much baffled and unable to make a connection from the first 3 statements to the last. The first three do not mention god or a creator and yet god 'pops up' in the last. I think Occam would have something to say about that.

As for time, well whether it is part of the fabric of 'time - space' or not, we humans cannot manage without it and the various god myths cannot either. Mind, having god eternal is a good start as it gets over a few problems. I am not sure the 'eternally' bit helps much, though as we know of nothing that does not have a starting point somewhere and surely god would need that too.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Point of this exists?

 I'm not even taking that further.
But I take the liberty to comment on you instead Asmo:

QuoteTime exists as a construct. I do not think it exists as something physical.

Now is a concept within time used to describe the moment or period of time immideately preceding present, THE present or immediately following present. So yes, now does exist.

This is one of my particular areas of interest: Philosophy of time.

That it doesn't exist as something physical has been disproved. - Mainly when experimenting with the relativitytheory and atomic watches.

But we still can't define it's ontology correct and therefore we are still unable to (really) experiment with it.
As when you write that "now" exists. Actually "now" has a tendency towards non-existence (soon the now you were speaking of, is no longer... actually it isn't even existing when you are finished saying "now".) The past exists only as memories and history. The future only as our expectations.

Of course this is bordering on making no sense, which is why it is such an interesting field.

just like I don't understand john 3:16, others will not understand the first post in this thread...
god is a construct.
eternity or eternal is a deceptive way of saying time without begining or end, and denying time's existence.
also since everything had a begining, what was before?
nothing?
did nothing have a begining?
and before nothing?
pre-nothing?
and before pre-nothing?
I just stumbled across this line of thinking a few years ago and am still trying to reconcile it.
maybe before pre-nothing a pre-nothing eternity, without time of course, but for how long?
since history exists when does it end?
does duration end?
thanks for the responses.

Quote from: "none"god is a construct.

Yes

Quoteeternity or eternal is a deceptive way of saying time without begining or end, and denying time's existence.

What is deceptive about it? It certainly does not deny time's existence, it simply claim that time is infinite.

Quotealso since everything had a begining, what was before?

Strange question. That everything had a beginning is just an assumption.

Quotesince history exists when does it end?

Now.

Quotedoes duration end?

yes it is implied in the definition of the word.

Quotethanks for the responses.

You are welcome.

my question "also since everything had a begining, what was before? " was a refrence to an earlier post where I may have misread the belief in everything having a begining.
I don't believe the begining of some or all as put forth by some creation idea.

I'm so glad I've found answers to the fundamental questions about time that satisfy me. Makes me that much more productive.  :devil:

Wechtlein Uns, thank you for the response.
After reading your post I remebered something I had read in a quantum physics book years ago, Wave-Particle duality.
From what I remeber says you can't know the all the properties of an observable at any given instance.
Something similar to: you might know where the observable's location is but not from which direction it came and conversely you may know the direction but not location (this ratio changes, but does not cease to exist) as the quanta or quantity of the observable changes.
About the big bang, I read it as a particle of infinite density and mass existed then boom.
From the claim that there was a particle of infinite density and inifinite mass that existed and time and space are inifinite comes a paradox, how can we quantify the density and mass of the particle if we can calculate its location or time of existence while using wave-particle duality?
I can't thus the concept of inifinite density and mass at a specific time.
does this particle of infinite density and infinite mass still exist?

Quote from: "none"time exists?

Yes, but we don't understand completely what is it!

Quotenow exists?

No, now is just a point of time, what exists is our actions as a state of time (Now)
So, nothing is added by this statement, it is the same like the previous

Quotehistory exists?

Same as before Event(t)

Quotegod exists before history?

Maybe, can you prove it?

Quote from: "none"Wave-Particle duality.
 how can we quantify the density and mass of the particle if we can calculate its location or time of existence while using wave-particle duality?
I can't thus the concept of inifinite density and mass at a specific time.

