It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# This is definitely a paradox or is it?

page: 1
9
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:37 AM
For arguments sake lets refer to 'something' as energy/matter

1. Something exists
2. Something cannot come from nothing
3. Therefore something has always existed
4. Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
5. Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite

If this conclusion that the past in terms of time, the quantity of sequences/orientations of the something that exists, is infinite and eternal. That is to say that the something that exists now (totality of somethingness) and always has existed must have always existed in some form, shape, sequence,way; and observing the something that exists now we are privy to, changes the sequence and way it is, and this is known of as time.

Then the potential paradox (perhaps one of them) is wondering how this moment, this arrangement is possible to exist. Now I believe the logic of those bullets above are quite sound, but this argument I have began with this new paragraph right here is more inquisitive speculation and wonderment.

If we imagine the history of something as the number line: Negative infinity...-1...0...1... Positive infinity

And we imagine ourselves (lets say we pause time) to exists at 0; I am asking if there is an infinite series of events towards the negative, the past, how did we ever get to this sequence. Just as we can never approach a moment of positive infinity, only ever approach, how did we ever escape or leave the eternal past, there are infinite digits to the left, the past, it cannot be arrived at or grasped, no beginning.

So if I can try to summarize what I am trying to get at; If the past is infinite/eternal in duration, meaning hypothetically if we could travel back to observe the previous orientations of the states of something, we would be traveling in time forever, never reaching a beginning, something having always existed, how can this moment we exist in now have ever arrived, if we can never arrive at the most previous moment?

edit on 15-2-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2014 by Kandinsky because: fixed title typo

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:50 AM

ImaFungi
For arguments sake lets refer to 'something' as energy/matter

1. Something exists
2. Something cannot come from nothing
3. Therefore something has always existed
4. Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
5. Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite

There is just energy and it just IS.
Energy is not a thing as such as it is all there is - so it is everything.

The problem arises when the energy appears to split itself and question. It then seems to be two and this cannot be resolved until the two realizes itself as one - the only one. There is nothing and you are it.
There is no second (it is one without a second - non dual).

There is no time, no past or future - just timeless being.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:09 AM

The "big bang" was described by Einstein as "the singularity", and he meant that it was a point where you couldn't see any cause effect relationships before that, because they were obscured. (futurists use "the singularity" in a similar way, its a point you can't see beyond) So the big bang is really the beginning of the universe we can know. Beyond that anything is possible, including a timeless nature of matter.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:07 AM

Do we have to stay within Einsteins' train of thought? Must we be apart of time, or can we be consciousness that experiences time coming to it, through the manifestation of space-fabric? (Think manifested mental images - and response times.)

Does anyone actually share the spot on the time line? Are we all within each others' now?

How about this one: How do things, such as quantum entanglement, happen instantaneously? The only way, if we hold fast to cause and effect, is for this experience of "now" / present to actually be in the past of the future's time line, right?

So, are we apart of time, where things must be done by cause and effect, within the now, or are we separate from time and each others' experience, thus allowing for different reaction speeds to time as it comes towards us.

(Think of the study done on athletes where they say they experience time more slowly right before they do an action. Their thoughts process so quickly that time seems to slow.)

When is now? Where is now?
edit on 2/15/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:54 PM

Youre wrong but thanks for trying.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:56 PM

Bleeeeep

Do we have to stay within Einsteins' train of thought? Must we be apart of time, or can we be consciousness that experiences time coming to it, through the manifestation of space-fabric? (Think manifested mental images - and response times.)

Does anyone actually share the spot on the time line? Are we all within each others' now?

How about this one: How do things, such as quantum entanglement, happen instantaneously? The only way, if we hold fast to cause and effect, is for this experience of "now" / present to actually be in the past of the future's time line, right?

So, are we apart of time, where things must be done by cause and effect, within the now, or are we separate from time and each others' experience, thus allowing for different reaction speeds to time as it comes towards us.

(Think of the study done on athletes where they say they experience time more slowly right before they do an action. Their thoughts process so quickly that time seems to slow.)

When is now? Where is now?
edit on 2/15/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

Did you read the OP at all?

All of what you said is, I dont even know, has nothing to do with anything. You are just making up fantasy ideas and thinking they may be true, but there is really know meaning or possibility of them being true. Like minds in different times and stuff...this has nothing to do with what I am asking.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:58 PM

tridentblue

The "big bang" was described by Einstein as "the singularity", and he meant that it was a point where you couldn't see any cause effect relationships before that, because they were obscured. (futurists use "the singularity" in a similar way, its a point you can't see beyond) So the big bang is really the beginning of the universe we can know. Beyond that anything is possible, including a timeless nature of matter.

But even timeless nature of matter would exist in some form of time, if it existed literally forever, which is part of the paradox. How was it always there? I AM NOT CLAIMING IT WAS CONSCIOUS, but for thought experiment say it was, say it had perfect memory, imagine if you had perfect memory and could remember the moment your brain was created. If matter (this conscious matter to prove my point) had perfect memory, it would have infinite memories of the past, never a point it did not exist. How is this possible?

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 01:50 PM

Something exists
Something cannot come from nothing
Therefore something has always existed
Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite

The logic is very sound, and is the crux of every argument regarding first and final causes. Time is definitely a concept that deserves further refinement. In fact, any concept that can only be answered with infinity or eternality when working within a finite existence deserves more attention.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:44 PM

I was trying to get you to view time removed from Einstein's idea of time.

You are thinking time is eternal and it has no beginning or end. I.e. If God exists, even he has a time frame.

I am thinking the thing we call "time" is a force, trait, or quality of the thing we call "universe" and it has a beginning and an end.

Further, outside of this thing we call "universe" there is no "time". i.e. There exists a place where there is nothing but always, and within that place, this place was made or has the appearance of being.

Edit:
And the stuff I listed is anecdotal evidence to the fantasies of science, not my own. I didn't just imagine Einstein's space-time, quantum entanglement, and consciousness' perception of time being slowed / experienced at different rates, while seemingly moving at nearly the same rate of speed as others' within their own perception of time.

In today's world, time is both a measurement and a quality.

You are viewing time as a measurement, I think -- but that concept of time cannot be used, if you want a real answer. We have to view it as a quality, and further, we have to remove it from space-fabric. It has to be distinguishable. That is what I was doing.
edit on 2/15/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 02:57 PM

What you're saying is completely logical, the problem is you're saying it from an extremely limited point of view - ours.

My reasoning tells me, we simply don't have enough information to make anywhere near an informed pronouncement on a great many things, and certainly not 'everything'.

We just don't know enough, is probably the most honest answer, anyone who tells you differently is either delusional or a liar...or both.

But you're right in what you say; If energy cannot be destroyed, it must be infinite, regardless of the state of what we call the Universe. Even the Universe itself is finite in age we're told, so logic tells us it must absolutely be cyclic in nature...beginning, existing and evolving, and dying...to re-emerge as something else, considering it's energy absolutely has to be something.

But what do we know? (very little apparently!)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 03:02 PM
Well, what about this? Time is relative and every person experiences a different rate at which they travel through time. The faster you move and the less that gravity is currently effecting you speeds time up. Satellites in space have to account for this by recalculating their internal clocks every so often.

Also, since light takes time to travel from point A to point B, as evidenced by the fact that we have clocked its velocity, and your eyes work by interpreting light signals, our brain is working in the past. Light reaches our eyeballs having taken time to travel to our eyes in the first place then take more time to reach our brain. Our brain then takes time to interpret these signals, process them, and respond. Evidence is most noticeable of this is from the fact that we view all stars as looking in the past since it takes hundreds of years for the light from those stars to reach us. We have no idea what (we can make some good guesses though) the state of those stars are now.

