Atheism

[root]

You accept evolution, yet refuse time as a dimension (=relativity theory).

Correct, I accept evolution whilst some of the hypothosis and predictions are still to be tested and remember evolution is falsifiable. I accept the theory of relativity which again still has some hypothisis with predictions that still need to be tested.

* Evolution is based on assumptions. Time as a dimension is based on empirical testing.

Certain aspects of evolution is based on assumption, so is the theory of relativity.

* Evolution can not be tested, time as a dimension is tested by three difrent experiments.

Incorret, Aspects of the theory of evolution can be tested as aspects of relativity also can be tested. And both seem to support the overall data, your trying to get me to swallow something that does not have a scientific consensus.

* Evolution cannot make any predictions. Relativity with time as a dimension can.

Incorrect. Evolution can and does make predictions

* If it would be false it would not undermine any other part of science. If time as a dimension would turn out to be false our whole scientific vieuwpoint would fall down.

Of course it would not. it would change our understanding of spavetime though, which is what this is about. Sure the theory of general relativity would stand and we would know if time was or was not a dimension in it's own right. It;s just too early to say (as i repeatedly have told you)......

EvolutionIt isn't even a solid theory with all the missing links. Time as a dimension is a complete theory with no missing links and an acceptable explenations. There are still questions we haven't answered and things that we cannot investigate, but so far there is no indication at all that they bring any problem to our view of time.

OK Steve, if you say so. Problem is the whole of the scientific community would disagree with you and I do as well, Bolded is your problem and as frustrated as you maybe, get with the game-plan and wait til we know for sure next year. Or just plug your gaps with faith since that is what you are inclined to do.

Without prejudice

Root

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Take a step back and reflect on what you're saying here root. You're saying evolution is more of a certainty then general relativity. And you're saying the whole scientific community will back you up?

Think Root. My words can only show you the right questions, eventually you'll have to dig up the answers yourself. So think. Think like you never thought before. Think like your life depends on it.

 

[root]

Take a step back and reflect on what you're saying here root. You're saying evolution is more of a certainty then general relativity. And you're saying the whole scientific community will back you up?

Thanks for the misrepresentation, I am saying that the theory of general relativity is no greater nor less accepted in the scientific community than evolution.

Think Root. My words can only show you the right questions, eventually you'll have to dig up the answers yourself. So think. Think like you never thought before. Think like your life depends on it.

Na, I don't think so. I prefer to wait for the judgement as opposed to assuming I know what the judgement will be. Pre-empting a scientific study is in itself bad science? We can hypothosise & predict, that's as far as you can go until the data has been fully scrutinised. A point you consistently fail to grasp.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Ok you've done it, you actually succeed in making me tired of defending my point. I can only repeat my self so many times you wanna run in circles. Go ahead, have it your way.

 

[root]

It's not about having it my way, it's about you passing a prediction off that is only a prediction and it's resolvement is just around the corner. It is frustrating granted.........

 

[Abdul Fattah]

And I bet if you believe that hard enough and keep repeating it it will eventually become true

 

[Ayesha Rana]

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:
*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.
*The force is individual.
*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.
*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

Err so which point do Atheists agree with?

 

[root]

Treating time as a dimension is just a recognition of the fact that it takes a coordinate to tell you "when" an event occurs. While this is the only requirement for time to be treated as a dimension, there is a little more to this story. According to relativity, time and space are not able to be considered as separate entities.

Thus, time dimension does not exist as a sole entity (or has never been shown to exist). Thus a space-time dimension is perfectly acceptable to me. If Steve still considers himself holding the proof that time as a dimension exists as a single entity could he please submit his proposition to the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime who's e-mails are available for him to contact them from the following URL:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/openquestions.html

I could agree with all 3 of Steve's points for even though I disagree that time is a sole dimension (point 1) amongst other dimensions, even though the 3rd point is kinda messed up. What force is being talked about here? And the passage of time can be manipluated in some ways, at least in comparison to others. You can move at an extremely high velocity relative to some observer, plus a strong gravitational field will indeed alter how time passes in comparison to someone else. even if I accepted what Steve was saying point 4 would still not be valid. It would not pose difficult questions for an Atheist.

While we are on point four I may as well say it. Dualism is the metaphysical school of thought that there exist two fundamental substances: the mental and the physical. Nowhere in parts 1 through 3 Does Steve ever show that he understood the physical, and he has not even mentioned the mental.


What relativity suggests is that one's notion of time is the result of changes in the physical state of the universe, as he observes them. If it weren't for bodies in motion, there wouldn't be any such thing as time. Time exists only as a relation between moving objects.

Motion = Time

Finally, I dont see what any of this has to do with athiesm or religion of any kind and has gone way off-topic

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Root, you accept time is a part of the 4 dimensional fabric of space-time. In other words yopu accept the idea that the dimension of time is interwoven into the dimensions of space, but yet you do not acknowledge time is a dimension? If time isn't a dimension jow can it be interwoven in space? Whether or not time can be considered as seperate entity or not is irrelevant.
Even then it still requires a coordinate. Wheter or not they are interwoven or not makes absolutely no difrence here. Either way the question rises what makes us go through this part of the 4dimensional fabric without any control as opposed to the control we have over the spatial parts of the four dimensional fabric.

And the passage of time can be manipluated in some ways, at least in comparison to others. You can move at an extremely high velocity relative to some observer, plus a strong gravitational field will indeed alter how time passes in comparison to someone else.

That only alters the dimension itself, that is because the fabric of space time itself is material and thus influencable by forces of nature. But whatever is responsible four our notion of “time” as well as our notion of “present” is different from the dimension of time itself. Because eternalism suggests that both past, present and future exist next to one another. So if this dimension of time itself were responsible for our consciousness, our consciousness wouldn’t be located in the present, but be simultaneously spread out over our whole lives.

While we are on point four I may as well say it. Dualism is the metaphysical school of thought that there exist two fundamental substances: the mental and the physical. Nowhere in parts 1 through 3 Does Steve ever show that he understood the physical, and he has not even mentioned the mental.

the physical is explained again and again in each point. I can't be held acountable if you fail to understand the fabric of space-time. The mental is our notion of "present" and point three which you claim to be confusing is in fact showing that this notion is metaphysical.

What relativity suggests is that one's notion of time is the result of changes in the physical state of the universe, as he observes them. If it weren't for bodies in motion, there wouldn't be any such thing as time. Time exists only as a relation between moving objects.

That is not what relativity suggests. Relativity suggests time is adimension. Relativity suggests eternalism. Relativity does not suggest that time is teh speed by which processes occur.

Motion = Time

You'er always so eager to ask for source. Why don't you giove me source for that wrongfull interpretation of time then? I posted you links to what wikipedia has to say about both time and about motion, they are clearly not the same thing. You say you accept the notion of space time. Wheer time is a dimension interwined into the spatial dimensions. Do you not realise that means time is independant of motion? that motion is a proces that is simply manifested within time?

Finally, I dont see what any of this has to do with athiesm or religion of any kind and has gone way off-topic

You fail to see what dualism has to do with religion and atheism?

Ayesha
Points one and two are scientific. Point three is open for debate. It's very hard to make assumptions about a force we don't see. We only see the result of that force. (our notion of time) But there isn't any way to test how this works. So point three are educated guesses based on logical assumptions. And I can imagen that when an atheist dislikes these theorys that he does not accept them. Then again, each atheist is unique, and it's hard to make a general statement.

 

[root]

That only alters the dimension itself, that is because the fabric of space time itself is material and thus influencable by forces of nature. But whatever is responsible four our notion of “time” as well as our notion of “present” is different from the dimension of time itself. Because eternalism suggests that both past, present and future exist next to one another. So if this dimension of time itself were responsible for our consciousness, our consciousness wouldn’t be located in the present, but be simultaneously spread out over our whole lives.

Quite a philosophical approach, I will just give you in response what Einstien said about his theory when asked to summarize in one sentence:

Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

Time in itself, absolutely, does not exist; it is always relative to some observer or some object. Without a clock I say 'I do not know the time' . Without matter time itself is unknowable. Time is a function of matter; and matter therefore is the clock that makes infinity real. (Fowles, The Aristos)

The discrete 'particle' effect of light is caused by discrete Standing Wave Interactions / Resonant Coupling. Time is caused by Wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter's activity and the phenomena of time).

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Theory-Relativity.htm

Motion = Time

It seems you are very hostile to such A buetiful and simplistic notion Steve, is this because you expected time to exist before matter or the birth of our universe. Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Quite a philosophical approach,

No it's not the part of time being bended by gravity is pure science. But this does not explain our notion of time, we need something besides that to explain it. There's nothing philosophicla to that. It only becomes philosophical once one starts to suggest difrent alternatives.

I will just give you in response what Einstien said about his theory when asked to summarize in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)

And I will respond what I already said before, wheter or not they have a seperate existance is irrelevant to the issue here. Even if they are unavoidable linked, I can still raise the same question. In fact it was never my intention to suggest that time stands alone, I just isolated it so it's charesteristics would be more obvious.

Time in itself, absolutely, does not exist; it is always relative to some observer or some object. Without a clock I say 'I do not know the time' . Without matter time itself is unknowable. Time is a function of matter; and matter therefore is the clock that makes infinity real. (Fowles, The Aristos)

This has nothing to do with science. This is just a couple of philosophers their interpretation of the time but it goes in against the scientific view of time.

The discrete 'particle' effect of light is caused by discrete Standing Wave Interactions / Resonant Coupling. Time is caused by Wave Motion (as spherical wave motions of Space which cause matter's activity and the phenomena of time).

As for the wave theory. It's unproven. And it doesn't show that time is caused by wave motion, it builds on the assumption that time is caused by wave motion.

Motion = Time

How do you respond to my argument ad absurdum motion=space? Motion is inevetible linked to sapce in the very same way as time is, does that make you assume that motion is equal to space to? And if we combine those two,
space= motion; motion = time => space = time ?

It seems you are very hostile to such A buetiful and simplistic notion

Hostile? Not really, I'm just trying to get some inaccurate views out of the world. I don't think it's beautyfull, I think it's ugly since your view is inacurate according to general relativity. This has nothing to do with my personal preferances or any other theory I have in my head. I would say exactly the same without these theorys.

Steve, is this because you expected time to exist before matter or the birth of our universe.

No not at all. I think all the dimensions were created simultaniously. You got my argument wrong, it's your p.o.v. that suggests this. you say all interaction is dependant of time. Therefor time needs to exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Or that time simply does not exist within "Nothing" going back to the roots of this issue raised by Sabi......

what are you talking about? "within nothing" that's a contradiction in terms.
If there is nothing, then there's no "within" either.

 

[Dark_Spark]

I like how many people voted for FACT, when it clearly is not a fact. It is a belief.

Fact is something you can prove, and since no one has proved that god exists it remains a belief.

I'll take this opportunity to also point out that although atheists ( myself of which i am) cannot disprove the existence of god they personnally don't believe he exists.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more a fact then scientific facts. I assume other voters here have a simular motivation.

 

[Dark_Spark]

Difrent people hold difrent criteria to judge what is or isn't a fact. In the end there is no universal way to determine fact over falsehood.
I'm quite aware that my belief is unproven, yet it feels so certain to me I aproach it as a fact. I would even go so far that on a personal level I consider my religion more a fact then scientific facts. I assume other voters here have a simular motivation.

There is only one criteria to have a fact, and that is proof.

Its a bit like math, 1 + 1 = 2. That is fact.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

There is only one criteria to have a fact, and that is proof.

Its a bit like math, 1 + 1 = 2. That is fact.

No that's not a fact, that's a theory. Math is build on axioms and these axioms alow a group of rules. The axioms are unproven assumptions. They are not undeniable facts they are simply the base on which the theory is build.

To quote Einstein: As far as the laws of physics refer to reality they are uncertain and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.

 

[Dark_Spark]

No that's not a fact, that's a theory. Math is build on axioms and these axioms alow a group of rules. The axioms are unproven assumptions. They are not undeniable facts they are simply the base on which the theory is build.

To quote Einstein: As far as the laws of physics refer to reality they are uncertain and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality.

That still doesn't refute that if you take one banana then add another banana you will have two bananas.

But if your coming from where i think your coming from your saying nothing is sure. Which again proves my point that god cannot be proved or disproved. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That still doesn't refute that if you take one banana then add another banana you will have two bananas.

Let me try a difrent aproach. Are you familiar with the work of Rene Magritte? HE placed a picture of a chair and commented: this is not a chair. Then he placed a picture showing the word "chair" and he commented below, this is not a chair. The word "chair" is a charesteristic we give to teh object from our language. However an alien unfamiliar with our language might say that charesteristic is false.
(assuming the alien would be able to communicate despite not knowing our language of course ). Math is in a simular way just a language. It's not a universal truth, it's a language we constructed with axioms in order to define (=talk about) physics. You may say that your gesture with banana's follows your mathematical theory, but an alien might refuse that saying you didn't actually added the two banana's to each other but rather placed them within each others proximity.

But if your coming from where i think your coming from your saying nothing is sure. Which again proves my point that god cannot be proved or disproved. Wouldn't you agree?

Well not exactly. I would say: "nothing can be proven or disproven in general", since everybody will have difrent criteria to decide what he accepts and not. That doesn't mean people can't make up there minds and decide to accept their belief as factual.

 

[Dark_Spark]

Let me try a difrent aproach. Are you familiar with the work of Rene Magritte? HE placed a picture of a chair and commented: this is not a chair. Then he placed a picture showing the word "chair" and he commented below, this is not a chair. The word "chair" is a charesteristic we give to teh object from our language. However an alien unfamiliar with our language might say that charesteristic is false.
(assuming the alien would be able to communicate despite not knowing our language of course ). Math is in a simular way just a language. It's not a universal truth, it's a language we constructed with axioms in order to define (=talk about) physics. You may say that your gesture with banana's follows your mathematical theory, but an alien might refuse that saying you didn't actually added the two banana's to each other but rather placed them within each others proximity.

Well not exactly. I would say: "nothing can be proven or disproven in general", since everybody will have difrent criteria to decide what he accepts and not. That doesn't mean people can't make up there minds and decide to accept their belief as factual.

But we could communicate in mathematic theory though. Thats like saying tomato tomato (lol, this obviously doesn't work written but you get it).

Thats like some guy saying he can see ghosts. If he percieves it as fact, does it make it so? no, we drug him up and drag him off to an insane asylum. ;D

 

[Abdul Fattah]

But we could communicate in mathematic theory though. Thats like saying tomato tomato (lol, this obviously doesn't work written but you get it).

Assuming aliens would have teh same perception of the universe; simular questions, simular logics,... yes, then we might be able to work with some of the simularitys in our math and there math. But take an amoeba for example.
They don't expieriance gravity. They are completely unaware of gravity, which is the most obvious force of nature for us. An amoeba lives in water and therefor sees no difrence in up down, left right or foreward and backwards. So if they were to map there world there much more like to invent polar coordinates rather then carthesian coordinates. A difrent force like surface tension however plays a much more important role in the life of amoeba's. A force that has lil' meaning to our daily lives.

Thats like some guy saying he can see ghosts. If he percieves it as fact, does it make it so? no, we drug him up and drag him off to an insane asylum.

I'm not so found of the idea to lock up anyone who claims things that are inconsitent with our worldview. What if there are actually ghost? Do you not make a great error imprisoning an innocent man just for what he says? It's not logical to neglect a person's claims just on the base that it doesn't fit your viewpoint.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm with Steve on the 2 + 2 = 4 question. It's not a fact, but simply something we agree about because we use a particular mathematical system. The axioms of that system are unproven assumptions. The idea that no mathematical system can ever be complete in this sense is down to this guy: Kurt Godel.

Peace