God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Bust Nak]

The same way as I know that the mind does not physically exist... Point being - all known conceptual properties of the mind are known to exist only in the mind, and are not physically real and can only be represented physically as "unreal but existing anyway" or some such other appropriate entitlement...

That isn't really answering my question, how could you know time is only a concept if you don't know what it is fundamentally?

It may indeed be the case that Physicists are not being careful with their heading and wording. "Doomed" does imply the certainty of death...I am only relaying the basic information. I do my own digging and for now, accept the verdict being pronounced upon spacetime by physicists themselves. If you have contrary information, I am keen to view it.

Well the verdict as it stands now, as it is currently being pronounced, is that time, as part of spacetime, had a beginning but no end.

Someone already has. Please watch the video I posted earlier on in this thread...the one with the visuals of a flyover of the Mandelbrot Set.

It's very pretty, not sure how it shows the apparent beginning of our universe has to be seen as points within infinity.

And "something else" is "all things".

What? All things are derived from all things?

Without energy, what is left to construct and maintain shapeform from the field of quantum particles?

Don't know. You are still not getting to the point. How does heat death imply time stops?

"it took a false premise for energy to turn into matter" as energy does not turn into matter. Energy holds the shape of matter. Matter already existed.

Existed? Not immediately after the Big Bang. Where did matter come from if not from energy?

Do you think that "Time" = "Energy"? Or do you think are separate entities, doing their own separate thing?

No, energy moves through time.

"We" also say that time will keep going on forever...yet the past is fading into black...in order for time to last forever, energy has to also exist forever.

Energy cannot have simply farted itself into existence. Therefore logic informs us that it is likely that energy has existed forever...has always existed. Has never - not existed.

That's fine, but what does existed forever, always existed even mean when time itself had a beginning?

That depends entirely on the plain of the Quantum field.
For example, if the field is spherical, the energy moving over it and stirring it up into objects of matter, may be no more than a blip on the plain of the Quantum field. Once the energy moves on, the effect on that region diminishes until - once more - the deep silence returns.

Don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think energy counts as an object or not?

I am fine with that idea as long as it is agreed there is only - fundamentally - the one Source. The apparent differences are not denoting "many sources".

For what it's worth, I agree that something has always existed.

[William]

Bust Nak: So why are you so confident in declaring that time does not physically exist in the universe?

William: For the same reasons as numbers do not physically exist. They don't physically exist.

Bust Nak: But how could you know that, when you don't know what time is fundamentally?

William: The same way as I know that the mind does not physically exist... Point being - all known conceptual properties of the mind are known to exist only in the mind, and are not physically real and can only be represented physically as "unreal but existing anyway" or some such other appropriate entitlement...

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #661]

Bust Nak: That isn't really answering my question, how could you know time is only a concept if you don't know what it is fundamentally?

It does answer the question.
If we do not know what something fundamentally is, but still refer to it as existing, it is conceptual in nature and of the mind.
Things of the mind are fundamentally unknown. They act as devices which also happen to assist us in understanding the physical universe.

So we use the concept of time, not as a means of understanding what time is [fundamentally] but how it relates to the physical universe.

It may indeed be the case that Physicists are not being careful with their heading and wording. "Doomed" does imply the certainty of death...I am only relaying the basic information. I do my own digging and for now, accept the verdict being pronounced upon spacetime by physicists themselves. If you have contrary information, I am keen to view it.

Well the verdict as it stands now, as it is currently being pronounced, is that time, as part of spacetime, had a beginning but no end.

How is that contrary information?

Please watch the video I posted earlier on in this thread...the one with the visuals of a flyover of the Mandelbrot Set.

It's very pretty, not sure how it shows the apparent beginning of our universe has to be seen as points within infinity.

Fortunately it is not been argued that such has to be. It is a great visual example of how such might well be.
The points within infinity branch off in their own infinity but are not independent of the whole of infinity, because they branch back to another point from which they derived.

Thus, 'beginnings but not ends" as per "the verdict as it stands now" - pretty as ever...

And "something else" is "all things".
What? All things are derived from all things?

More like all things derive from the one thing which is all things.

If you were that one thing which is all things, what thing would exist outside of/apart from you?

Without energy, what is left to construct and maintain shapeform from the field of quantum particles?

Don't know.

So Energy can also be placed in the fundamentally unknown basket.

You are still not getting to the point. How does heat death imply time stops?

Because ultimately, what it is describing is a return to the previous undisturbed state where the Quantum Field is inert and unaffected because the Energy [whatever it was] has [perhaps] moved on, or alternatively [perhaps] dissipated.

