Darth Wong wrote:You are missing the point; you are asking a question for which no answer exists
Then how is time only existing within the universe?
Why shouldn't it?
We can go back and forth with this. Why should it? Now how about a proper verb: do. Why DOES it?
or is necessary. Do you ask why the universe exists? It just does. Time is an intrinsic characteristic of the universe.
Bu twe do not know this.
Yes we do. Our universe exists. Time exists. We do not know of any part of our universe in which time does not exist. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that time is inextricable from our universe, ie- it is an intrinsic characteristic. Do you have some reasoning for your implicit assumption that time is not necessarily an intrinsic characteristic of our universe?
Well, we also do not know that time exists where our universe does not. It is not an intrinsic value of the universe to have time.
Asking why time exists is like asking why the universe exists. It just does.
I'm not asking why it exists, just why it has to exist WITHIN the universe. Which it might not have to. Refer to the first point.
There is no first point. You merely ask questions which do not require answers. Asking why time exists only within the universe is like asking why the universe exists at all, or why it must contain mass/energy. There is no answer to that question, nor do we need one. The universe is observed to exist and have certain properties; why ask why?
It is not asking why the universe exists. Did I ask why the universe exists? No. And I am getting sick of this argument. How about this: Height, depth, and width (the first three dimensions) are there. THey are just there. Time is also just there. TIme is the fourth dimension. If they exist outside our iuniverse (ie, in another one, which they will inherently do, becasue all universes require them), then logically, they will exist outside our universe. They may not be *our* dimensions, but they are the *same* dimensions.
By the way, regardless of whether the question needs to be asked, it is being asked. And questions require answers. If you can't answer the question, just admit it. It's not like it'll be the end of the world if for once you don't know something. Besides, I don't know. That's why I am asking in the first place.
Verilon wrote:We can go back and forth with this. Why should it? Now how about a proper verb: do. Why DOES it?
42
Verilon wrote:Well, we also do not know that time exists where our universe does not. It is not an intrinsic value of the universe to have time.
It is an intrinsic value of this universe to have time. Your problem is that you postulate that our universe must exist within a continuum outside our universe. In other words you assume that because we define a limit to this universe, that there must nessecarily be a point beyond this limit. And then, based on this assumption, you say "well what if in this BTU region time doesn't exist" when you haven't proved that there is a region beyond the universe in the first place.
Verilon wrote:It is not asking why the universe exists. Did I ask why the universe exists? No. And I am getting sick of this argument. How about this: Height, depth, and width (the first three dimensions) are there. THey are just there. Time is also just there. TIme is the fourth dimension. If they exist outside our iuniverse (ie, in another one, which they will inherently do, becasue all universes require them), then logically, they will exist outside our universe. They may not be *our* dimensions, but they are the *same* dimensions
You just answered your own question.
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
It is an intrinsic value of this universe to have time. Your problem is that you postulate that our universe must exist within a continuum outside our universe. In other words you assume that because we define a limit to this universe, that there must nessecarily be a point beyond this limit. And then, based on this assumption, you say "well what if in this BTU region time doesn't exist" when you haven't proved that there is a region beyond the universe in the first place.
the question was, why cant time exist outside our universe.
We can go back and forth with this. Why should it? Now how about a proper verb: do. Why DOES it?
i agree with verilon. this is crapy answer.
Well, you may not like it, but it's the truth. Put it another way: asking why time (or any other property of the universe) exists is like asking why kids like Apple Jacks when it doesn't taste like apple: THEY JUST DO!
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
Verilon wrote:Well, we also do not know that time exists where our universe does not. It is not an intrinsic value of the universe to have time.
It is an intrinsic value of this universe to have time. Your problem is that you postulate that our universe must exist within a continuum outside our universe. In other words you assume that because we define a limit to this universe, that there must nessecarily be a point beyond this limit. And then, based on this assumption, you say "well what if in this BTU region time doesn't exist" when you haven't proved that there is a region beyond the universe in the first place.
I am not making any assumptions. I am postulating that there *might* be something outside those limits, that there *might* be limits to the universe. Is that too hard to grasp? And WHAT IF the universe is an intrinsic value of time, not the other way around? And who is to say that there ISN'T a continuum outside our univers?
It is an intrinsic value of this universe to have time. Your problem is that you postulate that our universe must exist within a continuum outside our universe. In other words you assume that because we define a limit to this universe, that there must nessecarily be a point beyond this limit. And then, based on this assumption, you say "well what if in this BTU region time doesn't exist" when you haven't proved that there is a region beyond the universe in the first place.
the question was, why cant time exist outside our universe.
Defintion of universe: everything that exists.
If all elements of set A (things that exist) are included in set B (the universe), then things not in set B cannot be in set A.
Therefore, nothing outside the universe exists.
You agree with me that time qualifies as "something"
Therefore, time outside the universe does not exist.
