The Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig

[bahman]

Only in linear (spiralic) time. See, you are simply not able to understand what I'm saying.

No, I am not talking about spiralic time. Indeed, you never reach the same point in spiralic time. I am talking about a circle.

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

[Atla]

No, I am not talking about spiralic time. Indeed, you never reach the same point in spiralic time. I am talking about a circle.

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

It's okay, as I said both Western and Eastern philisophy missed this and even almost every scientist is incapable of imagining it. So I don't expect you to get it even though it could be very important to philosophy imo as it's the only logical view.
It just completely goes against our everyday temporal experience, intuition.

[bahman]

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

It's okay, as I said both Western and Eastern philisophy missed this and even almost every scientist is incapable of imagining it. So I don't expect you to get it even though it could be very important to philosophy imo as it's the only logical view.
It just completely goes against our everyday temporal experience, intuition.

Again: Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from a point in time to the same point?

[Sculptor]

No, I am not talking about spiralic time. Indeed, you never reach the same point in spiralic time. I am talking about a circle.

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

I may be of some help here.
To exist in space requires 3 dimensions.
Time has been considered to be a 4th dimension. Time is a single directional vector though which all matter and space travel.
You can increase your rate of travel but you cannot reverse or stop.

Other concepts of time such as cyclic, spirilic (!), psychological time, biological time are all subjective and are about perception rather than chronology.

[Sculptor]

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

It's okay, as I said both Western and Eastern philisophy missed this and even almost every scientist is incapable of imagining it. So I don't expect you to get it even though it could be very important to philosophy imo as it's the only logical view.
It just completely goes against our everyday temporal experience, intuition.

No the sciences of psychology, phenomenology, and even sociology are well aware of other concepts of time. Anthropological and archaeologial studies also recognise and study culturall, historically, and sociologically subjective ideas about time.

Our personal temporal experience rarely perfectly agrees with chronological time, that's why watches and clocks were invented to measure time objectively.

[bahman]

No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension.

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

I may be of some help here.
To exist in space requires 3 dimensions.
Time has been considered to be a 4th dimension. Time is a single directional vector though which all matter and space travel.
You can increase your rate of travel but you cannot reverse or stop.

Other concepts of time such as cyclic, spirilic (!), psychological time, biological time are all subjective and are about perception rather than chronology.

No, I am not talking about subjective time but objective time, the fourth dimension in spacetime. Spacetime is a manifold. It is either closed or open. Here we are discussing about closed manifold in which if you travel long enough you reach the same point.

[Sculptor]

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

I may be of some help here.
To exist in space requires 3 dimensions.
Time has been considered to be a 4th dimension. Time is a single directional vector though which all matter and space travel.
You can increase your rate of travel but you cannot reverse or stop.

Other concepts of time such as cyclic, spirilic (!), psychological time, biological time are all subjective and are about perception rather than chronology.

No, I am not talking about subjective time but objective time, the fourth dimension in spacetime. Spacetime is a manifold. It is either closed or open. Here we are discussing about closed manifold in which if you travel long enough you reach the same point.

But you never do.
It does not matter what you believe. Time's arrow does not reverse.

[bahman]

I may be of some help here.
To exist in space requires 3 dimensions.
Time has been considered to be a 4th dimension. Time is a single directional vector though which all matter and space travel.
You can increase your rate of travel but you cannot reverse or stop.

Other concepts of time such as cyclic, spirilic (!), psychological time, biological time are all subjective and are about perception rather than chronology.

No, I am not talking about subjective time but objective time, the fourth dimension in spacetime. Spacetime is a manifold. It is either closed or open. Here we are discussing about closed manifold in which if you travel long enough you reach the same point.

But you never do.

You do reach the same point if you travel long enough and if the spacetime manifold is closed.

It does not matter what you believe. Time's arrow does not reverse.

We are not talking about reversing the time.

[Sculptor]

No, I am not talking about subjective time but objective time, the fourth dimension in spacetime. Spacetime is a manifold. It is either closed or open. Here we are discussing about closed manifold in which if you travel long enough you reach the same point.

But you never do.

You do reach the same point if you travel long enough and if the spacetime manifold is closed.

No you do not.
It's nonsense

[Atla]

No traveling on a circle over and over does not add up another dimension. Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from point in time to the same point?

It's okay, as I said both Western and Eastern philisophy missed this and even almost every scientist is incapable of imagining it. So I don't expect you to get it even though it could be very important to philosophy imo as it's the only logical view.
It just completely goes against our everyday temporal experience, intuition.

Again: Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from a point in time to the same point?

No I don't as I also mean the same point in time, and I'm only talking about one kind of time. So there is nothing to "reach". There is only one point not two.

Never mind that. I'm more interested in just discussing the black hole entropy anyway, but haven't found a place on the internet for it. Physics forums only allow mainstream discussions, and on other forums people know too little about physics. And I'm simply not buying the mainstream claim that black holes have high entropy due to Hawking radiation. Would like to see if someone can convince me. Any suggestion on which forum I could debate this?

[bahman]

But you never do.

You do reach the same point if you travel long enough and if the spacetime manifold is closed.

No you do not.
It's nonsense

You do this in a closed manifold. Think of a sphere. It is a closed manifold. An individual living on this surface reaches the same point if he moves long enough on the sphere.

[bahman]

It's okay, as I said both Western and Eastern philisophy missed this and even almost every scientist is incapable of imagining it. So I don't expect you to get it even though it could be very important to philosophy imo as it's the only logical view.
It just completely goes against our everyday temporal experience, intuition.

Again: Don't you agree that it takes an amount of time to reach from a point in time to the same point?

No I don't as I also mean the same point in time, and I'm only talking about one kind of time. So there is nothing to "reach". There is only one point not two.

Don't you believe that the spacetime manifold is closed?

Never mind that. I'm more interested in just discussing the black hole entropy anyway, but haven't found a place on the internet for it. Physics forums only allow mainstream discussions, and on other forums people know too little about physics. And I'm simply not buying the mainstream claim that black holes have high entropy due to Hawking radiation. Would like to see if someone can convince me. Any suggestion on which forum I could debate this?

I read somewhere that Hawking radiation is rather very small so it cannot contribute to large amounts of entropy in a black hole.

[Atla]

Don't you believe that the spacetime manifold is closed?

I do, that's where we disagree. You think it's closed in the first three dimensions and open in the fourth. I'm saying that, obviously, it should be closed in all four.

[bahman]

Don't you believe that the spacetime manifold is closed?

I do, that's where we disagree. You think it's closed in the first three dimensions and open in the fourth. I'm saying that, obviously, it should be closed in all four.

Yes, that is what I mean by closed spacetime manifold.

[Sculptor]

You do reach the same point if you travel long enough and if the spacetime manifold is closed.

No you do not.
It's nonsense

You do this in a closed manifold. Think of a sphere. It is a closed manifold. An individual living on this surface reaches the same point if he moves long enough on the sphere.

Okay think if reality. Think of your experience, and think of ENgland.