words that denote very different concepts — Seppo

Nothing is the absence of delineating qualities. Infinity is the absence of limiting qualities. Even on a semantic level they are not 'very different concepts'.

meditation has secretly revealed — Seppo

It's no secret and I am hardly the first person to claim something like this. The mind is stuck in the relativistic realm of concepts. That's why it cannot make sense of certain dualisms. Meditation is a different way to experience, unmediated by mind. Mock away though, I can tell you have never looked seriously into this.

Nothing is the absence of delineating qualities. Infinity is the absence of limiting qualities. Even on a semantic level they are not 'very different concepts'.

These are, as I suspected, highly idiosyncratic definitions, and even on your personal non-standard definitions they are different. But in this context, the question is regarding the past duration of the universe, and so your personal stipulations aren't really relevant and the two possible answers are mutually exclusive (either the past temporal duration of the universe was finite, or it was not).

By re-defining the relevant terms, you basically just punted on the question entirely (and instead just posted some squishy pseudo-mystical woo), which makes one wonder why you bothered to post to the thread if you didn't intend to weigh in on the question.

I translate "literal nothing" into nothing-ness and (spatiotemporal) "infinity" into unbounded; thus, IME, the first option "seems more far-fatched" (even impossible).

No, only woo is woo, nor was there anything difficult to understand about your comment.

That's also extremely dishonest to use the quote function to attribute to someone something they never said- reported, btw. If you want to strawman people in this way, at least use quotations rather than the quote function when its something the person didn't ever actually say.

Perhaps instead of saying something comes from nothing, how about instead you say, "Something that has no prior explanation for its formed existence." Nothing can't do anything. But perhaps there is something that exists that does not have a prior cause.

That's also extremely dishonest to use the quote function — Seppo

I was in fact looking where you wrote this. Couldn't find it though.I had the same experience. Slightly different though. A "not" was left out, so it appeared I wrote something I actually denied.

Time dilation during the early stages of the Big Bang makes the notion of an infinite past debatable. It would seem that an "infinite past" would be bounded nevertheless.

I was in fact looking where you wrote this. Couldn't find it though.I had the same experience.

Yep, exactly! That's why its a problem, and why its dishonest. Many people might not even realize you can manually input a quote into the quote function at all, and so would assume that the person must have said it.

So if people want to paraphrase someone else, by all means... but use quotations, or say "in other words, such-and-such"- only use the quote function to accurately quote things people actually said.

Time dilation during the early stages of the Big Bang makes the notion of an infinite past debatable. It would seem that an "infinite past" would be bounded nevertheless. — jgill

People talk about "the universe" and "the known universe" and they mix up the two concepts.

I am extremely unfamiliar with the math and physics of the big bang. However, I am certain that time dilation (whatever it is) did not involve Absolute Time. I am sure this is not the right name for it; but as in the effects of time differentia between super-fast moving objects and relatively stationary objects, the time-dilation was also a relative issue.

I can't prove any of this in any way. My only reason for being skeptical on the declaration that there was no time before time dilation is lingual, and human-intuitive. You say "before" time dilation, "before" big bangggg. That implies a TIME before; there is no other "befores" but time.

Hence, I reject that time started at the moment of the big banggggg started.

That's point one.

Point two is that the big banggg as far as we know, is responsible only for the matter we observe. There may or may not be other matter in the universe beyond our observational capacity. If there is matter beyond the matter we can account for, it may be of different origins from the big bangggg. So if they existed before the big banggg then they are proof that time did not start with the big bangggg.

However, I am certain that time dilation (whatever it is) did not involve Absolute Time. — god must be atheist

Not sure there is any such thing. As we watch a spaceship fly by at half the speed of light times the linear 0< t<1, both the spaceship crew and you and I experience time as linear, however the passage of time on the spaceship as recorded here on Earth is curvilinear.

There may or may not be other matter in the universe beyond our observational capacity — god must be atheist

"If you count that inflation blew up the size about 10exp70 times, and multiply this by the Planck length, the universe was about 10exp35 meter in diameter. If you consider a lightyear to be about 10exp13 meter, you realize how big it was already then. About 10exp22 ly across! Thats not 100 billion (10exp11) ly, as the visible universe's diameter is now, but 10exp11 times as big!"

There was no time zero. When you reverse the clock, there comes a point, at about 10exp-36 second, inflation reverses and the whole shebang collapses to a Planck sized 6D closed sphere. The perfect clock where time ran forward nor backward. Waiting for the chance to explode on the Holy 7D Substrate, stretching to infinity. A Dual Ejaculate on the Infinite Substrate. Cosmic wanking of the gods. Once the present Ejaculate reaches for infinity, two new ejaculates will be shot to both sides of the magic fountain source. Hallelujah brothers and sisters!

Thats not 100 billion (10exp11) ly, as the visible universe's diameter is now, but 10exp11 times as big!" — Raymond

No wonder it seems flat.

:razz: :chin: :clap:

the passage of time on the spaceship as recorded here on Earth is curvilinear. — jgill

Very interesting. It is completely incomprehensible to me. I don't doubt your word, I am just putting it into perspective for you how informative this is for me.

My ineptitude, definitely, not yours.

People are actually voting that an infinite past is more "far-fetched" than something coming from nothing?

Jesus...

Yeah, I don't know why. But, given enough time (though not necessarily forever), I can imagine how something can come from nothing.

I can't imagine something lasting or being forever and ever. I suppose being born into this life, is a kind of "something from nothing", in terms of our experience of it. Of course, we can say that that's not true there were chemicals and atoms and biology prior to us. But we don't experience this prior birth (nor, presumably, after death).

Yet, forever doesn't fit in somehow. Before I was born, I have no temporal intuition at all.

However, I am certain that time dilation (whatever it is) — god must be atheist

It's just that moving clocks seem to move slower. If you accelerate them they actually move slower. On/in different points vertically above the Earth you have to accelerate in different amounts to stay where you are. This means that at these different points the clock runs at a different rate. On the surface the slowest.

Ah, yes, meditation has secretly revealed to you that words that denote very different concepts are actually the same, because magic. :lol:

Very good. Not a very serious response, but definitely an amusing one. — Seppo

:rofl: No offense @emancipate

Nothing is more relatable e.g. I have 0 dollars in my bank account. :sad:

Infinity, nobody's seen an actual infinity save in math but there too it's only an axiom.

It's just that moving clocks seem to move slower. If you accelerate them they actually move slower. — Raymond

The clock hypothesis is the assumption that the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation does not depend on its acceleration but only on its instantaneous velocity

Contrarily to velocity time dilation, in which both observers measure the other as aging slower (a reciprocal effect), gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal. This means that with gravitational time dilation both observers agree that the clock nearer the center of the gravitational field is slower in rate, and they agree on the ratio of the difference

(Wiki)

The clock hypothesis is the assumption that the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation does not depend on its acceleration but only on its instantaneous velocity

Wiki talks in riddles (the rate at which a clock is affected by time dilation...?). The speed of the clock is velocity dependent. If the velocity varies, wrt to a clock observer inertial rest frame from , the clock's speed varies and when the clocks meet again the accelerated one runs behind.

It's just that moving clocks seem to move slower. If you accelerate them they actually move slower. On/in different points vertically above the Earth you have to accelerate in different amounts to stay where you are. This means that at these different points the clock runs at a different rate. On the surface the slowest. — Raymond

Thanks. No amount of explanation will stick. Because I don't see the underlying law that creates this effect.

All I am saying is that since there are different clocks present showing different times, the time-dilation may be a different clock from the what I called absolute time (or absolute clock).

According to the clock of TIME DILATION there was no time before the big banggg. According to the Absolute Clock there was time before the big banggg.

I don't see why this would be impossible, and I don't think you can tell me either. At least not in terms that I understand.

People are actually voting that an infinite past is more "far-fetched" than something coming from nothing?

Jesus... — Xtrix

The person you mentioned is responsible for this philosophical mishap.

But I don't see the votes and the majority of opinion as a proof of truth. I see it as a measure of philosophical and knowledge impoverishment of society, due to the oppressive presence of religionism. Most users here are from America; if an international presence was represented by ratio of population, this figure would be much higher (due to Islam); but if Europe was only considered, or China, then the overwhelming majority would answer the opposite way, that is, that something getting out of nothing is far fetched.

Thanks. No amount of explanation will stick. Because I don't see the underlying law that creates this effect. — god must be atheist

The underlying law is simple. The speed of light has to be the same for everyone (or in any case, finite).

