Atheism

[Abdul Fattah]

Concerning time, if there were no motion in the creations there would be no measurement for time. Time = motion, hence all time is relative..

The motion we are familiar with needs time, however there are other forces that cause motion that are not dependant on time. In an eternalistic vieuw (such as in einsteins relativity, we need a force to explain our consciesness, and awareness of time, the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

Concerning massless space, I believe in it. But since I can not see it nor measure it (we can magnify between the particles of an atom to infinity and it it will still be there) it amazes me that I know it is there. In fact I only know it is there because of the particles of the creations. Hence it would have remained unknown were it not for creation. It surrounds all the particles of the creations and yet is infinitely beyond the creations and is not a part of them. I think it is the most amazing fact.

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

 

[HeiGou]

Yes of course, ockhams razor is a very good way to proof that santa isn't real, because the accurate explenation (parents buy gifts for kid and say it's someone else) is a lot easyer then the alternative, some guy with a magicly flying sledge has a workshop with enslaved elves working 24/7 to provide the world with toys. leaving out to mention just how this single person can deliver all those toys to million of people and why the poor kids are always forgotten. I'd say ockhams razor works perfect here.

Well I am not sure it is easier and easier explanations are not always entirely trustworthy.

Well that's very narrowminded again. There's a few guys driven by anger and war doing outrageous acts and therefor you think the chance that we (muslims in general) will hurt you is more likely then you will hurt yourself. Are you aware of suicide rate's in the west? Of how many people die due to substance abuse such as drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Trust me the chance that you'll end up hurting yourself in this life is a lot higher then us hurting you, and that's not even mentioning the afterlife.

I am sorry you think it is narrowminded. I am aware of the low suicide rate in the West. How do you think Islam, or anything else, would prevent or reduce that rate? I know that the West has much higher life expectancies than any other region (except Japan). So those drugs, alcohol and tobacco don't seem to be doing us much harm. But even if they did, Islam, surely, is not going to ban us from doing that. I am not sure I think the chances of a few misguided Muslims hurting me are higher than the chances of me hurting myself (as a non-smoking, non-drug taking, moderate drinker). What I think is that the consequences of being bown up are more serious - and more preventable - than the consequences of drinking - and that Islam will not end that anyway. Let's mention the afterlife if you like.

 

[Sabi]

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

Are you there Root? What do you think? It seems ok to me, but is it ok to call massless space space fabric from your perspective? As for the energy, we are probably in the realms of higg particles again I suspect. Very interested to know more.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well I am not sure it is easier and easier explanations are not always entirely trustworthy.

Ockhams razor is the principle saying that if two theories explain a phenomenon equally, the simpler theory requiring fewer assumptions and explanatory principles is preferred and that generalizations should be based on observed facts and not on other generalizations. It's not about simplifying (= leaving out details for better general view). It's just common sense that the least complicated explenation is most likely the right one.

I am sorry you think it is narrowminded. I am aware of the low suicide rate in the West.

LOw? I suggest you look up the statistics, the west has a suicide rate well above average.

How do you think Islam, or anything else, would prevent or reduce that rate? I know that the West has much higher life expectancies than any other region (except Japan). So those drugs, alcohol and tobacco don't seem to be doing us much harm.

NO, tyhe life expectancy rateis higher because poverty is lower, because medical care is better, because highyene is better etc... However when you look at the percentages of deaths, a very larg piece of it is from drug, alcohol and tobacco. I'm not suggesting muslims should forbid non-muslim their substance abuses. But a difrent lifestyle wouldn't hurt the west, on the contrary. Now you can sit there and let a few repugnant acts cloud your judgement, but if you'll analyse the islamic rules and prescribtions you'll have to admit that they are beneficial.

 

[HeiGou]

LOw? I suggest you look up the statistics, the west has a suicide rate well above average.

It depends what you compare them to. It has much lower rates than the former Soviet countries. And most Third World countries do not keep figures worth looking at.

NO, tyhe life expectancy rateis higher because poverty is lower, because medical care is better, because highyene is better etc... However when you look at the percentages of deaths, a very larg piece of it is from drug, alcohol and tobacco.

Actually what causes good health in the West is not that simple and open to debate. No doubt the medical care etc play an important role. But how much of a role? As it turns out a little alcohol is good for you. The exact opposite of what people said ten years ago. The figures for deaths are not caused by drugs, alcohol and tobacco. They may play a role in causing many deaths. Tobacco certainly causes lung cancer but apart from that any causal link is hard to show.

I'm not suggesting muslims should forbid non-muslim their substance abuses.

So Islam and Islamic rule have little to offer us there. Which again suggests that the bigger problem is people from your side of the fence killing people on my side of the fence.

But a difrent lifestyle wouldn't hurt the west, on the contrary.

How do you know?

Now you can sit there and let a few repugnant acts cloud your judgement, but if you'll analyse the islamic rules and prescribtions you'll have to admit that they are beneficial.

Why can't I? You have just used exactly the same technique on alcohol drugs and tobacco. Sure smoking them increases your chances of dying, but you claim they kill. Being a Muslim must surely increase your chances of getting the wrong end of the stick and becoming a terrorist given that pretty much all terrorists in the world these days are Muslims. I'll stop doing it for Muslims if you stop doing it for tobacco.

I look at the Muslim world and I do not think that a inept and half-hearted implementation of Islamic rules is beneficial. I do not see why a proper full-scale implementation would change that. Why do you?

 

[root]

I did warn Steve of the dangers in the indescriminate use of time analogy. alas I don't think he has heeded it.

The motion we are familiar with needs time,

That makes no sense to me. Motion = (is)Time.

Further, the only empirical evidence we collectively possess concerning the 'nature of time' can be summed up as follows:

"Time's passage seems totally dependent upon local conditions."

however there are other forces that cause motion that are not dependant on time. In an eternalistic vieuw (such as in einsteins relativity, we need a force to explain our consciesness, and awareness of time, the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

Now Steve is straying from Motion = Time, to mind frame time. "time" for biological life-forms (Earth life-forms only) is actually controlled at a DNA level that is not connected with the Universe in a universal motion of time and as indicated above this time is dependent upon local conditions. Thus it is fair to say:

Time is of the mind, motion is of the universe:

So our biological clock known as the "Circadian rhythm" is the process by which "time" effects our bodies. Further reading of this is available here:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/clockgenes/

The NOW Theory

……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science. - Albert Einstien

In the universe we observe only motion, there is no evidence of time running into the universe. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The process of experiencing of motion is following:

motion......perception (eyes).......elaboration (mind)......experience (observer)

Time is a construction of the mind, we will call it "mind-time frame". All what exist into the universe we experience into the "mind-time frame". We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion
B- time (mind-time frame)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion)

Steve, in his above comments has not bothered to distinguish between ABC.

How can you debate a concept of time without defining the context to which you are applying a given concept to a general defenition of time.

Further reading of the "now Theory" is available in here:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4321

well the atoms might not be visually noticable, but are noticable due to interactions with bigger objects. Therefor there presence can be noticed. As for what "surrounds all the particles of the creations "; that is not maseless space, but the fabric of space (made up out of energy).

I don't buy that as a reasonable assumption without any supporting evidence and sources to which I would ask Steve to provide. massless-space contains no energy and does not exist, I think (unless I am wrong) Steve does not like (or is uncomfortable with) the idea of an uncreated "nothing".

 

[Sabi]

and does not exist

At least not in any scientifically defineable way. And yet it is a fact! Subhanallah.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

HeiGou, it's getting boring, just refuting what I say for teh saek of it, I showed my case, you wanna deny? Go ahead, don't expect me to waste enrgy on the conversation then.

I did warn Steve of the dangers in the indescriminate use of time analogy. alas I don't think he has heeded it.

That makes no sense to me. Motion = (is)Time.

Actually that's not 100% correct. Time is a dimension. You should try to think of it in a simular way then you think of spatial dimension. A room in which can be moved. And the motion we are most familiar with is a movement in 3D-space which always seems to go hand in hand with a movement in the 4th dimension: time. I said "the motion we are familiar with"; because who's to say all motions follow the same laws? Afterall, the only reasons the motions we witness call for a movement in time is because the objects that move are bound to the 4 dimensions. The fabric of space-time. now that line between space and time is there for a reason. Because the 4 dimension form one a consistant 4D-room. It's not a 3D space confined within a 1D time, it's a 4D space-time.

Now Steve is straying from Motion = Time, to mind frame time. "time" for biological life-forms (Earth life-forms only) is actually controlled at a DNA level that is not connected with the Universe in a universal motion of time and as indicated above this time is dependent upon local conditions.

