1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…Whilst one might say that there can be no point before t=0 on the t axis , it may or may not mean a thing in the real world because in the real universe there is no axis or co-ordinates , just stuff.. …
When I say that one can ask "what came before the Big Bang?" your objection is that there can be no "before" . But since you seem to be only talking about co-ordinates and such like , is your objection theoretical or substantial?
Whilst one might say that there can be no point beofre t=0 on the t axis , it may or may not mean a thing in the real world because in the real universe there is no axis or co-ordinates , just stuff.
The whole of physics uses axis and co-ordinates just to describe what is measured/observed in the real world regarding position, time and motion of things.
If non of that corresponded to the real world then, presumably, the whole of physics would be totally wrong including Newtonian physics, quantum physics and relativity. But that would mean that non of our technology that relies on that physics such as nuclear power stations, computers and communication satellites wouldn't work -the fact that these technologies work most of the time is therefore not only evidence that the physics must at least be mostly correct but also it is evidence that the axis and co-ordinates used to describe position, time and motion of things must correspond to something in the real world.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo you think my idea that something happened at t=0 is flawed?
First, bbarr already made the correct objection to your initial argument, which doesn't even get off the ground. Second, I think Nemesio already made the correct objection to what has followed (pp. 4 and 11). Consider, for example, this statement from Hawking, where I am hoping you will see the relevance:
"In fact, all our theories of science are for e A) horn of your dilemma: "Yeah, so what?" That is, your dilemma is no dilemma at all.
It seems to me that something must have happened at t=0 because otherwise there would be no time.
Maybe you think that time didn't begin and that time is beginningless. Maybe you think that time did actually begin. If you do then you still have the problem of figuring out how time began. Logic dictates that time cannot begin in time and that the beginning of time cannot rely on itself to happen because time hasn't started yet.
So how does time start? Nobody apart from neme has been able to tell me , until they do my questions are entirely valid.
If I said that everything that happens relies on God and then said that God had a beginning and was finite I'm pretty darn sure that I would be asked -" ok , so how did God happen then? " If I then said things like "there can be no before God" or " the beginning of God happens within God " or " it's meaningless to ask because there is no point G=-1 before God" then I think many would find this highly unsatisfactory and think I was copping out.
They might ask "if everything relies on God then what does the beginning of God rely on then?" ---and they would be right to ask. They would have realised that by logic the beginning of God must be a "non-God" reliant event.
Do you not think it's interesting that Theists and Atheists interpret physics to suit their position?
Originally posted by knightmeisterGoo. Sorry I said anything. Keep on keeping on and this thread may well turn out to be the pinnacle of your non-contribution to this forum.
So you think my idea that something happened at t=0 is flawed?
It seems to me that something must have happened at t=0 because otherwise there would be no time.
Maybe you think that time didn't begin and that time is beginningless. Maybe you think that time did actually begin. If you do then you still have the problem of figuring out how time b ...[text shortened]... interesting that Theists and Atheists interpret physics to suit their position?
Your first post asked for thoughts, and my thought is still that your argument blows.
Originally posted by LemonJelloThat's no a thought , it's a statement. Why does it blow?
Goo. Sorry I said anything. Keep on keeping on and this thread may well turn out to be the pinnacle of your non-contribution to this forum.
Your first post asked for thoughts, and my thought is still that your argument blows.
Is it because you think the beginning of time is not an event?
Or that nothing can exist unless it's in time?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOf course they do , but sometimes we need to remind ourselves what it is that we are describing , otherwise the description takes over from reality and we start thinking that things like "miles" or "time" actual;ly exist.
[b]…Whilst one might say that there can be no point before t=0 on the t axis , it may or may not mean a thing in the real world because in the real universe there is no axis or co-ordinates , just stuff.. …
The whole of physics uses axis and co-ordinates just to describe what is measured/observed in the real world regarding position, time and ...[text shortened]... to describe position, time and motion of things must correspond to something in the real world.[/b]
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo. Do you understand bbarr's objection to your argument (p. 6)? It would be the same objection I have.
That's no a thought , it's a statement. Why does it blow?
Is it because you think the beginning of time is not an event?
Or that nothing can exist unless it's in time?
Your argument makes no sense. You stipulate that event B represents the beginning of time. Then you say that B must have occurred in a timeless state because prior to the beginning of time is timeless. I mean, WTF? You're the only one who seems to think that makes any sense. Event B simply doesn't occur prior to the beginning of time (necessarily, because you have stipulated that they are identic, they occur simultaneously). So how would the observation that prior to B is timeless show that B occurred in a timeless state? It simply doesn't, and I'm not sure why you fail to grasp that.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNot to mention he used a musical analogue which I addressed and he ignored.
No. Do you understand bbarr's objection to your argument (p. 6)? It would be the same objection I have.
Your argument makes no sense. You stipulate that event B represents the beginning of time. Then you say that B must have occurred in a timeless state because prior to the beginning of time is timeless. I mean, WTF? You're the only one who seems ...[text shortened]... urred in a timeless state? It simply doesn't, and I'm not sure why you fail to grasp that.
'WTF' just about sums it up.
Nemesio
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is plenty of evidence of some Theists interpreting physics to suit their position, you have not presented any evidence of Atheists doing so.
Do you not think it's interesting that Theists and Atheists interpret physics to suit their position?
You instead hypothesized about what you believe they would do in certain circumstances.
Also, you would find that there are a large number of theists who would agree with everything said in this thread by the atheists. I notice a conspicuous absence of theists supporting you. You also have not yet quoted one single person who supports your views whether theist or not. You would think that if your idea was so obvious, then at least one notable person in history would have suggested it.
jaywill even gave a quote showing that at least one scientist would have preferred to come to the same conclusion as you, but could not because the evidence contradicted such a finding. (For some odd reason he thought he was putting down science, but I failed to see it).