Problem is: No one ever claimed that the big-bang particle was a wave-particle. So quantum mechanics does not really apply to that. Anyway QM is a way of describing actual paticles and their behaviour. This original particle you refer to, is just a hypothesis. And generally recognized as one.

Quotedoes this particle of infinite density and infinite mass still exist?

if it is a true description of how things started, I guess not since it has spent the last 15-20 billion years evolving into something completely different. It is just one explanatory model among others though.

ok, Messenger, the logic of now not existing eludes me, if that is what you said.
please clarify.
I propose : before history there was history, but not god; god is not independent of belief or believed.

About the big bang particle, that is the whole issue with wave-particle duality; wave-particle duality always exists.
I will reiterate, since the particle existed at a specific time its density and mass were were known as infinite (mainly because it had no direction; no refrence to duration i.e. time)
I could be mistaken as I fumble along without the benefit of structured higher education in this field of thought.

Well, zarathustra, why not claim the universe existed as a cloud when it was as small as, say, an electron?

Time is just a tool we forged to measure existence itself. The concept of time does exist.

History, in terms of study of the past does exist. The past does not exist, it existed.

As I've said before, God cannot exist before or outside of time and claim to have always existed because always is a measurement of time.

A lot of people seem to think time is a thing that can exist.   I agree that is it just a concept we developed to measure/define change.

If time doesn't exist then why does it run slower when you are doing a menial task and too fast when you are having fun
Just kiddin'. As far as I know  the further and faster you travel away from our planet the slower time moves for you in comparison with the people remained behind. When you return your friends and family are older than you. If time would not exist then there should not have been a difference isn't it?

tom62, I believe my definition of time as the separation of particles into the cloudlike state and particlelike state, when scaled over millions of light years, has the effect of general relativity. The quantum scaling then, could adequately account for the proposed "difference" in time between two distant planets.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"A lot of people seem to think time is a thing that can exist.   I agree that is it just a concept we developed to measure/define change.

All it is is a concept, thus it exists. Would you say an inch exists? An inch of some material is real but the inch itself is not exactly tangible. It's a tool of measurement. Time, being similar to other systems of measurement, is intangible but its suggested theory functions to meet its purpose.

Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time. The only reason we use inches is because no two things can occupy the same physical space. That's a physical law. There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

Why?  Consider wormhole theory. At one end of the wormhole it is a different time than at the other end. The only thing separating those two ends is distance inside the wormhole. How do you account for that?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time. The only reason we use inches is because no two things can occupy the same physical space. That's a physical law. There should be a similar physical law with respect to time.

Thank you for saving me the time of inventing an original solution. Your post answers itself.

space is to time as length is to duration.
just as I am a length from you I am a duration from you.
Consider Einstien's model of two parrallel mirrors with a beam of light going perpendicular between the two being observered.
Accelerate the apparatus of mirrors, light, and the observer and the light travels at an angle from mirror to mirror creating somewhat of a triangle to a second observer who is stationary.
Considering the distance and the constant velocity of the light, duration is slowed for the moving observer whereas duration accelerates for the stationary observer.

Quote from: "none"ok, Messenger, the logic of now not existing eludes me, if that is what you said.
please clarify.

I did not say that, I just said that this statement add nothing as time is a frame of measure not a tangible object

QuoteI propose : before history there was history, but not god; god is not independent of belief or believed.

We (science) know that time varies according to speed (maybe other things as well)
For a photon of light traveling with speed C, time stops
So we can assume that time does not pass for God as well (We don't know how)

QuoteAbout the big bang particle, that is the whole issue with wave-particle duality; wave-particle duality always exists.
I will reiterate, since the particle existed at a specific time its density and mass were were known as infinite (mainly because it had no direction; no refrence to duration i.e. time)

Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

Quote from: "Messenger"Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

Any proof for this assertion?

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Nothing real (In the universe) can be infinite, infinity is just an imaginary term

Any proof for this assertion?

That is easy
Infinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity)

My proof:
Assuming that we have a real infinite number of objects K
K is either 1-constant or 2-Increasing or 3-Decreasing (By definition)
As K exist at time t1, t2, t..., then it must be constant
If we start to remove objects from K then it will be k-1, k-2, ... till zero
which means it is not infinite
If it does not decrease it means it is not constant (which contradicts with the assumption i.e. Paradox)

Quote from: "Messenger"My proof:
Assuming that we have a real infinite number of objects K
K is either 1-constant or 2-Increasing or 3-Decreasing (By definition)
As K exist at time t1, t2, t..., then it must be constant
If we start to remove objects from K then it will be k-1, k-2, ... till zero

this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

Quote from: "Messenger"which means it is not infinite
If it does not decrease it means it is not constant (which contradicts with the assumption i.e. Paradox)

I guess you meant "If it decreases it means it is not constant".
Unfortunately for your argument, infinity does not decrease by subtracting finite numbers from it.

On a lesser note : you have a tendency to mix mathematical fields : constant, increasing and decreasing are calculus terms applied to functions, not numbers.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Sophus, there still would have to be a physical mechanism in reality that would explain our concept of time.

A clock?

 

Quote from: "bowmore"this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

Prove it?  (on real objects)  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

Prove it?  (on real objects)  

It is proven in mathematical set theory by Georg Cantor.

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"this is where you fail. If k = infinity, then k-1 = k-2 = k = infinity. You'll never reach zero.

Prove it?  (on real objects)  

It is proven in mathematical set theory by Georg Cantor.

I said real objects not mathematics
Infinity In mathematics is different than in Physics, in Physics it is just an approximation

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"

Quote from: "Messenger"Prove it?  (on real objects)  

It is proven in mathematical set theory by Georg Cantor.

I said real objects not mathematics
Infinity In mathematics is different than in Physics, in Physics it is just an approximation

You don't get to switch the tables here. You said you could prove you cannot have infinity in the real world.
Your argument was flawed because it disregarded mathematical properties of infinite numbers that are proven. That infinity in physics is just an approximation is what you should prove, not what can use as a premise.
It is a mistake on your part to assume I hold the contrary position. All I've claimed is that your proof doesn't work.

Quote from: "bowmore"You don't get to switch the tables here. You said you could prove you cannot have infinity in the real world.
Your argument was flawed because it disregarded mathematical properties of infinite numbers that are proven. That infinity in physics is just an approximation is what you should prove, not what can use as a premise.
It is a mistake on your part to assume I hold the contrary position. All I've claimed is that your proof doesn't work.

My proof works perfectly (it is called proof by contradictions)
You objected my proof by mathematical assumptions, which is out of context as we talk reality not hypothetically

Go back to my proof and try to refute it?

An infinite number of real objects is illogical (Logically contradicting i.e. a paradox and paradoxes don't exist

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"All I've claimed is that your proof doesn't work.

My proof works perfectly (it is called proof by contradictions)

I know what a reductio ad absurdum is.

Quote from: "Messenger"You objected my proof by mathematical assumptions, which is out of context as we talk reality not hypothetically

That doesn't mean you can simply disregard the mathematical properties of infinity.
That's like saying in reality 1 + 1 = 3, because the mathematical properties of the number 1 don't apply in reality.

If I have 10 apples and I remove 1 I'll be left with 9 apples.
If I have an infinite amount of apples and I remove 1 I still have an infinity of apples.

Quote from: "Messenger"An infinite number of real objects is illogical (Logically contradicting i.e. a paradox and paradoxes don't exist

You only arrived at the paradox through faulty reasoning. The proof is invalid.

Quote from: "bowmore"That doesn't mean you can simply disregard the mathematical properties of infinity.
That's like saying in reality 1 + 1 = 3, because the mathematical properties of the number 1 don't apply in reality.

