Philosophical Discussion

The real life drama forum. Discuss your relationships or get to know the other members here.
Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Philosophical Discussion

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 03:04

This thread is mainly devoted to Philosophy. Asking timeless questions in a modern world.



Discussion #1:

Time is action measured.

Man noticed changes occurring in and around him. Man noticed the stars moving across the sky: The birth and death of all sorts of living things and the aging of his own body. He noticed that these exhibit change as their common property. In order that he could gather information about these changes man created the concept of time to hold their definition.

Time is a relational concept. It describes changes as they are occurring in and to various kinds of things. To understand change requires a method to measure it. Measuring of any type requires a standard to compare its results against. What is the standard of measure for change? Nothing! Where no-change is occurring “nothing" is measurable; this is the base of change. It is from here that all change is identified and ordered. At the first appearance of change measuring it is achieved automatically by ones sense organs; the intended result is knowledge of what that change is. Again; measuring change means to sense its existence; sensing is man’s automatic method of identification and identification results in perception; automatically. Perception is automatically discriminated sensual measurement. A sensorial-perceptual identification of a thing in reality means that a brain has identified an independently existing thing as being different from all other things it is actively sensing. Sensorial-perceptual identification of change follows this same pattern. Namely: A perceived change means that a brain has identified an independently existing change as being different from all other changes it is actively sensing. Time is a word denoting the concept which represents actively occurring change.

Time is a naturally occurring aspect of existence and it is measured (i.e., sensed) automatically by a brain. Time "is “ real things as opposed to real things being “in" time. To know time is occurring means to have a standard of change to compare it against. What is the standard for the concept of time? Nothing! Where no-time is occurring “nothing" is measurable; this is the base of time. It is from here that all times are identified and ordered. Time measures a specific kind of change; it measures the relationship of actions - one to the other. Where no action is evident - time is not perceived; meaning it does not exist. An action that has already taken place is retained and becomes the action now taking place with the goal of preserving that same action into the future. The preservation of a continuous sequence of action means to preserve its cause; its creator. Also: Actions that are perceived to be occurring simultaneously are being perceived by a third party. With a third party viewer the relationship of action is more complex since all actions are perceived to exist relationally with each other; including the viewer and his actions. What is the purpose of identifying these actions? Again it is preservation. But here it is the survival of the third party viewer.

Time can only be perceived by a consciousness of a specific kind: A conceptual consciousness; i.e., the consciousness of a human being. All time (past, present and its future embodiment) is a measurement of the relationship existing between ones own actions (the third party viewer) with all other actions. Time is a measurement of the casual relationships existing between: the rotation of the earth and its movements within our solar system; the actions of the physical universe; the vibrations of atomic and sub-atomic structures; and the life processes of living organisms - to the innate actions of ones own life processes.

Understanding time is dependent upon understanding life’s existence and the requirements for its continued existence. Time; like all other things under ones consideration, is life dependent. For in the absence of life time has no meaning or application. It is life that time depends upon for its definition. If life is not properly defined the definition of time cannot be correct - it can only be wrong. Why? Simply because life is a naturally occurring process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; life is innate action. Since time measures action and since life is innate-action it follows that life is the origin of time. Therefore if ones definition of life is wrong ones definition of time is wrong in the same sense, measure and respect. Further; since life (like the universe of which it is a naturally occurring part) has always existed, time has likewise always existed. But it was not until the full development of man’s conceptual consciousness that time became identified and conceptualized. Time did not become a value until man properly defined it. Conversely; time cannot be considered a value unless man’s definition of it is factual. Meaning; true to his nature, its existence and their reality.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 03:16

i like to think of time as a dimension....to me... time is not relative to us...WE are relative to TIME.....time is something that happens independently of our existence or experience of time....well at least thats the way I think of it....you said in the post that if its not perceived then it does not exist....but if time is a dimension then that would not be true I think....

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 03:20

What is a dimension in the way that you are using it?

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 03:27

time is a dimension like length width and height...this is kinda what einstein was driving at...the problem is that our senses only comprehend 3 dimensions so we perceive time as a series of events rather than a property of entities....the math gets really confusing and i don't really understand it....

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 03:49

Your view is widely held. The problem I have with it is that if I cannot perceive it how am I ever going to know it. Perception is a requirement of knowledge. If a person claims to know time a some sort of forth dimension I would need to point out to them that they cannot know what they are talking about.

User avatar
InTr4nceWeTrust
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 715
Joined: Jan 31st, '06, 21:32
Location: San Clemente

Post by InTr4nceWeTrust » May 13th, '08, 04:02

Topic name changed from "Philosophical Chat" to "Philosophical Discussion". Discussion is fine. Chats are no good. I'm not entirely sure what "philosophy" entails, so if this related to life, it should be moved to "Life & Relationships".
ありません

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 04:05

ok...let me try again...i would argue this in two ways...first....there is a question of whether we can perceive anything outside the present....i think the answer is that we can...but only indirectly...however this is how we perceive everything....

if your talking about an object 5 feet away....then you cant know it directly....you know about it through sensory input primarily light bouncing off it and traveling to your eyes...from this you extrapolate the existence and properties of the object....we do the same thing with objects in the past and future....we attempt to extrapolate from current sensory input that rome existed or that the sun will rise tomorrow.....

second...we have the question of whether the existence of a fourth dimension itself is outside of any possible perception....my answer is that what we always do is to try to come up with models to explain our perceptions....the current best model of time is given by general relativity...which appears to have a real fourth dimension....

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 04:09

InTr4nceWeTrust wrote:Topic name changed from "Philosophical Chat" to "Philosophical Discussion". Discussion is fine. Chats are no good. I'm not entirely sure what "philosophy" entails, so if this related to life, it should be moved to "Life & Relationships".
@intr4ncewetrust.....philosophical discussion is more like it....thanks....its sorta related to life....your the boss...move it if you feel its appropriate....

User avatar
InTr4nceWeTrust
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 715
Joined: Jan 31st, '06, 21:32
Location: San Clemente

Post by InTr4nceWeTrust » May 13th, '08, 04:12

kayz. wasn't sure what philosophy is about, really. carry on ^_~

(and Ruro's the boss ~_~ i'm just a minion >.<)

(well...Rick Ross is the boss...lololol....)

(then again....Tony Danza is the original boss.....hahahahah)
ありません

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 04:13

InTr4nceWeTrust wrote:Topic name changed from "Philosophical Chat" to "Philosophical Discussion". Discussion is fine. Chats are no good. I'm not entirely sure what "philosophy" entails, so if this related to life, it should be moved to "Life & Relationships".
Thank you.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 04:16

InTr4nceWeTrust wrote:kayz. wasn't sure what philosophy is about, really. carry on ^_~

(and Ruro's the boss ~_~ i'm just a minion >.<)

(well...Rick Ross is the boss...lololol....)

(then again....Tony Danza is the original boss.....hahahahah)
thanks....all respect goes out to d-addict great mods.....peace....

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 04:21

slowmoe wrote:ok...let me try again...i would argue this in two ways...first....there is a question of whether we can perceive anything outside the present....i think the answer is that we can...but only indirectly...however this is how we perceive everything....

if your talking about an object 5 feet away....then you cant know it directly....you know about it through sensory input primarily light bouncing off it and traveling to your eyes...from this you extrapolate the existence and properties of the object....we do the same thing with objects in the past and future....we attempt to extrapolate from current sensory input that rome existed or that the sun will rise tomorrow.....
Well, perception and indirect perception can hardly be called the same. If it happened in the past there may be left over evidence which we can interpret; this cannot be called a perception. If it is something we are projecting to occur in the future this equally cannot be called a perception. Actual physical perception is limited to the moment of actual physical stimulation of a sense organ extension of a brain.
second...we have the question of whether the existence of a fourth dimension itself is outside of any possible perception....my answer is that what we always do is to try to come up with models to explain our perceptions....the current best model of time is given by general relativity...which appears to have a real fourth dimension....
If a thing requires modeling it is not able to be perceived; right? Or the model would not be required. Also "appears to have a real fourth dimension" falls short of a ringing endorsement.