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
verilon wrote:
We can go back and forth with this. Why should it? Now how about a proper verb: do. Why DOES it?
i agree with verilon. this is crapy answer.
Well, you may not like it, but it's the truth. Put it another way: asking why time (or any other property of the universe) exists is like asking why kids like Apple Jacks when it doesn't taste like apple: THEY JUST DO!
*grmbl* the question is not "why does time exist* the question is *why are you asuming that time does not exist outside the universe*
Okay, but there is still the possibility of other universes, which would inherently mean that time could exist without the universe....ie, in other universes. And I see your point btw.
Because Time is a trait of our Universe. It is one of the things that define it. So it must be within the Universe.
Outside our Universe - in any other - It wont be time, will be something else, even if similar.
You never found other universe, so Do not guess anything. Wong wont give you a answer basead on guess.
And hence all the time we know, it the time that is a trait of our universe, and therefore found within our universe, you can say that Time is found only inside our Universe. That is the reason. Any questioning is some short of sophism. "Why something that is not one thing can not be that one thing ?"...
and quite frankly, the title of this topic is very funny...
Even if for some reason there is some inteligent designer for your universe, It is not the CHristian God. The Bible claims he created things as they are. And we found proves of geological, biological, etc changes. He lied. Or that was just some human version, and if it is human it is does not have godlike wisdow or intelligence, so it is full of mistakes and constant changes of view (Of course, the bible is actually full of mistakes and constant full of view, just like we should expect to find in an book wrote by any authors in different time periods...)
If I was Christian I would never try to argue and would just say "I have my faith, brother"...that would be smart and without any change of scientific debate.
Muffin is food. Food is good. I am a Muffin. I am good.
Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
lgot wrote:Because Time is a trait of our Universe. It is one of the things that define it. So it must be within the Universe.
Outside our Universe - in any other - It wont be time, will be something else, even if similar.
ok, it must be within the universe, but that doesnt say that it cant be within other universes or outside these universes.
why cant it be the same?
You never found other universe, so Do not guess anything. Wong wont give you a answer basead on guess.
i dont guess anything. i ask why he believes that time does not exist outside the universe because is dont know it. and i say that "why should it" is a crapy answer = no answer at all because like verilon said you can go on and on for ever with why should it/why shouldnt it
And hence all the time we know, it the time that is a trait of our universe, and therefore found within our universe, you can say that Time is found only inside our Universe. .
no you cant say that time is only found inside our univers. you dont know if there are other places where time exist. saying that time can only exist in our univers because we dont know any other places is like saying that there are only hundered and somthing element because we dont know more.
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Time is not separable from our universe because our universe is composed of spacetime. If you move quickly through space, you move slowly through time. If another universe exists, it would have another time. The time of our universe is the fabric of our universe; the notion that our universe exists inside some kind of external time betrays ignorance of the relationship between space and time.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Is it so hard for people to grasp the notion that our universe is made of spacetime? If another universe shared our time, it would also have to share our space, ie- it would be part of our universe. I don't see why some people seem to find this incomprehensible; it seems fairly simple to me.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Time is not separable from our universe because our universe is composed of spacetime. If you move quickly through space, you move slowly through time.
This is not provable. Besides, you can't say that they are not separable, they may very well be two spearate things.
If another universe exists, it would have another time. The time of our universe is the fabric of our universe;
There is more to the universe than time. You are ipying that tiome and space are the only things that matter.
the notion that our universe exists inside some kind of external time betrays ignorance of the relationship between space and time.
I don't remember saying that the universe was part of time.
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Time is not separable from our universe because our universe is composed of spacetime. If you move quickly through space, you move slowly through time. If another universe exists, it would have another time. The time of our universe is the fabric of our universe; the notion that our universe exists inside some kind of external time betrays ignorance of the relationship between space and time.
Darth Wong wrote:Is it so hard for people to grasp the notion that our universe is made of spacetime? If another universe shared our time, it would also have to share our space, ie- it would be part of our universe. I don't see why some people seem to find this incomprehensible; it seems fairly simple to me.
Or, our universe would be part of that one. And the universe doesn't necvessariuly have to be made of spacetime. The fabric of the universe could be something else. You know it, I know it, there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that spcetime is for sure what makes up the universe, and you are speakign as if it has already been done.
no you cant say that time is only found inside our univers. you dont know if there are other places where time exist. saying that time can only exist in our univers because we dont know any other places is like saying that there are only hundered and somthing element because we dont know more.
Read what Wong posted. Open your ears : Time by Definition is something that is a trait of our universe. That is why I can say time is only found inside our universe.
My hand Is hand, its belongs to my body. All other hands are not. That simple.
and you do not guess ?
To guess about time outside here you guess
about the existense of anything other than our universe
then you guess that there will be time here.
it is a lot of guessing.
