What is God?

[xris]

Originally Posted by Fil. Albuquerque

Why do you all want to make a transition from a Noum to a Phenomena ?
From a "Thing" to a manifestation, an Effect ?

To my view all things still inside "ITSELF" as you said before the "beginning"...
Time\Space\Matter\Energy their are all functions and parameters inside "IT"...(the entire History of the Universe is In not out of It)

...there was no "true" Start...of course, as a Noum out of Time and Space that seems to us close to nothingness, aldo obviously, it must be something...

The ghost train left at 12 am but there was no 11.49.999999 or a train that we could imagine till we saw it leave.

[Samm]

Originally Posted by xris

Samm , I will try again. If you had a mass so great that light could not escape from it. No sign of its existence, nothing existed outside of its frame work, now remembering nothing can not exist. From this I am proposing that even though nothing apparently existed this mass or pure energy did exist within the itself. This is how I see nothing and everything as the same concept. So as there was nothing , there is no space no time for us to conceive of. You cant measure time, if time does not exist , you cant judge age without comparisons. With this in mind the BB came from nothing, you cant in my mind conclude anything else other than what I propose. The only question in my mind is why it decided to become everything instead of nothing. This trigger could be an insignificant event and you could speculate forever on that cause.

There never was nothing. There was and is everything in a nonphysical potential condition outside space-time. That is not "nothing" even if you can't see it. It's there and therefore there is something rather than nothing. You can't have a condition in which nothing exists and at the same time something or everything exists. It must be one or the other. Why can't you see that?

You always say nothing can not exist and then say that nothing does exist as this or that. In this case you say nothing cannot exist and then say the BB came from nothing. It's confusing as hell. Can you clarify your terms and stop talking in paradoxes. You're sounding like some stupid Abbott & Costello routine (Who's on first?) with all this double talk.

Karlos

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by Samm

Nice try, Krumple, but nope, I'm not talking about "sitting doing nothing," but about the entire universe being frozen in a moment, and even God himself frozen in that moment; my words were "What if the entire universe did nothing, not a single event or activity or motion either physical or non-physical for 27 hours and 33 minutes (and two seconds)?" That's not just "sitting doing nothing!"

My problem was with you using the word sitting. It is a verb so you shouldn't have used it. Sitting is an event, but you really didn't mean sitting. Instead you are talking specifically about the moment. I understand a frame of time.

Originally Posted by Samm

Nor are you correct that the frozen time would "separate between activity of doing something." In fact, the moment immediately after the freeze would follow from the single frozen moment before it, however long it had remained frozen, and there would be no trace or record anywhere in the universe, at any level of being, of the period of frozen time. There is no time if there is no event.

That's the thing, you can't freeze time. You are stating a hypothetical situation in which I believe can not be done. Sure it sounds logical when you state it but no where has this EVER happened. Time would have to occur if you were freezing time. Let's say you have a time freezer and it is set to freeze time for one minute. If time is frozen the freezer would never be able to reach a minute because time is frozen. Therefore time would be frozen indefinitely. There would be absolutely no way to unfreeze time because that thing would have to act on time to accomplish it. You can't just have an automatic unpause button.

You propose that time just started happening. It can't or that would be an action out of time. You can't have an action in no time. You even stated it yet you contradict yourself when you imply that the universe time just started from being frozen or paused. It can't do that without time already being present.

[Fil. Albuquerque]

If we can only get to know something, at best Phenomenologically, and to a certain extent, such as how something it is, rather then what it is, or simply what, and considering, that this how, regardless of physicall Universal law´s, is to our understanding related with a continuous state of flux/dynamic in witch the observer plays a part intrinsic to the phenomena probably holistic conditions, and simultaneously that this observer, in a limited time frame of existence, works as an continually working/learning/interpreting open system, also in a dynamic state, then, given this, can we really speak of a final Ultimate Truth to be known ? Or is Truth no to become seen, but simply to be, and such that such, is out of our reach as possible attainable knowledge ?

Where Greek Sophists right all along ? Thus LAW can be explained, (to what) or simply stated instead ?

...or, given this very same so spoked Holistic state, could we claim that what it is, or what, is exactly how it is ?...

...Can something that moves become still, only and simply because one feels that it should be ?...
...Can it move and be Still simultaneously ?...
...Or is it still, and the question that moves makes it unseen ?...

Now, I´m I playing or am I serious, or both ?

[xris]

Originally Posted by Samm

There never was nothing. There was and is everything in a nonphysical potential condition outside space-time. That is not "nothing" even if you can't see it. It's there and therefore there is something rather than nothing. You can't have a condition in which nothing exists and at the same time something or everything exists. It must be one or the other. Why can't you see that?

You always say nothing can not exist and then say that nothing does exist as this or that. In this case you say nothing cannot exist and then say the BB came from nothing. It's confusing as hell. Can you clarify your terms and stop talking in paradoxes. You're sounding like some stupid Abbott & Costello routine (Who's on first?) with all this double talk.