Spacetime, relative to us within it now, and that thing we call "The Universe/Reality": - re the heat-death theory - if the fundamental property of "Energy" is infinite, then "Time" derives from Energy, through causing the QF to react and shape objects in that local space being influenced by said Energy...that reaction is "Time" to those within its influence

In this sense, Time is fundamentally Energy, even that fundamentally we do not know what Energy is. We only know that it is responsible for why our universe exists.

"it took a false premise for energy to turn into matter" as energy does not turn into matter. Energy holds the shape of matter. Matter already existed.

Existed? Not immediately after the Big Bang. Where did matter come from if not from energy?

The QF is the matter. Shape came from Energy interacting with QF. The QF didn't 'come from' anywhere. It has always existed.

The real question to ask is where did the Energy 'come from' and the logical answer may have to be that Energy has also always existed, and did not 'come from' anywhere.

Do you think that "Time" = "Energy"? Or do you think they are separate entities, doing their own separate thing?

No,

You do not think "Time" = "Energy"? You do not think they are separate entities, doing their own separate thing?

energy moves through time.

This implies two separate entities. I think of the process as Energy moving over the QF and the interaction of the influencing Energy disturbs the QF sufficiently to create form, and that reaction is called "Time" by those observing it.

In that sense, Energy is not moving through Time but creating Time by moving through [or over or however it moves in relation to] the QF.

Energy cannot have simply farted itself into existence. Therefore logic informs us that it is likely that energy has existed forever...has always existed. Has never - not existed.

That's fine, but what does existed forever, always existed even mean when time itself had a beginning?

You are conflating our perceptions within Time, with the goings on of Energy. Time begins in relation to those within the effect the Energy caused. The effect is known as "Time", by us experiencing said effect.

Time is the effect Energy has upon the QT. Both QT and Energy are eternal, whereas time is not, re the interaction. It only lasts for as long as Energy is interacting with QT.

The 'problem' is the idea of a beginning. Rodger Penrose [Sir] sought to solve that by introducing the idea of a spacetimeless moment whereby size didn't exist, therein the Singularity.

This meant that the new singularity [beginning point] - although apparently deriving from an almost impossibly small size - was able to create from that, an almost impossibly large object [spacetime]

William: Is energy separate from matter, or just another manifestation of matter?

Bust Nak:: That's just semantics, if energy counts as object, then your earlier question become invalid, the premise that the was a time when there were no objects, would be false.

William: That depends entirely on the plain of the Quantum field.
For example, if the field is spherical, the energy moving over it and stirring it up into objects of matter, may be no more than a blip on the plain of the Quantum field. Once the energy moves on, the effect on that region diminishes until - once more - the deep silence returns.

Don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think energy counts as an object or not?

We don't know, because we don't have access to that information. Energy could well be an object because it behaves as we observe objects behaving.
However, even if we could zoom out to a perspective where we could view the process from outside of the process, we may still only see the effect of Energy upon the QF, and no visible object at all - we might see the wake, but not the ship making the wake.

Bust Nak:: Why would they have to be fundamentally different though, for some infinities to have a beginning and some not to? Why can't infinites with beginnings and those without be part of an overall infinity?

I am fine with that idea as long as it is agreed there is only - fundamentally - the one Source. The apparent differences are not denoting "many sources".

For what it's worth, I agree that something has always existed.

It is worth a great deal as it is not everyday [hereabouts] folk get on the same page about something.

I think that both QT and Energy have always existed, and are two major aspects/entities of one overall system, which has always existed.

[Bust Nak]

It does answer the question.
If we do not know what something fundamentally is, but still refer to it as existing, it is conceptual in nature and of the mind.
Things of the mind are fundamentally unknown. They act as devices which also happen to assist us in understanding the physical universe.

So we use the concept of time, not as a means of understanding what time is [fundamentally] but how it relates to the physical universe.

So time itself, as opposed to our concept of time, can physically exist?

How is that contrary information?

You said time cannot tick on forever.

Fortunately it is not been argued that such has to be. It is a great visual example of how such might well be...

That's not what you said before, earlier you said "explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity."

If you were that one thing which is all things, what thing would exist outside of/apart from you?

Don't know. Why group all things into one thing?

So Energy can also be placed in the fundamentally unknown basket.

Why?

Because ultimately, what it is describing is a return to the previous undisturbed state where the Quantum Field is inert and unaffected because the Energy [whatever it was] has [perhaps] moved on, or alternatively [perhaps] dissipated.

Moved on the what? Dissipated into what?

Spacetime, relative to us within it now, and that thing we call "The Universe/Reality": - re the heat-death theory - if the fundamental property of "Energy" is infinite, then "Time" derives from Energy, through causing the QF to react and shape objects in that local space being influenced by said Energy...that reaction is "Time" to those within its influence

In this sense, Time is fundamentally Energy, even that fundamentally we do not know what Energy is. We only know that it is responsible for why our universe exists.