Verillion can ask how much he can. He is just "Why something is not something else, other than the fact that Something's definition does not allow it to be? "
Muffin is food. Food is good. I am a Muffin. I am good.
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Verilon, I know you like to play devil's advocate, but there are times when a given position is so hopeless that you need to know when to quit. Here's a hint: when your sentences don't even make any sense.
Time is a common property of events, along with length, width and height. All events are included within the universe. If all the elements of a set share a certain property, then we say that that set has that proerty. Since all events have the property Time, the universe has property Time. As for planes of existence, that is inapplicable to properties because they are not objects - you cannot for instance, say whether 'color' or 'size' exists on the same plane as objects that have color or size.
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
no you cant say that time is only found inside our univers. you dont know if there are other places where time exist. saying that time can only exist in our univers because we dont know any other places is like saying that there are only hundered and somthing element because we dont know more.
Read what Wong posted. Open your ears : Time by Definition is something that is a trait of our universe. That is why I can say time is only found inside our universe.
My hand Is hand, its belongs to my body. All other hands are not. That simple.
I'd like to see that definition.
and you do not guess ?
To guess about time outside here you guess
about the existense of anything other than our universe
then you guess that there will be time here.
it is a lot of guessing.
Verillion can ask how much he can. He is just "Why something is not something else, other than the fact that Something's definition does not allow it to be? "
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Verilon, I know you like to play devil's advocate, but there are times when a given position is so hopeless that you need to know when to quit. Here's a hint: when your sentences don't even make any sense.
Time is a common property of events, along with length, width and height. All events are included within the universe. If all the elements of a set share a certain property, then we say that that set has that proerty. Since all events have the property Time, the universe has property Time. As for planes of existence, that is inapplicable to properties because they are not objects - you cannot for instance, say whether 'color' or 'size' exists on the same plane as objects that have color or size.
That makes a lot more sense than what Wong has been saying.
verilon wrote:Oh! BTW, who is to say that time isn't equally as existant as the universe; ie, they are not *parts* of each other, but that they both exist on the same plane (so to speak).
Verilon, I know you like to play devil's advocate, but there are times when a given position is so hopeless that you need to know when to quit. Here's a hint: when your sentences don't even make any sense.
Time is a common property of events, along with length, width and height. All events are included within the universe. If all the elements of a set share a certain property, then we say that that set has that proerty. Since all events have the property Time, the universe has property Time. As for planes of existence, that is inapplicable to properties because they are not objects - you cannot for instance, say whether 'color' or 'size' exists on the same plane as objects that have color or size.
That makes a lot more sense than what Wong has been saying.
Thank you.
data_link has resigned from the board after proving himself to be a relentless strawman-using asshole in this thread and being too much of a pussy to deal with the inevitable flames. Buh-bye.
Darth Wong wrote:Is it so hard for people to grasp the notion that our universe is made of spacetime? If another universe shared our time, it would also have to share our space, ie- it would be part of our universe. I don't see why some people seem to find this incomprehensible; it seems fairly simple to me.
Or, our universe would be part of that one.
Same thing. The point remains.
And the universe doesn't necvessariuly have to be made of spacetime. The fabric of the universe could be something else. You know it, I know it, there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that spcetime is for sure what makes up the universe, and you are speakign as if it has already been done.
Hold it right there, Verilon. Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a bullshit criterion, and you know it. You cannot prove that anything exists outside of your mind. Does this mean that you doubt the existence of the universe? Of course not. We need prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a SHADOW of a doubt. Don't play games.
The only explanation which makes any sense is that space and time are connected, and the "flexible" nature of spacetime has been observed; it is expanding with our universe. If you've got a better explanation, then by all means, bring it. You are using your own inability to understand a concept as disproof of that concept.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Is it so hard for people to grasp the notion that our universe is made of spacetime? If another universe shared our time, it would also have to share our space, ie- it would be part of our universe. I don't see why some people seem to find this incomprehensible; it seems fairly simple to me.
Or, our universe would be part of that one.
Same thing. The point remains.
And the universe doesn't necvessariuly have to be made of spacetime. The fabric of the universe could be something else. You know it, I know it, there is no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that spcetime is for sure what makes up the universe, and you are speakign as if it has already been done.
Hold it right there, Verilon. Proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is a bullshit criterion, and you know it. You cannot prove that anything exists outside of your mind. Does this mean that you doubt the existence of the universe? Of course not. We need prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a SHADOW of a doubt. Don't play games.
tsk tsk, such language. And point taken.
The only explanation which makes any sense is that space and time are connected, and the "flexible" nature of spacetime has been observed; it is expanding with our universe. If you've got a better explanation, then by all means, bring it. You are using your own inability to understand a concept as disproof of that concept.
Hey, I never said that I had a better idea, or a more or less viable one. And yes, I may be delving in over my head, but you can't say I am doing such-and-such because I don't know anything.