All I am saying is that since there are different clocks present showing different times, the time-dilation may be a different clock from the what I called absolute time (or absolute clock).

I don't see why this would be impossible, and I don't think you can tell me either. At least not in terms that I understand. — god must be atheist

What do you mean by an absolute clock? The clock running outside the universe? Inside the universe there is no absolute clock. All clocks run at their own pace and no clock shows an absolute time. The clock though is an imaginary. There is no physical process that has the characteristics an imaginary clock has. Only the process before the bang constituted a perfect clock. But there were no things yet to put this clock aside of. Except in the mind. Nowadays there are a lot of these things happening but there is no perfect clock to be found. Except in the mind. In both cases, something is missing.

What do you mean by an absolute clock? The clock running outside the universe? Inside the universe there is no absolute clock. — Raymond

Okay. Then let's put it this way: the time dilation and the clock that measures it after the big banggg pertains to the matter of the big banggg. Other matter may exist, and other clocks. However many clocks exist, they don't all necessarily start at the same zero time. Some before, some after the zero time of our known universe. So in effect there may be time T2 on some other clock that is larger than time T1 on our clock, in the same units.

Maybe we should reword the phrase how we envision that there was time before the Big banggg and that our time is not absolute. And then rephrase the fact in a way that makes sense to astrophysicists, quantum mechanics and street sweepers alike, that space and matter in it (in our beliefs) have existed forever.

If you (general you) insist that there was no time before the big banggg, then necessarily no matter existed then either, and therefore all of a sudden option 2 becomes very much more plausible than option 1.

The underlying law is simple. The speed of light has to be the same for everyone (or in any case, finite). — Raymond

Haha. There are a few steps in deducing facts from this law in-between the underlying law and understanding time dilation. And I am unfamiliar with those steps and no amount of explanation can make me make the logical connections between the underlying law and time dilation. That is what I meant by not understanding the underlying law. My mistake, I used the wrong concept to describe what it is that I don't understand.

Maybe we should reword the phrase how we envision that there was time before the Big banggg and that our time is not absolute. And then rephrase the fact in a way that makes sense to astrophysicists, quantum mechanics and street sweepers alike, that space and matter in it (in our beliefs) have existed forever — god must be atheist

For the street sweeper. The big inflation swept the universe into real existence. The era, also known as the big sweep, took a tiny part of an average sweep of the street sweeper. All sweeper in the universe sweep at relative sweeping rates. Only when they meet, they see that some sweepers have swept more garbage into the bin than other sweepers. They all feel they sweep at the same pace and, assuming they all sweep alike, only when they meet each other will see that the bins of fellow sweepers are filled more, the same, or less than their own bin.
There is no absolute sweeper who determines the absolute sweeping rate. Before the real sweeping took of there was only a virtual periodic sweeping, constituting a real clock. It contained the potential of the real sweeping and swept along rapidly sweeping to and fro with a period that takes an even tinier amount of the time it took for the great sweep to sweep the real sweeping matter into existence. The perfect sweeping to and fro, with no direction in time yet, lasted the amount of time it takes for the real sweeping to become impossible, i.e, when all sweeping matter has turned into potential sweep energy which lacks the matter to actually sweep with. The end of the possible sweeping era causes the virtual potential sweeping to become real: a new great sweep.

Hopefully the sweepers of this era become the heroes of the next.

There are a few steps in deducing facts from this law in-between the underlying law and understanding time dilation — god must be atheist

It's simple. For the speed of light to stay the same for all, space contracts and time dilates. The gamma factor is introduced. In a lightclock this is easily visualized.

Bear in mind, something having an infinite past is absurd too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why do you find that absurd, pray tell? What I (and most poll respondents) find counter intuitive is rather the idea of a possible begining and a possible end of time. The idea of an infinite past and future is perfectly fine.

Why do you find that absurd, pray tell? What I (and most poll respondents) find counter intuitive is rather the idea of a possible begining and a possible end of time. The idea of an infinite past and future is perfectly fine. — Olivier5

(1) The thing(s) making up the infinite past would have no reason or explanation for their existence (2) An infinite past is paradoxical. E.g. Planets that orbit the sun at different speeds would at every moment have made the same amount of orbits. Despite us actually observing the faster one adding more orbits than the other. (Same principle for whatever came before the sun and planets).