No I wasn't forget the perceptions pseed. I'm talking about physicle time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.

Thus it is fair to say:

Time is of the mind, motion is of the universe:

Both time and motion are inhereted to the universe rather then to the mind, however there's another factor to consider. Einstein's relativity theory suggests eternalism (eternalism means that past, present and future are all equally real, so present, pas and future all exist simultaniously next to one another.) Now this eternalistic p.o.v. begs the question: what force is it that gives us this sense of "present"? And what force takes our consciousness through such a dimension of time? (note that such a force itself must by defenition be undependant of time, otherwise it would not be able to "push or pull" our conscienceness trough time.)

So our biological clock known as the "circadian rhythm" is the process by which "time" effects our bodies. Further reading of this is available here:
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/features/clockgenes/

I'd say the carcadian rythm is the result of time effecting our body's rather tehn the proces itself.

The NOW Theory
In the universe we observe only motion, there is no evidence of time running into the universe. With clocks we measure duration of motion. The process of experiencing of motion is following:

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes. We measure duration of processes by the lenght of time they pass. But that doesn't mean time is nothing more.
What you suggest would be the same as suggesting: There is no evidence of distance running into the universe. With rulers we only measure the lenght a certain motion can go over a given time. I know that's a kick-you-in-the-croch-comparison. But think about it

Time is a construction of the mind, we will call it "mind-time frame". All what exist into the universe we experience into the "mind-time frame". We have to distinguish between A, B and C:

A- motion
B- time (mind-time frame)
C- space-time (mathematical model that describes motion)

Steve, in his above comments has not bothered to distinguish between ABC.

Let's neglect B, it's really irrelevant here. As for A, it is not time. Time does not equal motion. Time equals speed * distance travelled, not the moption itself.

I don't buy that as a reasonable assumption without any supporting evidence and sources to which I would ask Steve to provide. massless-space contains no energy and does not exist, I think (unless I am wrong) Steve does not like (or is uncomfortable with) the idea of an uncreated "nothing".

I repeat the same question. Why do you feel the need for such anotion of spacetime? The idea we have about the dimensions of the universe doesn't need such a thing. The material dimensions of time and space are selfsuffiecient enough to create "room". The urge for a concept of a 3Dimensional masseless-space where our 3D of our universe lie within is just a result of your mind taking the dimensions you are bound to for granted.

 

[root]

Actually that's not 100% correct. Time is a dimension.

OK, stop right their. You can hypothosise time is a dimension or you can post your source that Time as a dimension exists. The confudion here is that you are claiming the existence of "Time" as a dimension without producing credible scientific evidence that gives a consensus that a dimension of time exists. Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false........ That makes us both right, and that in iteslf is a paradox

Source please......................

No I wasn't forget the perceptions pseed. I'm talking about physicle time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.

Steve, you said below:

the force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

That does not sound like ohysical time to me, in fact you still have not actually explained what you mean by "Physical Time". Can you even prove "Physical time" actually exists. If you think you can

Source Please.......

I'd say the carcadian rythm is the result of time effecting our body's rather tehn the proces itself

That's up to you, your free to beleive what you want. Point is, your again calling on time as if it is proven and we know exactly what it is, which of course we don't.

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes.

Source please......

We measure duration of processes by the lenght of time they pass. But that doesn't mean time is nothing more.

At leat we agree here, and no it does not mean it is nothing more. The point is We don't know. Of course you could just claim time is a dimension and hey presto it is more. However, that is bad science and currently unproven nor supported by consensus.

What you suggest would be the same as suggesting: There is no evidence of distance running into the universe. With rulers we only measure the lenght a certain motion can go over a given time. I know that's a kick-you-in-the-croch-comparison. But think about it

I know it is a pain is the ass when you want people to accept an hypothosis to accept yourpoint, but you can't go around claiming things that just are not. I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy. but that is all you can have, anything else we don't know yet. Your jumping the gun so to speak.

Think it's time you gave us some sources:

 

[Sabi]

Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false.

Me too. So I would also very much like to know if there is any evidence for this yet brother Steve, since it would make a serious change in my life.

I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy.

Oo that sounds interesting can you elaborate on that for me please?

 

[root]

Oo that sounds interesting can you elaborate on that for me please?

