Did the universe pop out of nowhere and nothing?

[Stranger]

Time doesn't flow, we flow through time - and the rate at which we do so changes depending on the local gravity and our physical speed through that gravity.

Time is absolute - it's our movement through it that's relative.

This is incorrect for the reasons given in my last post. Because of the geometry of space-time, different frames of reference consider different directions through space-time to be their time axes. Hence if we look at another frame of reference using our time axis, the length of our seconds may well be different to the length of a second along the other frame's own time axis.

There is no concept of the flow of time in relativity.

[Outrider]

This is incorrect for the reasons given in my last post. Because of the geometry of space-time, different frames of reference consider different directions through space-time to be their time axes. Hence if we look at another frame of reference using our time axis, the length of our seconds may well be different to the length of a second along the other frame's own time axis.

There is no concept of the flow of time in relativity.

The use of 'flow' was poetic - I specified that movement rate through time was dependent upon our local conditions and activity.

O.

[Sriram]

And we do experience time, even if we don't experience change...   

If I sit in a sensory deprivation chamber there is no change, but I'm aware of time passing. 

We don't detect magnetism ourselves, only through its effects on other things, that doesn't make it any less real.

How we know about it isn't the same thing as what it functionally is.  Time is, it's part of a four-dimensional space-time in which we exist.  If there was no time, there would be no us.

Even if it required change in order for us to become aware of time, that doesn't mean that time follows the change - post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that...

Time doesn't flow, we flow through time - and the rate at which we do so changes depending on the local gravity and our physical speed through that gravity.

Time is absolute - it's our movement through it that's relative.

O.

How can we experience time without experiencing change?   Even in a chamber you have your thoughts, your blood is flowing, your biology is undergoing change. The outside world is changing and you know it. The sun is rising and setting, the weather is changing, days are changing.

That creates the idea of time. 

[Outrider]

How can we experience time without experiencing change?

Even in a chamber you have your thoughts, your blood is flowing, your biology is undergoing change. The outside world is changing and you know it. The sun is rising and setting, the weather is changing, days are changing.

That creates the idea of time.

No, our experience of time creates the idea of time.  How can I have thoughts if there isn't time in which those thoughts can sequence - without time there would be a single instantaneous mass of consciousness with no order?  How can my blood flow if there isn't a space-time for it to change position within?  How can the outside world change if there is not time - change without time is not change.

O.

[ekim]

No, our experience of time creates the idea of time.  How can I have thoughts if there isn't time in which those thoughts can sequence - without time there would be a single instantaneous mass of consciousness with no order?  How can my blood flow if there isn't a space-time for it to change position within?  How can the outside world change if there is not time - change without time is not change.

O.

I think Sriram agrees that time is an idea but that it is experience of change which creates the idea.  Thoughts and ideas are just changing events just like the tick of a clock out of which an idea of time  passing arises.  In dreams the idea of time can evaporate until you wake up.  Your blood will flow as long as there is unimpeded space and its rate of flow could be said to be related to the efficiency of the circulatory system rather then the need for an entity called time.    Nanoseconds was a term used in the GPS article.  Isn't it based upon a second which seems to be based upon the second, which I understand is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms  i.e. change of movement.

[Outrider]

I think Sriram agrees that time is an idea but that it is experience of change which creates the idea.  Thoughts and ideas are just changing events just like the tick of a clock out of which an idea of time  passing arises.  In dreams the idea of time can evaporate until you wake up.  Your blood will flow as long as there is unimpeded space and its rate of flow could be said to be related to the efficiency of the circulatory system rather then the need for an entity called time.    Nanoseconds was a term used in the GPS article.  Isn't it based upon a second which seems to be based upon the second, which I understand is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms  i.e. change of movement.

The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those.  This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.

Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in.  You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between.  You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.

O.

[Sriram]

The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those.  This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.

Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in.  You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between.  You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.

O.

I am not talking of any misunderstanding of change. I am merely saying that measurement of change is Time. Change exists but Time is just a tool.

[Sriram]

The particular units that we use are an abstraction that is meaningful to us because of our unique position on Earth - we have years because of our orbital time around the sun, hours because of the rotational period of the Earth, Months, weeks,hours, minutes and seconds as fractions of those.  This is exactly the same as having metres or kilograms - they define how measure length or mass, but they don't define length or mass.

Sriram is suggesting that change is real, and our perception of time is a misunderstanding of that change - the fact is, though, that you can't have change without a 'space' to have that change in.  You can't change position without dimensions to move in. You can't change from one state to another without there being at least two discrete positions along a temporal frame for that change to manifest between.  You need to have time - as a part of space-time - for change to exist.

O.

I understand what you are saying...!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Perhaps you missed this?

So, what with you having science on your side if your claim is to believed when can we expect the "WLC-Vlad god theorem" to be published? I'm thinking New Scientist, but maybe Scientific American if WLC is the lead author. What do you think?

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?

[jeremyp]

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?

Why? What is it?

[Stranger]

Why? What is it?

There isn't one. It's Vlad making basic logical mistakes again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson's version of the God Hypothesis would be more fitting don't you?

There isn't one. Why have you just run away from the question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There isn't one. Why have you just run away from the question?