Karlos

So whats the difference between the appearance of nothing and nothing ?

[Samm]

Originally Posted by xris

So whats the difference between the appearance of nothing and nothing ?

Absolute nothing cannot have any attributes or properties like size, shape, location, momentum, spin, mass, causality, etc. The appearance of nothing on the other hand may disguise an existent entity having many properties or attributes. This is the chief difference between true (absolute) nothing and the mere appearance of nothing where something exists.

Because absolute nothing can have no properties, it can have no causal efficacy and can therefore not provide explanation for any existence. This is why the existence of something cannot be caused or explained by the non-existence of absolute nothing. Because something clearly exists here and now, it is impossible that there was ever a condition of absolute nothing anywhere in the timeline leading to this here and now.

Samm

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 03:03 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Krumple

My problem was with you using the word sitting. It is a verb so you shouldn't have used it. Sitting is an event, but you really didn't mean sitting. Instead you are talking specifically about the moment. I understand a frame of time.

I would point out that I never used the word "sitting" in my original proposal of the thought experiment. That proposal was made by the following quoted question. "What if the entire universe did nothing, not a single event or activity or motion either physical or non-physical for 27 hours and 33 minutes (and two seconds)?"

Originally Posted by Krumple

That's the thing, you can't freeze time. You are stating a hypothetical situation in which I believe can not be done. Sure it sounds logical when you state it but no where has this EVER happened. Time would have to occur if you were freezing time. Let's say you have a time freezer and it is set to freeze time for one minute. If time is frozen the freezer would never be able to reach a minute because time is frozen. Therefore time would be frozen indefinitely. There would be absolutely no way to unfreeze time because that thing would have to act on time to accomplish it. You can't just have an automatic unpause button.

You propose that time just started happening. It can't or that would be an action out of time. You can't have an action in no time. You even stated it yet you contradict yourself when you imply that the universe time just started from being frozen or paused. It can't do that without time already being present.

Of course it is a "hypothetical situation." So is moving at the speed of light, but such thought experiments are very useful in grasping the nature of things at times.

But I'm afraid I did not bring home to you the gist of my experiment, which is that if there are no events, then there is no time. Events occur, not because of some force of nature called time, but because of the potentialities eminent in each object and all objects collectively, the motion of the universe.

Finally, the frozen time thing is a thought experiment, and you should not get hung up on it. Time cannot freeze in reality. If there were to be a condition in which no events occurred, then there would be no time. It could hypothetically happen all the time, since there would be no trace of it if it did, but realistically...no, I think not. I think I got the idea from an old Twilight Zone episode.

Samm

[xris]

Samm what do you think lurks in a black hole that for us is invisible?

If I said to you there was nothing before the BB ? you could say nothing comes from nothing, is that correct?

If nothing is visible before the BB what could you conclude from that statement ? That nothing as we know it existed, is that correct?

I tried to be clever with my train but you discounted it as a joke, why? thats exactly what we see with the BB . We can see when the BB initiated, 40 billion years ago, I believe. If there is nothing before the BB how can we say how old it is? It infers a begining and as we know nothing is possible then how can we have begining? So we have eternity measured, but you cant measure eternity, can you.

Whats you theory of the BB ? did it come from nothing, something or was it hidden?

[Fil. Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by xris

Samm what do you think lurks in a black hole that for us is invisible?

If I said to you there was nothing before the BB ? you could say nothing comes from nothing, is that correct?

If nothing is visible before the BB what could you conclude from that statement ? That nothing as we know it existed, is that correct?

I tried to be clever with my train but you discounted it as a joke, why? thats exactly what we see with the BB . We can see when the BB initiated, 40 billion years ago, I believe. If there is nothing before the BB how can we say how old it is? It infers a begining and as we know nothing is possible then how can we have begining? So we have eternity measured, but you cant measure eternity, can you.

Whats you theory of the BB ? did it come from nothing, something or was it hidden?

Hi Xris !
BB has 40 B. years ? is it not 13 or 14 ?
I don´t read Astrophysics books for some time now, so I may be out of date with some numbers...

[xris]

Originally Posted by Fil. Albuquerque

Hi Xris !
BB has 40 B. years ? is it not 13 or 14 ?
I don´t read Astrophysics books for some time now, so I may be out of date with some numbers...

I honestly dont know I suppose I could google it. It does not matter for the sake of my argument, how old it is. I am going to look..Your right 13. something and it started at a point, it did not say what point.

[Fil. Albuquerque]

Originally Posted by xris

I honestly dont know I suppose I could google it. It does not matter for the sake of my argument, how old it is. I am going to look..Your right 13. something and it started at a point, it did not say what point.

Thanks Xris I was not being peaky I honestly thought that you knew something that I was n´t aware off...