Originally posted by RJHinds“...Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning? ...”
Why don't you accept Stephen Hawking's conclusion
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.
I think you somehow misread my post for I said I think it is my understanding that time probably had a beginning.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay. But you don't seem as sure about it as you are
“...Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning? ...”
I think you somehow misread my post for I said I think it is my understanding that time probably had a beginning.
about nature creating everything and God not existing.
Originally posted by vistesdI think you are misconceptualizing time. Time is the measurement of progress from a state of low entropy to high entropy—inseparable from the spatial dimension. Further, time has a definite direction—i.e., it is a law of nature that things never flow from a state of high entropy to a state of low entropy. Further still, the implication of the second law of thermodynamics (that things move from a state of low to high entropy) is that in the finite past the universe began (and with it, time). Why? Because, if the space-time continuum did not begin to exist at some point then the universe would already be in a state of heat death (due to extreme entropy). Far from being nonsensical, a beginning to time is necessary.
“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.
Originally posted by epiphinehasAssuming time requires the universe to exist.
I think you are misconceptualizing time. Time is the measurement of progress from a state of low entropy to high entropy—inseparable from the spatial dimension. Further, time has a definite direction—i.e., it is a law of nature that things never flow from a state of high entropy to a state of low entropy. Further still, the implication of the s ...[text shortened]... t death (due to extreme entropy). Far from being nonsensical, a beginning to time is necessary.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdYes. I remember the thread, but very little of the content. I think I gibber jabbered on about words conveying meaning or some such thing.
Thanks, Joe. Twhitehead's reply to you is correct. However, you are right to clarify that the "problem" is not with the world (including God, if there be a God), but with our thinking about and attempting to interpret the world. Further however, note the comments about context and language games; a particular interpretive strategy (interpretive game) e discussion that you and I and others had some years ago about the meaning of "meaning".[/b]
But I have learned a thing or two about meaning, and how words fail to do justice to expressing thought in subsequent threads.
But we keep going.
"“Time had a beginning” is a strictly nonsensical statement."
Not to belabor the point, but I would like some clarification. Why is that statement nonsensical?
Originally posted by vistesdThank you for this post, visted. I am late to the discussion but will throw my tuppence in.
“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.
It intrigues me that little mention has been made to the role of our perceptions and the mind in the experience of time and its co-relative, space. It is helpful to be reminded also that Einstein established the intimate connection of time/space as a continuum, from his reflections on light and relativity.
My reflections and readings on time lead me to the thinking that;
- time neither exists nor does it not exist...it is empty of bounded static definition, It does not exist as a separate thing all by itself. It is connected like everything else.
Its nature is linked to our perceptions, and our perceptions are constantly changing, with an appearance of the passing of time and changing of space.
In that context, does it have a beginning or an ending at all?
From the ever unseen substratum of being and becoming (the noumenon), things, time and space, etc appear to our perceptions as phenomenon. The phenomenal experience is required for our survival and experience of life. The experience of time and space arose with the emergence of experiencing minds.
Time and space neither exists nor does it not exist in the noumenon.
The final nature of time along with the manifestation of life is an eternal mystery, to be accepted and enjoyed, (or sometimes endured), as it is.
The Big Bang theory has some holes in it, not the least of which is the nature of time and space prior to this event.
*************
Some quotes of emminent thinkers on the subject>
You cannot step in the same river twice.
The world is a whole, it is what it is and cannot turn into something else. Change is illusory.
There is no substance or duration to things. Each moment is an entirely new existence, which is succeeded by an entirely new existence.
- Heraclitus
There is no moment, no inkling, no particle of time that the river stops flowing.
- Early Buddhist text
The time that we observe in nature has no separate existence. It is only a mode of being of concrete objects. We ourselves create mathematical time. It is a mental construct, an abstraction indispensable to the building up of science.
There is no independent, linear time as some kind of container.
- Dalai Lama
Time and space are necessary forms under which sensation and perception are accommodated in our minds, in our brains; we can have no knowledge of the dingen an sich (Thing in itself)...
Time is not an empirical conception. It is a necessary representation, lying at the foundation of all our intuitions. If we abstract our internal intuition and take objects as they are in themselves, then time is nothing. We deny to time all claim to absolute reality.
- Kant.
Evolutionary epistemology explains that natural selection of brain processes has provided us with practical concepts of time and space to allow us to manage reality
- K Lorenz
Ultimately, the entire universe (with all its particles, including those constituting human beings, their laboratories, observing instruments, etc.) has to be understood as a single undivided whole.
What we perceive through our senses as empty space is actually the plenum, which is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms and their true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, in which they are generated and sustained, and into which they must ultimately vanish.
Time as a projection of multidimensional reality into a sequence of moments.
Neither space nor time as substrates through which something moves are real.
- David Bohm
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you think we could prove this somehow?(that light's limitation does not alter time) I'm not good at advanced math are you? Maybe we need aother poster to help here ....
Thought about what you said, you have some points I hadn't thought through.
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
Originally posted by TaomanFar out man!! the food for thought just keeps coming, (kinda makes you wish you could just cram another brain into your skull just for the sake of pondering these profound elucidations)
Thank you for this post, visted. I am late to the discussion but will throw my tuppence in.
It intrigues me that little mention has been made to the role of our perceptions and the mind in the experience of time and its co-relative, space. It is helpful to be reminded also that Einstein established the intimate connection of time/space as a continuum, fro ...[text shortened]...
Neither space nor time as substrates through which something moves are real.
- David Bohm
Originally posted by epiphinehasDue to the fact that phenomena-in-flux is a given, the concept of time is an empty product of our mind and it does not exist on its own. We are using the concept of time for our convenience in order to become able to study the constant changing of the phenomena; however there is no such a thing as a flux-in-phenomena. Flux-in-phenomena is just another delusion of ours. And concepts like the "laws of nature", "high entropy" etc. are just side-notes on a mapping of ours and they do not exist "somewhere out there" separated from our collective subjectivity
I think you are misconceptualizing time. Time is the measurement of progress from a state of low entropy to high entropy—inseparable from the spatial dimension. Further, time has a definite direction—i.e., it is a law of nature that things never flow from a state of high entropy to a state of low entropy. Further still, the implication of the s ...[text shortened]... t death (due to extreme entropy). Far from being nonsensical, a beginning to time is necessary.
😵
Originally posted by TaomanNamaste
Thank you for this post, visted. I am late to the discussion but will throw my tuppence in.
It intrigues me that little mention has been made to the role of our perceptions and the mind in the experience of time and its co-relative, space. It is helpful to be reminded also that Einstein established the intimate connection of time/space as a continuum, fro ...[text shortened]...
Neither space nor time as substrates through which something moves are real.
- David Bohm
😵
Originally posted by vistesdHe said:
“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.
-- "Still sick
we are travelling in
our dreams"
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI agree it's not nonsensical, but it's also not necessary. One possibility is if time is infinite in both directions. But even if time is bounded towards the post, it is not necessarily so that there is a beginning of time in strict sense. That is, that a t=0 exists ss not necessary. See my post regarding the possibility of the support of time being an open ended interval. For every point in time t, there is a t'<t, but still time would be bounded from the left (past).
Far from being nonsensical, a beginning to time is necessary.