LifeQuest Community
May 20, 2012, 05:18:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: We have cheese.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: What is time?  (Read 1904 times)
Anxiety
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1306


A hallucination is a fact, not an error.


« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2008, 08:27:03 PM »

If there is no time, and nothing is "created" in essence. There is no beginning of anything so creation is possible, therefore there can be no creator.

Also: what do you mean outside manipulation?
Logged

Paul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


Light dispels the darkness


« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2008, 09:46:32 PM »

example of "outside manipulation"

Quote
wikipedia - Currently, the grapefruit is said to be one of the "Seven Wonders of Barbados."[3] It had developed as a hybrid of the pomelo (Citrus maxima) with the sweet orange (Citrus sinensis), though it is closer to the former. The 1929 Ruby Red patent was associated with real commercial success, which came after the discovery of a red grapefruit growing on a pink variety.

The grapefruit does not exist in this world without the use of "outside manipulation".  As noted, it is a hybrid and would not have come into existence on it's own.  All of the Ruby red grapefruit with it's worldwide distribution can be traced to this one pink grapefruit tree in Texas. Through propagation from humans, it has become a staple in the citrus world.  All Ruby Reds are traced directly to this one tree and the occurence in the world of a "sport" (mutation, or "change') that happened. As most of the red grapefruit have very limited seeds- less than 5 per fruit, the chances of it reproducing itself from only one branch of fruit is miniscule and reasonably would not exist without the interference by humans. 

The science of botany has the greatest amount of "outside manipulation" examples.  The different varieties of plants would not come into existence without the interference of another species.

If there is no time, and nothing is "created" in essence. There is no beginning of anything so creation is possible, therefore there can be no creator.

I believe that you meant "There is no beginning of anything so no creation is possible' - typo?

The dictionary defines creation as -1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering. 

But the act of propagation in plants and cross breeding as noted above would fit into this definition. Therefore, there is a creator. They did not make anything new as you note, all the material is in the universe, but they did "manipulate" material to "create" a new byproduct.

Would not such a scenario be valid for the animal kingdom as it stands today?
Logged
Anxiety
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1306


A hallucination is a fact, not an error.


« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2008, 10:14:12 PM »

Quote
But the act of propagation in plants and cross breeding as noted above would fit into this definition. Therefore, there is a creator. They did not make anything new as you note, all the material is in the universe, but they did "manipulate" material to "create" a new byproduct.

Again, I would continue to assert that's not a creation that's a change.  I mean, it's simple practical semantics we're running to at this point.  You'd be hard pressed to find any example on Earth of "creation".
Logged

Overseer
Devourer
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


View Overseer's Album


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2008, 10:53:03 PM »

But physics tells us that there was a definite beginning, and there will be a definite end.
Logged

"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.  This is a fault.

        Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated.  For these there is hope.
"

--Oscar Wilde
Paul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


Light dispels the darkness


« Reply #49 on: January 14, 2008, 07:45:35 AM »

Semantics aside -let's look at the theorems in existence at this time. This is my personal analysis of the theorems in place with both the good and bad qualtities.

Quote
1. Religious version -
God - (also known as the creator) is the beginning, God then created all the heaven, earth, plant, and animal life.

Downside - A belief in a higher power that cannot be proven by "science"  Open for all kinds of interpretations and misinformation.  Does not coincide with the scientific analysis of the universe. Vague in details.

Plus- Was first conceived Thousands of years ago, by a society that had no "modern" scientific principles, apparatus, or theory and proofs.  A reasonable and deductible solution as an explanation of the world and universe around us.  While the time frame is faulty as later proven with science, it allows science to be an explanation for what is knowable but holds out a belief in the unknown that cannot be proven.  It's vagueness is also a strength for this theorem.

Quote
2. Current scientific version - wikipedia - The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature. That along with evolution explains how plant and animal life exists in the current world.

Plus -  theorems can be reasonably and accurately proven for all aspects. Leaves out a "creator" for all the forms of life and material in space. Has a starting point and an eventual end point that can be mathematically proven.

Minus - wikipedia - The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. There is no definitive beginning - although the Wheeler-DeWitt theorem of a rift between dimensions has a plausable answer to the beginning.  There is no continuim for humans. The infamous "missing link" between mankind and all the other animals cannot be explained.  The theorem denies any outside intervention of a superior being or "creator".



Quote
3. Your theorem. A belief in a timeless, boundless, infinite universe typically rules out a beginning of matter and all things.  No creator is possible in this scenario; it is not possible to create something if it has always existed perpetually.

Plus- Can be proven for mineral and non-living entities very similarly as the current scientific theorem.  Time- which is only a measurement created by mankind - has been substituted by the word change. Instead of the universe expanding, all matter is in place and only changed from a inactive molecule to an active molecule and vice versa.

Minus- Same problems as the current scientific version.  Does not allow for an outside influence in the evolution of mankind. Also needs a "missing link" to have continuity in this area. Is not different from the current scientific version.  Uses semantics of change to relate to time.  Yet in explanation will use time to relate to the channge periods. No beginning, although interesting concept, precludes any provable means as to what format all atter was in when the universe "existed". Therefore, while this theorem is intriguing, without a beginning "phase" then there can be no "proof" that it is anything more than a religious belief. The theorem denies any outside intervention of a superior being or "creator".

All three versions refute the other two. Each is adamant that the others are wrong, and deny any "melding" of the theorems as being ridiculous. All are biased.

Personally, I would buy a melding of all three as being the "closest" to the truth. With a caveat that as events are scientifically proven they move from the religious standpoint into the other theorem. The religous version is still valid as it generates an awareness that we are not as smart as we think we are.




Logged
Overseer
Devourer
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


View Overseer's Album


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2008, 08:23:00 AM »

Does not coincide with the scientific analysis of the universe.
Yes it does.
Logged

"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.  This is a fault.

        Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated.  For these there is hope.
"

--Oscar Wilde
Anxiety
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1306


A hallucination is a fact, not an error.


« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2008, 09:43:22 AM »

Quote
But physics tells us that there was a definite beginning, and there will be a definite end.

Certain theories sure, but even the most widely accepted, the "Big Bang", has an issue with Planck's wall and time and is simply unable to identify a beginning.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 09:48:13 AM by Anxiety » Logged

Paul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071


Light dispels the darkness


« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2008, 09:43:49 PM »

Quote from: Paul on Today at 07:45:35 AM
Does not coincide with the scientific analysis of the universe.
Yes it does.
Ok, I was too vague- and will stand corrected on part of this statement.  Smiley

The base theorem coincides with scientific analysis - but the order of creation does not.  It also does not coincide with evolution totally.  In that facet it does not coincide.  My bad - too short of an answer.  Tongue
Logged
Overseer
Devourer
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 473


View Overseer's Album


WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2008, 09:25:33 AM »


Logged

"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming.  This is a fault.

        Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated.  For these there is hope.
"

--Oscar Wilde
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!