I never accept the burden of the opposite claim. — Nickolasgaspar

And neither do I accept the burden to prove gods. You might feel the urge to prove, but something so obviously clear doesn't need proof.

Me too. I don't need an indefensible burden...no matter how desperate mr Hillary is to force that belief on me — Nickolasgaspar

Where do I force it on you? If you don't want to believe it's completely up to you mr. Strawman!

arguments from ignorance, — Nickolasgaspar

The point is, I argue from knowledge. I know how the universe works, how it came to be, what there was before the big bang, etc. The only thing to logically conclude is that gods made it.

The default state is gods plus the universe. Any claim about gods not existing must be proven right before I accept they are not there.

Basic logic is great! So when I start from the default state as being true, I don't need to prove it. Its true by fiat and not because of the scientific need for proof, which only applies to the material universe.

Data reside in computers. Not in your brain. Your knowledge is a simulation of the world.

So why are you asking me to prove something I have never claimed ????? — Nickolasgaspar

You claim they don't exist. Then prove it. You can't.

Back in the sixties, we had to make one of those for a physics project. — unenlightened

Yeah, I think I read about that school that exploded...

The first pictures looked good. It was nice to see the 18 separate images merge into one. What secrets the incoming light has in store? Will the secret finally be unveiled?

You mean serial big bangs? Being born in every one (or less) of them?

Consider that wormhole between east and west London. When I look into it, I can see you on the other side. Now you take off from the east part with nearly the speed of light, taking the eastern mouth with you. You travel one year after you land again where you started. One year has passed in London. What do you see through the wormhole? On your side, London lies in the past, as your clock hasn't proceeded much, while on my side a year has passed. You ask me to crawl to your side. And who you meet on the other side? Yes, your one year younger you. So, I take off again and ask you two to meet me again via the wormhole mouth on the west part, in one year. So, after the two you's have played for a year, I return and ask you two again to crawl to the east part, where you will meet two of you. So there are four now! If you repeat this you will see a Pascal triangle distribution of you's. They have same age or differ by one year (the Pascal triangle shows the age distribution and total number of you's). Where does this go wrong?

I'm a pro at commiting suicide — Agent Smith

:lol:

That's for sure a meme committing suicide...

What would be the reason for a meme to autodestruct?

I've committed memetic suicide a 1000 times at least. I stick to the last meme though.

Interesting approach! So actually you commit suicide by staying alive? And by killing yourself you enter new life?

Why does relativism kill itself?

Some physicists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have suggested that time may actually be symmetrical, such that there is a mirror universe to our own, with an arrow of time running in the opposite direction — Relativist

That actually happens. You can consider our universe as part of a duo. Both stem from the same source but one moves away on one side of a higher dimensional structure and the other to the other side. There is a difference which shows up as our universe being left handed and with matter, while the other side is right handed with antimatter. But time still goes forward. Still an asymmetry. CPT theorem.

Could you describe for me what time moving in the other direction would look like in everyday experience, or would it look just the same as it already looks to us, given that life is a bubble of resistance to entropy? — Joshs

You would wake from the dead, get younger, thoughts go backwards, hear before spoken, return oxygen to the air, etc. You would feel like an unwinding poppet with a key clockwork, being pulled along, instead of being in control. You'll be pulled along to shoot back in the womb. How it feels? Dunno! It all depends on the initial configuration. Why isn't that the end of the universe but going in the opposite direction? Behold the problem of the direction of time.

We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist

I have.

A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible — Relativist

Not neccessarily, but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works.

Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause? — Relativist

There is support. The existence of the universe.

Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state. — Relativist

Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. It's not intelligent enough for that. Only eternal intelligences can do that.

So why do you use Objective evidence to verify your economic state...but you reject them in other existential claims?? Special pleading.....right? — Nickolasgaspar

No. I use the same evidence. My bankaccount is as much a proof that I'm no billionaire, as that gods exist. Your claim is that gods don't exist. Can you prove that?

not really.... Do you use the standards to verify whether you are a billionaire or not ? — Nickolasgaspar

That can be verified very easily. Just look at my bank account. I'm pretty sure I'm no billionaire...

