Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Ok, so this MAY get trolled out of hand.....BUT

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Ok, so this MAY get trolled out of hand.....BUT
BigSir
Member #6,894
February 2006

If time did not exist before the universe came into existence, then does it makes sense to base a theory of the creation of the universe on causality? It seems like that might be our inherent flaw, that we cannot grasp a timeless concept in which events don't necessarily proceed one another. It certainly is my flaw. Much like I cannot visualize a universe with more than 4 dimensions.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

I don't really see why some form of casuality cannot exist without time. Event A may still precede event B in the sense that A caused B. It don't see any contradiction. You can define casuality in a consistent manner that holds with or without time in place. ???

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Stas B. said:

You can define casuality in a consistent manner that holds with or without time in place.

But there isn't enough time to cause things to happen!

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

I really don't understand why time is necessary. You can think about cause and effect in terms of logic. Given the existance and nature of A, it logically follows that B must also exists. In that sense, A causes B.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Except without time there is no linearity. One thing can not cause something to happen after, since there is no time. If one thing can cause something to happen, there would be no guarantee it happened before, after or purring. again, since there is no time.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Why does it have to "happen"? Thing A exists, therefore thing B exists. No before or after. :-/
For example, given the infinite nature of natural numbers, there exists a prime larger than 10,000.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

I didn't have time to notice A or B.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Well I don't get it. Are you just trolling?

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Trolling takes time.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Stas B. said:

Why does it have to "happen"? Thing A exists, therefore thing B exists. No before or after.

Its in the language. For something to cause something else to happen it has to happen after. Which definitely implies time exists.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Primes larger than 10,000 exist. They exist becuase the set of natural numbers exists and it has the property of being infinite. It doesn't make sense talking about the set of natural numbers existing before primes. The concept of time does not apply. That's an example of something having a cause regardless of time.

Alianix
Member #10,518
December 2008
avatar

Deep thoughts there Tretzker...I wish that more of us humans would embrace such possibilities.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

When something comes into existence, how long does it take for all the phenomena associated with it to also come into existence? An hour? A second? Some infinitesimal amount of time? Are they even seperable that you could say "this thing came first and everything that follows directly from its nature came afterwards"?

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Dizzy said:

I've been smoking the best plant on Earth ... Second off, I'm studying ... a broad range of science. ... I'm an Atheist. ... 'engineered perfection'.

I had an experience very much like the one described here, which I would further describe as "the realization of the interconnectedness of all things". Replace physics degree with "TTC lectures I pirated" and "Week long David Attenborough marathons".

However, I was also conflicted with crap like this at the time. I moved away from that, and after creating a website for a local woo-woo-voo-doo centre for massage and things like "chakra balancing", I really started thinking differently than I did when I was a self-proclaimed atheist. It's not that I started believing in deities or anything... but I started to believe in phenomena that go somewhat against the typical "atheist scientist paradigm" that Evert is often representing.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001

Dizzy Egg said:

I'm still an Atheist, but the more I study now into the depths of 'how it all works' (as such) the more I become conflicted! The sheer mathematical beauty of it all constantly steers me away from 'random events' to 'engineered perfection'.

The mathematical beauty is there due to the laws of nature, engineering has nothing to do with it. I.e. given a set of physical laws, certain patterns will emerge, which will seem so beautiful they may be considered engineered.

Neil Walker
Member #210
April 2000
avatar

The reason the universe came into existence is so the chicken could cross the road

But the chicken didn't want to cross the road it was the pervert who couldn't get his... sorry wrong joke.

Neil.
MAME Cabinet Blog / AXL LIBRARY (a games framework) / AXL Documentation and Tutorial

wii:0356-1384-6687-2022, kart:3308-4806-6002. XBOX:chucklepie

Trezker
Member #1,739
December 2001
avatar

Math is independent from natural laws. No matter how the universe works, math would work exactly the same. PI is the same value no matter what universe you're in.

Dizzy Egg
Member #10,824
March 2009
avatar

Originally I meant what if all the energy/matter was 'created', and then just did whatever it did and here we are billions of years later...I knew what I meant at the time but again, I was very, VERY high.

----------------------------------------------------
Please check out my songs:
https://soundcloud.com/dont-rob-the-machina

Neil Walker
Member #210
April 2000
avatar

Me and a friend once created a picture in delux paint of our friend Andy who had a pony tail and it looked like phil collins, so we called it 'Pony Phil'. We OCD'd every pixel that was out of place in zoom mode and in the process his pony tail turned into Jesus and hidden in a nostril was a helicopter.

Neil.
MAME Cabinet Blog / AXL LIBRARY (a games framework) / AXL Documentation and Tutorial

wii:0356-1384-6687-2022, kart:3308-4806-6002. XBOX:chucklepie

weapon_S
Member #7,859
October 2006
avatar

Stas B. said:

I don't really see why some form of casuality cannot exist without time. Event A may still precede event B in the sense that A caused B.

Pretend there is a picture of an orange, on a table, with a lamp in the background. Most people will say there is (an orange shaped) shadow on the table, because there is an orange on table, between the light source. Given images of other objects on said table similar conclusions can be made. On the other hand the opposite statements "there is an object of Shape X, because there is a shadow of shape X" would also seem valid. This has a name... "dependency"? It is generally not called " "causality".
The fact that we can put an orange on the table, and causatively form a shadow, makes us inclined to interpret the dependence that way around.
It might illustrate your point, though. If we are presented with 'pictures' only, we could still speculate a causality.

Any 'complete' reasoning of how the universe was created should boil down to "it was created, because it exists", so you might as well accept that answer now :P

Any concept your mind allows to be applied to everything you know will seem beautiful. That's what I think. Math can be ugly IIRC the formal definition of addition is butt-ugly.

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

If one thing can cause something to happen, there would be no guarantee it happened before, after or purring.

{"name":"cats.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c72d6939f24107fb16aa7e85b30a5e9.jpg","w":1434,"h":956,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/c\/8c72d6939f24107fb16aa7e85b30a5e9"}cats.jpg

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

weapon_S said:

Pretend there is a picture of an orange, on a table, with a lamp in the background. Most people will say there is (an orange shaped) shadow on the table,

The nature of light and the nature of opaque objects necessitate the existence of shadows. It's not the logical relationship that requires time but the nature of light and opaque objects. There's no reason why such relationships could not be formed between objects with a nature independant of time.

Quote:

Any 'complete' reasoning of how the universe was created should boil down to "it was created, because it exists", so you might as well accept that answer now

Human reasoning assumes that the existence of anything in the universe is necessitated by the nature of something else. Reasoning differently about the universe itself is special pleading. :-/

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

But the light has to hit the orange earlier (timewise) than the table to form a shadow.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Light travel itself is bound by time so I think that discussion is nonsense. :P I think the entire discussion is so theoretical that it is no more useful than guessing. :P There's probably only a couple of people in this community that have studied this level of physics and fewer still that are experts on it. :D I am neither.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

bamccaig said:

Light travel itself is bound by time so I think that discussion is nonsense. :P I think the entire discussion is so theoretical that it is no more useful than guessing.

Philosophy is fun that way.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730



Go to: