Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-13-2018 11:37 PM
250 online now:
GDR, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (4 members, 246 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,908 Year: 16,731/29,783 Month: 719/1,956 Week: 222/331 Day: 98/43 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2792
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 121 of 268 (642491)
11-29-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
11-29-2011 11:48 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Straggler writes:

Without any physical brains with which to have thoughts do ideas exist?

No. If every human brain on the planet ceased to exist so too would all novel ideas. However the ideas stored in literature and on computers would still exist until such a time as the media/medium is destroyed.imo.
If Cephalopods someday inherited the Earth and became literate,or if some alien culture found our stored ideas then they would once again exist.

Straggler writes:

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

The idea ceases to exist along with the brain that processes and stores it.imo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 11:48 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 12:17 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 122 of 268 (642492)
11-29-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by 1.61803
11-29-2011 12:09 PM


Re: Reality of Time
If you agree that subjective ideas cease to exist in the absence of any physical medium then I don't really see that there can be any disagreement between us about ideas having a physical basis.

Now if you want to get into the Platonic existence of mathematical concepts and suchlike we have a whole other branch of discussion.......

But probably one for another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 12:09 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 4:59 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 123 of 268 (642514)
11-29-2011 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by PaulK
11-29-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
I will only comment that your "reworking" is clearly self-serving, as well as inaccurate.

Then fix it. Show me my error. Once before in this thread you showed me where you thought I was inaccurate. Do it again. Where is my error?

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

I don't see how I'm assuming a contradiction when you say you are willing to postulate a prior period of time in a different time dimension. I also don't see how it can be a contradiction unless there is a circular argument.

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.

I have pointed out in earlier posts that this thread arose from my earlier thread started at Message 1. I could make your implicit conclusion explicit in the argument if that would make it more clear for you. Although, I think it is already clear or you would not have said I was assuming a contradiction.

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 ?

So your questions return to the earlier thread. As I said there, Davies is a mathematical physicist. His technique for examining the big bang is mathematics. Once he hits infinity, he can go no further. But that does not mean logic is prevented from going further. I quoted Davies mainly because I wanted to make clear that a singularity cannot exist as a singularity for any moment in time because it will immediately begin to rapidly expand. From the very first moment of the big bang, we had matter, energy and expansion of space-time. "Prior" to the beginning at the big bang (and I understand this is where you have trouble), Davies is not willing to discuss. "Prior" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe. By the way, I did not use the term "spaceless realm," I used "immaterial realm." I'm not certain the two terms are equivalent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2011 1:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2011 2:39 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2011 2:53 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Larni, posted 11-29-2011 3:16 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14482
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 124 of 268 (642516)
11-29-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:14 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

I don't see how I'm assuming a contradiction when you say you are willing to postulate a prior period of time in a different time dimension. I also don't see how it can be a contradiction unless there is a circular argument.

The fact that I am willing to postulate something is irrelevant. The argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in any time dimension. Assuming otherwise creates a contradiction.

quote:

I have pointed out in earlier posts that this thread arose from my earlier thread started at Message 1. I could make your implicit conclusion explicit in the argument if that would make it more clear for you. Although, I think it is already clear or you would not have said I was assuming a contradiction.

No, you can't make it clearer because it isn't there. The fact that you have implicitly conceded that my argument is sound is evidence of this. All you can do is deny the premise that there is no prior moment of time (in the absolute sense).

quote:

So your questions return to the earlier thread. As I said there, Davies is a mathematical physicist. His technique for examining the big bang is mathematics. Once he hits infinity, he can go no further. But that does not mean logic is prevented from going further. I quoted Davies mainly because I wanted to make clear that a singularity cannot exist as a singularity for any moment in time because it will immediately begin to rapidly expand. From the very first moment of the big bang, we had matter, energy and expansion of space-time. "Prior" to the beginning at the big bang (and I understand this is where you have trouble), Davies is not willing to discuss. "Prior" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe. By the way, I did not use the term "spaceless realm," I used "immaterial realm." I'm not certain the two terms are equivalent.

This is untrue. You quoted Davies to support your claim of a "timeless immaterial" cause. But you've now admitted that - contrary to Davies you assume an additional time dimension (Davies can't be assuming that because it would just reinstate the problem that he is trying to solve!)