I think everyone would agree that the universe is expanding and I think we would all agree that all the matter in the universe is in motion. Motion = Time, so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

This concensus should be agreeable with everyone.

the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass. Thus, in a mass-less space some suggest time exists. Another analagy is speed, again speed like time is a measurement of motion like time. (Time is inexplicably linked to speed also) however, we can cast that aside for a moment. The relationship between speed and motion is inexplicably linked, you cannot have motion without speed. And again another analogy is mass & energy, you cannot have one without the other. Mass, energy and time are all relavent to each other in what would seem a unified manner.

The problem here is "Time" since some suggest time is as real as energy and mass whilst others believe "time" as nothing more than an illusion that does not actually exist in a physical form. True, time is measurable and predictable and shares much in common which inplies it is controlled by laws of physics. the same could be said for a "retro Virus" and wether or not it is "alive".

Steve's assetion are premature, and we will not be in a position to test this until some point next year. Until then the debate will continue................

A good link for further reading is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A3577241

Which to me holds an excellent summary as quoted:

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

 

[catmando]

Here's is a quote from Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist.

Theist might find this interesting:

"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe."

Not necessarily. If our Universe has "budded off" from another Universe, which is one theory of how it came to be, it does not follow that some unknown "Creator" had anything at all to do with it. Astrophysicists know that "Virtual" particles pop in and out of our space-time very frequently. That could very well be how our Universe started.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

@Heigou
sorry for not replying to your post earlyer, I didn't mean to ignore you I simply overlooked your post

It depends what you compare them to. It has much lower rates than the former Soviet countries. And most Third World countries do not keep figures worth looking at.

Obviously words as a lot and a lil' are always relative to their referance point. If you compare the number of suicides in the west to the number of smileys that are yelow you'll find suicide surprisingly low, however I ask you, what's the point of such a referance?

Actually what causes good health in the West is not that simple and open to debate. No doubt the medical care etc play an important role. But how much of a role? As it turns out a little alcohol is good for you. The exact opposite of what people said ten years ago. The figures for deaths are not caused by drugs, alcohol and tobacco. They may play a role in causing many deaths. Tobacco certainly causes lung cancer but apart from that any causal link is hard to show.

Such statements are not under common agreament. YEs, alcohol might have some benefits in small doses to the body but it has downsides at the same time for those small doses. In the end the downsides outweigh the benefits.
Let's face the obvious, however your opinion about substance abuse, you cannot deny their negative impact on society.

Why can't I? You have just used exactly the same technique on alcohol drugs and tobacco. Sure smoking them increases your chances of dying, but you claim they kill. Being a Muslim must surely increase your chances of getting the wrong end of the stick and becoming a terrorist given that pretty much all terrorists in the world these days are Muslims. I'll stop doing it for Muslims if you stop doing it for tobacco.

The difrence is: every cigarette is damaging wheter it kills you or not. The reason why some die and others don't depends mostly on the resistance of the body to cancer and the amount of time one smokes. SO it's not like 99% of the cigarettes are harmless and only that one unfortunat cig will kill you. As for muslims on the other hand 99% will not harm you. And those that harm you do not do so because they are muslims, but because they are misguided, whatever they claim.

I look at the Muslim world and I do not think that a inept and half-hearted implementation of Islamic rules is beneficial. I do not see why a proper full-scale implementation would change that. Why do you?

Because I used to life as an atheist and implemented these rules in my daily life and noticed the differences. In otherwords. I took the statement to the test!

@Root
Sorry but running low on time, inshallah I'll get back to you with the reason why time is a dimentions A.s.a.p.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

OK, stop right their. You can hypothosise time is a dimension or you can post your source that Time as a dimension exists. The confudion here is that you are claiming the existence of "Time" as a dimension without producing credible scientific evidence that gives a consensus that a dimension of time exists. Don't get me wrong, if time is indeed a dimension then fair enough I will have to re-evaluate how I see the world around me, otherwise I could simply hypothosise that time as a dimension is false........ That makes us both right, and that in iteslf is a paradox

Source please......................

