‘To summarise: time is not actually possible without eternity.’ ~ Gagdad Bob
MHGinTN: “Sorry, I cannot agree. That is like saying the volume of dimension space can only be unending if there is a somewhere for it to continue expanding into.
It helped someone I was conversing with the other day when I used the analogy of time being like a cake mix being stirred in a mixing bowl. The bowl represents the limits beyond which time does not exist, while the internal mix is the volume of time which encompasses the linear and planar expressions of dimension time also. The bowl is the boundary within which time exists. The bowl is not time.”
bettyboop wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2687844/posts?page=752#752
MHGinTN: “Sorry, I cannot agree. That is like saying the volume of dimension space can only be unending if there is a somewhere for it to continue expanding into."
I gather my dear brother in Christ MHGinTN looks at problems of time from the perspective of a scientist/mathematician of the classical (i.e., Newtonian) school.
And yet there is the problem of the "inflationary universe," a universe "expanding" at an accelerated rate in recent times. Into WHAT is the universe "expanding?" And why is the rate accelerating?
It looks to me that dimension space (and its related linear/planar time) is expanding into a "something." Or maybe a "no-thing" would be the better term. This relates to the Ayn Sof that Alamo-Girl has so ably described....
But this "no-thing" is such because it is not visualizable to the human mind and, therefore, remains incomprehensible by the mind. If we could visualize and comprehend such a thing, it would be a "something," not a "no-thing." And we could give it a name, and understand it.
But nobody knows what the universe is inflating "into." Science hasn't "seen" it; indeed, I doubt science, given its methods, ever possibly can see it....
Well, that's probably as clear as mud. But it's the best I can do for now.
Thank you ever so much, dear Matchett-PI, for linking back to the splendid insights (IMHO) of Wolfhart Pannenberg — and for your wonderful essay/post!