We know energy cannot be destroyed.

The QF is the matter. Shape came from Energy interacting with QF...

Why this and not energy interact with QF which formed matter?

This implies two separate entities. I think of the process as Energy moving over the QF and the interaction of the influencing Energy disturbs the QF sufficiently to create form, and that reaction is called "Time" by those observing it.

In that sense, Energy is not moving through Time but creating Time by moving through [or over or however it moves in relation to] the QF.

So when would energy stop moving through [or over or however it moves in relation to] the QF?

You are conflating our perceptions within Time, with the goings on of Energy. Time begins in relation to those within the effect the Energy caused. The effect is known as "Time", by us experiencing said effect.

So time had a beginning, thank you.

Time is the effect Energy has upon the QT. Both QT and Energy are eternal, whereas time is not, re the interaction. It only lasts for as long as Energy is interacting with QT.

Ah huh. So when would that stop?

We don't know, because we don't have access to that information.

It's just a matter of semantic, what do you personally classify energy into the category of objects?

Energy could well be an object because it behaves as we observe objects behaving.
However, even if we could zoom out to a perspective where we could view the process from outside of the process, we may still only see the effect of Energy upon the QF, and no visible object at all - we might see the wake, but not the ship making the wake.

Which of these perspective do you prefer?

[William]

If we do not know what something fundamentally is, but still refer to it as existing, it is conceptual in nature and of the mind.
Things of the mind are fundamentally unknown. They act as devices which also happen to assist us in understanding the physical universe.

So we use the concept of time, not as a means of understanding what time is [fundamentally] but how it relates to the physical universe.

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #663]

So time itself, as opposed to our concept of time, can physically exist?

How can time physically exist?

Does the mind physically exist? Is consciousness a physical thing that you can hold in your hand?
Is time something you can pick up off the floor and place on the table?

You said time cannot tick on forever.

I said that time is a pointless concept in relation to forever.
What is doing the 'ticking'?

That's not what you said before, earlier you said "explanation of apparent beginnings [such as with our universe] therefore has to be seen as points within infinity."

I use the expression in relation to there being no other logical explanation given.
If you have a better explanation, I am open to hearing it.

If you were that one thing which is all things, what thing would exist outside of/apart from you?

Don't know. Why group all things into one thing?

Why separate all things? The universe is One Thing. [That's the 'uni' part of the word.]

So Energy can also be placed in the fundamentally unknown basket.

Why?

Because we actually don't know what it is.

Because ultimately, what it is describing is a return to the previous undisturbed state where the Quantum Field is inert and unaffected because the Energy [whatever it was] has [perhaps] moved on, or alternatively [perhaps] dissipated.

Moved on the what?

Some other part of the QF

Dissipated into what?

Perhaps. Point being, we don't know.

In this sense, Time is fundamentally Energy, even that fundamentally we do not know what Energy is. We only know that it is responsible for why our universe exists.

We know energy cannot be destroyed.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another.

The First Law assumes this to be the case. The assumption is relative to our position in the universe now. Things look that way to us.
When we say energy cannot be created or destroyed, we mean by us. We cannot create or destroy energy. We do not even know what energy is. We see it interacting with the QF and interpret that as 'energy being form' when what may be happening is that energy is creating form through the interaction of it, with the QF.
We identify an action/a reaction but this in itself only identifies the existence of energy - not its fundamental nature.
In doing so, we conflate the effect as being the cause.

Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

Therefore, energy must have to be something other than [but not separate from] the QF.

The QF is the matter. Shape came from Energy interacting with QF...

Why this and not energy interact with QF which formed matter?

Because the QF is matter. It is physical. Without the energy, it is formless matter.
Inert. [lacking the ability or strength to move.]

This implies two separate entities. I think of the process as Energy moving over the QF and the interaction of the influencing Energy disturbs the QF sufficiently to create form, and that reaction is called "Time" by those observing it.

In that sense, Energy is not moving through Time but creating Time by moving through [or over or however it moves in relation to] the QF.

So when would energy stop moving through [or over or however it moves in relation to] the QF?

The question cannot be answered because we do not know the fundamental nature of Energy. Until we ever do, the First Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable to now.

Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.

You are conflating our perceptions within Time, with the goings on of Energy. Time begins in relation to those within the effect the Energy caused. The effect is known as "Time", by us experiencing said effect.

So time had a beginning, thank you.

No problem. Time began and continues as a concept of the mind, re what is being observed through the nervous system [brain]. Time did not have a physical beginning, because it is not a physical thing. Time is a mental construct based upon sensory input.

