On 25 Aug, 17:05, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ha! But if energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what will make
> energy end? Could you tell me how you know about the start and end of
> time? You are not actually Pat aka Methusela are you? :-)
>
Once it was discovered that space and time were intrinsically bound
to one another into a continuum, that defined the end points. As to
what can make energy appear to disappear, well, that can be done in a
number of ways. Although, I tend to think that it is purely down to
the actual shape of the object itself. Geometry is extremely
powerful. If all the energy was, at one point, potential, it would
appear as potential energy does now, i.e., you can't detect it by
looking. If all energy was in a state where it was potential, the
only thing it COULD do would be to act in such a way as to achieve
that potential. THAT is the impetus for 'Creation ex nihilo'. There
is only one thing that "potential energy with the potential to do all
that is possible for energy to do" can do, and that is to actually DO
all that is possible for energy to do. And part of that exploration
is what we see as our universe.
And, no, I'm not 'Pat aka Methusela'. Nor am I Patrick Harrington the
BNP activist. ;-)
> On Aug 25, 9:59 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Aug, 13:09, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't fully understand. Did time have a beginning point, and will it
> > > have an end point? If eternity exists, it cannot have a start or end
> > > point can it? Does space somehow cease to exist?
>
> > Time and space began together. There was nothing before it and
> > there will be nothing after it. Time needn't be eternal, there only
> > needs to be enough. And there is enough, so don't worry!! ;-)
>
> > > On Aug 25, 6:38 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Aug, 16:36, showmethehoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Pat, how can continuum have ends points defined?
>
> > > > How can it not? A continuum is defined by its ends. For example, a
> > > > line (a 1-dimensional entity) can be viewed as a continuum of points
> > > > (zero-dimensional entities) from the beginning of the line to its
> > > > end. Along the line, there are no missing points, i.e., the line is
> > > > continuous. So, too, our space-time continuum is continuous from
> > > > beginning to end with no missing points. The philosophical
> > > > implications of us living in a space-time continuum are enormous, as
> > > > it means that our conventional view of a future open to possibilities
> > > > is simply not realistic/accurate. Einstein knew this, but only
> > > > mentioned it rarely. To believe that the future is mutable is the
> > > > modern-day equivalent of still believing the Earth is flat. We have
> > > > to come to a new understanding of the universe and humanity's role in
> > > > it and that will not happen until we've removed the comforting
> > > > blindfolds we 'prefer'.
>
> > > > > On Aug 24, 8:22 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 24 Aug, 12:51, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. You have a philosophy that, in
> > > > > > > > philosophy, absolute truths are impossible. How do you get
> > > > > > > > past the
> > > > > > > > dichotomy of having such a contradictory absoloute truth in your
> > > > > > > > philosophy? Alternatively, if you back off from the statement
> > > > > > > > and say
> > > > > > > > that your statement above is only a relative truth, it, then,
> > > > > > > > logically allows for absolute truths to exist and {that they
> > > > > > > > could} be
> > > > > > > > duly ignored by you. Tricky stuff, Ian. Personally, I don't
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > you've stated your whole case, here.
>
> > > > > > > Heh I think Pat that if you do not belive in a creator God then
> > > > > > > Ian's
> > > > > > > strance is going to be the best you will get.
>
> > > > > > > Many of Ian's ilke may well (and justified too I believe) accuse
> > > > > > > people like you and I of being philosophicly lazy, that we
> > > > > > > practice a
> > > > > > > kind of philosphy of the gaps, that we do not like to work out the
> > > > > > > hard question of the absolute and so we call it God and have done
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > it. I don't think it is an acusation that we can easily defend
> > > > > > > against, do you?
>
> > > > > > I think I've been fairly diligent in my attempts to discover the
> > > > > > truth about the One (not that I'm finished, yet!!). In order to
> > > > > > defend against the rallying cry of those who offer no comprehensive
> > > > > > alternative, one must proceed from the point of ontology. Once
> > > > > > we've
> > > > > > determined what it is that exists, THEN we can look at what it can
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > and how it does it. The answer to all the 'why' questions to which
> > > > > > atheists would have you believe there are no reasonable answers,
> > > > > > leaves them only a pool of 'unreasonable answers' from which to
> > > > > > choose
> > > > > > and futher blocks progress.
> > > > > > One of the main arguments against God is that atheists see no
> > > > > > evidence that the universe is teleological, i.e., that it is heading
> > > > > > in a particular direction with goals at the end. They overlook the
> > > > > > FACT that we exist in a space-time continuum. The continuum
> > > > > > contains
> > > > > > ALL the past, present and future; that is, the ends are already
> > > > > > defined (as is all the middle). If the ends are already defined,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > the universe is, most definitely teleological, and the stumbling
> > > > > > block
> > > > > > (of no teleology) crumbles into dust before the weight of one stone
> > > > > > (Einstein).
> > > > > > My main point was that it should be obvious that some absolute
> > > > > > truths exist. Some of these may not be particularly useful until
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > extends them. Einstein looked for truth and found special (and
> > > > > > general) relativity. Absolute truths are, usually, things like
> > > > > > physical constants. But it is how those truths work together and
> > > > > > allow for the relativity in between that muddies the water and makes
> > > > > > the absolutes seem less important or obscure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