I can only guess that you are using Kellys favorite argument ie all observations are biased therefore we are all equally likely to be interpreting the evidence wrongly.
I disagree, certainly in this instance. The issue can be settled with rigorous mathematical and logical argument, there is no interpretation involved. 1+1=2 is true. You cannot say 1+1=3, and the mathematicians are interpreting it differently and expect to be considered sane.
Originally posted by NemesioIgnored what? Bear in mind there is one of me a several of you. "Ignored" is a bit harsh don't you think? There's quite few plates around here to keep spinning in case you didn't notice.
Not to mention he used a musical analogue which I addressed and he ignored.
'WTF' just about sums it up.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LemonJelloMy argument is based on a process of elimination. The jist of it is that Event B cannot occur within time , so therefore we have to ask ourselves in what state of existence does event B occur.
No. Do you understand bbarr's objection to your argument (p. 6)? It would be the same objection I have.
Your argument makes no sense. You stipulate that event B represents the beginning of time. Then you say that B must have occurred in a timeless state because prior to the beginning of time is timeless. I mean, WTF? You're the only one who seems ...[text shortened]... urred in a timeless state? It simply doesn't, and I'm not sure why you fail to grasp that.
Event B cannot happen "in time" (and hammy has already corrected himself on this) in the way that we think of normal events occuring "in time" . It cannot occur within the boundaries of the very time that is supposed to be beginning. If it occurred "within time" then time would already exist and Event B could not logically be "the beginning of time" could it.
Try to understand that the first step is to realise that Event B cannot be classified as a normal time based event. What I have done from there is to speculate that if Event B occurs at t=0 and cannot occur "in time" then it must logically be a timeless event.
It's a logical process of elimination . There are two states in which things can occur a)"in time" or b)"not in time" . Event B cannot begin in time because time is not there.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIn what sense would "miles" or "time" not exist if we “measure” them and then make practical use of them!!!?
Of course they do , but sometimes we need to remind ourselves what it is that we are describing , otherwise the description takes over from reality and we start thinking that things like "miles" or "time" actual;ly exist.
One of the problems with you assertion that it could be the case that "miles" or "time" “do not exist” is that the whole of physics apparently depends totally on “measurements” of distance and time and if those “measurements” are not “measuring” anything that corresponds to physical reality then that would mean the whole of physics must be wrong and therefore our technology that depends on it wouldn’t work. -but our technology does work most of the time thus this must surely mean that those “measurements” must be “measuring” something that corresponds to physical reality and, by definition, that means what is being “measured” exists (and this must be still logically true even if we don’t really totally understand the true nature of what is being measured!)
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn what sense would "miles" or "time" not exist if we “measure” them and then make practical use of them!!!? ----------hammy----------
In what sense would "miles" or "time" not exist if we “measure” them and then make practical use of them!!!?
One of the problems with you assertion that it could be the case that "miles" or "time" “do not exist” is that the whole of physics apparently depends totally on “measurements” of distance and time and if those “measurements” are not “meas ...[text shortened]... e even if we don’t really totally understand the true nature of what is being measured!)
They exist conceptually and in models and often those models are very useful obviously. However, a model or concept can sometimes over take the reality. A square mile of land on a computer model could be twisted or distorted geometrically in a way that the land itself never could be. Therefore , we always need to check the correspondence between our conceptual models and reality itself.
It's like when Whitey produced his circular model of time and I pointed out that there's no real evidence that time repeats itself. The models and concepts always have to SERVE reality , not usurp it.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBut remember that I never claimed that time repeats itself. I only gave it as an analogy, an analogy that you sadly never understood because you think that circles have ends, are two dimensional, and repeat themselves, all of which are wrong. I also claim that you have not produced any evidence that it doesn't repeat itself and therefore you cannot make an argument that is based on the assumption that it does not.
It's like when Whitey produced his circular model of time and I pointed out that there's no real evidence that time repeats itself. The models and concepts always have to SERVE reality , not usurp it.
And what do you mean by "models and concepts always have to SERVE reality"? I would agree that a model does not make reality, but your choice of words is rather odd. I would say that a model or concept is intended to serve us, not reality, and the accuracy of the model in reflecting reality is not always essential. Newtons laws of motion are not accurate, but they are still very useful and serve us well. I cant imagine how they can be said to serve reality.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…A square mile of land on a computer model could be twisted or distorted geometrically in a way that the land itself never could be. …
In what sense would "miles" or "time" not exist if we “measure” them and then make practical use of them!!!? ----------hammy----------
They exist conceptually and in models and often those models are very useful obviously. However, a model or concept can sometimes over take the reality. A square mile of land on a computer model could be twisted or time repeats itself. The models and concepts always have to SERVE reality , not usurp it.
Yes -and, on the other hand, a square mile of land on a computer model could be made to NOT be twisted or distorted geometrically in anyway -why would, say, a scientist, “twisted or distorted geometrically” a computer model? -I don’t understand your point here. Obviously computer models are not usually deliberately designed with obvious and stupid design flaws.
…The models and concepts always have to SERVE reality …
Just like with twhitehead, you have lost me here -”SERVE reality” -what does that mean?
there is a saying in my country, "one idiot throws a stone and 10 wise men can't pick it up."
are you trying to make the idiot understand? he is using pseudo-logic and pseudo-science of his own creation, and he is smug enough about it so you would think he asks for a nobel prize.
is anyone able to summarize what he claims? and repeat the countless counter-arguments to his "theory"?