Time is the effect Energy has upon the QT. Both QT and Energy are eternal, whereas time is not, re the interaction. It only lasts for as long as Energy is interacting with QT.

Ah huh. So when would that stop?

That depends upon what relation consciousness/mind has with it.

It is the observer not the observed, which measures the movements of objects and pronounces 'time' as a conceptual thing [of the mind] rather than a real thing [of the physical]. Sometimes folk just conflate non physical things with physical things, which is why you are arguing that time is a physically real thing. Rather, time is a conceptionally real thing.

As such, as long as there is consciousness to observe the effects of the eternal energy upon the eternal physical QF, the process won't stop.
Remove consciousness from the dynamic, and the process of Energy/QF interaction will continue to go on as it has always gone on - eternally.

The only thing which would have 'stopped' is the thing which acknowledges the existence of the Energy and the QF. If that were to happen, then 'time' would cease to be, because time is a concept of mind [consciousness] and neither the QF or the Energy would have any practical use for how their interactions are being understood. They simply are being what they have always been.

[Since we do not know, we needn't assume that consciousness has not always existed as part of that process. It is an interesting notion.]

Do you think energy counts as an object or not?

We don't know, because we don't have access to that information.

It's just a matter of semantic, what do you personally classify energy into the category of objects?

Far as I can ascertain, energy is like a Ghost as in we cannot see it. Unlike a ghost, we know it exists due to its invisible quality creating an effect [QF Ripple] and causing the reality [physical universe] to appear.

Energy is obviously an object of some kind as it is able to effect the QF, and so it must have some type of physical property in order to do that.

What type of object that is though, we cannot say because we do not know.
[It may even be conscious, and able to manufacture what it wants, from the endless QT.]

Energy could well be an object because it behaves as we observe objects behaving.
However, even if we could zoom out to a perspective where we could view the process from outside of the process, we may still only see the effect of Energy upon the QF, and no visible object at all - we might see the wake, but not the ship making the wake.

Which of these perspective do you prefer?

I am not so sure that it matters. I like the mystery of a formless thing creating form-things and wonder if knowing what the Ship creating the Wake 'looks' like, would make the slightest bit of difference re the Wake [reality caused].

[Bust Nak]

How can time physically exist?

By being a part of physical reality.

Does the mind physically exist? Is consciousness a physical thing that you can hold in your hand?

No.

Is time something you can pick up off the floor and place on the table?

Maybe.

I said that time is a pointless concept in relation to forever.
What is doing the 'ticking'?

Time.

I use the expression in relation to there being no other logical explanation given.
If you have a better explanation, I am open to hearing it.

The standard explanation re: time begun at the Big Bang and will tick on forever is a better one.

Why separate all things? The universe is One Thing. [That's the 'uni' part of the word.]

If you do that you would be stuck with conclusions such as the universe caused itself. We separate things to avoid absurdities.

Because we actually don't know what it is.

So, not because I don't know what other than energy can construct and maintain shapeform from the field of quantum particles?

Some other part of the QF

So still interacting with it then.

Perhaps. Point being, we don't know.

And yet that doesn't stop you making grandiose claims about time itself ending.

The First Law assumes this to be the case. The assumption is relative to our position in the universe now. Things look that way to us.
When we say energy cannot be created or destroyed, we mean by us...

No, that's not we mean. We mean it is physically impossible, it literally cannot happen.

Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

That didn't stop you from stating "all things derive from the one thing which is all things."

Therefore, energy must have to be something other than [but not separate from] the QF.

Why? Is the "must" here an actual must or just that it seems like the best explanation to you?

Because the QF is matter. It is physical. Without the energy, it is formless matter.
Inert. [lacking the ability or strength to move.]

Why this and without energy and QF, there is no matter?

The question cannot be answered because we do not know the fundamental nature of Energy. Until we ever do, the First Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable to now.

Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.

We do not know, and yet that didn't stop you from stating that time would not tick on forever.

No problem. Time began and continues as a concept of the mind, re what is being observed through the nervous system [brain]. Time did not have a physical beginning, because it is not a physical thing. Time is a mental construct based upon sensory input.

That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?

That depends upon what relation consciousness/mind has with it.

Lets try none, no relation what so ever.

Sometimes folk just conflate non physical things with physical things, which is why you are arguing that time is a physically real thing. Rather, time is a conceptionally real thing.

Are you sure you are not the one conflate non physical concept of time with physical time? Is that why you are arguing that time is a conceptual thing?

As such, as long as there is consciousness to observe the effects of the eternal energy upon the eternal physical QF, the process won't stop.
Remove consciousness from the dynamic, and the process of Energy/QF interaction will continue to go on as it has always gone on - eternally.

The only thing which would have 'stopped' is the thing which acknowledges the existence of the Energy and the QF. If that were to happen, then 'time' would cease to be, because time is a concept of mind [consciousness] and neither the QF or the Energy would have any practical use for how their interactions are being understood. They simply are being what they have always been.

Alternatively time has nothing to do with consciousness, and hence the presence of lack there of, has zero bearing on the process of Energy/QF interaction which will continue to go on as it has always gone on - eternally, in other words, time would tick on forever.

Far as I can ascertain, energy is like a Ghost as in we cannot see it. Unlike a ghost, we know it exists due to its invisible quality creating an effect [QF Ripple] and causing the reality [physical universe] to appear.

Energy is obviously an object of some kind as it is able to effect the QF, and so it must have some type of physical property in order to do that.

Then why on Earth did you suggest that all objects would eventually disappear? Your thesis is ill thought out and inconsistent.

I am not so sure that it matters. I like the mystery of a formless thing creating form-things and wonder if knowing what the Ship creating the Wake 'looks' like, would make the slightest bit of difference re the Wake [reality caused].

It matters because you asked me a question and the answer depends on which perspective you are talking about. Or perhaps you were just wondering out loud, and never expected an answer to your question?

[William]

How can time physically exist?

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #665]

By being a part of physical reality.

Can you show us that it is?

Does the mind physically exist?

No.

Is consciousness a physical thing that you can hold in your hand?

No.

Is time something you can pick up off the floor and place on the table?

Maybe.

What makes you think that?

I said that time is a pointless concept in relation to forever.
What is doing the 'ticking'?

Time.

Then show us this thing you call time which is ticking.

I use the expression in relation to there being no other logical explanation given.
If you have a better explanation, I am open to hearing it.

The standard explanation re: time begun at the Big Bang and will tick on forever is a better one.

Then show us this thing you call time which is ticking.

Why separate all things? The universe is One Thing. [That's the 'uni' part of the word.]

If you do that you would be stuck with conclusions such as the universe caused itself. We separate things to avoid absurdities.

What things are you separating from the universe so as not to make the absurd expression that the universe caused itself?

Why separate parts of the universe from that which is the whole of the universe?
How is that not an avoidable absurdity?

Perhaps. Point being, we don't know.

And yet that doesn't stop you making grandiose claims about time itself ending.

I made no such claims. I stated that time is a construct of the mind and does not physically exist.

The First Law assumes this to be the case. The assumption is relative to our position in the universe now. Things look that way to us.
When we say energy cannot be created or destroyed, we mean by us...

No, that's not we mean. We mean it is physically impossible, it literally cannot happen.

Why?

It would depend on which theory proves to be correct. Since no one is likely to be around at that moment, we can say with a lot of confidence, that we may never know the answer.
The assumption that energy will continue to interreact with this area of the QF is just that. Assumption.

Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

That didn't stop you from stating "all things derive from the one thing which is all things."

That is because it is logical. The Universe cannot have come from nothing, so it must have come from something. Just because we do not know what the something is, doesn't change the logic.
As I pointed out, the Mandelbrot Set has made it conceptionally easier to understand that there is nothing absurd in the idea and nothing at fault in the notion of 'turtles' [or elephants or seahorses] all the way in and out. [ Infinite Regression is Possible]
Beginning points, are not significant of being separate from the one thing which is all things. They are distinct parts of what makes up the whole.

Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

Therefore, energy must have to be something other than [but not separate from] the QF.

Why?

Because it is Energy which causes the effect. To say Energy is the same thing as the objects it forms, is to say that Energy was the cause of its own beginning, which you have already identified as an absurd notion, where you wrote:

Bust Nak: If you do that you would be stuck with conclusions such as the universe caused itself.

Because the QF is matter. It is physical. Without the energy, it is formless matter.
Inert. [lacking the ability or strength to move.]

Why this and without energy and QF, there is no matter?

Read what I wrote again. See the bold part is not stating 'there is no matter'.

Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.

We do not know, and yet that didn't stop you from stating that time would not tick on forever.

Nor did it stop you stating that time would "tick on forever". Show us this physical time so that we can evaluate the truth of your statement.

No problem. Time began and continues as a concept of the mind, re what is being observed through the nervous system [brain]. Time did not have a physical beginning, because it is not a physical thing. Time is a mental construct based upon sensory input.

That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?

Show us this physical time so that we can answer your question.

That depends upon what relation consciousness/mind has with it.

Lets try none, no relation what so ever.

Okay. What do you propose re that?

Sometimes folk just conflate non physical things with physical things, which is why you are arguing that time is a physically real thing. Rather, time is a conceptionally real thing.

Are you sure you are not the one conflate non physical concept of time with physical time?