Biker555
Posts: 11
Joined: May 13th, '08, 03:45

Post by Biker555 » May 13th, '08, 04:30

Briitish,


You have successfully argued that there is such a thing as 'constant psychological time' that is (IMO) ingrained in our sub-conscious physically and reinforced by experiencing the external world for the first time (early childhood, late childhood, teenage years). You do realize, however, that Einstein was commenting on ontological time, not psychological time? Einstein's theory proved that there is no such thing as time existing as a cosmological element, like matter and energy. Einstein reduced the statement 'space and time' to 'space-time', which means space and time are identical: e=mc2.

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 13th, '08, 04:40

Britishk wrote:If a thing requires modeling it is not able to be perceived; right? Or the model would not be required. Also "appears to have a real fourth dimension" falls short of a ringing endorsement.
Britishk gf, I've been uncomfortable with the idea of time as a dimension for a while now. Treating time as a dimension describes observed phenomena very well. However, extrapolating behaviour of other dimensions onto time is extrapolating beyond the data. The idea of time-travel, other than the one that I do normally, seems to be more of a poorly stated premise than a real issue. SNAP SNAP!

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 13th, '08, 04:52

Biker555 wrote:Einstein reduced the statement 'space and time' to 'space-time', which means space and time are identical: e=mc2.
It does not mean they are identical and e=mc2 refers only to energy, mass and the speed of light, although it can be related to time equations.

Time is considered as a fourth dimension in <i>the geometry</i> of Minkowski spacetime. This does not mean that time is just another spacial dimension. Event locations in this spacetime that can be linked by causal signals are said to have time-like separation, and ones that cannot have space-like separation. The passage of time is relative to a given inertial reference frame and the concept of simultaneous events at a distance is lost.

Surprisingly despite all this, the ancient philosophical debates about the nature of time have been largely unaffected. We still don't know if a causal theory of time is more reasonable than the more traditional Humean spaciotemporal theory of cause. Motion can be defined relative to time or vica versa. Physical theories are mainly quantitative and do not tell us the "real nature" of spacetime.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 13th, '08, 04:59

G'boy wrote:The idea of time-travel, other than the one that I do normally, seems to be more of a poorly stated premise than a real issue. SNAP SNAP!
It can be mathematically defined. We already travel in various forward directions at different rates depending on our relative velocities and accelerations. Backwards causality has not been ruled out by physics, not has the idea of the topology of spacetime allowing event histories that "go backwards" compared to the non-local event histories (if you travel back in time, it is forwards for you still)..

The other interesting question is whether the universe as a whole has a time direction, or if the whole lot can be reversed. And if it is reversed, would it actually be any different to us??

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 13th, '08, 05:16

Britishk wrote:Well, perception and indirect perception can hardly be called the same. If it happened in the past there may be left over evidence which we can interpret; this cannot be called a perception. If it is something we are projecting to occur in the future this equally cannot be called a perception. Actual physical perception is limited to the moment of actual physical stimulation of a sense organ extension of a brain.
that makes sense....so then...what can we actually perceive....the laws of physics say that nothing can travel faster than light.....so what you can perceive is further back in time the farther out you go.....and of course biologically you cant perceive instantaneously.....so your perception is out of date a little more than that....and although information has a maximum speed of light....it could certainly go slower than that.....light goes more slowly when it isnt in a vacuum and you may not be relying entirely on light....sound..for example... is much slower still....

so if we're going to cut anything out as non-perceivable it wont be the past and future.....It will be everything except a particular slice of the past that goes further back in time the further it is away from you......

Biker555
Posts: 11
Joined: May 13th, '08, 03:45

Post by Biker555 » May 13th, '08, 06:06

Jscorpio wrote:Time is considered as a fourth dimension in <i>the geometry</i> of Minkowski spacetime. This does not mean that time is just another spacial dimension. Event locations in this spacetime that can be linked by causal signals are said to have time-like separation, and ones that cannot have space-like separation. The passage of time is relative to a given inertial reference frame and the concept of simultaneous events at a distance is lost.
All geometry is rooted in consciousness. Matter unfolding is not 'separated'; 'reference' and 'frame' are words of self-consciousness. It only becomes separated when self-conscious matter exists. There are no 'coordinates' in space-time. The unfolding is an unbroken stream of being, of e=mc2, which includes self-consciousness, but is not discernably self-conscious itself.