And while it is true that "immaterial " and "spaceless" are not synonymous your argument relies on the absence of space to conclude immateriality. So your argument does require that your hypothetical realm lacks space.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:14 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:38 PM PaulK has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 268 (642517)
11-29-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:14 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
In the earlier thread you tried to argue that the Big Bang supported god (even thought you didn't have any valid argument for the cause being a "being"). One of the premesis was that "everything that beings to exist has a cause". This thread was opened to question that premis and have support for it provided to find out if it really squared with the Big Bang or not.

Here's the main part from the OP:

quote:
Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause.

Here's your paraphrasing of the argument:

quote:
1. Given the possible existence of an immaterial (and otherly timed or timeless) realm where a Universe Designer or Creator God may be said to be active prior to the big bang.
2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This is a false premise from the perspective of the immaterial realm you have postulated for argument's sake.)
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings. (This does not follow)
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition. (Again, this does not follow.)

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


Let me explain how you go wrong:

2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This is a false premise from the perspective of the immaterial realm you have postulated for argument's sake.)

We're talking about the Big Bang here... the theory says that the first moments of the existence of space were also the first moments of time itself. That means that there was never a point in time where space did not exist.

Now, you can say that's its "possible" that god is outside of time in some other realm, but then were not really talking about the Big Bang anymore.

3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings. (This does not follow)

Where "everyday beginnings" are in points in time prior to the happenstance, the Big Bang is certainly different because there is no point in time prior to it.

What you're doing to defeat the argument is making it out to be assuming that there's no god so you can call it circular reasoning, or forcing it to allow for some hypothetical situation like a god outside of the universe, so that you can make it look like a contradiction.

But these things are not a part of the argument, you're adding them to it. The Big Bang does not assume god doesn't exist, it doesn't address things that aren't evidenced. There's no need to posit some other realm without spacetime, unless you're trying to find a place to squeeze god into. But the Big Bang does say that time, itself, has a first moment and that, therefore, there can be no point in time before that in which to have a cause.

You haven't really addressed this argument other than: "Nuh-uh, there could be a god realm, you're just assuming there isn't"

I quoted Davies mainly because I wanted to make clear that a singularity cannot exist as a singularity for any moment in time because it will immediately begin to rapidly expand.

The singularity did not "exist" as some "thing" that had no options but to go bang. Its mearly an assumptote in the maths that describe the early universe.

From the very first moment of the big bang, we had matter, energy and expansion of space-time.

No, matter did not exist until some amount of time after the Big Bang.

"Prior" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe.

Yeah, and "Invisible Pink" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe. So what?

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Big Bang doesn't support god because there's nowhere and nowhen for him to exist within. Dancing around that issue with "logical possibilities" is not addressing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:14 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 126 of 268 (642520)
11-29-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Adequate
11-28-2011 9:44 PM


Reply to Dr Adequate #105
You have not explained the specific relevance of your ability to produce illogical arguments.

When someone has an unexamined/implicit argument, one has to make it explicit so it can be examined. This is the way logic is done. The fact the argument is incoherent is not of my doing. I'm simply making the argument explicit so PaulK can have a chance to modify it or reject it.

By the way, this should not be taken as a putdown of PaulK. All of us have unexamined premises in our thinking every now and again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:21 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

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


Message 127 of 268 (642521)
11-29-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 2:14 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
Show me my error.

I did in Message 112.

I'm surprised you missed it.


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 123 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 2:14 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 128 of 268 (642527)
11-29-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
11-29-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
The fact that I am willing to postulate something is irrelevant. The argument deals with the case where there is no prior time in any time dimension. Assuming otherwise creates a contradiction.

Okay, this confirms my first criticism of your argument - that you had an unexamined/implicit premise that there was no prior time in any time dimension. But, you see, this is where the logical fallacy of circular reasoning comes in. Let me reformulate your argument for you.

1. No timeless state or time dimensions exist prior to the beginning of time at the big bang. (This is your unexamined and implicit premise which we will accept for the sake of argument for the time being.)
2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This premise may be self-contradictory but we will not examine it closely for now.)
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings.
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition which will exclude it from applying to the first moment of time.
5. Therefore, one cannot say the big bang supports the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God.