With all this said, can we say that time even exists at all? I mean what IS time? When do you consider the past to have actually happened? When you keep breaking down increments of time by backtracking the length of time the energy being moved does its thing, when has the future become, the present, and then the past? Your number line analogy could work for this as well. In my case we are breaking units of time down ever more like adding a zero behind the decimal place. .1 becomes .01 becomes .001, and ever more.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:18 PM

Im sorry I just think you are misunderstanding what I am getting at.

I am saying the totality of stuff that exists. There exists a totality, even if there are 99999999999 universes right now or that times that number to that numbers power, there must be a finite about of stuff. Because anything other then a finite quantity of quanta cannot be possible or make sense, its just... it cant work, I would like to see you carefully and cautiously and slowly try to prove me wrong if you feel I am wrong on that statement.

So, totality of stuff. It changes. That is time.

Stuff. Something. Has always existed.

Even if the stuff didnt change for infinite amount of time, and then decided to start changing, one could use a system of measurement to describe the time working backwards, say a steady beat of a drum, or the atomic second, any consistent rhythmic measurement to measure time (as inches are a consistent measurement to measure distance) starting from the point that the stuff started changing going backwards, you would be doing that sequence of time keeping, infinitely, eternally into the past. I am asking, how is this possible, what does this mean, how is that not paradoxical?

And then I am also asking if time can be traced infinitely into the past, how is the point/moment we are currently in accessible, if it is impossible to reach a moment that is the furthest in the past, there is further and further and further and further and further and further and further, times a million furthers, times a bigillion, forever, forever, more, further, keep going, forever, more, infinity times infinity, eternal eternities, forever.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:48 PM

MysterX

What you're saying is completely logical, the problem is you're saying it from an extremely limited point of view - ours.

My reasoning tells me, we simply don't have enough information to make anywhere near an informed pronouncement on a great many things, and certainly not 'everything'.

We just don't know enough, is probably the most honest answer, anyone who tells you differently is either delusional or a liar...or both.

But you're right in what you say; If energy cannot be destroyed, it must be infinite, regardless of the state of what we call the Universe. Even the Universe itself is finite in age we're told, so logic tells us it must absolutely be cyclic in nature...beginning, existing and evolving, and dying...to re-emerge as something else, considering it's energy absolutely has to be something.

But what do we know? (very little apparently!)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:50 PM

Krazysh0t
Well, what about this? Time is relative and every person experiences a different rate at which they travel through time. The faster you move and the less that gravity is currently effecting you speeds time up. Satellites in space have to account for this by recalculating their internal clocks every so often.

Also, since light takes time to travel from point A to point B, as evidenced by the fact that we have clocked its velocity, and your eyes work by interpreting light signals, our brain is working in the past. Light reaches our eyeballs having taken time to travel to our eyes in the first place then take more time to reach our brain. Our brain then takes time to interpret these signals, process them, and respond. Evidence is most noticeable of this is from the fact that we view all stars as looking in the past since it takes hundreds of years for the light from those stars to reach us. We have no idea what (we can make some good guesses though) the state of those stars are now.

With all this said, can we say that time even exists at all? I mean what IS time? When do you consider the past to have actually happened? When you keep breaking down increments of time by backtracking the length of time the energy being moved does its thing, when has the future become, the present, and then the past? Your number line analogy could work for this as well. In my case we are breaking units of time down ever more like adding a zero behind the decimal place. .1 becomes .01 becomes .001, and ever more.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

I suppose I should have been more clear, my fault. I am not talking about the components of the totality, and their relative times and experiences. I am referring to the totality of stuff, the sum of all components at any given moment.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 04:54 PM

And I am saying that there is no such thing as "any given moment" or rather that one person's moment is never the same as someone else's moment.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 06:13 PM

I understand what you said in the opening post.

Pick one:

-Time is a force manifested as matter moves through space -- it is a medium that is apart of space.(This is Einstein's version. If this is true, then time does not exist unless matter moves. The force that creates motion also creates time. If you do not move, time stops, or ends -- or if you move faster than light, time stands still, or begins to reverse. The paradox ends, however, because you cannot go further back in "space-time" than when space-time was created.)

