Spacetime is Eternal and Omnipresent

[idav]

I believe, IMO, that spacetime is eternal and omnipresent due to what special relativity has shown us. It allows the substance that we call energy and matter to be timeless and everywhere at the micro level, but only at the highest energy levels. Matter is something that has slowed down and is no longer at that high energy level except for the basic building blocks. Essentially, in theory we can tap into godlike potential. The underlying reality is eternal and omnipresent therefore god is within all. I think science has already shown this and just tapping into an atom has shown so much power that we wish humans were more wise before given such power.

Quantum internet here we come.
First teleportation between macroscopic objects leads the way to a quantum internet | ExtremeTech

 

[viole]

I believe, IMO, that spacetime is eternal and omnipresent due to what special relativity has shown us. It allows the substance that we call energy and matter to be timeless and everywhere at the micro level, but only at the highest energy levels. Matter is something that has slowed down and is no longer at that high energy level except for the basic building blocks. Essentially, in theory we can tap into godlike potential. The underlying reality is eternal and omnipresent therefore god is within all. I think science has already shown this and just tapping into an atom has shown so much power that we wish humans were more wise before given such power.

Quantum internet here we come.
First teleportation between macroscopic objects leads the way to a quantum internet | ExtremeTech

I don't believe that spacetime is eternal...i know it

Finiteness in time requires a time context, that is spacetime itself. Since spacetime does not seem to be embedded in another encompassing spacetime, it is eternal, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

I don't believe that spacetime is eternal...i know it

I like to say I know it too, without being able to say the mechanism of how spacetime does it, Einstein has shown how we know it and experiments only confirm it. Space is the same thing in this relativity thing, space is a non-factor really once your able to warp spacetime away.

Question: This warping thing. Isn't this more like saying what is outside spacetime is eternal and omnipresent, a background with no beginning and end, spacetime being part of the universe that spawned? Or perhaps we are experiencing true spacetime at those high energy levels?

Admittedly my knowledge of spacetime at those levels is rather lacking.

 

[idav]

I like to say I know it too, without being able to say the mechanism of how spacetime does it, Einstein has shown how we know it and experiments only confirm it. Space is the same thing in this relativity thing, space is a non-factor really once your able to warp spacetime away.

Question: This warping thing. Isn't this more like saying what is outside spacetime is eternal and omnipresent, a background with no beginning and end, spacetime being part of the universe that spawned? Or perhaps we are experiencing true spacetime at those high energy levels?

Admittedly my knowledge of spacetime at those levels is rather lacking.

I suppose one thing it shows, which puzzles me, is that the spacetime thing doesn't even really exist. We think we are here or there or going at certain pace but then when able to escape, nada nothing, time stands still, space is a non issue that doesn't really exist, timeless as the background it resides.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Where did space/time pop up from (a-la 'Where did God/Gods pop up from?)? The only answer can be that existence and non-existence are not different. Just like wave and particle. It is only a matter of perspective.

 

[idav]

Where did space/time pop up from (a-la 'Where did God/Gods pop up from?)? The only answer can be that existence and non-existence are not different. Just like wave and particle. It is only a matter of perspective.

Yes I think thats what it comes down to, it is all one and the same. Relativity spells that out, that it is a perceptional issue.

 

[Sir Doom]

Where did space/time pop up from (a-la 'Where did God/Gods pop up from?)? The only answer can be that existence and non-existence are not different. Just like wave and particle. It is only a matter of perspective.

Or one of those is unnecessary. I'd guess the latter.

 

[Yerda]

Yes I think thats what it comes down to, it is all one and the same. Relativity spells that out, that it is a perceptional issue.

Does it? Can you elaborate?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I believe, IMO, that spacetime is eternal and omnipresent due to what special relativity has shown us. It allows the substance that we call energy and matter to be timeless and everywhere at the micro level, but only at the highest energy levels. Matter is something that has slowed down and is no longer at that high energy level except for the basic building blocks. Essentially, in theory we can tap into godlike potential. The underlying reality is eternal and omnipresent therefore god is within all. I think science has already shown this and just tapping into an atom has shown so much power that we wish humans were more wise before given such power.

Quantum internet here we come.
First teleportation between macroscopic objects leads the way to a quantum internet | ExtremeTech

I don't think it's essential to tap into godlike potential, why do you think so?

Also, I'm hardly convinced that science has shown the underlying reality is eternal. It simply just makes sense, it's logical but not scientific. What in relativity has shown it?

 

[idav]

Does it? Can you elaborate?

I don't think it's essential to tap into godlike potential, why do you think so?

Also, I'm hardly convinced that science has shown the underlying reality is eternal. It simply just makes sense, it's logical but not scientific. What in relativity has shown it?

I dont think it necessary I just see the possibilities of it.

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.

BBC Universe - General relativity: Warped space-time and black holes

 

[idav]

Action at a distance shows how objects connect across space, it shows space isnt even a factor because every point is already everywhere when spacetime is warped. No matter the interpretation, "spooky" action at a distance has to be accounted for. Omnipresence exists within spacetime which makes it theoretically possible to jump across any point in the universe.

Physicists Find a Link between Wormholes and Spooky Action at a Distance - Scientific American

 

[Hawkins]

Action at a distance shows how objects connect across space, it shows space isnt even a factor because every point is already everywhere when spacetime is warped. No matter the interpretation, "spooky" action at a distance has to be accounted for. Omnipresence exists within spacetime which makes it theoretically possible to jump across any point in the universe.

Physicists Find a Link between Wormholes and Spooky Action at a Distance - Scientific American

To me it only shows that humans don't know what time and space is precisely. Science regarding to time and space has no human interpretations. That is, there are a lot which are completely outside our comprehension. They contradicts the time space concepts in our minds.

However, we sound as if we already know time and space to say that creation is impossible in 6 days (when we don't even know what time-space actually is).

 

[idav]

To me it only shows that humans don't know what time and space is precisely. Science regarding to time and space has no human interpretations. That is, there are a lot which are completely outside our comprehension. They contradicts the time space concepts in our minds.

However, we sound as if we already know time and space to say that creation is impossible in 6 days (when we don't even know what time-space actually is).

We don't seem to know how it works, we just seem to be keen on what it does, and it does it consistently.

Indeed the ramifications are that time and space are not as they appear, there is much more than what we get caught up in. Time and space appear to be boundless, only bound by certain relative perceptions.

So we don't know how god is able to be timeless and omnipresent, yeah no kidding.

 

[Hawkins]

We don't seem to know how it works, we just seem to be keen on what it does, and it does it consistently.

Indeed the ramifications are that time and space are not as they appear, there is much more than what we get caught up in. Time and space appear to be boundless, only bound by certain relative perceptions.

So we don't know how god is able to be timeless and omnipresent, yeah no kidding.

We don't even know how time - space works around our daily lives. What happens to time and space when 2 beams of light going towards each other? How time and space change to facilitate a constant relative speed of light. Basically, we don't know nothing about time and space. All we know is the stable status of time/space where time goes constantly inside a 3D space ball.

 

[idav]

Basically, we don't know nothing about time and space.

Yes we know plenty or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Einstein has shown plenty and it takes gravity to even get a better grasp. We don't know how it works, I know that, but we are observing it and learning from those observations which counts as knowledge of it.

All we know is the stable status of time/space where time goes constantly inside a 3D space ball.

We actually understand more than that. We know there is a relative status due to various energy levels. This stuff is testable and every time we test we confirm more, giving us more knowledge.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I developed the following proofs to prove a beginning & end of time, I guess more from a philosophical perspective. I think they are partly related to this thread. Are there any holes in them? Have I made a mistake somewhere?

Proof of Beginning of Time
--------------------------
In order to reach the present, the past must have happened, and
because an infinite amount of time cannot be passed through, the
universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago.


Proof of End of Time
--------------------
In a deterministic universe, the future in a sense has already
happened, and we can ask the question when will it end. If the future
has already happened, then the future cannot be infinitely long since
this is impossible, just as you cannot have an infinitely long piece
of string. Therefore, there is an end of time in a deterministic
universe. In a universe, where individuals have free-will, a similar
conclusion can be come to. For each free-will choice, it can be
thought that a new set of deterministic universes is 'created' and the
same as before applies for each deterministic universe.

 

[metis]

"Beginnings" and "ends" are abstract beliefs that are a product of our imagination, or so it appears. The idea that our universe had a "beginning" is not really scientific if taken literally, and neither does it appear to be logical based on our limited understanding of the universe and the BB.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I developed the following proofs to prove a beginning & end of time, I guess more from a philosophical perspective. I think they are partly related to this thread. Are there any holes in them? Have I made a mistake somewhere?

Yes. You either read William Lane Craig or came in contact with a source that did. Not your fault, of course; one may as well blame someone for coming down with the flew. However, Craig's popular works are more infectious and a much greater hazard.

Proof of Beginning of Time
--------------------------
In order to reach the present, the past must have happened, and
because an infinite amount of time cannot be passed through, the
universe must have begun a finite amount of time ago.

In order to get two feet in front of me, I have to traverse an infinite number of points. Imagine my first step took me one foot ahead. My second half of that, my third half again, and so on: 1 +1/2 +1/4 + 1/8...1/n. I have to travel an infinite distance. I maintain it's possible, but I'll remain seated until somebody assures me it is; I don't want to end traversing infinities and end up trapped in a bad combination of poorly wrought sci. fi., a bad trip, and somehow racing Achilles as a tortoise.

Proof of End of Time
--------------------
In a deterministic universe, the future in a sense has already
happened, and we can ask the question when will it end.

Determinism doesn't mean the future has in any sense whatsoever already happened. It means that given Laplace's "Intellect", a being who knows the laws of physics and is capable not only of knowing precisely the universe's initial conditions at some time t (i.e., the exact state of everything in the universe at an arbitrary point in time), but also of applying physical laws to calculate the dynamics of everything in the universe, then that Intellect can perfectly predict the future.

Also, even if the future has "in a sense...already happened", this doesn't mean it ends.

If the future
has already happened, then the future cannot be infinitely long since
this is impossible

Why?

just as you cannot have an infinitely long piece of string

Why can't you?

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Yes. You either read William Lane Craig or came in contact with a source that did. Not your fault, of course; one may as well blame someone for coming down with the flew. However, Craig's popular works are more infectious and a much greater hazard.

If these proofs have been outlined before, that's fine. I am more interested in substantiating theological beliefs.

In order to get two feet in front of me, I have to traverse an infinite number of points. Imagine my first step took me one foot ahead. My second half of that, my third half again, and so on: 1 +1/2 +1/4 + 1/8...1/n. I have to travel an infinite distance. I maintain it's possible, but I'll remain seated until somebody assures me it is; I don't want to end traversing infinities and end up trapped in a bad combination of poorly wrought sci. fi., a bad trip, and somehow racing Achilles as a tortoise.

The summation of that infinite series tends towards a finite quantity which is two feet. I think you are referring to specific paradoxes (are they called Zeno's paradoxes?) in what you have written here. The finite distance of two feet is very different to an infinite amount of time. Am I making a mistake?

Determinism doesn't mean the future has in any sense whatsoever already happened. It means that given Laplace's "Intellect", a being who knows the laws of physics and is capable not only of knowing precisely the universe's initial conditions at some time t (i.e., the exact state of everything in the universe at an arbitrary point in time), but also of applying physical laws to calculate the dynamics of everything in the universe, then that Intellect can perfectly predict the future.

Forget about there being an intellect or not. Essentially, the future has already been 'written' (application of physical laws to current conditions projected into the future). But if the future has already been 'written', the story cannot be infinitely long. It is nonsensical to think of the story being infinitely long (in reality). Am I making a mistake?

Also, even if the future has "in a sense...already happened", this doesn't mean it ends.

If it has already happened, then nothing happened at t=infinity (such a t probably does not make sense in reality), implying a finite age for the universe which also implies that there is an end. Have I made a mistake in this thinking?

Things like infinitely long strings are things thought about in mathematical reasoning. It seems to me that an infinitely long string just simply does not make sense in reality. Infinity seems to be a useful concept for modelling certain things.

 

[Yerda]

Essentially, the future has already been 'written' (application of physical laws to current conditions projected into the future).

Has it?

But if the future has already been 'written', the story cannot be infinitely long. It is nonsensical to think of the story being infinitely long (in reality).

Why?