Yes. It is there in my statements. Time is not a physically real thing. Time is a conceptionally real thing. No conflation there.
I am arguing that time is a conceptual thing, because I have been shown no evidence to the contrary. If you can show me evidence that time is a physical thing, I will be more than happy to drop the notion that time is a conceptual thing.

Alternatively time has nothing to do with consciousness, and hence the presence of lack there of, has zero bearing on the process of Energy/QF interaction which will continue to go on as it has always gone on - eternally, in other words, time would tick on forever.

If consciousness is not there to conceptionally observe time 'tick on forever' how would anyone know? At what point would either Energy or the QF require such knowledge? The belief that 'time will tick on forever' derives from human concepts which are purely of the mind and do not exist as objects in the physical.

Far as I can ascertain, energy is like a Ghost as in we cannot see it. Unlike a ghost, we know it exists due to its invisible quality creating an effect [QF Ripple] and causing the reality [physical universe] to appear.

Energy is obviously an object of some kind as it is able to effect the QF, and so it must have some type of physical property in order to do that.

Then why on Earth did you suggest that all objects would eventually disappear?

I made it clear enough that the objects being referred to were shapeform [Galaxies] brought into physical reality by the Energy interacting with an area of the QF.
I never suggested that Energy of the QF would cease to exist. I suggested that the shapeforms in this area would cease to exist IF the QF were a vast sphere and Energy was temporarily interacting with said area as it moved in relation with the QF.

Energy could well be an object because it behaves as we observe objects behaving.
However, even if we could zoom out to a perspective where we could view the process from outside of the process, we may still only see the effect of Energy upon the QF, and no visible object at all - we might see the wake, but not the ship making the wake.

Which of these perspective do you prefer?

I am not so sure that it matters. I like the mystery of a formless thing creating form-things and wonder if knowing what the Ship creating the Wake 'looks' like, would make the slightest bit of difference re the Wake [reality caused].

It matters because you asked me a question and the answer depends on which perspective you are talking about.

Why should the perspective I am talking about matter in relation to the perspective you are answering from?
You are the one stating that time is physical. If it is, you should be able to point to it and say "that's what I'm talking about!"

[Bust Nak]

Can you show us that it is?

I can show you a clock?

What makes you think that?

Because you said we don't know what time is fundamentally.

Then show us this thing you call time which is ticking.

See clock.

What things are you separating from the universe so as not to make the absurd expression that the universe caused itself?

The cause of the universe, for example is separated from the universe.

Why separate parts of the universe from that which is the whole of the universe?

It's not the whole of the universe, that's the point.

I made no such claims.

This is what you said: "Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless."

Why?

Because we did experiments to confirm it over and over again.

It would depend on which theory proves to be correct.

Yes, that's why scientists do experiments.

That is because it is logical. The Universe cannot have come from nothing, so it must have come from something.

That much is fine, but logically it cannot have came from itself, deriving from itself is the illogical part.

As I pointed out, the Mandelbrot Set has made it conceptionally easier to understand that there is nothing absurd in the idea and nothing at fault in the notion of 'turtles' [or elephants or seahorses] all the way in and out. [ Infinite Regression is Possible]
Beginning points, are not significant of being separate from the one thing which is all things. They are distinct parts of what makes up the whole.

So what? That doesn't mean you can say things like time didn't have a beginning or that it won't tick on forever.

Because it is Energy which causes the effect. To say Energy is the same thing as the objects it forms, is to say that Energy was the cause of its own beginning...

Why are they equivalent?

Read what I wrote again. See the bold part is not stating 'there is no matter'.

I know, I was asking you why you believe that when there was no matter near the beginning of the universe works better as an explanation.

Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.

We do not know, and yet that didn't stop you from stating that time would not tick on forever.

Nor did it stop you stating that time would "tick on forever". Show us this physical time so that we can evaluate the truth of your statement.[/quote]
I have something better, see red shift.

Show us this physical time so that we can answer your question.

So you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first?

Okay. What do you propose re that?

Just the standard scientific consensus, as it stands right now: time had a beginning, and will tick on forever.

Yes. It is there in my statements. Time is not a physically real thing. Time is a conceptionally real thing. No conflation there.
I am arguing that time is a conceptual thing, because I have been shown no evidence to the contrary. If you can show me evidence that time is a physical thing, I will be more than happy to drop the notion that time is a conceptual thing.

Again, see clock.

If consciousness is not there to conceptionally observe time 'tick on forever' how would anyone know?

Presumably no one would know. Why do you think that has any relevance as to whether it is still ticking or not?

At what point would either Energy or the QF require such knowledge?

Presumably at no point, what does your question even mean, energy requiring knowledge?

