The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[Atla]

Yes, a physical watch will eventually disintegrate too at the singularity but you cannot get rid of the passage of time. Time still passes since otherwise there cannot be any change in the stuff at a point close to singularity.

Well times "passes" but it's circular. In other words, past present and future all exist all at once.

Now, you are not making any sense. We are not talking about simultaneous events. Are we?

And though it's our everyday human experience that things are changing, fundamentally change doesn't exist.

If events are simultaneous then it cannot be any change.

If you could view the universe from the outside, you would see it as simultaneous and unchanging, sitting there in eternity. A spacetime reference frame is an internal, relative view. It can create the illusion of change.

[bahman]

Well times "passes" but it's circular. In other words, past present and future all exist all at once.

Now, you are not making any sense. We are not talking about simultaneous events. Are we?

And though it's our everyday human experience that things are changing, fundamentally change doesn't exist.

If events are simultaneous then it cannot be any change.

If you could view the universe from the outside, you would see it as simultaneous and unchanging, sitting there in eternity. A spacetime reference frame is an internal, relative view. It can create the illusion of change.

Yes, if all events are real then from a person's viewpoint outside of the universe the universe is static. You owe proof for the existence of such a universe that all events are real within but regardless we are interested from the viewpoint of the person who sees the passage of time or lives within the universe. The whole spacetime manifold could be closed but that does not help you since there is a beginning for time. We are still dealing with the passage of time from the point of view of a person who is living within the universe. Moreover, observing change of course depends on the point of view but regardless change is real from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe. So again, can you rewind the time from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe?

[Atla]

Now, you are not making any sense. We are not talking about simultaneous events. Are we?


If events are simultaneous then it cannot be any change.

If you could view the universe from the outside, you would see it as simultaneous and unchanging, sitting there in eternity. A spacetime reference frame is an internal, relative view. It can create the illusion of change.

Yes, if all events are real then from a person's viewpoint outside of the universe the universe is static. You owe proof for the existence of such a universe that all events are real within but regardless we are interested from the viewpoint of the person who sees the passage of time or lives within the universe. The whole spacetime manifold could be closed but that does not help you since there is a beginning for time. We are still dealing with the passage of time from the point of view of a person who is living within the universe. Moreover, observing change of course depends on the point of view but regardless change is real from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe. So again, can you rewind the time from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe?

There shouldn't be a beginning of time in a closed spacetime manifold. It may mean that half the universe is going forwards in time and half of it is going backwards.

[bahman]

If you could view the universe from the outside, you would see it as simultaneous and unchanging, sitting there in eternity. A spacetime reference frame is an internal, relative view. It can create the illusion of change.

Yes, if all events are real then from a person's viewpoint outside of the universe the universe is static. You owe proof for the existence of such a universe that all events are real within but regardless we are interested from the viewpoint of the person who sees the passage of time or lives within the universe. The whole spacetime manifold could be closed but that does not help you since there is a beginning for time. We are still dealing with the passage of time from the point of view of a person who is living within the universe. Moreover, observing change of course depends on the point of view but regardless change is real from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe. So again, can you rewind the time from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe?

There shouldn't be a beginning of time in a closed spacetime manifold.

There is if you agree that time passes from the point of view of an observer within the universe.

It may mean that half the universe is going forwards in time and half of it is going backwards.

Now you are not making any sense.

[Atla]

Yes, if all events are real then from a person's viewpoint outside of the universe the universe is static. You owe proof for the existence of such a universe that all events are real within but regardless we are interested from the viewpoint of the person who sees the passage of time or lives within the universe. The whole spacetime manifold could be closed but that does not help you since there is a beginning for time. We are still dealing with the passage of time from the point of view of a person who is living within the universe. Moreover, observing change of course depends on the point of view but regardless change is real from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe. So again, can you rewind the time from the point of view of a person who lives in the universe?

There shouldn't be a beginning of time in a closed spacetime manifold.

There is if you agree that time passes from the point of view of an observer within the universe.

It may mean that half the universe is going forwards in time and half of it is going backwards.

Now you are not making any sense.

Look physicist, Newton was refuted long ago. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TIME IN THE BACKGROUND

[bahman]

There shouldn't be a beginning of time in a closed spacetime manifold.

There is if you agree that time passes from the point of view of an observer within the universe.

It may mean that half the universe is going forwards in time and half of it is going backwards.

Now you are not making any sense.

Look physicist, Newton was refuted long ago. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TIME IN THE BACKGROUND

Am I not clear? I am talking about a specific observer. Einstein never said that time does not change for all observers.

[Atla]

Am I not clear? I am talking about a specific observer. Einstein never said that time does not change for all observers.

Yes and I said that if we look at the reference frame of a specific observer, then a closed spacetime manifold may mean that half the universe is going backwards in time.

[bahman]

Am I not clear? I am talking about a specific observer. Einstein never said that time does not change for all observers.

Yes and I said that if we look at the reference frame of a specific observer, then a closed spacetime manifold may mean that half the universe is going backwards in time.

That never happens in the Special Theory Of Relativity. In other words, the time duration between two events that occur at one point in space depends on the observer, to be more precise the speed of the observer with respect to the events, and the time can be shortened even zero but the events never occur reversely.

[Atla]

Am I not clear? I am talking about a specific observer. Einstein never said that time does not change for all observers.

Yes and I said that if we look at the reference frame of a specific observer, then a closed spacetime manifold may mean that half the universe is going backwards in time.

That never happens in the Special Theory Of Relativity. In other words, the time duration between two events that occur at one point in space depends on the observer, to be more precise the speed of the observer with respect to the events, and the time can be shortened even zero but the events never occur reversely.

You mean it never happens to us in practice because humans are bound to the goldilocks zone of increasing entropy.

[bahman]

Yes and I said that if we look at the reference frame of a specific observer, then a closed spacetime manifold may mean that half the universe is going backwards in time.

That never happens in the Special Theory Of Relativity. In other words, the time duration between two events that occur at one point in space depends on the observer, to be more precise the speed of the observer with respect to the events, and the time can be shortened even zero but the events never occur reversely.

You mean it never happens to us in practice because humans are bound to the goldilocks zone of increasing entropy.

No, I am not talking about the increase in entropy that happens in a system with many parts. I am talking about two events A and B that one comes after another one in a given point of space. Please study the time delation derivation in the section simple inference of this link.

[Atla]

That never happens in the Special Theory Of Relativity. In other words, the time duration between two events that occur at one point in space depends on the observer, to be more precise the speed of the observer with respect to the events, and the time can be shortened even zero but the events never occur reversely.

You mean it never happens to us in practice because humans are bound to the goldilocks zone of increasing entropy.

No, I am not talking about the increase in entropy that happens in a system with many parts. I am talking about two events A and B that one comes after another one in a given point of space. Please study the time delation derivation in the section simple inference of this link.

I know that. Read again what I wrote.

[bahman]

You mean it never happens to us in practice because humans are bound to the goldilocks zone of increasing entropy.

No, I am not talking about the increase in entropy that happens in a system with many parts. I am talking about two events A and B that one comes after another one in a given point of space. Please study the time delation derivation in the section simple inference of this link.

I know that. Read again what I wrote.

If you know that then it should be clear to you that I am not talking about the entropy.

[Atla]

If you know that then it should be clear to you that I am not talking about the entropy.

Yes and we probably can't talk about a closed spacetime manifold without half the universe going backwards in time, in other words half the universe probably decreasing in entropy. To which time dilation should apply all the same.

I think the biggest blunder of modern physics may have been to try to save the 2nd "law" by giving black holes high entropy. I'm utterly unconvinced about that, I think they are the entropy sinks we should be looking for.

Look, all I'm doing is presenting the only logical metaphysical speculation that I know of: circular time. And what comes with it. It puts a lot of restrictions on the possible structure of the universe. I find all these ideas with beginnings to be inherently illogical (not impossible). If you want to prefer that metaphysical speculation anyway then okay.

[bahman]

If you know that then it should be clear to you that I am not talking about the entropy.

Yes and we probably can't talk about a closed spacetime manifold without half the universe going backwards in time, in other words half the universe probably decreasing in entropy. To which time dilation should apply all the same.

I think the biggest blunder of modern physics may have been to try to save the 2nd "law" by giving black holes high entropy. I'm utterly unconvinced about that, I think they are the entropy sinks we should be looking for.

Look, all I'm doing is presenting the only logical metaphysical speculation that I know of: circular time. And what comes with it. It puts a lot of restrictions on the possible structure of the universe. I find all these ideas with beginnings to be inherently illogical (not impossible). If you want to prefer that metaphysical speculation anyway then okay.

We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time. It seems that I cannot convince you. So I am done with you.

[Atla]

We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time. It seems that I cannot convince you. So I am done with you.

Relativity means that there is no watch that shows the passage of absolute time because there is no such thing. The end. All watches show relative times from their respective reference frames. Indeed you can't convince me because Einstein's theory has passed all tests so far.