Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 2:26 PM
218 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, Son of Man, Stile, Tanypteryx (9 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,152 Year: 16,975/29,783 Month: 963/1,956 Week: 466/331 Day: 49/76 Hour: 1/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 268 (642443)
11-28-2011 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by GDR
11-28-2011 8:20 PM


Re: Reality of Time
What about an idea. It is real and can affect our physical reality. It exists and as it can, and does have an effect on the physical and in that sense we might even say it has properties.

As far as can be discerned, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc. are all functions of a completely physical organ and comprised of completely physical constituents such as electrochemical energy. Unless you are to introduce a concept such as 'the soul', which isn't a very scientific thing to do. Besides, the very fact that ideas do have influence over clearly physical aspects of reality should be enough to prove that ideas are physical things.

We can draw an analogy between our 3 spatial dimensions and a universe with 3 time dimensions. It could be the equivalent of taking a hypothetical line in space and then moving in one direction along that line. There would be backward and forward but there would be comprehension of backward existing on the other side of the beginning of the line. We might be moving in a single line of time within a greater reality with 3 time dimensions leaving us with no idea, (at least at this point), of how to understand any concept of prior in relation to the beginning of time.

I guess I'm not aware of any evidence that we live in a reality made up of three time dimensions.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 11-28-2011 8:20 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 12:56 AM Jon has responded
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 11-29-2011 1:37 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 268 (642449)
11-29-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jon
11-28-2011 10:09 PM


Re: Reality of Time
Besides, the very fact that ideas do have influence over clearly physical aspects of reality should be enough to prove that ideas are physical things.

Really?

Ideas have influence over reality only because people who hold those ideas in their heads act on those ideas. People are motivated to act based on lots of things such as fear, anger, love, and faith, none of which are physical.

In fact people are motivated to act by things that do not even exist. I cannot imagine any thing less physical than something completely imaginary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 10:09 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 1:10 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 109 by Jon, posted 11-29-2011 1:32 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 108 of 268 (642450)
11-29-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Ideas have influence over reality only because people who hold those ideas in their heads act on those ideas. People are motivated to act based on lots of things such as fear, anger, love, and faith, none of which are physical.

But they all have a physical basis, do they not? Which I think is what Jon means.

In fact people are motivated to act by things that do not even exist.

The ideas exist, the things they have ideas about may not.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 12:56 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 8:07 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 268 (642452)
11-29-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Reality of Time
I've been interpreting the physical vs. non-physical discussion in this thread to be one about empirical things vs. non-empirical things. So I take physical to include pretty much anything that is sensible including energies and forces.

And ideas are obviously sensible.

But, perhaps I've misunderstood how the term was being used.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 12:56 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 8:09 AM Jon has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4540
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 110 of 268 (642453)
11-29-2011 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jon
11-28-2011 10:09 PM


Re: Reality of Time
Jon writes:

As far as can be discerned, thoughts, ideas, emotions, etc. are all functions of a completely physical organ and comprised of completely physical constituents such as electrochemical energy. Unless you are to introduce a concept such as 'the soul', which isn't a very scientific thing to do. Besides, the very fact that ideas do have influence over clearly physical aspects of reality should be enough to prove that ideas are physical things.

Has anyone even seen an idea? We see activity in the brain but with no way of discerning what is being thought about. Also does an idea have cause? Can you measure an idea? Ideas may result in a physical change or they might not.

An idea is something, but in order for it to be physical it seems to me that you should able to phyically measure it. As I try and get an idea of what to write it would be possible to observe brain patterns as I formulate ideas, but where are the ideas themselves that you can actually measure.?

Jon writes:

I guess I'm not aware of any evidence that we live in a reality made up of three time dimensions.

I agree it is only hypothetical but most of what is being discussed in this thread is hypothetical. Im just suggesting what I see as one possibility. Here is a paper on a 3 dimensional world.
Three Dimensional Time Theory:


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 10:09 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 7:12 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 111 of 268 (642454)
11-29-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

You have not risen to this challenge so I will do it for you.

Because there is no point to it. THe matter has already been covered in earlier posts stating that the argument assumes an absolute first moment of time.

I will only comment that your "reworking" is clearly self-serving, as well as inaccurate.

quote:

As you can see, the argument is not logically consistent.

Of course if you assume a contradiction you get an incoherent argument. That's why your reworking is pointless.

quote:

One may argue that we do not know if an immaterial being exists in such a realm as in premise 1, but the existence of such a being has not been disproved. If you argue it is not possible for a Designer/Creator to exist, then you are committing circular reasoning.

I see that you still fail to understand the concept of circular reasoning. Again it is quite simple. The conclusion of an argument must also be a premise. If that is not so there is no circular reasoning.

And of course as we know there was nothing wrong with my actual argument. Your only "valid" objection (and there is a reason for those scare-quotes) was that when I use the word "timeless" I actually mean it. Unlike you, who went through an entire thread and a good part of this one before explaining that you were using your own private meaning (something you should have explained right at the start).

So, instead of wasting time with these trivialities of obvious points already dealt with, misrepresentation and attempts to justify false charges made in the past we come to the real, relevant point.

How do you justify the claim that there is a spaceless realm, with a different time dimension external to our spacetime? It does not follow from Davies' argument since Davies was arguing the position that our spacetime was all that there was. So where is the support for this assumption ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:14 PM PaulK has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 112 of 268 (642463)
11-29-2011 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Try reworking your argument while explicitly acknowledging the possibility of a Designer/Creator acting from a "temporally prior state (prior in a different time dimension)" to the big bang.

How can you have a 'prior' that is in a different time dimension?

Can you be 'longer' than something in the 'width' dimension? You are mixing up your dimensions, here.

What you seem to be saying is that there is a point in time dimension 'a' (our time dimension) that is the lowestes value of time but that in some other time dimesion (time dimension 'b' or god time) there is a point that comes before the lowest value of time (in time dimension 'a').

But this is not the lowest value of time in time dimesion 'b' (because there was a cause in time dimension 'b' [by god] (who already exists in that time dimension).

It is the cause in time dimension 'b' that cause the effect in time dimension 'a' (some how) .

So for you god to work, i.e. be the cause of our time dimension in this (our) time dimesion ('a') you add another time dimesion 'b' that is separate yet interacting with time dimension 'a' (our time dimesion).

So you start off with an a priori assumption (god caused our time dimension) and add another dimension (time dimension 'b') as a bizarre ad hoc statement to allow you god to exist, to cause ours.

You sir, are a genius.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:42 PM Larni has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 113 of 268 (642470)
11-29-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
11-29-2011 1:37 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Hello GDR

GDR writes:

Has anyone even seen an idea?

It depends what you mean. We've never seen quarks in the sense you seem to mean. But we have a very empirical basis for concluding both that quarks exist and that ideas have a physical basis. Are you aware of any ideas that occurred without brain activity of some sort?

GDR writes:

We see activity in the brain but with no way of discerning what is being thought about.

Isn't that a limitation of technology rather than some inherent barrier? It's primitive but consider the following:

Link writes:

For seven years the man lay in a hospital bed, showing no signs of consciousness since sustaining a traumatic brain injury in a car accident. His doctors were convinced he was in a vegetative state. Until now.

To the astonishment of his medical team, the patient has been able to communicate with the outside world after scientists worked out, in effect, a way to read his thoughts.

They devised a technique to enable the man, now 29, to answer yes and no to simple questions through the use of a hi-tech scanner, monitoring his brain activity.
Sarah Boseley explains the research Link to this audio

To answer yes, he was told to think of playing tennis, a motor activity. To answer no, he was told to think of wandering from room to room in his home, visualising everything he would expect to see there, creating activity in the part of the brain governing spatial awareness.

His doctors were amazed when the patient gave the correct answers to a series of questions about his family.

Link

In Japan they are experimenting with the control of robots through thought alone. Again - Currently it's primitive with EEG sensors strapped to a persons head. But the principle is there and it is thought that an MRI scanner that fits in your pocket is not that far away.

GDR writes:

Also does an idea have cause?

I would say that, like any physical process, it does have a cause.
Are you saying ideas are causeless and thus just utterly random?

GDR writes:

Can you measure an idea?

You can measure brain activity.

GDR writes:

Ideas may result in a physical change or they might not.

But no idea will ever occur without physical change in the form of brain activity will it?

GDR writes:

An idea is something, but in order for it to be physical it seems to me that you should able to phyically measure it.

We can measure the physical brain activity that produces ideas. What else are you suggesting is needed?

GDR writes:

As I try and get an idea of what to write it would be possible to observe brain patterns as I formulate ideas, but where are the ideas themselves that you can actually measure.?

If the ideas and the physical brain activity are not synonomous I am wondering why you think we need physical brains at all? What do you think the relationship between ideas and brain activity actually is?

Why do you think we have brains? What role do they play in the origin of ideas as far as you are concerned?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 11-29-2011 1:37 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 114 of 268 (642472)
11-29-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
One may argue that we do not know if an immaterial being exists in such a realm as in premise 1, but the existence of such a being has not been disproved. If you argue it is not possible for a Designer/Creator to exist, then you are committing circular reasoning.

How can something immaterial effect the material world E=mc2 so energy is technically material. How do we measure the immaterial what evidence do we have immaterial things exist. How do you disprove an immaterial being if one cannot mesure immaterial stuff the same way you cant disprove immaterial invisible pink gravity goblins. What evidence do we have that immaterial things or realms exists?Besides your wish that magic sky daddies exist.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 6:17 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 268 (642475)
11-29-2011 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2011 1:10 AM


Re: Reality of Time
But they all have a physical basis, do they not? Which I think is what Jon means.

That does not seem to be anything like what he actually said and I don't believe it is true. Do you believe that ideas have a physical basis?

The ideas exist, the things they have ideas about may not.

Yes. But that's not the same thing as saying that ideas are physical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 1:10 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 9:42 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 268 (642477)
11-29-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Jon
11-29-2011 1:32 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Your argument appears to be directed towards showing that thoughts are physical. I didn't challenge that proposition.

What is physical about the concept that all men are created equal? Or the number 4, or E=mc*c?

Edited by NoNukes, : add examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Jon, posted 11-29-2011 1:32 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Jon, posted 11-29-2011 11:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 117 of 268 (642480)
11-29-2011 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 8:07 AM


Re: Reality of Time
NN writes:

Do you believe that ideas have a physical basis?

I would have thought that it was pretty indisputable that ideas have a physical basis. Did anyone lacking a physical brain ever have an idea?

NN writes:

Your argument appears to be directed towards showing that thoughts are physical. I didn't challenge that proposition.

NN writes:

But that's not the same thing as saying that ideas are physical.

You seem to be making a rather subtle distinction between thoughts and ideas.

Do you accept that thought has a physical basis?
Aren't ideas a form of thought?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 8:07 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 10:43 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:04 PM Straggler has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2794
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 118 of 268 (642483)
11-29-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Straggler
11-29-2011 9:42 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Straggler writes:

Do you accept that thought has a physical basis?
Aren't ideas a form of thought?

I believe that thoughts manifest as electrical activity in the brain. The act of thinking can be tracked by PET scans and such.

A Idea is the result of thought. It has no physical properties as such. Just as words written on paper or a computer do not have physical properties. Words and language have content but do not hold a physical address. imo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 9:42 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 11:48 AM 1.61803 has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 268 (642485)
11-29-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Reality of Time
What is physical about the concept that all men are created equal? Or the number 4, or E=mc*c?

You're talking about something entirely different; unless I misunderstood GDR.

The thoughts may be of entirely made-up things, but the thoughts themselves are still very real. And it is the thoughts themselves that affect the reality.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 8:09 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 120 of 268 (642489)
11-29-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by 1.61803
11-29-2011 10:43 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Without any physical brains with which to have thoughts do ideas exist?

I have an idea. To my knowledge this idea is a wholly subjective idea. It isn't a mathematical objective property of our universe like pi or anything like that. It is just an idea about how I should go about tackling a personal issue.

On my way home my brains are beaten into pizza pulp by a wrench wielding psychopath.

Does the idea still exist? Or did the idea kick the bucket along with my physical brain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 10:43 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 12:09 PM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018