Now that I am more familiar with various simulation hypotheses, I realize that there's a very real question as to whether an entity can be all-knowing without actually having created the entity in the process.
In the Beginning...
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Lexicus
Deity
As a puny human attempting to think using a sack of wet meat, I have no idea.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Such a being could do anything in principle and we have no reason to believe a theoretical being like that would choose one course of action versus another.
Belief regarding such a being also does not cause us to update our anticipated experience in any meaningful way. Maybe that being is a gigantic invisible troglodyte standing underneath the Earth on an invisible platform, defining underneath however the heck it pleases, and is mostly benevolent but occasionally griefs people for fun which is actually optimal to our future for some reason.
Hey, there's a chance right? We'd have no way of knowing so why not? It's as sound as other theories like it in principle, in fact we have every bit as much reason to believe it as we would if it was instead a giant rabbit so it's pretty solid all things considered. If you join such a faith you even get to grief people in the name of goodness, sometimes, when a person tells you it's okay.
OR...
In the beginning...we still don't know precise details. That is the answer right now, and will remain so if we give up.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah but the point was that it makes the scenario plausible, given the assumptions, not that it'd be a likely course of action. As you say we wouldn't know where to begin guessing such a deity's likely course of action.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
If you take it as "everything going on in the sky" like the weather, the stars, etc., you have a complete understanding of what Sun Tzu needed you to know. Sun Tzu repeatedly calls for being very concrete, material, practical, literal, with information. He warns against operating from superstitions, hunches, and omens.
I have no knowledge of the Chinese used. If you do, expound!
Time cannot exist without change. Time would begin as a concept once the first change occurs.
So that would be at the point of creation of the universe. (Time, being a concept, makes 'time as a concept' somewhat redundant, by the way. Time 'as a concept' didn't start until someone came up with that concept.)
Not if you create time after day 0 has passed. Nor does it agree with modern astro-phyisics, according to which the creation of the universe created space-time. It's conceptually still imaginable, just not very logical.
Not if you create time after day 0 has passed. Nor does it agree with modern astro-phyisics, according to which the creation of the universe created space-time. It's conceptually still imaginable, just not very logical.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In theory it can, though. In our universe there will always be change if there's a dimension of time, due to random quantum fluctuations that always seem to happen no matter what. But I don't think it's a contradiction to imagine a universe in which there is time, but no change. You might not be able to measure the passage of time, but that doesn't mean that a dimension of time doesn't exist.
Yeah, in our universe the big bang seems to have created time-space. But conceptually there is no reason why a universe without a time dimension couldn't come into being. From what I've read the math would still work, there are no contradictions there. Reality isn't very logical from a human pov to begin with anyway.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Time cannot be measured without change. I am less confident in your formulation.
If the universe is bounded and sufficiently massive, it is a black hole. There could be a larger universe containing it. Black holes within this universe would also be universes from within. And so on in both directions.
J
It's not so much that the creation of the universe created time, it's more that time begins at the beginning.
When viewed multi-dimensionally, it's trivial. It's like saying that the beginning of an edge is where the width of an object starts. We don't say that the edge creates the width ... or at least, it's bordering on non-sensical.
If the universe is multidimensional (beyond our four), then our 'time' needn't be elsewhere. It's just a dimension among many.
I think such a universe would only exist in your imagination.
If time cannot be measured, how can it be real? Isn't time just a tool we (people) use to measure change. ie change comes first, then time as its measure.
If something cannot be measured (observed/differentiated, etc) can it be part of the physical universe?
If the universe contains things that cannot be measured, doesn't that undermine science?
Why should it?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Is time just a tool? No. Not in most formulations of cosmology.
Time can exist without physical change. However, I am not ready to say time cannot exist without change of some sort in some reference frame. String theory has everything being the interaction of probability and potential. It gets pretty abstract, but time could be a reference to change in probabilities or potentials. So, you might be right in some sense, but I am not comfortable with stating it flatly.
Measurement requires interaction. Most boundary conditions defy interaction. For example, absolute zero could never be measured. Measuring would introduce heat. Passive measurement would require radiation, of which there is none. That does not in any way undermine science.
J
I think it's kind of opposite. It's broadly acknowledged that it's often convenient to shoe-in time as a tool.
I think it's ... Paul Davies(?) ... who talks about this
I think it's ... Paul Davies(?) ... who talks about this
Berzerker
Deity
regarding time and the beginning in Genesis, the 1st day was defined by the darkness (night) and the light (day)... And thats how the Hebrew defined a 24 hour period, it begins at sunset since it was night that preceded day in Genesis
so time didn't begin with the light
so time didn't begin with the light
Not in the Bible, no. But the Bible isn't a science book.
'Come into being' already requires time.
Time begins at the beginning? That's not saying much. No, the creation of the universe by definition also created time, since time is but a dimension of space-time.
He said: time cannot be measured without change.