Yes, I agree. But... the question is, the fundamental question, is: why does entropy grow? Why doesn't it get smaller, so time moves in the other direction, i.e., the direction of less total, universal, or global entropy? This could have been the case.

There is a variation on this argument. A more convincing argument in favor of gods:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist.

If Einstein traveled to the future to discover his own theory of relativity and went back in time again, then where did he create it?

In deterministic physics, all processes are time-reversible, meaning that they can proceed backward as well as forward through time — Joshs

This is not true. In deterministic physics, not all processes are time-reversible. There are no reversible processes in nature. All processes are irreversible processes. The question is why they are moving towards higher entropy and not to lower entropy.

"Walkabout is a rite of passage in Australian Aboriginal society, during which males undergo a journey during adolescence, typically ages 10 to 16, and live in the wilderness for a period as long as six months to make the spiritual and traditional transition into manhood."

I wish I could live in the wilderness for ever! There is so little left though... Im gonna buy all that's left before I will be 50!

Don't underestimate the dreamtime, brother Uni! I know you have your reservations, but there I saw the gods busy in the eternal jungles of heaven. Tinkering, trying, clicking, probing, experimenting, etc. in a common effort to save the goddom from a terrible faith.

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Deleuze and Bergson have shown in different ways that a quantifiable, mathematizable nature presupposes the kind of time which consists of self-presences transitioning from future to present to past in sequential movement (existing ‘in' time). — Joshs

So time passing through us from the future to the past. Showing us more and more what's in store for us?

A clock-time calculation counts identical instances of a meaning whose sense is kept fixed during the counting . To count is to count continuously changing instances OF something that holds itself as self-identical through a duration or extension. — Joshs

Yes. Say a calculation of a period of a pendulum. We can look how many times the pendulum has swung back and forth and calculate the time involved. If its a perfect pendulum it's of course the number of periods counted. But why should the processes it counts the passed time of go forward and not backward. Why isn't time pulled through us the other way, the past first and the future following, instead of the future first and the past following?

Stationary" means "not moving". The possibility of moving is implied. Water can be stationary. A statue is stationary. Inflation can be stationary. They can all move but they don't.
Time cannot be stationary because it not something that can actually move. Only figuratively, e.g. "times flies", "time passes by", "time has topped" ... — Alkis Piskas

What if time is static, without the possibility to move? Just lines with numbers relative to which processes unfold. Can't the unfolding itself be time? And the line with numbers just a construct to catch the process with?

These objects which "represent" time are related to the move of sun, not to the motion of time. This is why the first clock ever created was in Ancient Egypt and this specific clock was connected to the variation of light from the sun.
The "heliacal rising" of Sirius means the morning (and the Egyptian day began at dawn) on which the star Sirius can first be seen in the eastern sky right before sunrise. This was to the Egyptians the astronomical beginning of the year, though the actual heliacal rising moved through the Egyptian calendar, since the Egyptian calendar year was 365 days long with no leap day. — javi2541997

Interesting! So time was connected to day and night rythm? Aren't there many rythms to compare with,m

I can physics babble as well as anyone here if I put my mind to it. — jgill

Well, I haven't seen much physics babble here. I wished there was. So... mr. Gill... Explain please:

"that time moves obliquely according to a functional operator and we experience only a projection of it in our spacetime geometry."

Time moves obliquely according to a functional operator. What's the functional operator? Is there a motion of time outside of spacetime? Is there a rotation of a vector in a complex plane, underlying spacetime, which, when projected on spacetime, determines real space or time? I can feel what you mean somehow but am not sure of what you mean. You're just fooling around! Like we all are, I guess. Be it the wise Rovelli, the greedy Carroll, or the Witten mathematical ivory tower, or the friendly Smolin, or even AI-ist Piskas....

