Does 'outside of time and space' have any logical meaning whatsoever?

[Fanghur]

Does anyone know whether the common fundamentalist claim of something existing 'outside of space and time' has any meaning whatsoever given what we now know about the universe? I mean, to me, saying that essentially reduces to 'existing outside of existence' since existence is necessarily spacial and temporal. It seems to me like a clear violation of the Laws of Identity and Non-contradiction, which of course is logically impossible, but I'm not a physicist so I don't know for sure.

[krash661]

,

yes according to this video,

the result is heart and soul.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qne95mf9e2c

[Staysys]

since existence is necessarily spacial and temporal.

You don't know that.

 

However, something existing "outside" of space does not make sense. It is a difficulty of semantics, because what (some) people probably have in mind when they say it probably does actually make sense.

 

But if you take it literally at face value it does not. Because "outside" refers to a place, and "places" to us require space.

 

It would probably be more accurate for them to say that "it exists, but not in space or time", and that is a statement which currently may or may not be possible.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Staysys

[swansont]

Within the context of science it's meaningless.

[studiot]

Well I suppose it rather depends upon what you mean by 'outside', as the man said.

 

If you mean that are there any physical quantities that are totally independent of or unaffected by both space and time, that may neverless be observed in physical objects or entities within space and time, then yes we can assign meaning to the idea.

 

For instance the temperature at some point in space or time has this characteristic.

 

Look for other physical quantities that do not contain either T or L in their Buckingham dimensions.

Edited May 6, 2013 by studiot

[36grit]

Within the context of science it's meaningless.

 

Doesn't time stop at the event horizon of a black hole? There are lots of interesting hypothesis about the core and the atmosphere beyond the time line.

[Markus Hanke]

Doesn't time stop at the event horizon of a black hole?

 

It literally depends on your point of view. For an observer who is located far away outside the BH, an object falling towards the BH would take an infinite amount of the observer's own time to reach the event horizon, while slowly fading away into nothingness.

On the other hand, if you were to "piggy back" on the infalling object you would not notice anything special. You would reach - and cross ! - the event horizon in a well defined, finite amount of time as measured on your own watch.

 

Both observers are right, but only in their own frames of reference.

[EdEarl]

You can logically think about being outside of space-time, but it is not logical to think you can do it.

[krash661]

Doesn't time stop at the event horizon of a black hole? There are lots of interesting hypothesis about the core and the atmosphere beyond the time line.

1/r = 1/0 = infinity

 

 

physics break down

Edited May 18, 2013 by krash661

[Markus Hanke]

1/r = 1/0 = infinity

 

 

Division by zero is not defined; writing "1/0 = infinity" is meaningless.

[imatfaal]

1/r = 1/0 = infinity

 

 

physics break down

 

It is a particular mathematical representation that breaks down- ie our ability to validly model nature - not nature itself. Time only stops if you are using an unsuitable co-ordinate system (ie one which results in a mathematical singularity - ie a divide by zero) - there are other coordinate systems that are better suited for calculations at the event horizon

[Popcorn Sutton]

There is one way to conclude logically that it is possible to exist free of space and time. The conclusion comes from an argument of language. The language you use is fragmented externalized language with distinct parameters. This probably holds for all cognition as well. Since there is no way to objectify a measurement of time, one would need to assume that time is entirely subjective, which, linking to the premise of the previous two sentences, would mean that time is fragmented. Therefor, an action that you perform but have no recollection of, exists independent of space and time. To speculate even further on this chain of thought, an implication can be drawn that when you sleep, you exist independant of space and time (for the majority of the duration). Time is an occasion of sense, and that being the case, there are clearly set parameters within our memory which prevent us from cognizing an inarguably maximal bit of knowledge, which would equate to the entire span of existence of everything that ever happened, could happen, and even everything that didn't happen. The one truly maximal bit of knowledge would take almost (but not quite) an infinite amount of time to cognize because it has no parameters, and this is not what we observe when we (linguists) study grammar. Therefor, it is logical to say that something can exist independently of space and time if there is and possibly can be no recollection of the occurrence because it is not currently being prompted within your knowledge and possibly can not be prompted.

Also, to further elucidate, there are studies being carried out where people are trying to send a message back in time. If they are successful, it would support the argument that the action that caused the message existed independently of space and time because the message was received before the action that caused it was even carried out, and hence, the action could not possibly be a part of time because there is no initial occurrence at the point in which the message was received.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[SamBridge]

There is no outside of space and time because outside of space and time their are no dimensions to constitute the existence of distance between points in any dimension. You can technically say there is an infinite amount of space outside of the universe that has 0 width, 0 height and 0 length, since that's basically what I am saying. Outside of space-time, there's nothing to create distance away from space-time.

Edited May 22, 2013 by SamBridge

[robomont]

your brain runs at like60 cycles per second.if there is no second then your brain is left with one picture.if there is no space then the picture is a infinitly small dot .your brain would see nothing.big fat 0.