No. The universe actually does contain 'things' that cannot be measured. It's one of the basics of quantum physics.
'Come into being' already requires time.
Time begins at the beginning? That's not saying much. No, the creation of the universe by definition also created time, since time is but a dimension of space-time.
He said: time cannot be measured without change.
No. The universe actually does contain 'things' that cannot be measured. It's one of the basics of quantum physics.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Time is not really a measurement of change. Time is not even a product of change. Time is the concept of bodies in motion. The only change in the equation, is the fact that a body has moved from point A to point B. If the matter in space has no motion, then it can have no time. The effect would be experienced as the "suspension of time". We are so conditioned to time, that we would even define this period of non-motion as time, because it is a period of waiting. We are anticipating that motion would begin again. Time and motion stopping is point A, and time and motion returning is point B. Only an entity outside of this system would be able to give any meaningful definition to this "period" of time.
I doubt this will clear up any confusion to what is actually being communicated in Genesis 1:1-5. Until the addition of light, the universe was suspended in time, because there was no motion. We have no clear definition of time. The point of the "big bang" was the motion of light through out the universe. God defined this motion in the universe as the first day, but to relate that to any human is a mute point, because there were no humans around to define this time in any meaningful term.
We interpret communicated words not by giving them a fixed meaning and then trying to force this interpretation into the text. We interpret words in the context of our current understanding of reality and the current scientific knowledge. If the text is concise without a long drawn out thesis for every single action that happened, then confining a word to one strict definition seems senseless. It does not seem to discredit the text, by being open to a change in definition as the knowledge on the topic changes. Why would we limit ourselves to just trying to figure out the intent of the authors? They were just attempting to put into a words an event, and we have no idea what their level of knowledge on the topic was. Even the knowledge of humans over thousands of years is not constant, but changes as humans retain or lose knowledge.
While the earth is probably still the earth, it was without form, so basically just matter. If the term earth meant matter, we are still looking for earth like planets or bodies in the universe with the same makeup of matter. The sun and stars are just matter in a gas form. The term heaven or heavens (whether or not one decides to use the singular or plural form) is still used to distinguish between one's perspective as residing in one spot of the universe and the rest of the universe. Why would any one consider the earth as being the entire universe, when the use of two distinct words points to a distinction between the earth and the rest of the universe?
Even saying that "in the Beginning God created solid matter, and gas (gases), and there was also a liquid called water", would not be contradictory to the text nor our current knowledge. That matter was "suspended in time" and had no motion, other than the movement of the "spirit". It was after the addition of light before there was any meaningful concept of time, and then only to God, as there were no humans around.
I doubt this will clear up any confusion to what is actually being communicated in Genesis 1:1-5. Until the addition of light, the universe was suspended in time, because there was no motion. We have no clear definition of time. The point of the "big bang" was the motion of light through out the universe. God defined this motion in the universe as the first day, but to relate that to any human is a mute point, because there were no humans around to define this time in any meaningful term.
We interpret communicated words not by giving them a fixed meaning and then trying to force this interpretation into the text. We interpret words in the context of our current understanding of reality and the current scientific knowledge. If the text is concise without a long drawn out thesis for every single action that happened, then confining a word to one strict definition seems senseless. It does not seem to discredit the text, by being open to a change in definition as the knowledge on the topic changes. Why would we limit ourselves to just trying to figure out the intent of the authors? They were just attempting to put into a words an event, and we have no idea what their level of knowledge on the topic was. Even the knowledge of humans over thousands of years is not constant, but changes as humans retain or lose knowledge.
While the earth is probably still the earth, it was without form, so basically just matter. If the term earth meant matter, we are still looking for earth like planets or bodies in the universe with the same makeup of matter. The sun and stars are just matter in a gas form. The term heaven or heavens (whether or not one decides to use the singular or plural form) is still used to distinguish between one's perspective as residing in one spot of the universe and the rest of the universe. Why would any one consider the earth as being the entire universe, when the use of two distinct words points to a distinction between the earth and the rest of the universe?
Even saying that "in the Beginning God created solid matter, and gas (gases), and there was also a liquid called water", would not be contradictory to the text nor our current knowledge. That matter was "suspended in time" and had no motion, other than the movement of the "spirit". It was after the addition of light before there was any meaningful concept of time, and then only to God, as there were no humans around.
Exactly. Time is concomitantly a rather boring concept in physics and an extremely meaningful concept psychologically.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Yes, it is. Just remember the period of science is 2000-5000 years ago.
Genesis 1 reads well as a vision. Evening and morning would be transitions between visions. Each day depicts the writer's perceptual framework.
Sort of, kind of, which is not a bad non-mathematic summation of QM.
J
Could you point to any examples of science? History does not usually qualify.
Seriously, when QM is easier to understand than some of your one-liners, you are totally failing to communicate. This is a bad thing for everyone concerned.
Similar threads