I don't disagree on the mathematical properties of infinity!
It is not like saying 1+1=3, because 1, 3 mathematical and physical properties are the same

QuoteIf I have an infinite amount of apples and I remove 1 I still have an infinity of apples.

Can you prove that?

Here is the proof again (restated)
There exist N real apples (N can be anything)
Apples are edible (fact)
If I eat all of them I'll have No apples
if N=infinity N-1=N which means I did not eat any apple (Paradox)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"That doesn't mean you can simply disregard the mathematical properties of infinity.
That's like saying in reality 1 + 1 = 3, because the mathematical properties of the number 1 don't apply in reality.

I don't disagree on the mathematical properties of infinity!
It is not like saying 1+1=3, because 1, 3 mathematical and physical properties are the same

And it is up to you to prove that the same isn't true for infinity, since that is after all what you claim.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteIf I have an infinite amount of apples and I remove 1 I still have an infinity of apples.

Can you prove that?

Cantor's proved it for me.

Quote from: "Messenger"Here is the proof again (restated)
There exist N real apples (N can be anything)
Apples are edible (fact)
If I eat all of them I'll have No apples
if N=infinity N-1=N which means I did not eat any apple (Paradox)

How does it mean you didn't eat an apple? That's just a non sequitur.
I bet if we study the contents of your stomach we'll find the pieces of the apple you've eaten.

Perhaps you should just count the apples you have left again. ( how do you practically establish the number of apples you have is infinite?)

Your proof seems to revolve around insisting that a real infinity should adopt the mathematical properties of finite numbers, whereas that is what you should prove, not assume.

Quote from: "bowmore"Cantor's proved it for me.

He didn't

QuoteYour proof seems to revolve around insisting that a real infinity should adopt the mathematical properties of finite numbers, whereas that is what you should prove, not assume.

I did not mention infinity in the first part, just some real apples, real apples follow physical rules (forget about mathematics here)
Then in the second part, we try to see if that real apples can match mathematics or not
We found that the assumption of infinity contradicts with agreed facts (which I ate the apples) i.e. a paradox
so the conclusion is that the assumption does not exist
Read about proof by contradictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Cantor's proved it for me.

He didn't

He proved it by showing it is possible to construct a bijection between a set containing an infinite number of elements (e.g. apples) and the same set containing one less.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteYour proof seems to revolve around insisting that a real infinity should adopt the mathematical properties of finite numbers, whereas that is what you should prove, not assume.

I did not mention infinity in the first part, just some real apples, real apples follow physical rules (forget about mathematics here)

I suggest we don't forget mathematics as long as you haven't shown that infinity loses it's mathematical properties in reality.

Quote from: "Messenger"Then in the second part, we try to see if that real apples can match mathematics or not
We found that the assumption of infinity contradicts with agreed facts (which I ate the apples) i.e. a paradox

Nope, you reached the paradox through faulty reasoning.

Quote from: "Messenger"so the conclusion is that the assumption does not exist
Read about proof by contradictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

I told you I know what a reductio ad absurdum is. Yours just fails.

Quote from: "bowmore"He proved it by showing it is possible to construct a bijection between a set containing an infinite number of elements (e.g. apples) and the same set containing one less..

His proof is false and contradicting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number)
He imagine that W is the first INTEGER which follows all the finite natural numbers, i.e., which can be called greater than any finite natural number.
which contradicts with the definition of infinite set

QuoteNope, you reached the paradox through faulty reasoning.

Define it?

QuoteI told you I know what a reductio ad absurdum is. Yours just fails

You just assert

Quote from: "Messenger"His proof is false and contradicting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number)
He imagine that W is the first INTEGER which follows all the finite natural numbers, i.e., which can be called greater than any finite natural number.
which contradicts with the definition of infinite set

Ok, that concludes it. You have no real mathematical background.
The set of all real numbers that are higher than 1 but smaller than two, is infinite. Let's call it A
2 is a real number that is greater than any element from A, and no real number exists that is lower than two, but greater than any element from A.
You see, you mix up order and cardinality. A set of infinite cardinality can have a upper limit that is not an element of that set. There is no contradiction there.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteNope, you reached the paradox through faulty reasoning.

Define it?

You assume without proof that infinity loses it's mathematical properties in reality.
Unlike most other mathematical concepts.

Quote from: "Messenger"

QuoteI told you I know what a reductio ad absurdum is. Yours just fails

You just assert

I did in this instance, as repeating my reasoning every time would get, well, repetitive.

Quote from: "bowmore"The set of all real numbers that are higher than 1 but smaller than two, is infinite. Let's call it A
2 is a real number that is greater than any element from A, and no real number exists that is lower than two, but greater than any element from A.
There is no contradiction there.

There is a contradiction because it is not a finite set!

QuoteYou assume without proof that infinity loses it's mathematical properties in reality.

I proved it, and you failed to refute my proof

[quote="MessengerThere is a contradiction because it is not a finite set!
[/quote]

What is a contradiction? What is not a finite set? A?

Quote from: "SSY"What is a contradiction? What is not a finite set? A?

Yes

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"The set of all real numbers that are higher than 1 but smaller than two, is infinite. Let's call it A
2 is a real number that is greater than any element from A, and no real number exists that is lower than two, but greater than any element from A.
There is no contradiction there.

There is a contradiction because it is not a finite set!

Again you prove your lack of a sufficient mathematical background.

Of course you will back up your claim and give me a number (let's represent it by m) so that m is a real number, m < 2, and for all n for which (n > 1 and n<2) : m > n

But you may as well not bother since whatever m you choose I'll nominate n=m+(2-m)/2

Quote from: "bowmore"Of course you will back up your claim and give me a number (let's represent it by m) so that m is a real number, m < 2, and for all n for which (n > 1 and n<2) : m > n

But you may as well not bother since whatever m you choose I'll nominate n=m+(2-m)/2

There no such number as this criteria is infinite
I don't see how that prove anything  

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"Of course you will back up your claim and give me a number (let's represent it by m) so that m is a real number, m < 2, and for all n for which (n > 1 and n<2) : m > n

But you may as well not bother since whatever m you choose I'll nominate n=m+(2-m)/2

There no such number as this criteria is infinite
I don't see how that prove anything  

It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

Quote from: "bowmore"It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

Infinite sets does not have an upper bound, so what?

How does this proves that infinite real objects can exist?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"It proves infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers, which was your objection to Cantor's proof.

Infinite sets does not have an upper bound, so what?

You really don't read my posts, do you.
infinite sets can have upper bounds that are integers

Quote from: "Messenger"How does this proves that infinite real objects can exist?

Are you not keeping up with this thread?

a brief history:

me : removing one element from an infinite set leaves an infinite set
you : prove it!
me : Cantor proved it for me.
you : No he didn't!
me : Explain Cantor's proof.
you : Cantor's wrong : objection : infinite sets cannot have integers as upper bounds
me : Give counterexample for your objection : 2 is upper bound of infinite set ]1,2[

**discussion of example**

you : agree with counterexample, but : So what, it doesn't prove infinities can be actual.

That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Fact remains that you disregard the mathematical properties of infinities when you talk about actual infinities in your argument, which was my objection.

Quote from: "bowmore"That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Yes, that is by definition of the mathematical term

What this got to do with reality?

Quote from: "Messenger"

Quote from: "bowmore"That's not why I posted the example now, is it.
It proves your objection fails.
Cantor's proof is valid.
Infinity - 1 = infinity.

Yes, that is by definition of the mathematical term

What this got to do with reality?

Again this is not why I posted it. I documented my objection, being that you dismiss the mathematical properties of infinity when you speak of it in your argument. So unless you can justify the dismissal, I must reject your proof.

Note that again you seem to make the mistake of assuming I assert the opposite of your argument's conclusion. I don't. Please read my posts.