Well unfortunatly this is somewhere in the grey area between phisics and philosophy thus extremely challinging to proof. however it is a commonly accepted part of general relativity. If time is not a dimension how can objects travel faster or slower in time relative to eachother? Strictly theoretical you are right. It is not proven, however it is so interwined into the physisist's vieuw of the universe that it becomes hard to imagen it any other way. The article you posted from BBC Wasn't about the debate between eternalism and presentism, but more as to wich way we should interpretet that. I don't think there are many quantumphysisists with good multidimensional insight who still doubt whether time is a dimension or not. The question really is, how does this dimension work? What does it allow? What are teh laws it is governed by? etc...
For more information look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time)
(Ironicly, the page that explains presentism shows how eternalism is linked to general relativity whereas the page that explains eternalism does not; go figure :happy: )

Steve:No I wasn't, forget the perceptions speed. I'm talking about physical time only. The psychological time here is irrelevant.
Root: you said below:
Steve: The force itself is therefore independant of time. (call it a soul, or life energy or the essence of time, whatever you want, still needs to be immaterial.

It seems you'er still stuck on time=motion. Although extremely correlated, that is not true, they are not the same thing. So when I speak of a source responseble for our notion of "present" that has nothing to do with the speed of our perception. The speed of our perception is determined by the chemical processes in our brains. Our notion of "presentness" however fails to be explained by simple neuropsychology. Two difrent things here.

That does not sound like ohysical time to me, in fact you still have not actually explained what you mean by "Physical Time". Can you even prove "Physical time" actually exists. If you think you can

Well beside the time traveling due to high speed (like in planet of the apes). There's another kind of time travel as a result of general relativity. Gravity also playes a role. Objects closer to mass (example, objects closer to earth) also travel faster trough time then objects far away of mass. Now if time can be manipulated by gravity, that means it follows the same laws as objects of mass do, and that suggests that they are made up out of the same enrgy as mass is made up by.

Time is not the duration by which processes occur. Time is independant of all processes.
Source please......

Well this is somwhat covered by the same answer as the first question. General relativity sugegsts time is a dimension, therefor time is not the speed by which processes occur but rather a dimension in which processes are alowed to occur. But let me counter your question with yet another. If time is nothing more then the durations by which processes occur, then that means Time needs processes in order to exist, and if everything would stand still for a second, time will be frozen. NOw considering that, try to explain the beginning of teh universe: First there was nothing (so also no processes and thus also no time) and then... a wait, there is no then, because without time we cannot continue this story. (Sorry for the sarcastic tone, couldn't controle myself. :statisfie )

At leat we agree here, and no it does not mean it is nothing more. The point is We don't know.

this agreing thing is nice, we should try it more often

I know it is a pain is the ass when you want people to accept an hypothosis to accept yourpoint, but you can't go around claiming things that just are not. I'll only accept spacetime and would agree that motion requires time like matter requires energy. but that is all you can have, anything else we don't know yet. Your jumping the gun so to speak.

Think it's time you gave us some sources:

Well I hope I answered your questions somewhat. If there's still objections, fire away

 

[root]

Well unfortunatly this is somewhere in the grey area between phisics and philosophy thus extremely challinging to proof.

Yes, I already was aware of that and indeed warned you several posts back. Fact of the matter is simply you cannot get a general scientic consensus of a time dimension other than what I expressed in the above post's where I stated the following;

the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass.

I'll only accept spacetime

so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

Additionally, bringing in "Phyilosophy" as your source smacks of desperation to me. As I said before. Here is the concensus at the moment (again):

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

If time is not a dimension how can objects travel faster or slower in time relative to eachother? Strictly theoretical you are right. It is not proven, however it is so interwined into the physisist's vieuw of the universe that it becomes hard to imagen it any other way.

I agree that it is interwined and have said many times I accept spacetime? I also agree it is not proven or even a majority concensus. Imagination does not provide us data nor is it scientifically credible. I could imagine a little green man peddling a bike under the bonnet of my car, this does not mean I have reasonably provided any form of probability that my car is powered by anything other than a mechanical engine.

It seems you'er still stuck on time=motion. Although extremely correlated, that is not true, they are not the same thing. So when I speak of a source responseble for our notion of "present" that has nothing to do with the speed of our perception. The speed of our perception is determined by the chemical processes in our brains. Our notion of "presentness" however fails to be explained by simple neuropsychology. Two difrent things here.

Time = motion is empiracly tested, time as a dimension other than spacetime is not, additionally our notion of "presentness" in my mind is just a smokesceen and we are probably best dropping it, I consider the "NOW" theory perfectly plausable, if you don't then you don't. You really have not brought any credible alternative thus far.

Well this is somwhat covered by the same answer as the first question.

