Does Time have a Start?

158 posts / 0 new

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 00:25

(Reply to #31) #32

Nyarlathotep

@Dan

@Dan
I don't understand why you are discussing matter accumulation, but what you are saying sounds suspicious.
------------------------------------------
/e:

Dan - If time is infinite or does not exist, there is an infinite period for matter to accumulate.

The papers on my desk accumulate: there are more papers today than there were yesterday. Accumulation seems to require time.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 00:36

(Reply to #32) #33

Devans99

Thought on time is divided

Thought on time is divided into two camps (broadly speaking):

- Presentists believe time is just motion and it does not actually exist. Only the present moment exists.
- Eternalists believe time is real and the past, present and future all exist.

My argument works with both beliefs.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 00:49

(Reply to #33) #34

Nyarlathotep

Dan - If time is infinite or

Dan - If time is infinite or does not exist, there is an infinite period for matter to accumulate.

You've suggested something can accumulate without time; can you please explain this?

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:08

(Reply to #34) #35

Devans99

Something exists that allows

Something exists that allows change/accumulation and we call that time. Some people say it exists, others say it does not.

Whatever the truth things still change/accumulate. My argument just relies on the accumulation aspect.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 03:22

(Reply to #35) #36

Nyarlathotep

Dan - Something exists that

Dan - Something exists that allows change/accumulation and we call that time.

You just used time to explain how things can happen in your option where time does not exist. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:32

(Reply to #36) #37

arakish

Dan: "My argument works with

Dan: "My argument works with both beliefs."

No. It does not. Go back and think about it without using your confirmation bias, presupposed assumptive assertions, logical fallacies, and finally, fact check yourself.

rmfr

Wed, 02/13/2019 - 19:39

(Reply to #37) #38

arakish

LogicFTW: "Later we used the

LogicFTW: "Later we used the radiation off of cesium to get a very precise measurement "of time." "

I always thought the cæsium atomic clocks used something called the frequency of electron transition rates instead of radiation?

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 12:05

(Reply to #38) #39

LogicFTW

@arakish

@arakish
You may be correct in that, I just did a brief run down with a real fast google front page fact check and may have gotten it a bit off, if I had to guess, the frequency of electron transition rates describes radiation, but that may be incorrect. It has been a while since I studied all this stuff in a scholarly manner.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 14:43

(Reply to #39) #40

arakish

@ Logic

Actually, in a way, the energy given off in the electron transition rates is actually a form of radiation. ANY energy given off is radiation, even including "infrared" or heat. I just remember it is the "frequency" of that radiation. Thus, yes, they do kind of use the "radiation." I looked it up and it is the "frequency" of that "radiation" from the electron transition rates.

Thus, once again, we were both right. What is it about great minds?

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 00:58

#41

Sheldon

Start

Start
verb
1.begin or be reckoned from a particular point in time or space; come into being

Now ask yourself how something can have a "start" when space and time don't exist?

Try point of origin, it doesn't fail by definition straight away. The big bang theory explains what science currently understands about that point of origin.

It is understood as an entirely natural phenomenon, and nothing supernatural is evidenced or necessary for that explanation.

You're using a God of the gaps fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to assert something based on what we currently can't explain. Also a begging the question fallacy by assumingthexexistence of a deity in your argument for it. Also a special pleading fallacy that posits a universe must behave in a certain way, but your unevidenced deity need not adhere to the same arbitrary assumptions you are making.

You can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. Thus using it in an argument means Occam's razor applies to all assumptions required in your argument, and Hitchens's razor apples to everything You can't properly evidence.

You've done this time and time again Dan. As you've been told every time before, you can't assume or define anything into existence.

Believe what you want, but your assertions are unscientific gibberish.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:03

(Reply to #41) #42

Devans99

'It is understood as an

'It is understood as an entirely natural phenomena'... but in can't be with infinite time... if time is infinite and Big Bangs occur naturally there should have been an infinite number of Big Bangs. We have evidence of only one. So the Big Bang must be an unnatural event caused by an unnatural agency.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:37

(Reply to #42) #43

arakish

Dan: "We have evidence of

Dan: "We have evidence of only one."

Correct. However, we still do not know if there were an infinite number of Big Bang — Big Crunch — Big Bang — Big Crunch — Big Bang … … cycles. You are still making inane and asinine assumptions of gibberish.

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:47

(Reply to #43) #44

Devans99

What caused the first Big

What caused the first Big Bang in the cycle? Quantum fluctuations is the standard answer. If they fluctuated here, they will fluctuate elsewhere, so if the universe is in a cycle, there should be an infinite number of such cycles going all around us, rather than just the one.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 06:01

(Reply to #44) #45

David Killens

Dan we are incapable of

Dan we are incapable of observing outside of our own known universe. There may be more, we do not know.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 04:29

(Reply to #45) #46

Sheldon

"It is understood as an

"It is understood as an entirely natural phenomena'... but in can't be with infinite time.."

Please cite a peer reviewed scientific paper that is supported by a scientific consensus, that claims the BBT has a supernatural cause?

You're disagreeing with the scientific facts, on an atheist website, why should we care what you think if it denies or repudiates known scientific facts and evidence?

This is not how science works....

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 04:31

(Reply to #46) #47

Sheldon

"there should have been an

"there should have been an infinite number of Big Bangs. We have evidence of only one."

That would make your claim "unevidenced".

Dear oh dear...Dan.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:24

#48

arakish

@ Dan

Here are some lessons that your Baccalaureate in Math must have missed.

The Banach–Tarski Paradox 00:24:13

The Edge of Infinity 02:29:04
This one is a perfect example of infinite regression.
[Reversed] Edge of Infinity 02:29:05
This one is a zoom out of the previous.

The Colour of Infinity 02:16:55
In this one, you shall be surprised at the end. Why? Because you arrive at another whole Mandelbrot set, infinitely small, within the original Mandelbrot Set. As I said, this is something I learned in 9th Grade High School from reading my dad's college math books. And his books were published in the 1940s and 1950s. If they already understood infinity back then, then why can't you?

Also, go to Numberphile and do a YouTube search for infinity using "numberphile infinity" as the key search. You will find many mathematicians discussing infinity.

Many other Mandelbrot Set zooms exist also. Maths Town and Olbaid Fractalium I have watched many of them, including the ones listed above, for the WHOLE video. The Mandelbrot Set is a very fascinating object proving infinity.

Perhaps you need to go back to college and get a Masters in Math to understand ∞.

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:27

(Reply to #48) #49

Devans99

Fractals are based on

Fractals are based on iteration which is Potential Infinity. I do not have a dispute with Potential Infinity; its Actual Infinity I contend does not exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:42

(Reply to #49) #50

arakish

Dan: "Fractals are based on

Dan: "Fractals are based on iteration…"

Wrong again. Everything is based on iterations and reiterations. Regardless of what you wish to believe, Infinity exists. Both Potential and Actual. Are you sure you earned a Baccalaureate in Math? I am a volcanologist by trade, an astrophysicist by hobby. If I can understand infinity, why can't you?

That Baccalaureate in Math is looking more and more false.

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:49

(Reply to #50) #51

Devans99

Infinity is not a number: If

Infinity is not a number: If infinity was a number, it would be a number X with the property that it is greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X so there is no such number.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:44

(Reply to #51) #52

arakish

And BTW, the Mandelbrot Set

And BTW, the Mandelbrot Set is Actual and Potential. You are too blind to see it.

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:50

(Reply to #52) #53

Devans99

Dude, computers don't do

Dude, computers don't do actual infinity. I know. Im a programmer.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 01:56

(Reply to #53) #54

arakish

@ Dan

Computers don't because we don't leave running infinitely. We always program in an end. I know programming too. One has to, to do GIS work. Also for astrophysics. And yes, infinity is a number. If it was not, then why do we use it in math?

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 02:01

(Reply to #54) #55

Devans99

It should be used in maths

It should be used in maths and science as an approximation for the very large or very small. The concept of potential infinity is sufficient for that. Actual infinity should not be touched.

∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

Actual infinity just not logical... reality is logical... so actual infinity does not feature in reality. Nor should it in maths or science.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 03:26

(Reply to #55) #56

Nyarlathotep

Dan - ∞+1=∞

Dan -
∞+1=∞
implies
1=0

It most defiantly does not.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 05:35

(Reply to #56) #57

arakish

@ Dan

You need to go back to college and learn advanced mathematics. So far, all you have indicated to me is you know the equivalence of High School Algebra. You need to learn Advanced Calculus. In many form of physics, we use infinity quite often to solve certain equations. Infinity is Infinity. This difference between potential and actual bullshit does not exist in the real world of physics math. Infinity is Infinity.

And what is not logical is you.

∞ + 1 = ∞
implies
1 = 0

and this is the proof you have absolutely no understanding of logic or math. Go back to school. Quit skipping classes. Pay attention and you just might learn something.

rmfr

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 06:13

(Reply to #57) #58

Devans99

1=0. You are defending the

1=0. You are defending the indefensible. Actual infinity (as used in Set Theory) is nonsense. How can anything not change when you add to it? It's certainly not a number. I know it is defined in set theory as a number but set theory is shot through of holes anyway.

Potential Infinity (as used in Calculus) I have no issue with.

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 14:29

(Reply to #58) #59

Nyarlathotep

@Dan

Dan - 1=0. You are defending the indefensible.

Can you give us a derivation showing how you got from: ∞ + 1 = ∞
to: 1 = 0

Thu, 02/14/2019 - 14:46

(Reply to #59) #60

arakish

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ As Nyar said … ⇑

⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ As Nyar said … ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑ ⇑

@ Dan

Please. You are the Baccalaureate Master of Mathematics. Please show us this derivation.

rmfr

Fri, 02/15/2019 - 00:51

(Reply to #60) #61

Devans99

∞ + 1 = ∞

∞ + 1 = ∞
-∞ -∞
1 = 0

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages