Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 302 (642814)
12-01-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Straggler
11-30-2011 6:48 AM


Re: Reality of Time
Did the idea exist before I had thought of it?
Maybe. Is your idea boy meets girl? Yeah, it existed before you thought it up. You can write an infinite number of original stories based on that idea.
Again, you are simply trying to say that ideas and thoughts are the same thing. They are not.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2011 6:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 12:23 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 302 (642873)
12-02-2011 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 11:45 AM


Analogously, one could claim something like "as long as time has existed, the universe has existed". To simply say that "the universe has always existed" is highly misleading; without further qualification of what is meant by "always" this would suggest the Greek concept of an eternal universe.
How would having always existed suggest an eternal universe? Having always existed says nothing about what will happen in the future.
I agree that statements like "have always existed" can have more than one meaning, but people who are aware of the different possibilities simply need to ask more questions to find out what is meant.
In other words, having always existed does not suggest the Greek idea of an eternal universe to me.
The claim that "as long as time has existed, the universe has existed" leaves us with more questions, however:
1) is this claim (that time "began" when the universe "began") really true? How do we test this scientifically or prove it logically? It seems to be the common opinion among cosmologists, but do we have any solid reasons for claiming it?
All valid questions in my opinion.
2) what does this imply about a "beginning" of time? Did time "begin to exist" at some point? And if so, what exactly does this mean?
These questions, however would be nonsense.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 11:45 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 2:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 302 (642913)
12-02-2011 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Straggler
12-02-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Reality of Time
Will the idea still exist if my brain ends up under a bus this evening?
Does the idea that all men are created equal exist? In what form does it exist? Does the idea of four exist? Would four still exist if every human being were to die tomorrow?
I don't believe that your questions are the least bit relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 12:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 6:16 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 302 (642917)
12-02-2011 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 2:24 PM


kbersche writes:
NoNukes writes:
kbertsche writes:
what does this imply about a "beginning" of time? Did time "begin to exist" at some point? And if so, what exactly does this mean?
These questions, however would be nonsense.
I don't thinks so. Philosophers still puzzle over fundamental questions about the nature of time, with two main theories on what it is.
You misunderstand me.
I am not suggesting that there are no circumstances under which we can ask about beginnings. I'm suggesting that asking the particular questions you ask, given the initial assumptions that time and the universe start together makes no sense.
So when you asked "what does this imply about a beginning of time" (emphasis added by me), the answer is that the question is already dispensed of by "this".
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 2:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 7:35 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 302 (642965)
12-03-2011 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by kbertsche
12-02-2011 7:35 PM


But my first point was to question this initial assumption that time and the universe start together. What evidence do we have for this claim? Is it really true? How do we know?
I saw that part of your post.
As I indicated, I don't have any problem with those kinds of questions when you challenge the initial assumption. If that's what you meant, you were not to clear about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 7:35 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 302 (643053)
12-04-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Straggler
12-02-2011 6:16 PM


Re: Ideas
Do you really think the story of Goldilocks exists independetly of human minds and thus physical human brians?
Of course it does. The story is recorded in countless forms. Do you think and idea for an invention exists only in the human mind regardless of the fact that it has a physical implementation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 6:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2011 7:35 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 302 (643157)
12-05-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Straggler
12-05-2011 7:35 AM


Re: Ideas
I think "physical implementation" whether it be in physical brains or some other material form is absolutely fundamental.
Actually you said that ideas don't exist outside of the brain. To respond to that assertion, I don't need to address the more difficult task of showing that ideas can be immaterial. It's enough to show a physical, non-mental embodiment.
I'm waffling a bit on whether or not mathematical concepts have a meaning outside of the human mind because I'm not completely convinced. I don't believe the concept four is tied to a human mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2011 7:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2011 11:36 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 302 (643967)
12-13-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Rahvin
12-13-2011 12:05 PM


Re: Objective/Subjective
When we talk about pi, we're talking about our understanding of the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle to the best of our observational ability
I think we can do better than that. The circumference of a circle of radius 1/2 can be conceived exactly without reference to a decimal representation of pi. It is however the case that pi is an irrational number that cannot be expressed as the quotient of two rational numbers.
Your position is, to my mind, the same as saying that we cannot have an exact conception of sqrt (2). But we can certainly conceive of a 1 by 1 square and its diagonal.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm still on the fence about whether numbers exist outside of the mind, but I'm leaning towards believing that they do. Apparently there is not universal agreement about the issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Rahvin, posted 12-13-2011 12:05 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2011 1:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 302 (682170)
11-30-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2012 9:58 AM


QM does not apply to large massive objects.
I think QM does apply to large massive objects. QM predictions simply collapses to conventional physics as objects increase in size. For example, QM predicts that electrons can tunnel through potential barriers with an appreciable probability. QM also predicts that macroscopic objects have probabilities for tunneling through wall, but it also predicts that such probabilities are vanishingly small such that macroscopic tunneling does not occur.
kofh2u is simply mistating QM just as he mistates cosmology and every other branch of science that he attempts to mangle into agreeing with a literal reading of Genesis.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2012 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2012 11:51 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024