06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterEr. Time does exist because events exist. The concept of absolute time doesn't exist, but
I was asking from the point of view of his logic not mine. I don't believe time exists in reality. He does.
I can't imagine that twhitehead believes that. I suspect, like all of us, he takes as an acknowledged
given that t=0 is the start of the universe simply because that's convenient to have a discussion
about the universe. It would be idiotic to use that reference to discuss his age (I began life at
t=16,139,392,920 years, 7 months, 5 days, 12 hours, 19 minutes, and 6 seconds).
Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that distance doesn't exist in reality?
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI believe that distance does not exist either.
Er. Time does exist because events exist. The concept of absolute time doesn't exist, but
I can't imagine that twhitehead believes that. I suspect, like all of us, he takes as an acknowledged
given that t=0 is the start of the universe simply because that's convenient to have a discussion
about the universe. It would be idiotic to use that refe ...[text shortened]... ust out of curiosity, do you also believe that distance doesn't exist in reality?
Nemesio
If you think it exists then can you tell me what "distance" is made of?
I think the concept of time (like distance) is often subtly reified in that people seem to talk about time as if it were an existent force or substance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterDistance is a means of indicating the relative positions between two entities. Simply because you
I believe that distance does not exist either.
If you think it exists then can you tell me what "distance" is made of?
can't hold it in your hand doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Similarly, time is a means of indicating the relative positions between two events.
Why would something have to be 'made of something' to exist? Aren't concepts 'real?' Don't
concepts 'exist?'
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioInteresting. How do we say that something exists or not? If I say that the concept of time exists that's one thing but it's another to say that it actually exists.
Distance is a means of indicating the relative positions between two entities. Simply because you
can't hold it in your hand doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Similarly, time is a means of indicating the relative positions between two events.
Why would something have to be 'made of something' to exist? Aren't concepts 'real?' Don't
concepts 'exist?'
Nemesio
There is obviously a distinction between something that exists substantially (like a peice of marble for example) and a conceptual existence (eg pythagoras's theorum)
My point is that what we are talking about here is a scientific event (the Big Bang) which is constituted of particles and matter . It has substance. It has mass. It's energy can be measured.
Into this context is often thrown the concept of "time" which to me exists in a conceptual way. It's the blurring of the boundaries between recognising what is concpetual and what is real. Often there is no clarity about this.
Have a look at this if you want to understand what I am saying. It's a very subtle thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Ask yourself this. If you measure a piece of land as 1 square mile , does that land need the square mile to exist in? Which is real , the square mile or the land?
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't see why that is a paradox. You seem quite happy with it when applied to your God.
Where does that leave us? I think there is still a paradox in that the Universe obviously exists and it cannot exist in time because that would mean it existed in itself. Therefore , it must exist in some timeless state.
I'm curious also how you on one hand are able to be so definite about things when challenging me but when I ask you questions you come out with non-committal yes/no stuff?
I answered your questions to the best of my ability. Some of the words you have used in your questions are not well defined. We clearly have different understandings of the meanings of the words 'event' and 'begin'.
As for my non-committance over whether the time dimension is finite or infinite, I feel I am perfectly justified as there is simply no good evidence either way. Committing would be an act of blind faith. My argument has always been that we have not ruled out a finite time dimension and that there is no known logical, physical nor mathematical reason why it cannot be finite.
You on the other hand refuse to answer my questions outright or avoid them.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe 'event' is not 'constituted of particles and matter'. An event is a function of change in energy (whether in matter form or wave form), over time and space. If at any point in time and space there is a change in energy along the time dimension then an 'event' has occurred. I am not sure whether the time dimension being bounded constitutes and event, but I suspect not. At the very least it is not in the same class as all other events.
My point is that what we are talking about here is a scientific event (the Big Bang) which is constituted of particles and matter . It has substance. It has mass. It's energy can be measured.
I don't know whether it is correct to say that dimensions 'exist', but they most definitely are real. It is a reality that you and I can be placed on a spacial dimension and that distance separates us.
The interesting thing is that even the matter and energy you believe you can touch and gives you a sense of reality, might in fact be nothing more than interacting dimensions. Certainly dimensions are an integral part of them, and your perception of them is intimately related to dimensions.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see why that is a paradox. You seem quite happy with it when applied to your God. ---------whitey-------
I don't see why that is a paradox. You seem quite happy with it when applied to your God.
[b]I'm curious also how you on one hand are able to be so definite about things when challenging me but when I ask you questions you come out with non-committal yes/no stuff?
I answered your questions to the best of my ability. Some of the words you have used ...[text shortened]... be finite.
You on the other hand refuse to answer my questions outright or avoid them.[/b]
I'm arguing using YOUR logic. It's you and hammy that seem to be obsessed with time. I don't even think it exists. Hammy says things like " nothing can exist unless it exists in a point in time" but I doubt he really thinks this through. I don't agree with this. If hammy is right then it's a logical paradox (see begininng of time thread) .
Do you and hammy see eye to eye on time?
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'll try again, since you avoided it this past post:
Interesting. How do we say that something exists or not? If I say that the concept of time exists that's one thing but it's another to say that it actually exists.
There is obviously a distinction between something that exists substantially (like a peice of marble for example) and a conceptual existence (eg pythagoras's theorum)
My point is tha ...[text shortened]... that land need the square mile to exist in? Which is real , the square mile or the land?
Why would something have to be 'made of something' to exist? Aren't concepts 'real?' Don't
concepts 'exist?'
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
I'll try again, since you avoided it this past post:
Why would something have to be 'made of something' to exist? Aren't concepts 'real?' Don't
concepts 'exist?'
Nemesio
If you had read this you would have understood better.
Concepts are not actually real if you think about it. Concepts could be said to actually be a series of electrical impulses that our brains make sense of. Electricity and neurons are real , are concepts real?
It's obvious that the terms "real" and "exist" can be used scientifically or abstractly. Its the confusion between the two that blurs things with regard to time. It's such a simple idea that it's hard to grasp at first.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have thought about it, and I think they are real. Do you care to elaborate as to why concepts
Concepts are not actually real if you think about it. Concepts could be said to actually be a series of electrical impulses that our brains make sense of. Electricity and neurons are real , are concepts real?
It's obvious that the terms "real" and "exist" can be used scientifically or abstractly. Its the confusion between the two that blurs things with regard to time. It's such a simple idea that it's hard to grasp at first.
are not real?
Nemesio
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo in your field of logic, it is not a paradox at all? So your argument is only valid if something you don't believe in is true? Or am I missing something?
I'm arguing using YOUR logic. It's you and hammy that seem to be obsessed with time. I don't even think it exists. Hammy says things like " nothing can exist unless it exists in a point in time" but I doubt he really thinks this through. I don't agree with this. If hammy is right then it's a logical paradox (see begininng of time thread).
Do you and hammy see eye to eye on time?
Mostly, I think. Hammy seems a bit more certain that time is finite whereas I prefer to leave that as an unanswered question, but I believe that we both understand the concept of a dimension and you do not.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo in your field of logic, it is not a paradox at all? So your argument is only valid if something you don't believe in is true? Or am I missing something?-----whitey----------------
So in your field of logic, it is not a paradox at all? So your argument is only valid if something you don't believe in is true? Or am I missing something?
[b]Do you and hammy see eye to eye on time?
Mostly, I think. Hammy seems a bit more certain that time is finite whereas I prefer to leave that as an unanswered question, but I believe that we both understand the concept of a dimension and you do not.[/b]
Ooooooh you can be so playful at times! Of course it's a paradox for me as well but it's not one I have to face because I don't believe in the model of existence that gives rise to the paradox.
I'm bringing it up because those who believe that time has a beginning have to ask themselves how this came about when there was no time in which this could happen. Time must have began in a timeless state because there was no pre-existing time in which the beginning of time could begin in.
You may not of course believe that time actually began and that time is beginningless. That would make time eternal in my book , but of course you don't like this idea any more than you like the paradox so you come up with some non-committal stuff and postulate about circles and such like where time has a beginning but doesn't really.
You seem to have found a way of slipping between the cracks on this one so that you don't have to think about eternity but you can also escape those nasty paradoxes too.