But to philosophers like Bergson and the phenomenologists it is the structure of reality itself. — Joshs

But how does that structure look like? What is it that is measured by the clock? If the periodic clock process has completed x periods, then what corresponds this x to? And what if time proceeds in steps, then how does the process know when a static scene has to progress to the next? How does it know it takes a Planck time?

I didn't say only that, did I? I also said that time does not move at all. My whole point was that! — Alkis Piskas

Yes, that's clear. There are only irreversible particle processes. Don't they move in a stationary time?

Isn't a clock moving? Isn't a pendulum going to and fro periodically? Can't you move the pendulum? Doesn't the pendulum have double motion even?

The shitty thing is, I got my laptop as a gift 6 years ago. A Medion. There is quite some information on it. Then the uploader line got bitten by the dig. I put the two parts together again and kept using it. The downpart got hot sometimes. Then one morning, when I pressed the on button, nothing happened. Dead as hell. I bought a new uploader but it didn't upload. It's probably already to old to repair, but I guess it's the battery.

You think time is a stationary fixed axis, with clocks on it showing different times? If so, then what is moving?

Yes, but the motion was periodic in time too. Virtual particles can be represented, if not coupled to real particles yet, as a closed propagator line in space time, or energy momentum diagram. A vacuum bubble is just a single particle rotating in spacetime (so not a particle-antiparticle pair).

Completely astounded at the level of sophistication of our devices. It's a miracle humans CAN even repair parts that need a microscope to be detected. I guess that is 2022 — Kevin Tan

Yes. But the micro chip world is invented with a microscopic vision. Are not blueprints available? Where do you start if you would get my dead 6 year old laptop? I think my battery needs to be replaced but what if it still doesn't open it's eyes?

Well, I don't. I don't know that time is unidirectional — Alkis Piskas

Don't you think time goes forward only? What direction in time goes a clock or a pendulum? If it's an ideal clock you couldn't tell. It could be going forwards or backwards. All processes seem to be directed towards the future, even when you consider the universe a block. Why are processes on this rigid block structure move from small to big t? Why not the other way round?

I don't think time is flowing either, and it is not motion. Motion is not time. Motion is just motion. — Corvus

I think periodic motion, be it the Earth strolling around the Sun, or a pendulum swinging, or an atom oscillating, can be considered as the motion in clocks. There are no truly periodic motions in nature, so it's a made up thing. We mentally compare the progress of processes with an ideal clock, and it turns out that the speed of this process, and thus the speed of the irreversible processes it measures the time of, has no inherent quality. Only when compared with other clocks, the clocks can be said to go faster or slower. The periodic motion with which we measure time passed is not a quality inherent to the process. But the number of times a, say, pendulum has swung next to a process says something about the process. The funny thing is that before thermodynamic time was kicked of, there were processes going on to make the kick possible. These processes did not have an asymmetry in time. They can be seen as fluctuating in time. The pre-inflationary state can be seen as a perfect pendulum. Not going backwards in time, nor forwards, as thermodynamic time still had to emerge. What kind of motion was that? Think about it. Did you have a good dinner at the office, btw?

that time moves obliquely according to a functional operator and we experience only a projection of it in our spacetime geometry. — jgill

I'm not sure if you are serious here... :chin:

:starstruck:

Easy, easy, too much is harmful! I know... :wink:

Scientific speculation, philosophical even, is always welcome. My own suspicion is that time moves obliquely according to a functional operator and we experience only a projection of it in our spacetime geometry. By generating a computer time-field it may be possible to break through.

Time dilation might be explained by a shift in the time-angle created by velocity. — jgill

It very strange why some processes move faster than others. But if you think deeper the opposite is the case. It would be very strange if the all had the same temporal speed. Is the computer time field a field in complex space? The angle of velocity is actually a measure of time flow.

If Kronos moved forward, we would never ever see the future, ja? — Agent Smith

You amaze me every time, AS, and that's more than I can say for some other people here! Jawel! Time moves from the future towards behind of us. It gets farther and farther away in the past!..:wink: