Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Entangled particles across space and time.
    And how exactly do they suggest time is just an illusion?

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Oh, I'm aware that the belief that Special Relativity has proven that the passage of time is just an illusion. I happen to disagree. SR has proven no such thing. There is a certain interpretations of SR which would imply that the passage of time is just an illusion, but there is also a fully valid interpretation of SR (the neo-Lorentzian interpretation) where the passage of time is preserved as a reality. If we pick Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation of SR, we see that they make exactly the same predictions for every experiment, so there is no experimental justification to pick Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.

    So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.

    As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.
    Entangled particles across space and time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    We're discussing whether it's more appropriate to talk about something being unchanged rather than unchanging in the context of that something existing in a timeless eternity, and whether or not it's possible for that same something to undergo change if it exists in timelessness.
    OK. Well I'll leave you with the immortal words of Richard Dawkins: "It is nonsense to argue that something exists outside of space and time? When say something "exists", we mean that it can be observed, or its effects can be experienced in space and time. If one asserts that god exists "outside time," this leads to a conclusion that he couldn't do anything, including creating the universe, because time is the measure of change. If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no action. If there is no action, there is no creation. If God were to exist outside of time, he would be impotent to do anything at all!"

    Or at least that's what I think we're discussing.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Well it is if what you’re discussing is an eternal natural universe vis-à-vis an eternal supernatural deity. But I'll leave you to it.
    We're discussing whether it's more appropriate to talk about something being unchanged rather than unchanging in the context of that something existing in a timeless eternity, and whether or not it's possible for that same something to undergo change if it exists in timelessness.

    Or at least that's what I think we're discussing.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    I think so too - I'm using "unchanging" as an attribute of a system, not as a temporary description. You may also be neglecting the timelessness aspect, since you've referred to priorness.
    I don't I'm neglecting the timelessness aspect. At least I don't think so. I've only talked about "priorness" in reference to the word "unchanged", not in reference to the word "timeless", or "eternity" (except to deny that any prior moments exists before a timeless eternity).

    What I did was to claim that something is unchanged if there are no prior states of existence where that something was different from how it currently is (which should be non-controversial) and then I stated that since there are no states of existence prior to a timeless eternity, everything that exists in a timeless eternity is by definition unchanged.

    And I think it makes much more sense to talk about unchanging/unchanged as a temporary description rather than as an attribute of a system when it comes to a timeless eternity. I don't think "unchanging" as an attribute is required for something to exist in a state of timeless eternity, but rather it needs to be "unchanged" (in the temporary sense). If you want that something to persist in a state of timeless eternity, that's where unchanging as an attribute would be required.

    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Maybe this exchange has changed your mind
    My mind remains changeless so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    No, if something changes it it isn't unchanged, any more.




    Well no, it isn't unchanging(or perhaps unchanged is a better word for it?) any more. But it was unchanged prior to the change.

    We might be operating under different understanding of the word. I'm simply taking unchanging to mean that no prior state of events exists where that something is different to what it currently is. I'm beginning to think the word "unchanged" captures the meaning I'm intending more accurately.

    I don't think I can provide any non-controversial examples of something that is unchanging, but changes, at least not if you're looking for real world examples. I can only provide thought experiments and hypotheticals. I can for example, envision a state of existence that contain the sufficient conditions within itself to change, but are timeless in the sense that no state of existence exists prior to it. In other words, it has not undergone any change what so ever to get to the point to which it is, so it is by definition unchanged. But it will not continue being unchanged, since if the sufficient conditions for change exists, then that change will necessarily occur.

    Let's say for example, that we imagine a state of existence which contained a ball, a slope and and everything else necessary for these objects to interact with each other like they do in the real world. If the ball sat on top of the slope then all the sufficient conditions for it to start rolling down the slope would exist. And if no prior state of events existed where the ball did not sit on top of the slope existed, it would by definition be an unchanged state of existence, as per the understanding I gave above.

    Again, we might be talking past each other with the way we're using the word "unchanging". I'm simply using it in the sense of "unchanged" i.e if something is unchanged it hasn't undergone any change to get to the state it's currently in, but you're apparently using the word "unchanging" in a different sense.
    I think so too - I'm using "unchanging" as an attribute of a system, not as a temporary description. You may also be neglecting the timelessness aspect, since you've referred to priorness.

    On another note, my mind is getting so saturated with the words "change", "unchanging" and "unchanged" that they're starting to lose their meaning to me.
    Maybe this exchange has changed your mind

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    That's nice and all, but it's not what we're discussing.
    Well it is if what you’re discussing is an eternal natural universe vis-à-vis an eternal supernatural deity. But I'll leave you to it.
    Last edited by Tassman; 09-21-2018, 12:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I believe you are selectively misrepresenting Lorentz's view of time. Your conclusions are not necessarily so.
    I have no idea how I could have possibly misrepresented Lorentz's view of time when I never even mentioned anything about his view of time. The only thing I said was that a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity allows for the existence of an absolute frame of reference for time, and the passage of time as an actual facet of reality, and not just as an illusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    I think there is. If something changes, it isn't unchanging, by definition.
    No, if something changes it it isn't unchanged, any more.

    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Something can be unchanging but not unchangeable if it's changeable by outside influence but won't change without outside influence.

    If something changes solely due to something within itself, it clearly isn't unchanging.

    It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.

    Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.

    Well no, it isn't unchanging(or perhaps unchanged is a better word for it?) any more. But it was unchanged prior to the change.

    We might be operating under different understanding of the word. I'm simply taking unchanging to mean that no prior state of events exists where that something is different to what it currently is. I'm beginning to think the word "unchanged" captures the meaning I'm intending more accurately.

    I don't think I can provide any non-controversial examples of something that is unchanging, but changes, at least not if you're looking for real world examples. I can only provide thought experiments and hypotheticals. I can for example, envision a state of existence that contain the sufficient conditions within itself to change, but are timeless in the sense that no state of existence exists prior to it. In other words, it has not undergone any change what so ever to get to the point to which it is, so it is by definition unchanged. But it will not continue being unchanged, since if the sufficient conditions for change exists, then that change will necessarily occur.

    Let's say for example, that we imagine a state of existence which contained a ball, a slope and and everything else necessary for these objects to interact with each other like they do in the real world. If the ball sat on top of the slope then all the sufficient conditions for it to start rolling down the slope would exist. And if no prior state of events existed where the ball did not sit on top of the slope existed, it would by definition be an unchanged state of existence, as per the understanding I gave above.

    Again, we might be talking past each other with the way we're using the word "unchanging". I'm simply using it in the sense of "unchanged" i.e if something is unchanged it hasn't undergone any change to get to the state it's currently in, but you're apparently using the word "unchanging" in a different sense.

    On another note, my mind is getting so saturated with the words "change", "unchanging" and "unchanged" that they're starting to lose their meaning to me.
    Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 11:28 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    You'll have to unpack your assertion a bit more. There's no contradiction involved in the statement "Something in an unchanging state changed" as far as I can see.
    I think there is. If something changes, it isn't unchanging, by definition.
    We've already established that unchanging != unchangeable, so you must be referring to something else.
    Something can be unchanging but not unchangeable if it's changeable by outside influence but won't change without outside influence.
    And as far as I can see there's no logical impossibility for an unchanged state/existence to contain within itself the conditions necessary for it to change.
    If something changes solely due to something within itself, it clearly isn't unchanging.

    It is a logical impossibility for something that is unchanging to change.

    Maybe you could provide a non-controversial example of something that is unchanging, yet changes.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    Oh, I'm aware that the belief that Special Relativity has proven that the passage of time is just an illusion. I happen to disagree. SR has proven no such thing. There is a certain interpretations of SR which would imply that the passage of time is just an illusion, but there is also a fully valid interpretation of SR (the neo-Lorentzian interpretation) where the passage of time is preserved as a reality. If we pick Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's interpretation of SR, we see that they make exactly the same predictions for every experiment, so there is no experimental justification to pick Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz's.

    So whatever reason scientists have for picking Einstein's interpretation over Lorentz' it's not because of any empirical evidence, because the empirical evidence fits both interpretations just fine. And in my (admittedly non-knowledgeable) opinion it makes much more sense to choose the interpretation where absolute time and the passage of time (and not just the illusion of the passage of time) is preserved over the interpretation where it's not.

    As for quantum mechanics, I don't know what evidence of quantum mechanics is supposed to show that time is just an illusion, so you'll have to be more specific.
    I believe you are selectively misrepresenting Lorentz's view of time. Your conclusions are not necessarily so.

    Source: http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-40-05.PDF



    Ives-Stilwell Time Dilation Li+ ESR Darmstadt Experiment and neo-Lorentz Relativity

    5 Conclusions
    The non-null experimental data, from 1887 to the present, all reveal the existence of a dynamical 3-space, with a speed ≈ 500 km/s with respect to the earth. Originally Lorentz proposed an aether moving through a static geometrical space. However the data and theory imply a different neo-Lorentz Relativity, with there being a dynamical fractal flowing 3- space, which possesses an approximate geometrical measure of distances and angles, which permits the geometrical description of relative locations of systems [5]. As well the dynamical theory for this 3-space has explained numerous gravitational effects, with gravity being an emergent quantum and EM wave refraction effect, so unifying gravity and the quantum [4, 10, 13–16]. An important aspect of Lorentz Relativity, which causes ongoing confusion, is that the so called Lorentz transformation is an aspect of Special Relativity, but not Lorentz Relativity. The major result here is that the Li+ ESR Darmstadt experimental data confirms the validity of both Special Relativity and neo-Lorentz Relativity, but only when the 3-space flow is nearly parallel to the NS orientation of the Li+ beam. Then to distinguish between these two relativity theories one could use (15). This report is from the Flinders University Gravitational Wave Project.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Quantum Mechanics and time next. . .

    In summary time in our universe is general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. At the Quantum level time is universal and absolute.

    Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-gravitys-time-problem-20161201/


    In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2018, 10:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    It it's internal, that means something in an unchanging state changed - which is a contradiction.
    You'll have to unpack your assertion a bit more. There's no contradiction involved in the statement "Something in an unchanging state changed" as far as I can see. We've already established that unchanging != unchangeable, so you must be referring to something else. And as far as I can see there's no logical impossibility for an unchanged state/existence to contain within itself the conditions necessary for it to change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    I do think there must be a reason for something to go from an unchanging state to a changed state. But I don't agree that the reason needs to be external. It could just as well be internal, in this case for example God willing/deciding to create the universe.
    It it's internal, that means something in an unchanging state changed - which is a contradiction.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

    https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...-universe.html

    And it most probably takes the form of a muliverse.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...llel-universe/

    This is all in the realm of theoretical physics certainly, but there’s evidence to support such concepts; it is too soon to claim their impossibility in favour of the theistic notion of Creation Ex Nihilo, which is no more than a faith-based bald assertion.
    That's nice and all, but it's not what we're discussing.

    ETA: To clarify, it's not what I and Roy are discussing at the moment.
    Last edited by JonathanL; 09-20-2018, 07:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JonathanL
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    I don't hold that belief. I do hold that once something is in an unchanging state it will remain so unless there is some external interference. This would mean that something else must have impacted God's "timeless eternity".
    I do think there must be a reason for something to go from an unchanging state to a changed state. But I don't agree that the reason needs to be external. It could just as well be internal, in this case for example God willing/deciding to create the universe. God's will/decision to create the universe would be eternal with Him, but the actual act of creating the universe would not be.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by lee_merrill, 10-24-2020, 07:58 PM
8 responses
35 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
57 responses
276 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
49 responses
416 views
0 likes
Last Post Tassman
by Tassman
 
Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
1,037 responses
54,175 views
0 likes
Last Post thormas
by thormas
 
Started by showmeproof, 01-19-2014, 11:28 AM
91 responses
19,197 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X