If all geometry is rooted in self-consciousness/consciousness, then it is logical to conclude that time is psychologically based and that non-conscious matter is e=mc2 (at least at this point in the inquiry; there certainly is the question of whether geometry underlies e=mc2 as a set of fundamental laws, but this can not be proven as of yet; so the best we can do is understand where 'geometry' resides obviously).

User avatar
zyrene
Posts: 248
Joined: Mar 31st, '08, 11:38

Post by zyrene » May 13th, '08, 12:46

Here's what my teacher in Philo1 said about time back when i was in first year:

Time is a series of nows.

hehe sory not a philo major... :D

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 14:47

slowmoe wrote:that makes sense... [....]
so if we're going to cut anything out as non-perceivable it wont be the past and future....[...].
We are unable to identify a thing which is non-perceivable. If someone asks you to describe something which cannot be know; what would you describe? This is an epistemological contradiction and cannot stand.
Zyrene wrote:Time is a series of nows.
I'm confused by this. Can you clarify?

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 13th, '08, 15:29

Britishk wrote:Well, perception and indirect perception can hardly be called the same. If it happened in the past there may be left over evidence which we can interpret; this cannot be called a perception. If it is something we are projecting to occur in the future this equally cannot be called a perception. Actual physical perception is limited to the moment of actual physical stimulation of a sense organ extension of a brain.
If I look at a person, then this is perception. If I look at a person's bones, this is still perception. If I look at a predictive model of someone's behaviour in the future, <i>this is still perception.</i> The perceptive process doesn't change because we're perceiving a different <i>category</i> of object being perceived. Indirect perception more accurately define phenomena such as periperal vision. Now, if you consider the phenomena of perception, there's a delay by the time a stimuli has reached our senses and our perception has been constructed, so the initiating event is already in the past. Fortunately, on a day-to-day basis this delay is insignificant, but in terms of the definition quoted above, we cannot perceive anything.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 16:58

Halfass wrote:If I look at a person, then this is perception. If I look at a person's bones, this is still perception. If I look at a predictive model of someone's behaviour in the future, <i>this is still perception.</i>
You are perceiving a real physical thing; it is a computer generated output of some type. Your eyes are being stimulated; your brain has interrogated this information and it has become a physical presence within your brain; i.e., a perception. That's all!

The validity of the output is not judged or determined by perception this responsibility remains with the mind; post perception.
The perceptive process doesn't change because we're perceiving a different <i>category</i> of object being perceived. Indirect perception more accurately define phenomena such as periperal vision.
I think there is confusion here between the results of physical sensorial-perceptual stimulation of a brain and the results obtained by thinking about that physical stimulation. Your use of the phrase "indirect perception" above is obviously wrong. When a sense-organ is being stimulated this is direct physical contact between the sense-organ and some aspect of reality. Your example of peripheral vision does not escape this fact. In this case: The sense-organ is the eye and the wave of light is the aspect of physical reality stimulating it.
Now, if you consider the phenomena of perception, there's a delay by the time a stimuli has reached our senses and our perception has been constructed, so the initiating event is already in the past. Fortunately, on a day-to-day basis this delay is insignificant, but in terms of the definition quoted above, we cannot perceive anything.
Therefore you are <b>now</b> denying to yourself that you are actually reading this!

User avatar
xplicit
Posts: 19
Joined: May 13th, '08, 18:34

Post by xplicit » May 13th, '08, 18:45

I have to totally disagree with the OP. Time is an abolute co-ordinate of every particle, photon or energy wave in the universe: x,y,z,t. t=0 can be had as the big bang and time will stop when the universe colapses back into a singularity. The universe exists, expands, contracts totally independant of any "life" that may happen along.
Britishk wrote:Your view is widely held. The problem I have with it is that if I cannot perceive it how am I ever going to know it. Perception is a requirement of knowledge. If a person claims to know time a some sort of forth dimension I would need to point out to them that they cannot know what they are talking about.
You have the ability to transcend perception. I don't agree it is a requirement of knowledge.

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 13th, '08, 19:52

Britishk wrote:You are perceiving a real physical thing; it is a computer generated output of some type....

The validity of the output is not judged or determined by perception this responsibility remains with the mind; post perception.

I think there is confusion here between the results of physical sensorial-perceptual stimulation of a brain and the results obtained by thinking about that physical stimulation.
Your comments here and previously about secondary perception suggest that you don't fully appreciate perception; perception is the process of collection and interpretation of sensory data into meaningful information for the subject; the process itself involves the shedding of large amounts of data which would otherwise overwhelm the human brain. Therefore, secondary perception would be the collection and interpretation of peripheral sensory data other than that which has been shed and other than that which the subject is attenuating to.

The manner in which you define "secondary perception" makes it clear you're conflating perception with other interpretative/constructive cognitive processes.
Therefore you are <b>now</b> denying to yourself that you are actually reading this!
Not at all! But your response here indicates that you don't have a grasp of basic physics and biology. Look, the speed of light, whilst being amazingly fast, is not infinite; so there is a time lapse, no matter how microscopic, between light reflecting off an objecting and stimulating the eye; there is a further delay whilst the rods and cones inside your eye generate an electrochemical signal to the optic nerve that they have been signalled; there is a further delay whilst the optic nerve passes an electro-chemical signal to the part of the brain responsible for visual sensory information; there is a further delay whilst this data is processed and so on and so on until until the data is presented as information in a manner which is meaningful to the subject. So by the time you perceive your boyfriend waving at you, that action is already in the past. Now, you said, <i>"If it happened in the past there may be left over evidence which we can interpret; this cannot be called a perception."</i> So strictly speaking, if your claim were true, then we could not perceive anything, and our perceptions must therefore be false.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 22:54

Halfass wrote:Your comments here and previously about secondary perception suggest that [....]

The manner in which you define "secondary perception" makes it clear you're conflating perception with other interpretative/constructive cognitive processes.
My problem with your interpetation of peripheral sensory data not measuring to some perceptual standard is that how could you know it exists if it has not already percieved and identified it. Your awareness of it demands that it satisy the requirements of perceptual identification.
Not at all! But your response here indicates that [...]
I graduated from University of Cambridge. I know what your argument is saying. Without trying to be a smart-halfass I consider this a moot point; do you?

A thing that is actively sensing a sense-organ extension of a brain that is actively interrogating this information; is being perceived. A thing which was being perceived by now has mover out of sensorial range is not (can not be) perceived further; the perceptual information about it may have been moved into mental storage (the memory). Memories are past perceptions; they are not now; nor can they ever again be, considered a perception.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 13th, '08, 23:02

xplicit wrote:I have to totally disagree with the OP. [...]

You have the ability to transcend perception. I don't agree it is a requirement of knowledge.
The universe <b>is</b> a singularity. The expansion - contraction people need to take this into account; first. There is nothing else to consider but the universe. It can neither expand or contract without considering where its expanding into; or; what it has contracted into. In both cases the answer is “the universe;" simply because there is nothing else.

If you’re basing your argument on some type of mysticism we have a very long road ahead of us.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 14th, '08, 01:36

Biker555 wrote:All geometry is rooted in consciousness.
Everything is rooted in consciousness then.. So what??
Matter unfolding is not 'separated'; 'reference' and 'frame' are words of self-consciousness. It only becomes separated when self-conscious matter exists.
Not according to the special theory of relativity.. Have you developed a new one??
There are no 'coordinates' in space-time. The unfolding is an unbroken stream of being, of e=mc2, which includes self-consciousness, but is not discernably self-conscious itself.
You seem to have latched on to an iconic equation that has nothing to do with consciousness.. Your ideas here are too ill defined to comment further.. This sort of stuff really drives physicists crazy..
If all geometry is rooted in self-consciousness/consciousness, then it is logical to conclude that time is psychologically based and that non-conscious matter is e=mc2 (at least at this point in the inquiry; there certainly is the question of whether geometry underlies e=mc2 as a set of fundamental laws, but this can not be proven as of yet; so the best we can do is understand where 'geometry' resides obviously).
What does all geometry being "rooted" in consciousness mean?? It is a set of relations between axioms. If you simply wish to assert that all reality is rooted in consciousness, then time will be too.. Then you start with "non-conscious matter" whatever that is, and back to the e=mc2 mantra.. Not sure what you are actually saying..
Britishk wrote:The universe is a singularity.
Not in the very specific and mathematically defined sense used in physics..
The expansion - contraction people need to take this into account; first. There is nothing else to consider but the universe. It can neither expand or contract without considering where its expanding into; or; what it has contracted into. In both cases the answer is “the universe;" simply because there is nothing else.
They don't need to take your misuse of their terms into account actually.. Furthermore, they are not saying the universe expands into anything.. They are saying everything in it is getting further apart..

