Author
|
Topic: Time and Beginning to Exist
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Reply to Rahvin
When you see someone actually change their mind because of new evidence, it is time to look more closely at that evidence. That is the way I feel about Allan Sandage learning the big bang was a unique event. It started him on a journey which resulted him becoming a Christian. Pretty startling evidence for the former atheist. This is, of course, not true, as you know. Perhaps you could find something new to be wrong about. For one thing, if you fail to deceive us the first time you utter a falsehood, you're not likely to deceive us the second or third time by mere repetition; and for another thing the sheer monotony of your dishonesty is extremely boring. Finally, I would note that your garbage about Sandage is off-topic. Perhaps you could at least try to be wrong about something germane to the issue being discussed. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
So you would actually deny that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago?!? If you don't like "begin to exist", how would you prefer to describe the finite age of the universe ... How about saying that the universe has a finite age? Rahvin has a point: "begin to exist" does have its problems. Normally, when we say something begins to exist, we mean that there's a time when it didn't followed by a time when it did. But if, as many cosmologists seem to say, time is an aspect of the universe, then there was no time when the universe didn't exist, making it different from everything else that "began to exist".
This message is a reply to: | | Message 148 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 8:55 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 190 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2011 9:55 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 199 of 302 (642821)
12-01-2011 10:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 190 by kbertsche 12-01-2011 9:55 AM
|
|
I don't see how (A) "began to exist" implies prior time any more than does (B) "has a finite age". Well, "begin to" just does imply prior time, and not just with universes. For example, it is reasonable to talk of a Red Delicious Apple beginning to be red, because first it isn't and then it is; but it would be a strange and freakish use of the English language to talk of a Granny Smith beginning to be green, because there was never a time when it wasn't green. Likewise you can speak of me beginning to learn French, because once I didn't and then I did; but it would not be good English to talk of me beginning to have a Y chromosome. (It would in fact be good English to say "Dr Adequate has always had a Y chromosome" even though the time during which I have done so is not infinite in extent.)
This message is a reply to: | | Message 190 by kbertsche, posted 12-01-2011 9:55 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 200 by kbertsche, posted 12-02-2011 11:45 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
Or - To put it another way - Do we invent or discover maths? Hmm ... I'd say that we discover math and that mathematical entities don't exist. We are not discovering things, which exist, but facts, which are true.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 242 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2011 7:44 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 246 of 302 (644325)
12-17-2011 7:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 245 by Chuck77 12-17-2011 7:09 AM
|
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
So mathematical entities are not realistic if no one discovers them? No, that's not what I said. A fact can be true before someone discovers it. But facts are not real, they're true. Things are real or not real (e.g. hats, unicorns, respectively). Statements are true or false (e.g. "Hats exist"; "Unicorns exist"). Mathematical truths are true, not real, because they're statements, not things.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 245 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:09 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 247 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:25 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 248 of 302 (644328)
12-17-2011 7:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 247 by Chuck77 12-17-2011 7:25 AM
|
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
So 2+2=4 is a concept? Yes. To be precise, the truth here is that within the system of natural numbers, 2 + 2 = 4. Now the fact that the system of natural numbers can be used to model some aspects of our experience is merely a scientific discovery, and is not true a priori.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 247 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:25 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
If these facts are properties of reality then they are "things". Not physical "things". But "things" which can meaningfully be said to "exist" and thus be discovered. Well, what do you mean by "properties of reality"? Consider the following statement: "If all snufflepuffs are frungible, and all frungible things are blurple, then all snufflepuffs are blurple". This is a fact (which is true). Is there a thing (which exists) corresponding to the fact?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 249 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 8:15 AM | | Straggler has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 252 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 8:49 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
Yes. Logic. Well, that's a bit broad. Would you say that the "thing" corresponding to Pythagoras' theorem was math?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 252 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 8:49 AM | | Straggler has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 254 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 10:10 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 255 of 302 (644379)
12-17-2011 10:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by Straggler 12-17-2011 10:10 AM
|
|
Re: Objective/Subjective
But in your Snufflepuff example there was nothing that makes it specific to Snufflepuffs. In fact you would be better off generalising your statement to something like: If ALL X are Y and ALL Y are Z Then ALL X are Z No, you'd have been better off if I did that. That's why I talked about snufflepuffs. Snufflepuffs are clearly not the things the syllogism is true of, since they aren't things; and on the other hand those who vaguely imagine a Platonic world of mathematical and logical truths will tend to baulk at the idea of my premises and conclusion sitting there in their logical relationship waiting for me to come along and enunciate it.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 254 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 10:10 AM | | Straggler has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 256 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2011 11:54 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|