I made it clear enough that the objects being referred to were shapeform [Galaxies] brought into physical reality by the Energy interacting with an area of the QF.
I never suggested that Energy of the QF would cease to exist. I suggested that the shapeforms in this area would cease to exist IF the QF were a vast sphere and Energy was temporarily interacting with said area as it moved in relation with the QF.

Then why did you say time would stop, if you are only talking about galaxies?

Why should the perspective I am talking about matter in relation to the perspective you are answering from?

Because I want to answer the question you are asking, and not the one you are not asking.

You are the one stating that time is physical. If it is, you should be able to point to it and say "that's what I'm talking about!"

I point to a clock, that's what I am talking about.

[William]

William: How can time physically exist?

Bust Nak: By being a part of physical reality.

William: Can you show us that it is?

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #667]

I can show you a clock?

Okay. You show me a clock and declare that time is part of physical reality.

Is time something you can pick up off the floor and place on the table?

Maybe.

What makes you think that?

Because you said we don't know what time is fundamentally.

So you see that as a challenge - that 'maybe' you can show us that we do know what time is, fundamentally?

I said that time is a pointless concept in relation to forever.
What is doing the 'ticking'?

Time.

Then show us this thing you call time which is ticking.

See clock.

So you have seen a clock on the floor, and placed it on the table and thus declare "Clock is ticking, therefore we have evidence that time is known at its fundamental level!"?

What things are you separating from the universe so as not to make the absurd expression that the universe caused itself?

The cause of the universe, for example is separated from the universe.

Is this supposed separation - fundamentally separate - or simply appearing to be separate?
Is the wake separate from the sea? Is the ship separate from the wake?
Is the land separate from the sea?

Why separate parts of the universe from that which is the whole of the universe?

It's not the whole of the universe, that's the point.

Speaking of pointing - are your fingers separate from your hand?

And yet that doesn't stop you making grandiose claims about time itself ending.

I made no such claims. I stated that time is a construct of the mind and does not physically exist.

This is what you said: "Time cannot 'tick on forever' because forever is timeless."

I said way more than just that. I even went to some lengths to clarify what I meant by "Forever is timeless."

As I pointed out, the Mandelbrot Set has made it conceptionally easier to understand that there is nothing absurd in the idea and nothing at fault in the notion of 'turtles' [or elephants or seahorses] all the way in and out. [ Infinite Regression is Possible]
Beginning points, are not significant of being separate from the one thing which is all things. They are distinct parts of what makes up the whole.

So what?

Therefore, we have visual representation of infinity. Time is simply a set of begin/end points within the infinite set which folk use to count moments by.

That doesn't mean you can say things like time didn't have a beginning or that it won't tick on forever.

Of course I can say those things. I have even pointed out why I can logically say those things.

Since we are informed that the universe had a beginning, the universe is the effect. Something which has a beginning cannot be the cause of its own effect.

Therefore, energy must have to be something other than [but not separate from] the QF.
Why?
Because it is Energy which causes the effect. To say Energy is the same thing as the objects it forms, is to say that Energy was the cause of its own beginning, which you have already identified as an absurd notion,

Why are they equivalent?

[equivalent - a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.]

Your question is one of fundamentals. We do not know the fundamentals of the QF or of Energy.

Read what I wrote again. See the bold part is not stating 'there is no matter'.

I was asking you why you believe that when there was no matter near the beginning of the universe works better as an explanation.

To say that there was no matter before the beginning of the universe, means one has to explain where matter came from.
If you can explain that, then we can examine why it works better as an explanation, than the explanation which says that matter has always existed.

Another thing we do not know, is the fundamental nature of the QF. For all we know, it may be a vast sphere, and our universe, simply a tiny blip of light on its overall surface caused by whatever the energy is, passing by and interacting with the QF in that particular area of QF.

We do not know, and yet that didn't stop you from stating that time would not tick on forever.

Nor did it stop you stating that time would "tick on forever". Show us this physical time so that we can evaluate the truth of your statement.

I have something better, see red shift.

How is that better?
Doe redshift tick? Is redshift the fundamental of time?

Time began and continues as a concept of the mind, re what is being observed through the nervous system [brain]. Time did not have a physical beginning, because it is not a physical thing. Time is a mental construct based upon sensory input.

That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?

Show us this physical time so that we can answer your question.

So you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first?

We don't know that your claim that time is physical rather than a concept of the mind, it true. Of course a claim of a physical thing has to be shown first, before we can agree that it is indeed, a physical thing.

That's only our concept of time, what about time itself?

That depends upon what relation consciousness/mind has with it.

Lets try none, no relation what so ever.

Okay. What do you propose re that?

Just the standard scientific consensus, as it stands right now: time had a beginning, and will tick on forever.

How does the "standard scientific consensus" have "no relation what so ever" with consciousness/mind?