<b>@xplicit:</b> You are wrong according to physics and philosophy at this time.. There are no absolute x,y,z,t coordinates.. That's why it's not called General Absolutivity..

User avatar
xplicit
Posts: 19
Joined: May 13th, '08, 18:34

Post by xplicit » May 14th, '08, 02:20

Jscorpio wrote:<b>@xplicit:</b> You are wrong according to physics and philosophy at this time.. There are no absolute x,y,z,t coordinates.. That's why it's not called General Absolutivity..
I guess the word "absolute" was used incorrectly. All I meant was that everything has 4 co-ordinates, not 3.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 14th, '08, 02:44

@xplicit:

My apology, mate.. Perhaps, I sounded a bit harsh there.. :P

In Relativistic spacetime you can only define an "event location" and this is defined only relative to other event locations, the distance measured in spacetime interval, which involves both space and time.. You carnt even tell if events at different times happen at the same spacial location, because it depends on your state of motion when doing the measuring.. You can specify a time and point in space but only relative to a particular observer.. If other observers are in different "frames" of motion, they will disagree with you, and there is no way of judging between..

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 14th, '08, 03:05

Jscorpio wrote:Not in the very specific and mathematically defined sense used in physics..
But this is a philosophy thread. How can a physical analysis become different from its philosophical base??
They don't need to take your misuse of their terms into account actually.. Furthermore, they are not saying the universe expands into anything.. They are saying everything in it is getting further apart..

I'll defer to your knowledge of how physics describes things. But; of course, this begs the question "how can everything in the universe be getting further apart without the universe as a whole getting larger?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 14th, '08, 03:39

Britishk wrote:But this is a philosophy thread. How can a physical analysis become different from its philosophical base??
Having a philosophical base is not a reason to use a term in a completely different sense as if it were the same sense..
I'll defer to your knowledge of how physics describes things. But; of course, this begs the question "how can everything in the universe be getting further apart without the universe as a whole getting larger?
It is getting larger.. At least the observable universe, and by inference all of it.. But it doesn't need to be expanding into anything.. The universe doesn't occupy any space, it is space(time)..

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 14th, '08, 04:28

Jscorpio wrote:It is getting larger.. At least the observable universe, and by inference all of it.. But it doesn't need to be expanding into anything.. The universe doesn't occupy any space, it is space(time)..
"It is getting larger." Implies a finite thing with boundaries. It is as if the universe is different from another thing which it is contained within and is expanding into.

But then "The universe doesn't occupy any space, it is space(time)." seems to defeat the premises of both a bounded universe and an expanding universe. Are these indeed conflicts within physics? If so - How are they being resolved?

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 14th, '08, 05:23

<b>Britishk wrote:</b> <i> "It is getting larger." Implies a finite thing with boundaries. It is as if the universe is different from another thing which it is contained within and is expanding into.</i>

Space itself is curved such that nothing can travel on the straight line necessary to reach an edge. So regardless of Universe size, you could travel forever and never reach an edge. Once I took this to heart, a great weight was lifted off my shoulders. :-)

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 14th, '08, 14:08

AF_1,

What is the evidence for you claim? To simply accept this and feel "a great weight was lifted" has severe mystical overtones.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 14th, '08, 14:41

Hi Britishk, :-)

<b>You wrote:</b> <i>What is the evidence for you claim?</i>

The effect of gravity on the fabric of space-time. In other words, the study of physics.

