27 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdTime is:
“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 passage of moment out of now into the past. I'd say the most interesting
part of time for me is the moment, "now".
Kelly
27 May 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I did not over think it. I was giving an example of something that has a minimum, but nothing less than the minimum. The very point I was making is that it is an error to think that one can take more out than was in in the first place and one cannot talk of a time before time began.
I think you over-thought the ideas when you offered the cup of water analogy. You cannot continue taking water from the cup once it is emptied; cannot take more out than was in in the first place!
27 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdNo, actually it doesn't. The surface of a sphere is finite and boundless. Even a circle is finite in length and boundless.
Hmmm! I don’t think I agree. Finiteness implies a boundary.
We believe the three space dimensions are finite and boundless.
The reason time tends to cause confusion in this matter is that it has a direction.
“Boundless” might be a better term here than talking about finity or infinity? (Which terms themselves imply time.)
No, finite and infinity are mathematical terms totally relating to concepts with groups and numbers. They do not imply time.
What could possibly be said about the boundary that separates time from __________ what?
If time is finite, there is no boundary as such. There may be a minimum, but as you say, a boundary tends to imply an 'other side'. Whereas a minimum (eg the minimum possible mass is zero or near zero) does not necessarily have another side (negative mass does not exist).
I also would not say that the lines of longitude “have” a “beginning”. We simply are free to pick any place from which to measure and call that the beginning—but it is really just the beginning of our measurement.
You might be less free if they appear to have direction. Lines of latitude are said to start at a somewhat arbitrary point (the Greenwich meridian) whereas lines of longitude are not so arbitrary.
If I got more technical and instead asked 'how many degrees from the axis of rotation is a given point', there is a definite direction and a definite maximum and minimum. However, negatives would not exist. You could not be closer to the axis than 0 degrees nor further than 90 degrees.
27 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]You might be less free if they appear to have direction. Lines of latitude are said to start at a somewhat arbitrary point (the Greenwich meridian) whereas lines of longitude are not so arbitrary.
No, actually it doesn't. The surface of a sphere is finite and boundless. Even a circle is finite in length and boundless.
We believe the three space dimensions are finite and boundless.
The reason time tends to cause confusion in this matter is that it has a direction.
[b] “Boundless” might be a better term here than talking about finity or infinity not exist. You could not be closer to the axis than 0 degrees nor further than 90 degrees.
But the lines of longitude do not exist on the earth. No measurements do. We make the measurements. We are, I agree, given a defined shape that is amenable to measurement—and that gives some limit to our measurement activity (i.e., we are measuring something after all). I just want to avoid any map-versus-territory confusion.
I stand corrected on the finiteness versus boundedness question; I appear to have had them exactly backwards. (Your example of mass helps.)
We believe the three space dimensions are finite and boundless.
And this means, does it not, that all language about boundedness, as well as all time/space language—any language that entails dimensionality—cannot be said to apply sensibly, absent the context of the given, dimensional universe? That it loses sense once we try to apply it to some “transcendental” (for lack of a better word just now) metaphysics, for example?
___________________________________________
To make sure that I understand you correctly, let me say it back to you:
(1) To say that time has a beginning is not nonsensical, so long as we understand “beginning” to refer only to the fact of finiteness? (Making no assumption about whether or not it is a fact.) The language seems confusing and awkward—and maybe use of the word “beginning” is not strictly correct—but it is not thereby senseless.
(2) However, to speak of “before time” is senseless, just as to speak of negative mass, or “beyond space”.
27 May 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThought about what you said, you have some points I hadn't thought through.
Ok. Deal
My mine focus so far in this thread has been on time itself, our limitations aside,
and for that matter light's limitations does not alter time in my opinion, those
limitations simply are what they are.
Kelly
27 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdAgreed. A dimension is not an existing grid of lines, but a way of measuring. It is often possible to come up with different sets of dimensions to cover the same space. For example, on a flat plane, one can use polar coordinates instead of Cartesian co-ordinates.
But the lines of longitude do not exist on the earth. No measurements do. We make the measurements. We are, I agree, given a defined shape that is amenable to measurement—and that gives some limit to our measurement activity (i.e., we are measuring something after all). I just want to avoid any map-versus-territory confusion.
I must point out that with Cartesian co-ordinates there are no boundaries, and both axes are finite in both directions. With polar coordinates, the distance from the origin, is finite in one direction (it begins at zero) and infinite in the other. The angle varies from zero to 360 degrees (or 2pi radians). It is entirely finite.
What is less than 0 units from the origin? It is meaningless to ask.
And this means, does it not, that all language about boundedness, as well as all time/space language—any language that entails dimensionality—cannot be said to apply sensibly, absent the context of the given, dimensional universe? That it loses sense once we try to apply it to some “transcendental” (for lack of a better word just now) metaphysics, for example?
Correct. In fact it is meaningless to use any dimensional language on another dimension (without first defining the other dimension and providing a mapping between the two). So one cannot ask how old is your mass or how long is that angle.
I think the error often made when discussing this is that people realize that they must invent a new dimension in order to place God or any supernatural being outside the universe, but they do not realize that a new dimension is by definition normal to all other dimensions, and they try to line it up with the time dimension.
To make sure that I understand you correctly, let me say it back to you:
(1) To say that time has a beginning is not nonsensical, so long as we understand “beginning” to refer only to the fact of finiteness? (Making no assumption about whether or not it is a fact.) The language seems confusing and awkward—and maybe use of the word “beginning” is not strictly correct—but it is not thereby senseless.
(2) However, to speak of “before time” is senseless, just as to speak of negative mass, or “beyond space”.
Agreed.
27 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks. Let's see if I can keep it (and the language) clear in my own head now.
Agreed. A dimension is not an existing grid of lines, but a way of measuring. It is often possible to come up with different sets of dimensions to cover the same space. For example, on a flat plane, one can use polar coordinates instead of Cartesian co-ordinates.
I must point out that with Cartesian co-ordinates there are no boundaries, and both axes ar ...[text shortened]... f “before time” is senseless, just as to speak of negative mass, or “beyond space”.
Agreed.[/b]
EDIT: side-issue comments removed.
27 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdThis reminds me of the discussion I once had here about the existence of t=0. For me it's hard to comprehend time as having a beginning so well-defined like that. So I prefer to think of time (if finite to the past) as an open-ended interval. You can get closer and closer to the bound, but you cannot "be" at the bound at still inside the interval.
___________________________________________
To make sure that I understand you correctly, let me say it back to you:
(1) To say that time has a beginning is not nonsensical, so long as we understand “beginning” to refer only to the fact of finiteness? (Making no assumption about whether or not it is a fact.) The language seems confusing and ...[text shortened]... r, to speak of “before time” is senseless, just as to speak of negative mass, or “beyond space”.
This is all speculation, of course, and doesn't detract from the idea that a "before time" is senseless. Something I agree with entirely.
27 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou didn't understand my post or Hawking's essay. Hawking agrees that there was a time before time. Time began at the Big Bang because that's a convenient point to set t=0 at, not because there was nothing before the BB!
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.
27 May 11
You can talk about negative mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
What you cannot do is weigh mass. You cannot find the beginning of length. You cannot measure how tall height is. You cannot measure how long time has existed. It is nonsensical to measure a dimension with respect to itself.
27 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdI do not totally rule out the possibility that time had no beginnings although it is my understanding that the most 'obvious' interpretation of the equations in physics when applied to this is that time did have a beginning.
“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.
But why do you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “ ?
I mean, in what way do you think it may be “ nonsensical”?
“..Similarly, “Time and space are effects that must have a cause,” is a strictly nonsensical statement. ...”
here I think you are probably correct because I take it that to say X caused Y and Y is the effect of X implies X came BEFORE Y and, therefore, to say “Time and space are effects that must have a cause” is to imply “a cause of time came BEFORE time” which implies “there was a BEFORE time” which is a logical self-contradiction. -but I still like to know why you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “.
27 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy don't you accept Stephen Hawking's conclusion
I do not totally rule out the possibility that time had no beginnings although it is my understanding that the most 'obvious' interpretation of the equations in physics when applied to this is that time did have a beginning.
But why do you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “ ?
I mean, in what way do you think it may be ...[text shortened]... still like to know why you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “.
that the universe has not existed forever;
Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning?
After all he used scientific studies and scientific reasoning
in presenting his findings in his lecture on the beginning
of time.
27 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn light of Twhitehead's corrections, I now revised that statement (see our exchange above, and Palynka's comments). To use the term "beginning" (as a concept that is itself time-dependent) is, I still think awkward--but if the use is only to refer to the idea that time is finite to the past, then it can make sense.
I do not totally rule out the possibility that time had no beginnings although it is my understanding that the most 'obvious' interpretation of the equations in physics when applied to this is that time did have a beginning.
But why do you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “ ?
I mean, in what way do you think it may be ...[text shortened]... still like to know why you say “Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement. “.
It is still nonsensical to speak of "before time", so we're agreed on that. And if time/space dimensionality are aspects of the universe, then similarly one may speak of the beginning of the universe, but not of before the universe. I think your analysis of cause and effect is right (and likely better than I would have put it). Also, I do not take the universe as a thing-in-itself, but simply the collection things, forces, relationships; and I take cause-and-effect as a kind of relationship within the universe. It does not make sense to speak of an effect (and hence a cause) where there is nothing to effect (this really goes to the whole creatio ex nihilo idea).