You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa

No, all people do is say 'that argument was dismissed elsewhere' but they won't say where. It is very frustrating that people are not even engaging with my arguments.

You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph — Frank Apisa

It is a fact that from time to time, new discoveries are made. It is good to be open minded about the possibility that could happen here. The way to find out is to engage in meaningful debate, that way we will discover if my ideas are any good or not. Just dismissing my ideas out of hand (IE saying they have been dismissed elsewhere which is BS) is not a very scientific/philosophical approach.

" Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. — Devans99


All we know is that the big bang appears to have occurred about that time, if our theories are correct. That doesn't amount to spacetime being created then, or at any time. We have no idea about that.

Spacetime can't be created by something not of spacetime. The idea of that is incoherent. Space doesn't exist "in itself." It's not itself a thing. (And the same with time.) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time. " Terrapin Station



Specifically (And the same with time) It supervenes on matter/the relations between matter. Space doesn't occur without time"

That is why i mentioned special relativity and its relationship to matter and time. See above posts

read the book Flatland. — christian2017

The first time I read that SciFi/fantasy novella was probably 20+ years before you were born.

don't make assumptions about my age. and no i'm not telling you how old i am. That is good that you read that book.

don't make assumptions about my age. — christian2017

But it's okay to make assumptions about what I've read/what I'm familiar with?

But it's okay to make assumptions about what I've read/what I'm familiar with? — Terrapin Station

Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? Don't be so sensitive. Show me where i made an assumption about what you have read?

Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? — christian2017

"Read the book Flatland" . . . and don't be so sensitive about your age.

Where did i make an assumption about what you have read? — christian2017


"Read the book Flatland" — Terrapin Station

Was i supposed to say "have you read the book flatland?". I'm sorry. My deepest apologies. Your being a troll Terrapin Station.

Was i supposed to say "have you read the book flatland?". I'm sorry. My deepest apologies. Your being a troll Terrapin Station. — christian2017

Telling someone to read a book assumes they haven't. Why not assume that they have read the book in question?

ok. i think that is besides the main point. Sorry for getting off topic.

The Big Bang appears deliberate.

How could anything set of the Big Bang yet still survive? Now if it was non-material… maybe it could…

I noticed through out this forum topic that accusations were made in the OP that were never clarified on certain concepts. The 4th post down is an example of this. The poster of the 4th post F.A. said things were stated but infact they were never stated in this forum topic. The OP started a new thread because he/she had new insights new ideas. Some of your are being trolls today.

No. Because nothing can be non-material. The notion of non-material things is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material?

the viewers of the forum would have to see the context of the other posts to understand what i'm about to say but here goes:

matter or particles are measured in terms of speed in relation to clocks but clocks are constrained in there accuracy due to special relativity (see above post). If you have no particles it very hard to measure time.

To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. Atleast the way we see particles. The problem with the OP is that it is conjecture. Whether it is proven to be true conjecture only time will tell.
The OP is saying an entity or creature that has 4, 5, 6 or more dimensions may have set in motion the 3/4 (space time) universe we live in. Does that help?

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material? — 0 thru 9

Material. They're ways that our brains function.

Out of curiosity... what would you say that thoughts or ideas are? Material or non-material? — 0 thru 9


Material. They're ways that our brains function. — Terrapin Station

How would you prove that thoughts are a product of a 3/4 dimensional (space/time) object. Perhaps thoughts exist outside the space/time continuum. We could both ask each other what the source of thoughts are and we would both just be making conjecture.

If you have no particles it very hard to measure time. — christian2017

I would say that if you have no particles you have no time to measure.

To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. — christian2017

I don't think there's any conjecture to it. An event with no material is incoherent.

How would you prove — christian2017

Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error.

Perhaps thoughts exist outside the space/time continuum. — christian2017

The idea of anything existing outside of space or time is incoherent.

If you have no particles it very hard to measure time. — christian2017


I would say that if you have no particles you have no time to measure.

To say you need particles for new events to occur is conjecture. — christian2017


I don't think there's any conjecture to it. An event with no material is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

I guess our disagreement is over whether there are 5th dimensional objects. A good video to watch is "10 dimensions explained" on youtube.

The idea of anything existing outside of space or time is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

its not incoherent but it is hard to prove without future technology or some phenomenon that shows an consistency with current understanding of physics.

Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error. — Terrapin Station

Empirical claims are not provable period. So you're asking for a category error.-Terrapin Station

This is why we'll never come to an agreement based on your current beliefs. That is a whole another forum topic.

its not incoherent — christian2017

Yeah, it is. You could attempt to make it coherent, though. No one has been successful in that yet.

This is why we'll never come to an agreement based on your current beliefs. — christian2017

Is that what you're shooting for? Coming to an agreement?

Is that what you're shooting for? Coming to an agreement? — Terrapin Station

? What? Ofcourse or atleast come closer to that threshold.

Yeah, it is. You could attempt to make it coherent, though. No one has been successful in that yet. — Terrapin Station

true

It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist) — Devans99

Yeah, yeah. And Achilles can never catch up with the tortoise. And the flying arrow is motionless.

It is very frustrating that people are not even engaging with my arguments. — Devans99

Oh the irony!

There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'?

There's a larger problem here. When you use the word "God" and when someone else uses the word "God," are the two of you referring to the same 'God'? — YuZhonglu

I can promise you that this has nothing to do with the conversation. This god the OP is refering to could be Zeus, Allah, Jehovah or god xyz. It really is irrelevant to the OP.

No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?"

Perhaps the reason people can't agree on anything in these discussions is that each person is talking about a different 'God.'

No, it's quite relevant to the conversation. He has some concept of God. I have some concept of God. To what extent are our concepts "same?" — YuZhonglu

ok

Matter and material is only defined by our senses. When we say we exist in a space/time universe that is a scientific term bases on our senses. The OP is implying there might be things our senses don't know how to accurately or correctly interpret. Feel, taste, touch and so on.

But my senses are different from yours. Doesn't this mean I would define matter and material differently than you?