<b>You wrote:</b> <i>To simply accept this and feel "a great weight was lifted" has severe mystical overtones.</i>

What is simple acceptance? I had a good reason to accept it. And going from incomprehensible to comprehensible is a good thing. My statement was just describing how that felt. Besides, how does feeling a great weight lifted have mystical overtones? I'm not talking about seeing ghosts or psychic palm reading here.

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 14th, '08, 14:47

Britishk wrote:My problem with your interpetation of peripheral sensory data. ...
I don't understand your rebuttal; nowhere do I make claim to perceptual standards; I'm pointing out that by <i>definition</i> secondary perception must refer to peripheral perception, not to other cognitive processes, as you appear to claim in the initial post I was replying to.
I graduated from University of Cambridge. I know what your argument is saying. Without trying to be a smart-halfass I consider this a moot point; do you?
Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Anyway, the only way to evaluate a claim is to test it (this is, admittedly, a bit of a pleonasm); on examining your claim that, "If it happened in the past there may be left over evidence which we can interpret; this cannot be called a perception" we discover that events are indeed in the past when we perceive them - - in fact, it wouldn't be that inaccurate to describe the stimuli our senses receive as "left over evidence" - - which leads us to conclude that if your claim is true, then what we call perception cannot be perception, or your claim is false.
A thing that is actively sensing a sense-organ extension of a brain that is actively interrogating this information; is being perceived. ...
This doesn't particularly mitigate your claim, but does contain a number of innaccuracies which I don't have time to discuss now, but will return to later.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 14th, '08, 15:24

AF_1 wrote:The effect of gravity on the fabric of space-time. In other words, the study of physics.
Gravity is real; I agree, but my question was to determine what the physical evidence is that confirms that it is shaping the universe in one way or another.
What is simple acceptance? I had a good reason to accept it.
These reasons are what I am asking about.
And going from incomprehensible to comprehensible is a good thing. My statement was just describing how that felt. Besides, how does feeling a great weight lifted have mystical overtones? I'm not talking about seeing ghosts or psychic palm reading here.
It reminded me of how religionists claim that their mystical God will relieve non-believers of pain and suffering if they will only accept him into their hearts.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 14th, '08, 15:38

<b>You wrote</b>: <i>Gravity is real; I agree, but my question was to determine what the physical evidence is that confirms that it is shaping the universe in one way or another.</i>

The shape doesn't matter when space itself is curved. Can you imagine the consequences for an incomprehensible, "boundary of the Universe." It was a major revelation for me. I no longer give myself headaches trying to imagine what is outside the Universe. :-)

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 14th, '08, 16:47

AF_1 wrote:The shape doesn't matter when space itself is curved. Can you imagine the consequences for an incomprehensible, "boundary of the Universe." It was a major revelation for me. I no longer give myself headaches trying to imagine what is outside the Universe.
A bounded universe is a contradiction on itself.

I have difficulty with a bounded or curved space theory; it seems to defeat itself.

If its bounded it cannot be the universe that includes everything; If it is the universe it cannot be curved for this implies "in relation to some other differently curved thing."
Halfass wrote:I don't understand your rebuttal; nowhere do I [...]
Perhaps we're crossing swords here unnecessarily.
Do you know what an appeal to authority is? Anyway, the only way to evaluate a claim is [...]
We're both are trying too hard to be the one who is right. I mean that a past (or the original) perception cannot be perceived either 'again' or 'still' as that original. Of course left over evidence from an original perception can be perceived again. Perception is an active on-going process of a brain bearing organism.
This doesn't particularly mitigate your claim, but does contain a number of innaccuracies which I don't have time to discuss now, but will return to later.
Eagerly waiting!

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 15th, '08, 00:01

Britishk wrote:A bounded universe is a contradiction on itself.

I have difficulty with a bounded or curved space theory; it seems to defeat itself.

If its bounded it cannot be the universe that includes everything; If it is the universe it cannot be curved for this implies "in relation to some other differently curved thing."
No it doesn't.. If you don't understand it, don't call it a contradiction. Just say "I don't understand this physics, it's too complicated for me." :P

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 15th, '08, 01:10

Jscorpio,

The thing I do understand is that physics does not "create" the truth; it can only identify it. When a physicists postulates 10-universes or the "a big bang" creation or a "shaped" universe; this does not make it so; this is not truth.

