Why must a beginning have a cause?4gold wrote:A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.
First cause.
Moderator: Moderators
-
Furrowed Brow
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3720
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
- Location: Here
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
First cause.
Post #1
Post #41
Hi Beto. It should help you to know that time is subjective -- you know, moving clocks 'tick' more slowly than stationary ones (of course 'stationary' is also subjective in this description). Seeing the dimension of time as being both plastic and interchangeable with the spatial dimensions ought to make it easier to see it drift in and out of existence. Well, it works for me 
-
Beto
Post #42
QED wrote:Hi Beto. It should help you to know that time is subjective -- you know, moving clocks 'tick' more slowly than stationary ones (of course 'stationary' is also subjective in this description). Seeing the dimension of time as being both plastic and interchangeable with the spatial dimensions ought to make it easier to see it drift in and out of existence. Well, it works for me
Yeah, that's what olivergringold told me as well. But regardless of how "time" is subjective, it's only subjective after space-time began, correct? It still baffles me as to how "time" began ticking BEFORE space-time initiated, or spacial expansion began. Am I interpreting that well? A quantum of time elapsed BEFORE the beginning of space-time. I really find this a sweet mental exercise.
Post #43
It is only subjective because we humans invented a concept in order to distinguish between 'nows'. I get the impression that the dog sitting at my feet does not think about how long it is since it last went for a walk. Or that it is twelve months since its last inoculation for parvovirus and should have another.Beto wrote:QED wrote:Hi Beto. It should help you to know that time is subjective -- you know, moving clocks 'tick' more slowly than stationary ones (of course 'stationary' is also subjective in this description). Seeing the dimension of time as being both plastic and interchangeable with the spatial dimensions ought to make it easier to see it drift in and out of existence. Well, it works for me
Yeah, that's what olivergringold told me as well. But regardless of how "time" is subjective, it's only subjective after space-time began, correct?
Existence is. Existence exists. How we humans measure the length of that existence is purely human - the universe does not care.
What we observe as 'space-time' is a blip in the infinity of existence.Beto wrote: It still baffles me as to how "time" began ticking BEFORE space-time initiated, or spacial expansion began. Am I interpreting that well? A quantum of time elapsed BEFORE the beginning of space-time. I really find this a sweet mental exercise.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #44
Here is the basic measure of time:
"Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again."