And as far as I can see your still stuck with the same problems.

this agreing thing is nice, we should try it more often

Agreed. :thankyou:

Well I hope I answered your questions somewhat. If there's still objections, fire away

Sorry, it's not the answers that I need satisfied on it's supporting data.

You can continue in vain to personally provide satisfactory data that gains a concensus that supports your position or you can accept what I said all along:

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

Perhaps a case of agreeing to disagree........As far as changing the way I perceive the world around me based on what you have provided, I think I will pass as we still are not in a position to reasonably know for sure.

Frustrating, I agree. In the future you might just be vindicated or shown to be wrong, killa I know. But it does not change what our current understanding is.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, I already was aware of that and indeed warned you several posts back. Fact of the matter is simply you cannot get a general scientic consensus of a time dimension other than what I expressed in the above post's where I stated the following; the "Grey" area here is Time existing in it's own dimension without being connected to motion of mass.
I'll only accept spacetime
so time is very much interwoven into space as spacetime.

I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime, don't you see those are both one and the same thing? Anyway You seem to have misunderstood I didn't mean to suggest time exists in it's own dimension, but rather that time is a dimension. And the connection with motion is that a motion in the other 3D's alwasy goes hand in hand with a movement trough time (regardless of which one is cause and which one is event). However, just because the movement we witness seems to be bound to the dimension of time in that way, doesn't mean that all motions are as such. It is already sugested by string theory that the so far unfound graviton could be escaping through certain dimensions. And since we already know gravity manipulates time it's quite obvious that the force behind gravity isn't strictly bound to time. It would certainly explain why gravity is so much weaker then the other forces.

Additionally, bringing in "Phyilosophy" as your source smacks of desperation to me. As I said before. Here is the concensus at the moment (again):

I wouldn't desperation, far from it, it's just honesty from my part not to pass philosophy of as science. This is however a very active discussion and many scientist claim that this is not the field of philosophy but also (theoretical) science whereas others say that the whole string-theory is strictly philosophical.

So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence, but next time somebody asks you what the time is, perhaps you'll think of the answer differently.

Well some of the questions are still unanswered but some were answered long ago, and if you believe in spacetime then you accept time as a dimention (or you have a lousy understanding of space-time; no offence; the two are just difrent ords for the same thing). So that leaves us with the question: "how exactly does this dimension work? And theer is wheer the questions come in and we can only result to philosophy and speculation. In other words, we don't know what time is, but we know what it's "not".

I agree that it is interwined and have said many times I accept spacetime? I also agree it is not proven or even a majority concensus. Imagination does not provide us data nor is it scientifically credible. I could imagine a little green man peddling a bike under the bonnet of my car, this does not mean I have reasonably provided any form of probability that my car is powered by anything other than a mechanical engine.

And this argument brings me back to the "time within a time" if you accept the 4D space-time, why still speculate on the existance of a more abstract time in which the 4D space-time is confined? The 4D fabric of space-time does not require it. So not only is the probability of it unprovide, but the theory itselfs makes it unnecesairy (as does your engine make the alternative green-man theory unnecesairy).

Time = motion is empiracly tested, time as a dimension other than spacetime is not, additionally our notion of "presentness" in my mind is just a smokesceen and we are probably best dropping it, I consider the "NOW" theory perfectly plausable, if you don't then you don't. You really have not brought any credible alternative thus far.

Time=motion is not tested, that equation is even false. and the now is not an alternative exlpenation for the "present" . the theory was just another way of pointing out the problem, not a solution to it.

And as far as I can see your still stuck with the same problems.

I have the luxery of filling in the gaps with my religion. I respect however this is something you cant. Then again it was never my intention to push my personal answers upon you, but rather only to pose you the very same questions that lead me to those answers.

Perhaps a case of agreeing to disagree........As far as changing the way I perceive the world around me based on what you have provided, I think I will pass as we still are not in a position to reasonably know for sure. Frustrating, I agree. In the future you might just be vindicated or shown to be wrong, killa I know. But it does not change what our current understanding is.

Yes we are runnig into a gridlock by the looks of it. But it aint over 'till the fat lady sings. So as long as you're willing, I'm not giving up either
By the way, have you start reading my book yet? in one of the chapters I explain my vieuw more in depth. Even made some illustrations to go along with it, might be helpfull.
[/QUOTE]

 

[root]

I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime,

Wehey, we getting somewhere? Yes, you now understand my postion.

don't you see those are both one and the same thing?