-Time is the measurement of the motion of matter. (This is old world time and the measurement between two bodies in motion. If this is true, then time did not exist until motion began. Your paradox doesn't work here.)

-Time is force. (This is the combination of the first two - and it is your view. When force was initiated, time was created -- entropy then becomes the death of time and the end of your paradox. You are trying to say matter = energy = force = time and that it has always existed, but you should be saying time is a medium, or a particular expression of energy which was created with the creation of space-fabric.)

-Time, as we experience it, is God willing us to become. (This is my version. If all of God's will was removed from the "universe", the universe would end. Your paradox does not exist in this "universe" as time had a beginning and it will have an end when the universe inevitably becomes whatever it is that God wants. Further, time should not exist to Father as it would to us, because he does not become -- he is. There should be no time dilatation / space-time to him unless he makes it so.)
edit on 2/15/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 06:34 PM

So if I can try to summarize what I am trying to get at; If the past is infinite/eternal in duration, meaning hypothetically if we could travel back to observe the previous orientations of the states of something, we would be traveling in time forever, never reaching a beginning, something having always existed, how can this moment we exist in now have ever arrived, if we can never arrive at the most previous moment?

Paradoxes are only created by the mind. There is NO paradox in reality. You make the mistake in assuming that past exists. Yet by it's very definition, it can never be existential. The past requires two points. One point being the now, and the other point which does not exist. Unless you're the first human being to ever experience yesterday NOW, or tomorrow NOW. Whatever you think of past, is your own mental created nonsense, born from the lasting impressions on your mind and memory. It does not exist beyond perception.

In the reality in which you exist, there is nothing but now. Everything else, is pure mental concepts. There is no possible way of avoiding the paradox of time, because with the exception of now, the other component is just a figment of your imagination. Not even the smartest man on Earth has ever been able to solve the paradox because the half of the equation is a mental projection, not a reality. If you look at it clearly enough, there is only NOW. The rest is created in the mind, and it's only because we can notice the lasting impressions that we created the concept called "time" to explain what we perceive. Time is a perception, not a reality.
edit on 15-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:34 PM

Krazysh0t

And I am saying that there is no such thing as "any given moment" or rather that one person's moment is never the same as someone else's moment.

I shouldnt have to say you are wrong for you to know that you are wrong and you are wrong.

Of course there is any given moment. Time exists! Are your great great great great grandparents alive right now on earth? Could you give birth to your grandmother? Can you eat an apple before it grows? Can you recite Shakespeare before you learn language and to speak? This moment we exist in together right now is a given moment. 300 years ago (you know what years are right?) noone alive right now was on this earth, in that given moment.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 07:39 PM

I will choose my own definition. Stuff exists; Time is the fact that the stuff that exists changes. If you want to call the stuff that exists energy; Time is the transformation of energy.

posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 08:42 PM

If you "untransformed" the stuff back to its original form -- back to what its form was before it had ever transformed -- would you be reversing its transformation, or just creating more transformation?

That is, if time is change, then wouldn't you just be changing it some more, thereby progressing time, not reversing it?

You are demanding that stuff must have always been in motion, and that that motion must be called time, but there is no rule that says it must have always been in motion, nor any rule that says all motion must be considered time.

Further, the conservation of energy does not dictate that our system, with time active, must have always been, or that there could not have been a proto-time, or something that could have been happening all at once, thus being nothing like time at all, etc.

...Even if we didn't have things telling us that time is a quality / force / state of energy, your paradox is still fragile in that it is reliant on assumptions with nothing to show beyond "time is change".

Aren't you really just asking what caused causality? Did cause cause cause? Did an effect cause cause? If so, where did that effect come from?

Then you just go in a circle forever trying to figure out if will caused causation or if cause caused will.

I'll save you a lot of trouble: Consciousness / awareness, will / spirit, light / form... they are the fundamentals. We cannot be without them.

new topics

top topics

9