No I answered your stupidity.

[jeremyp]

No I answered your stupidity.

Whileyou're on line, please  answer my question. What is Tyson's version of the god hypothesis?

[Stranger]

No I answered your stupidity.

The stupidity (and it really is heroically stupid) is equating the simulated universe conjecture with theism. It's utterly and totally idiotic for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The stupidity (and it really is heroically stupid) is equating the simulated universe conjecture with theism. It's utterly and totally idiotic for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by multiple people.

The explanation was insufficient. As Chalmers says....Its a God hypothesis.

[Stranger]

The explanation was insufficient.

It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.

And by the way, this is obviously a distraction tactic because you've now totally shifted the idea of a creator from something that fundamentally explains existence and doesn't suffer from needing the same sort of explanation as the universe to something that quite obviously does need such an explanation.

As soon as one lot of idiocy is addressed and you run out of answers you switch to another sort of idiocy entirely.

[ippy]

It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.

And by the way, this is obviously a distraction tactic because you've now totally shifted the idea of a creator from something that fundamentally explains existence and doesn't suffer from needing the same sort of explanation as the universe to something that quite obviously does need such an explanation.

As soon as one lot of idiocy is addressed and you run out of answers you switch to another sort of idiocy entirely.

Vlad doing the rounds and never answering, no, that can't be!!
 
ippy.

[jeremyp]

Vlad doing the rounds and never answering, no, that can't be!!
 
ippy.

Hypocrisy alert!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's literally as daft - because it's exactly the same sort of mistake - as claiming that dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs.

Yes...…..dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs is the same as Simulated universe is the God hypothesis because they both have

Universe possibly with design.
Universe with purpose.
personal creation.
Creator external to the Universe.
Creator not dependent for existence on that universe.

………………..I don't think so.

[Stranger]

Yes...…..dining tables are tigers because they both have four legs is the same as Simulated universe is the God hypothesis because they both have

Universe possibly with design.
Universe with purpose.
personal creation.
Creator external to the Universe.
Creator not dependent for existence on that universe.

………………..I don't think so.

Exactly so.

The external creator is not supernatural (SU is explicitly based on naturalistic assumptions), not necessarily singular, not necessarily good, not omnipotent, not omniscient, uses technology, is mortal...

It's also obviously a distraction tactic because you are using totally different concepts of "God" in different arguments here. It's like you're desperately scrabbling around for something or anything you might possibly slap the label "God" onto, no matter how absurd it is.

The "God" argued for by your mate Feser couldn't be more different from a technological universe simulator, yet both are absurd in their own way.

Don't you think it would be more honest to tell us your own definition of "God" and provide an actual argument you are prepared to get behind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly so.

The external creator is not supernatural (SU is explicitly based on naturalistic assumptions), not necessarily singular, not necessarily good, not omnipotent, not omniscient, uses technology, is mortal...

It's also obviously a distraction tactic because you are using totally different concepts of "God" in different arguments here. It's like you're desperately scrabbling around for something or anything you might possibly slap the label "God" onto, no matter how absurd it is.

The "God" argued for by your mate Feser couldn't be more different from a technological universe simulator, yet both are absurd in their own way.

Don't you think it would be more honest to tell us your own definition of "God" and provide an actual argument you are prepared to get behind?

Sorry but you can't get away from the ''personal creator bit'' nor the other ingredients which make up a cosmological argument. Technology? what technology have you got to make the Universe? Technology just means the means to make something. As for supernatural that just means it doesn't share the same nature as nature and /or is it susceptible to natural investigation. Good or singular Who said a God has to be good? Singular? Have you not heard of a Pantheon?.....the external creator is still in the SU theory personal whether it's one or lots.
As for omnipotent ……...as far as this Universe is concerned it would be.

And finally you need to learn that a ''not necessarily'' is not the same as a ''definitely isn't''. 

[Stranger]

Sorry but you can't get away from the ''personal creator bit'' nor the other ingredients....

If you want to go on making yourself look like a complete moron with this utter idiocy, don't let me stand in your way. I can't be arsed any more - it's by far the most utterly absurd and transparently and pathetically desperate attempt at a "god" argument I've ever heard of in my entire life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to go on making yourself look like a complete moron with this utter idiocy, don't let me stand in your way. I can't be arsed any more - it's by far the most utterly absurd and transparently and pathetically desperate attempt at a "god" argument I've ever heard of in my entire life.

Al I'm arguing here is how Niel De Grasse Tyson made the God hypothesis. And I've provided the reasons. Chalmers thought so. Myers thought it was intelligent design creationism.

[Stranger]

Al I'm arguing here is how Niel De Grasse Tyson made the God hypothesis. And I've provided the reasons. Chalmers thought so. Myers thought it was intelligent design creationism.

If you want to address the other points I made about your desperation to slap the label "god" on pretty much anything you happen to think you might get away with at the time, or want to accept the challenge of actually defining how you think "god" is defined and come up with an argument that you can get behind, or even get back to the subject of the thread, then go ahead. However, if you're just going to continue to make a fool of yourself over this simulated universe nonsense, then you're on your own. On that subject you don't need anybody else to make it look absurd, desperate, and illogical.