The Universe...

[Vinyard]

This question seems impossible to answer. Well... I believe in God. "Only a higher conscious could have created the human conscious"
What is the universe? Someone must have created the universe. The universe couldn't have been created out of nothing. So something or someone must have created the universe. But WHO or WHAT created the one who created the universe? Again... someone must have created the one who created the universe. And someone must have created the one who created the one who created the universe. A spirit or a being can't have been created from nothing. It's hard to imagine that the universe is everything. So how did everything start?

[NoY]

the absence of a thing causes it to become

it exists because it dident and for no other reason than that

:NoY:

[Xanth]

This question seems impossible to answer. Well... I believe in God. "Only a higher conscious could have created the human conscious"
What is the universe? Someone must have created the universe. The universe couldn't have been created out of nothing. So something or someone must have created the universe. But WHO or WHAT created the one who created the universe? Again... someone must have created the one who created the universe. And someone must have created the one who created the one who created the universe. A spirit or a being can't have been created from nothing. It's hard to imagine that the universe is everything. So how did everything start?

Your post can't be answered because it assumes too much to begin with.

[kailaurius]

Universe is plain and simply all and everything that Is.  Anything and everything that exists has always existed and always will exist.  Absolutely nothing is ever created or destroyed.

But WHO or WHAT created the one who created the universe? Again... someone must have created the one who created the universe. And someone must have created the one who created the one who created the universe.

No one being has ever been created, and there is no such thing as a single all powerful being, commonly referred to by most religions as "God", who created all things including the Universe.

A spirit or a being can't have been created from nothing.

That's correct because there is no such thing as "nothing".  Again Everything already exists.

It's hard to imagine that the universe is everything. So how did everything start?

It is impossible for us in our current state as linear dualistic beings to understand the Universe, but one thing I know for sure is that the Universe never began nor was it ever created, and it will never end nor can it, including anything and everything else, ever be destroyed.

[AmbientSound]

Perhaps the Universe has simply always existed. Time has been proven to be an illusion. The dictionary defines time as motion. We experience time through the acts of focusing and unfocusing and, using our minds, place these events into a sequence. Thus, we create time, because without it, the experience of being physical would not be possible. Consciousness is interconnected. Nothing can separate you from it. Call it what you will. If "God" works for you, use it. I think we are all talking about the same thing, though it is not easy to define, if at all possible.

[personalreality]

They used to be hip to this notion of the universe always existing in physics, a long time ago.

How about this.

What makes any of you (me, you or anyone else) think that you're capable of even understanding the nature of the "universe" (which I assume implies existence or reality as a whole)?  For a second, lets put aside the fact that as a species we really have zero idea how or why our existence 'is'.  Consider the physics and theories that we do know in regards to reality.  How many of you can seriously understand and fully comprehend what our science teaches?  I know I can't.  How do you expect to truly understand concepts and notions that may simply be beyond the comprehension capabilities of humans at this point in our existence?  I mean, wow, my journey's "down the rabbit hole" blow my mind regularly.  I can't even wrap my head around things that I think of! 

Depending on how you perceive your spirituality (or your pursuit for self-knowledge), perhaps you can't know reality, only experience it.  Perhaps we are quite young in our evolution as a species and have no real business knowing.  Don't get me wrong, I know how much fun it is to contemplate these sorts of things.  But I have a simple rule, don't expect to find a concrete definition.  Of all the things I can pin down about my existence, the one consistent "truth" is that reality is slippery and that's why it's so much fun.  Who knows, maybe the nature of reality is that it's slippery and impossible to nail down.  I guess my point is that if you don't expect anything then you'll never waste your life waiting for something that may not be.

or whatever.  the idea of a loving and nurturing 'source' is rather comforting.

[kurtykurt42]

According to one of the Physics models I have been studying, the "known universe" is relatively small compared to everything else that is all out there. My opinion is that the known universe and everything in it could only be created using technology, trillions of years a head of anything we have come up with on this planet. All of the galaxies, stars, planets and lifeforms have to be encoded at the subatomic level.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7332/universej.png

[Pauli2]

Someone must have created the universe. The universe couldn't have been created out of nothing. So something or someone must have created the universe.

Why do u assume that the universe must have been created? It could have existed (in some other kind of form) for eternity.

Like the endless row of numbers: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...

And so on...

No one needs to create the infinite row of numbers, the numbers just are, they just exist like Winnie the Pooh.

From eternity to eternity.


I think that there exists no Creator God. There is no need for a Creator God. No God can claim to be the Creator, because any creation happened so far ago that the "Creator" will not be able to remember the "Creation".

Everything changes. Even Gods.

[Pauli2]

The dictionary defines time as motion.

Not quite. Time is defined as change. As specific amount of change is considered to be a second.

[Stillwater]

Not quite. Time is defined as change. As specific amount of change is considered to be a second.

This still feels like an inadequate definition of time. What about a state where matter is held in stasis in absolute zero? Nothing changes, but one moment is still different from another, if in no measurable way other than not being the same moment.

What about a whole univerese where this is the case, where there is matter, but no motion at all- everything is held in a static kind of balance. By that reasoning, this universe would also necessarily exist outside of time.

[Pauli2]

This still feels like an inadequate definition of time. What about a state where matter is held in stasis in absolute zero? Nothing changes, but one moment is still different from another, if in no measurable way other than not being the same moment.

The definition of "a second" is based on a cesium atom being at absolute zero degree Kelvin -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

The atoms may have stopped vibrating at absolute zero degree Kelvin, but that will not affect the definition of "a second", as the electrons will still revolve around the atoms, and the small changes in electrons paths around the atoms core are the definition of a second.

A lot of things change at zero degree Kelvin (0 K), absolute zero. Electromagnetic waves, myons, neutrions (always moving), movement of photons of light, and most probably also the quarks, gluons revolve inside the nucleus, perhaps dark matter & dark energy too.

Time is defined as change.

One second is defined as a certain amount of change.

[Xanth]

*facepalm*  not this again... LoL 

[personalreality]

According to one of the Physics models I have been studying, the "known universe" is relatively small compared to everything else that is all out there. My opinion is that the known universe and everything in it could only be created using technology, trillions of years a head of anything we have come up with on this planet. All of the galaxies, stars, planets and lifeforms have to be encoded at the subatomic level.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7332/universej.png

What are these models you speak of?  I'm curious.

[Stillwater]

The definition of "a second" is based on a cesium atom being at absolute zero degree Kelvin -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

The atoms may have stopped vibrating at absolute zero degree Kelvin, but that will not affect the definition of "a second", as the electrons will still revolve around the atoms, and the small changes in electrons paths around the atoms core are the definition of a second.

A lot of things change at zero degree Kelvin (0 K), absolute zero. Electromagnetic waves, myons, neutrions (always moving), movement of photons of light, and most probably also the quarks, gluons revolve inside the nucleus, perhaps dark matter & dark energy too.

Time is defined as change.

One second is defined as a certain amount of change.

Yeah, you're right- there is still a lot happening at absolute zero, but that is not really what I was getting at per se. What I was getting at was rather that it seemed like it was missing the prime meaning of what time is to only be able to measure it by cyclical events or progessions, especially because these may increase or decrease their rate for some unforseen reason. For instance, if you are measuring time by the number of orbits an electron makes, and you didn't know that there was a slow change in the universal constants that was causing more orbits per time interval to be possible with the same kinetic energy, you would be meauring more time passing in the present than you had at every previous moment. It would seem that you could substitute half-life decay, or any other physical process and have it subject to the same caveat.

So it seems like a very unstable means of reckoning time if you have no guarantee that the process you are using occurs of necessity at a fixed rate (notwithstanding the fact that the idea of time is built into the concept of rate). That would mean there was no way of knowing that a second now was the same interval as a second in the past.

I realize the need to establish a physical change as a means to measure time, but I don't think time is dependent on change, but rather that it is change that is dependent on time to occur. The idea of basing the passage of time on a measuremnt of change seems measurement-centric, much in the same way that it is measurement-centric to base the standard length of a meter on a certain platinum-iridium rod, or a certain fraction of the length of the earth around its equator, as it is. The same pitfall that we ran into with time could arise here, and the distance between subatomic particles could be steadily increasing, as per some trend in universal constant changes. Perhaps as a result, the entire universe is getting proportionally larger in an isometric fashion, such that we as part of it, are now twice the volume we once were. We would have not realized that though, since the earth and the platinum iridium rod have also changed by proportionate measure, and we think we have been the same measure all along. I realize there are pitfalls to this scenario, but I think it illustrates well the problem I was trying to conceptualize for you.

[Stookie]

Can you talk about time without talking about space? Time and space are a single/interrelated thing. You don't have one without the other. Where space does not exist, nor does time. And why space is measured in light-years. Time/space would also define physical reality.

It's funny seeing a diagram with "void" having it's own area.

[Pauli2]

Definition.

Definition. Definition.

Definition. Definition. Definition.

Yes. You are reading it alright. Exactly!

Definition.

Definition. <- That's the keyword.

It is, Definition, that is the keyword, _not_ "what is time".

And, Oh-yes... Time... Yes, Time! Time is a Definition. D-E-F-I-N-I-T-I-O-N.

Time _is_ a Definition!!!

DEFINITION!

Yes.

Time is Defined as change.

What I was getting at was rather that it seemed like it was missing the prime meaning of what time is...

No.

There is no "prime meaning".

Definition. There only is a Definition.

There only exists a Definition. One Definition. A Definition, which is Defined, because it's a Definition.

For instance, if you are measuring time by the number of orbits an electron makes, and you didn't know that there was a slow change in the universal constants that was causing more orbits per time interval to be possible with the same kinetic energy, you would be meauring more time passing in the present than you had at every previous moment. It would seem that you could substitute half-life decay, or any other physical process and have it subject to the same caveat.

No.

It's not a caveat.

If you get "more orbits per time interval", you will be able to exactly measure that change. Because time is defined as change. You would be able to measure the exact change in that universal constant, and you would be able to give that universal constant a new numerical number, based on the change that has occurred.

So it seems like a very unstable means of reckoning time if you have no guarantee that the process you are using occurs of necessity at a fixed rate (notwithstanding the fact that the idea of time is built into the concept of rate). That would mean there was no way of knowing that a second now was the same interval as a second in the past.

Definition.

(I am not discussing the "very unstable means" of the Definition.)

I am merely saying that time is Defined as change. Change. It's a Definition.

(I don't argue its qualities or how stable it is.)

...I don't think time is dependent on change, but rather that it is change that is dependent on time to occur.

No.

No. No. No.

Time is a Definition. Nothing else. No bl**dy anything else.

Time is Defined as change.

Perhaps as a result, the entire universe is getting proportionally larger in an isometric fashion, such that we as part of it, are now twice the volume we once were. We would have not realized that though, since the earth and the platinum iridium rod have also changed by proportionate measure, and we think we have been the same measure all along. I realize there are pitfalls to this scenario, but I think it illustrates well the problem I was trying to conceptualize for you.

That doesn't change the Definition.

The Definition is still the same.

Unchanged.

Time.

[Xanth]

Definition shmefinition!  That's what I say.  >_>

[CFTraveler]

I like "measurement" more.
Just my preference.

[blis]

I like "measurement" more.
Just my preference.

A measurement of change

No wait.. a measurement of definition

TIME IS A DEFINITION!

lol I feel like I've been brainwashed or something.

Just to be pedantic, time isnt a definition. The word time is a definition.. or rather has a definition.

[personalreality]

time is a metaphorical construct for the appearance of two events happening in succession or not simultaneously.

when it comes to time, objectivity is useless and thus 'definition' is useless.  time only exists in the metaphors created through subjective perception.

[CFTraveler]

A measurement of change

I agree.  Was just breaking it up a little.   

Just to be pedantic, time isnt a definition. The word time is a definition.. or rather has a definition.