Not really. They are unified out of convenience, Not necessity.

Anyway You seem to have misunderstood I didn't mean to suggest time exists in it's own dimension, but rather that time is a dimension. And the connection with motion is that a motion in the other 3D's alwasy goes hand in hand with a movement trough time (regardless of which one is cause and which one is event). However, just because the movement we witness seems to be bound to the dimension of time in that way, doesn't mean that all motions are as such.

I can accept that.

It is already sugested by string theory that the so far unfound graviton could be escaping through certain dimensions. And since we already know gravity manipulates time it's quite obvious that the force behind gravity isn't strictly bound to time. It would certainly explain why gravity is so much weaker then the other forces.

yes, string theory predicts this. It could be also that Gravity is not a weak force afterall and that the super massive blackhole and the ultimate gravitational force within our galaxy appears weak because we are wuite towrds the edge of our galaxy. If correct, then Gravitons not need be escaping. Of course dissapearing Gravitons could be the case, equally it could not be. I say this time and time again, we simply cannot make such assertions at this point in time.

I wouldn't desperation, far from it, it's just honesty from my part not to pass philosophy of as science. This is however a very active discussion and many scientist claim that this is not the field of philosophy but also (theoretical) science whereas others say that the whole string-theory is strictly philosophical.

I agree, the point remains you can't build a scientific case based partly on philsophy.

I have the luxery of filling in the gaps with my religion. I respect however this is something you cant. Then again it was never my intention to push my personal answers upon you, but rather only to pose you the very same questions that lead me to those answers.

Is it luxury or convenience, to me the debate ends right here. Religion may well fill the gap for you. scientific discovery will only force you to unfill the gap and fill it with the correct data so I would question why you would "temorarily" fill the gaps in the first place. I guess that is the reason that religion in science is just an obstruction to some convenience to others.

The fact still remains Steve:
So what is time? Is it a dimension just like space? Does it flow, or is that just an illusion? Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously? And can time really be reversed or manipulated? None of these questions can be answered with definite confidence

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve:I'm afraind I don't fully understand your position. you don't accept time as a dimension, but you do accept spacetime, don't you see those are both one and the same thing?
root:Not really. They are unified out of convenience, Not necessity.

Really? What's the difrence then? space time, means that time si a dimension. I really cannot understand how someone could believe in time as a part of the 4D fabric of space-time but then again not believe in time as a dimension. In order to accept spacetime one needs to see time as a dimension. So you really can't have one without the other.

Is it luxury or convenience, to me the debate ends right here. Religion may well fill the gap for you. scientific discovery will only force you to unfill the gap and fill it with the correct data so I would question why you would "temorarily" fill the gaps in the first place. I guess that is the reason that religion in science is just an obstruction to some convenience to others.

Well the thing is, science didn't prove Islam wrong in the past. In fact it never unfilled those gaps it just confirmed them. And albeit luxery or convenience, it al seems very logical to me, to such an extend that I would consider denying it ill-willed.

 

[root]

Really? What's the difrence then? space time, means that time si a dimension. I really cannot understand how someone could believe in time as a part of the 4D fabric of space-time but then again not believe in time as a dimension. In order to accept spacetime one needs to see time as a dimension. So you really can't have one without the other.

Can you have motion without time?

Point is and it is getting tiring;

You, nor anyone can currently prove (and by this I mean a majority scientific consensus) that time even exists in the first place.

Well the thing is, science didn't prove Islam wrong in the past. In fact it never unfilled those gaps it just confirmed them. And albeit luxery or convenience, it al seems very logical to me, to such an extend that I would consider denying it ill-willed.

Science does not "prove" anything. Further, Islamic scripture is not supported by scientific data. Let's face it Steve. Look at how "islamic Knowledge is gained.

Firstly, A scientific discovery is made. Then every word in the koran and the thousands of hadiths are systematically searched and scrutinized for any relavence to the discovery, depending on the interpretation that is found Islam then announces another "miracle" or that science has just confirmed scripture. This works for the bible too and even Nostra Damus.........

 

[Sabi]

Salaam Steve,

I really do not see why the existence of "objective" time should be important. All "time" is relative, even the Quran talks about this (A day in Allah's reckoning is a 1000 or even 50000 years by our reckoning).

What has any of this to do with the existence or non-existence of space?