In this formulation, your argument is internally consistent in the sense the two conclusions follow from the premises. However, the argument is guilty of circular reasoning because the Universe Designer/Creator God, if one exists, must reside outside of the boundaries of our spacetime.

Are the premises valid? The first premise is not known and cannot be known. That alone means the argument needs to be reformulated. The second premise is possibly self-contradictory. "The first moment of time" means time came into existence. If time itself came into being, then what existed before time? Whatever you call it, matter did not exist then. What does that mean for your argument?

Of course, if you are willing to postulate the possible existence of a timeless or otherly timed dimension, as you said you were in Message 94, then your argument becomes incoherent.

Perhaps now you can see why Arthur Eddington said the big bang had "insuperable" problems unless we look at it as "supernatural."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2011 2:39 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2011 6:14 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 129 of 268 (642528)
11-29-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Larni
11-29-2011 4:25 AM


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

Quite easily. It is a matter of perspective. Imagine for a moment that you were in a spacetime dimension in which you could watch colliding branes creating new universes again and again. Each new universe has its own spacetime. Can you identify which universe came into being first and which one last? Of course. Do you see now?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Larni, posted 11-29-2011 4:25 AM Larni has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 11-29-2011 5:23 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 5:33 PM designtheorist has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2792
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 130 of 268 (642546)
11-29-2011 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Straggler
11-29-2011 12:17 PM


Re: Reality of Time
Agreed. Start a thread if your bored. I do think that concepts exist apart from the ability to comprehend the information.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 12:17 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 131 of 268 (642550)
11-29-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Reply to Larni
DT writes:

How can you have a 'prior' that is in a different time dimension?
Imagine for a moment that you were in a spacetime dimension in which you could watch colliding branes creating new universes again and again.
Imagination is not an explanation.
Being able to imagine something does not make it logical, true or even possible.

DT writes:

Can you identify which universe came into being first and which one last? Of course.

Of course I can identify which universe came into being first and which one last...in my imagination.
I can also fly in my imagination and make time run backwards.

DT writes:

Do you see now?

No.
You seem to be trying to convince people by saying "Imagine it is true... See, it could be true!".

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:42 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 5:43 PM Panda has responded

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2792
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 132 of 268 (642551)
11-29-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Reply to Larni
No.........................in order to witness "branes" and new universes being "created" one would have to be outside all frames of reference. Being apart from all frames of reference leaves no perspective. Quantum mechanics shows that reality is quantized and exist in descreet packets of information. observation acutalizes the collapse of the wave fucntion and outcomes being manifested. Reality refuses to be curtailed to a set. In other words it is a mystery as of yet. Such thought experiments are like asking, "where in the universe is the universe?" imo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:42 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 6:02 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 133 of 268 (642552)
11-29-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Panda
11-29-2011 5:23 PM


Reply to Panda
Larni asked:
How can you have a 'prior' that is in a different time dimension?

Some things are logically possible and some are not. For example, sometimes people ask "God can make a rock big enough He can't lift it?" That is logically impossible.

Larni seemed to think it was logically impossible to have a prior in a different time dimension. It is not logically impossible as I demonstrated. Now you seem to be asking me to prove it exists. I cannot do that but neither can you prove it does not exist.

If you postulate the possibility, as PaulK said he is willing to do, then the problem PaulK is trying to solve with this thread goes away.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Edited by designtheorist, : Replying to Panda, not Larni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 11-29-2011 5:23 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Panda, posted 11-29-2011 7:23 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 143 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 134 of 268 (642557)
11-29-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by 1.61803
11-29-2011 5:33 PM


Reply to Golden Ratio
No.........................in order to witness "branes" and new universes being "created" one would have to be outside all frames of reference.

"Outside all frames of reference" is an interesting idea. Do you mean like a timeless, immaterial realm? But why can't such a realm have its own frame of reference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by 1.61803, posted 11-29-2011 5:33 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by 1.61803, posted 12-07-2011 11:07 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 268 (642559)
11-29-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Straggler
11-29-2011 9:42 AM


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

I accept that thoughts have a physical basis. But ideas do not and they are not a form of thought. Four is an idea. You are capable of thinking about the number four and of communicating the idea to others. But four itself is an immaterial concept.


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 137 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2011 6:14 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:18 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018