Time is not a physically real thing. Time is a conceptionally real thing. No conflation there.
I am arguing that time is a conceptual thing, because I have been shown no evidence to the contrary. If you can show me evidence that time is a physical thing, I will be more than happy to drop the notion that time is a conceptual thing.
Again, see clock.

You are the one stating that time is physical. If it is, you should be able to point to it and say "that's what I'm talking about!"

I point to a clock, that's what I am talking about.

A clock is a physical mechanism which is designed to physically represent time as conceptualized by human consciousness/understanding.
A physical representation of a conceptual idea, is in no way an example of time as a fundamental reality.

It is like someone claiming that the written word "Unicorn" is the same thing as an actual physical Unicorn, when in truth, it is simply a symbolic representation of something which is not able to be shown to exist as anything other than a concept of the mind.

If consciousness is not there to conceptionally observe time 'tick on forever' how would anyone know?

Presumably no one would know. Why do you think that has any relevance as to whether it is still ticking or not?

Because if time cannot be determined through conscious observation, to be ticking or not ticking, how are we to know either way?
And since time is obviously a conscious construct of the mind, if the mind no longer exists, neither does the construct. It becomes meaningless, because consciousness is what gives things meaning.
Mindless processes do not require time, even if they go on forever.

Mindless processes do not require measurements. Time is a mental construct dealing with measurements.

Red shift doesn't make time a fundamental reality, any more than a mechanical clock does.

[Bust Nak]

Okay. You show me a clock and declare that time is part of physical reality.

I would call that showing you time is part of physical reality.

So you see that as a challenge - that 'maybe' you can show us that we do know what time is, fundamentally?

Nah, I pass. We know it's a physical dimension much like space. I will let you decide if that is fundamental enough.

So you have seen a clock on the floor, and placed it on the table and thus declare "Clock is ticking, therefore we have evidence that time is known at its fundamental level!"?

No, I say instead that we have evidence that time is part of physical reality.

Is this supposed separation - fundamentally separate - or simply appearing to be separate?

Are causes and their effect fundamentally separate? Suffice to say they are not the same thing.

Is the wake separate from the sea? Is the ship separate from the wake?
Is the land separate from the sea?

Same applies here, wake is not the same thing as the sea, nor the ship, nor the land, nor are fingers hands.

I said way more than just that. I even went to some lengths to clarify what I meant by "Forever is timeless."

Yes, you did, so are you gonna retract it then?

Therefore, we have visual representation of infinity. Time is simply a set of begin/end points within the infinite set which folk use to count moments by.

Infinity is not hard to visualise, still don't get why you think that would imply time must have an end point and won't tick on forever.

Of course I can say those things. I have even pointed out why I can logically say those things.

Well, there was an attempt, all I saw was an ill thought out thesis bordering on an appeal to ignorance re: we don't know therefore...

[equivalent - a person or thing that is equal to or corresponds with another in value, amount, function, meaning, etc.]

Your question is one of fundamentals. We do not know the fundamentals of the QF or of Energy.

We do not know the fundamentals of QF or Energy therefore to say "energy is the same thing as the objects it forms" is equivalent to saying "energy was the cause of its own beginning?" Looks like a non sequitur to me.

To say that there was no matter before the beginning of the universe, means one has to explain where matter came from.

This is the current explanation, it came from energy, as energy and matter are interchangeable re E=mc².

How is that better?
Doe redshift tick? Is redshift the fundamental of time?

No, it just empirical evidence that time will tick on forever.

We don't know that your claim that time is physical rather than a concept of the mind, it true. Of course a claim of a physical thing has to be shown first, before we can agree that it is indeed, a physical thing.

Well, that's not what I asked you, I asked you to confirmed that you don't know whether physical time will tick on forever or not, without seeing it first.

How does the "standard scientific consensus" have "no relation what so ever" with consciousness/mind?

Well, that's what it says.

A clock is a physical mechanism which is designed to physically represent time as conceptualized by human consciousness/understanding.
A physical representation of a conceptual idea, is in no way an example of time as a fundamental reality.

It's enough to show that time is not a conceptual idea. It's actually ticking. That it also tells how much time has pass according to human understanding is just a bonus.

Because if time cannot be determined through conscious observation, to be ticking or not ticking, how are we to know either way?

So? You don't need to know time is ticking for time to tick on.

And since time is obviously a conscious construct of the mind

Obvious only to you.

Mindless processes do not require time, even if they go on forever.

Which is why we say time will tick on forever.

Mindless processes do not require measurements.

Which is why conscious observation is irrelevant.

Red shift doesn't make time a fundamental reality, any more than a mechanical clock does.

Well, I can agree with that much.

[The Tanager]