Philosophical nonsense

“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

Similarly, “Time and space are effects that must have a cause,” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

—It is not just the words that are nonsensical, but the (pseudo-) concepts that the words attempt to express.

________________________________________________

Please discuss why you think these propositions are true or not true—or not really propositions at all…. Thanks in advance for all considered responses.

"Time" is an 'act of measurement' ... I'm going from there ..

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"Time" is an 'act of measurement' ... I'm going from there ..

Hi Karoly. I'm going to let it develop awhile, because I want to see how much my initial thought needs to stand corrected. However, your start here reminds of a Wittgenstein quote that I read just last night, and that sort of triggered my thought here--I'll share it later on down the road...

EDIT: You're coming at it from a different angle than I am, but I suspect it's an important angle.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi Karoly. I'm going to let it develop awhile, because I want to see how much my initial thought needs to stand corrected. However, your start here reminds of a Wittgenstein quote that I read just last night, and that sort of triggered my thought here--I'll share it later on down the road...

EDIT: You're coming at it from a different angle than I am, but I suspect it's an important angle.

Aye, there is more than one angle here ...

Originally posted by vistesd
“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

Similarly, “Time and space are effects that must have a cause,” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

—It is not just the words that are nonsensical, but the (pseudo-) concepts that the words attempt to express.

________________________________________________

Please discuss why you think ...[text shortened]... or not true—or not really propositions at all…. Thanks in advance for all considered responses.

The following is from Stephen Hawking's website:
The lecture is on the beginning of time and the following is
from that lecture:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.
Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,
about 15 billion years ago."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is from Stephen Hawking's website:
The lecture is on the beginning of time and the following is
from that lecture:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever.
Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang,
about 15 billion years ago."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

There's a very important passage in that essay:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.

Notice he does not deny that there were events and a time before the Big Bang; he simply ignores them because they can't be measured. The Big Bang occurred 15 (or 13.7) billion years ago, but that doesn't mean time didn't exist before that.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"Time" is an 'act of measurement' ... I'm going from there ..

You assume time requires something to measure, as if it cannot be there
in its own right.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume time requires something to measure, as if it cannot be there
in its own right.
Kelly

Hey what?
"someTHING" ? dont you mean someone?
Sorry I'm not following.

I was just trying to say that time is relative to the observer (who is measuring it).
Hence terms like "isn't time flying" ,etc.

If you follow my premise to it's logical conclusion then ... well I suppose you could say that "God" created the world in 7 days, amongst other things. Lol

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There's a very important passage in that essay:

[i]Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the ...[text shortened]... curred 15 (or 13.7) billion years ago, but that doesn't mean time didn't exist before that.

For once, Stephen Hawkins is forced to agree with the Holy Bible
due to his study of the matter. That is, time is a measurable
quanity and must have a beginning and an end. God is timeless
with no beginning or end. God is the one that created time when
He created the universe, just like the Holy Bible says. To ignore
this fact and say time has no beginning or end and that there is
no Creator is being foolish.

Originally posted by RJHinds
For once, Stephen Hawkins is forced to agree with the Holy Bible
due to his study of the matter. That is, time is a measurable
quanity and must have a beginning and an end. God is timeless
with no beginning or end. God is the one that created time when
He created the universe, just like the Holy Bible says. To ignore
this fact and say time has no beginning or end and that there is
no Creator is being foolish.

Where do you get such assurance from? I mean do you really think that the holy bible has got ALL the answers? (I'm assuming from your posting history that the answer to the second question would be "yes" )

I am a follower of the truth, and admit that in my observations that the bible has got some things right, some things partially right, and some things flat out wrong.
If the bible was totally right then surely the "truth" of it would've "washed" over the human population in that last 2000 years and that we would be well on our way to making this planet what it was intended to be- unified, happy and in line with what the origonal creators vision. However this is not the case. Not only has the bible not unified the people, it hasn'e even unified christians.
You come along post after post with this "all or nothing" stance on the bible, (and life in general), and expect people to agree with you. You say that other notions of god are wrong or diluted from the bible and have no slack at all from those that disagree with you. You are a fundie. Pure and simple. And no matter how hard you keep bashing that book, it just will not stick.

Now, do you think you could offer some slack with your posts at all, or have you resigned yourself to this "one size fits all" view of the world that pretty much leaves free will,(which "God" gave us), out of the equation and continue in your hopeless quest to repeatedly make the same mistakes as the fundies for millenia have been doing ?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hey what?
"someTHING" ? dont you mean someone?
Sorry I'm not following.

I was just trying to say that time is relative to the observer (who is measuring it).
Hence terms like "isn't time flying" ,etc.

If you follow my premise to it's logical conclusion then ... well I suppose you could say that "God" created the world in 7 days, amongst other things. Lol

Okay, much worse than, time is like an opinion to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

Similarly, “Time and space are effects that must have a cause,” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

—It is not just the words that are nonsensical, but the (pseudo-) concepts that the words attempt to express.

________________________________________________

Please discuss why you think ...[text shortened]... or not true—or not really propositions at all…. Thanks in advance for all considered responses.

I'll take a crack at the first one, but the second one has too many curves to be anything more than misleading.


“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement.
For the author, there is only time by which to gauge and consider phenomena. The author is not privy to the divine decree, namely, that time was created by God as a convenience for His creation, therefore, even when the author assumes the existence of God, there was something relative to time within which God existed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, much worse than, time is like an opinion to you.
Kelly

(If I understand your posting history it goes something like this)
It's your opinion that the bible contains the truth whereas I only have opinions about spirituality, right?
Lol... talk about philosophical nonsense.
Why, oh why is your opinion the truth and mine only an opinion?
(I claim to have my opinions come directly from the source whereas you claim to get it second-hand from the bible ... Hmmmm)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Where do you get such assurance from? I mean do you really think that the holy bible has got ALL the answers? (I'm assuming from your posting history that the answer to the second question would be "yes" )

I am a follower of the truth, and admit that in my observations that the bible has got some things right, some things partially right, and some th ...[text shortened]... o repeatedly make the same mistakes as the fundies for millenia have been doing ?

The following is a quote from your post to me which is corrected to
say what you should have said:

I am a follower of the truth, and admit that in my observations that I
have got some things right, some things partially right, and some things
flat out wrong.

Originally posted by vistesd
“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement.

I am not convinced that is nonsensical. I believe that is is currently not known whether or not time is finite in either direction.
I believe it is possible that:
1. Time is infinite in both directions.
2. Time is finite only in the past.
3. Time is finite only in the future.
4. Time is finite in both directions.

If time is finite in the past, then I see nothing wrong with the claim that time had a beginning. However, it would be wrong to talk of 'before the beginning'.

I must point out that the three space dimensions are thought to be finite.

My favorite analogy for time is the lines of longitude. We could say they 'begin' at the South Pole and 'end' at the North Pole. They have a beginning, but there is nothing further South than (before) the South Pole.

Maybe 'minimum' would express the 'beginning' of time and lines of longitude better than 'beginning' does.

Another nice analogy is mass. We can have objects of all sorts of masses, but it is simply nonsensical to tall of an object having a negative mass. Take a cup of water. Keep taking out one drop at a time until you have nothing. Keep taking out drops, and you will have less than nothing! 'Less than nothing' is what comes before the beginning of a cup being filled with water! Clearly nonsensical.