20 Jan 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not sure it's a meaningful question, but I'll try to give a meaningful
Do you think this is a meaningful question ?
If so, what would the answer be ?
answer for why I think this is the case.
First of all, 'time' is an arbitrary, man-made construct. Nowadays, a
second is defined as 'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom.' I don't really
quite know what the significance of it is, but it's pretty clear that such
a definition is, indeed, very arbitrary. Why not '9,192,621,771' periods,
or use uranium-238 as the standard rather than cesium-133. It's only
meaningful because we need some standard of measuring the
relationship between two non-simultaneous events, or the relationship
between the beginning and end of non-instantaneous events.
Given that time is infinite -- that is, there is no beginning and no end of
it -- where we set 'time = 0' is, too, arbitrary. For example, we set
1 C.E. at the formerly believed birth year of Jesus. We could have made
that number 100, or 5, or 1,992,394 if the powers that been so inclined;
but, for the sake of convenience, they just labeled it '1' and went on
from there. I don't know if years were measured before that (the Chinese
measured it from some point, as I recall), but because of the influence of
the West and Christianity, such a dating system was imposed on the world.
So where we set the 'zero' on our 'x-axis' measuring time is arbitrary, we
could set it at the birth of Jesus, or the big bang (or Creation, if you prefer),
or any other place, but it still extends forward and backward infinitely from
where ever you place that 'zero.'
So, if you want to measure 'age' by 'time,' you certainly can, but recognize
that you are doing so in an arbitrary fashion.
Nemesio
P.S., I see the Christmas tree is still there....Only 14 days until Purification!!
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "First of all, 'time' is an arbitrary, man-made construct."
I'm not sure it's a meaningful question, but I'll try to give a meaningful
answer for why I think this is the case.
First of all, 'time' is an arbitrary, man-made construct. Nowadays, a
second is defined as 'the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine
levels of the ground st ...[text shortened]...
Nemesio
P.S., I see the Christmas tree is still there....Only 14 days until Purification!!
If this is true, time would not have existed before mankind entered history.
I think it is a good idea to make a clear distinction between time as a physical reality, same as gravity and space, and the measurement of this phenomenon.
Time as an existing phenomenon is not an arbitrary, man made construct.
Nemesio: "It's only meaningful because we need some standard of measuring the relationship between two non-simultaneous events, or the relationship between the beginning and end of non-instantaneous events."
This an interesting statement. You state that time is defined as a relationship between events or the relationship between the beginning and the end of (the same or any ?) events. Is this correct ? .. and I am referring to the existing physical phenomenom "time".
Whether time, the phenomenon as we know it, is infinite remains to be seen.
Whether time, again the phenomenon, extends "forwards" and "backwards" also remains to be seen. If time can extend, move, then why wouldn't time "age" ?
20 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course not. Time is relative to whoever is observing the flow of events that it marks. The question only becomes meaningful when you specify an observer in some particular frame of reference.
Do you think this is a meaningful question ?
This argument should be more often used to dispute a literal reading of the Genesis account. According to the text, things happen in days. Whose days, from which frame of reference? God's? Earth's? Neither of those quite work, if you ponder it. Until the observer of those days is specified, to demand a literal interpretation of that account is pure foolishness.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe
You state that time is defined as a relationship between events or the relationship between the beginning and the end of (the same or any ?) events. Is this correct ? .. and I am referring to the existing physical phenomenon "time".
A length of time is the distance between events (or an event's
inception and conclusion); the time measured is an arbitrary one,
depending on the units used. The measurement of 'height' is the
distance between the bottom and the top of something; again, the
unit used is arbitrary.
However, a tree had a 'height' before man invented the meter, and
so too did time exist before man invented the second.
I don't know what you mean by 'the phenomenon of time.' Perhaps,
since you asked the question, you might define it. I am not sure yet
if we are talking about the same 'phenomenon.'
Nemesio
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI imagine that the way around this dispute is to claim that the
[bThis argument should be more often used to dispute a literal reading of the Genesis account. According to the text, things happen in days. Whose days, from which frame of reference? God's? Earth's? Neither of those quite work, if you ponder it. Until the observer of those days is specified, to demand a literal interpretation of that account is pure foolishness.[/b]
'measurement' of days is made ex post facto or that God
defined what a day is before He started Creation and conformed
His activities to that definition.
In other words, in the beginning God made the definition 'day,'
then He began working...
It's not elegant, I suppose.
Nemesio
20 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioBut you still haven't answered the question of from whose perspective did the creation days occur. Even if God did define a day to be the 24-hour phenomenon that we know now, and then start working, did the days pass as such from his perspective? From the Earth's, which didn't even exist? From what frame of reference? As Einstein showed, time is not absolute, even with a strictly defined metric; each frame of reference observes time passing at a different speed. So when the creation 'days' passed, from whose point of view did they occur precisely as one day? And from whatever frame of reference that was, any other moving frame of reference, like the moon, necessarily observed them as longer or shorter than precisely one day. Thus, no literal reading is meaningful.
I imagine that the way around this dispute is to claim that the
'measurement' of days is made ex post facto or that God
defined what a day is before He started Creation and conformed
His activities to that definition.
In othe ...[text shortened]... en He began working...
It's not elegant, I suppose.
Nemesio
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, it is meaningful.
Do you think this is a meaningful question ?
If so, what would the answer be ?
If "time" refers to a "standard of measuring the relationship between two non-simultaneous events, or the relationship between the beginning and end of non-instantaneous events", as stated by Nemesio (and I agree with that statement), then if the answer to the question is YES, that means that there once was a first event (whatever that may have been), and the universe is not infinitely old. On the other hand, if the answer is NO, we can infer that the universe has always existed.
I do not know the answer to your question, though.
20 Jan 05
Originally posted by richjohnsonSo what is 'age' measured in?
Yes, it is meaningful.
If "time" refers to a "standard of measuring the relationship between two non-simultaneous events, or the relationship between the beginning and end of non-instantaneous events", as stated by Nemesio (and I agree with that statement), then if the answer to the question is YES, that means that there once was a first ev ...[text shortened]... er that the universe has always existed.
I do not know the answer to your question, though.