This physicist must demonstrate real physical evidence that validates his claim or admit to not knowing what he is talking about; for this is the case.

Such physics that claims its pronouncements as truth outside offering any real physical evidence validating the claim seems complicated only because it makes no real sense.

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 15th, '08, 01:20

Hi Britishk,

I'm sorry, but your alternative explanation of a bounded Universe requiring something "outside" causes an infinity. In other words, if there is something outside the Universe, why would it not have boundaries also? And if it had boundaries, wouldn't your alternative require something else outside the something else outside the Universe? The consequences of space/time's curvature seem a hell of a lot more viable. And yes, that is merely a strong belief (I did not claim truth). Truly, the only thing I can be certain of is my own existence. Why use standards of proof no one can ever reach?

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 15th, '08, 01:31

BritishK wrote:The thing I do understand is that physics does not "create" the truth; it can only identify it. When a physicists postulates 10-universes or the "a big bang" creation or a "shaped" universe; this does not make it so; this is not truth.
Correct. And your hopeless misunderstanding of the theory doesn't lead to your :
If its bounded it cannot be the universe that includes everything; If it is the universe it cannot be curved for this implies "in relation to some other differently curved thing."
being at all valid..
This physicist must demonstrate real physical evidence that validates his claim or admit to not knowing what he is talking about; for this is the case.
Oh really, mate Perhaps you should phone the physics office and let them know. I'm sure the idea of experimental confirmation will be entirely new to them. Tell me, do you actually live in our universe? Which planet? Le **Shruggs**
Such physics that claims its pronouncements as truth outside offering any real physical evidence validating the claim seems complicated only because it makes no real sense.
No physicist claims TRUTH in the hopelessly unsubtle way you do.. They engage in science.. I'm not quite sure how you got into University of Cambridge without having heard of this concept.. I'm also not sure what you find so difficult to understand about the very very strong confirmatory evidence that exists for various sorts of Big Bang cosmology.. But since you appear to have no idea about the concepts involved, I would humbly submit that you are not in a position to draw conclusions about the evidence.. :P

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 15th, '08, 02:53

AF_1 wrote:I'm sorry, but your alternative explanation of a bounded Universe requiring something "outside" causes an infinity. In other words, if there is something outside the Universe, why would it not have boundaries also? And if it had boundaries, wouldn't your alternative require something else outside the something else outside the Universe?
I don't support a bounded universe theory. It makes no sense as you have pointed out. Do you have a problem with infinity; because I don’t?
The consequences of space/time's curvature seem a hell of a lot more viable. And yes, that is merely a strong belief (I did not claim truth).
That's not really a solution; the question of bounding remains. You can make any claim of shape you wish; it will not delete a requirement to address questions about whether it exhibits a bounded nature or not.
Truly, the only thing I can be certain of is my own existence. Why use standards of proof no one can ever reach?
It sets the base by which knowledge exists. If we can say that the standard of knowledge is know to be infinite and not regressive then we have a base upon which to proceed. If we can only show a continuous never-ending regression then knowledge has no base and therefore can never be achieved.

Understanding your existence is the supreme achievement. Knowing that this knowledge is founded on a base makes your discoveries about your existence not only possible but also provable.
Jscorpio wrote:Correct. And your hopeless misunderstanding of the theory doesn't lead to your :
being at all valid..
You can not have a curve without having a way to know it.
Oh really, mate Perhaps you should phone the physics office and let them know. I'm sure the idea of experimental confirmation will be entirely new to them. Tell me, do you actually live in our universe? Which planet? Le **Shruggs**
Why do you think I have no regard for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence? If it can be shown to be factual (i.e., in accordance to reality) it does not matter the method used to verify it.
No physicist claims TRUTH in the hopelessly unsubtle way you do.. They engage in science.. [...]
All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed.

1. “Nothing" has never existed; this is a very serious epistemological error common in the modern physical sciences.
2. A very small something requires a container for it. This container is the universe; it then necessarily has always existed.
3. [put your offering here]

AF_1
Posts: 23
Joined: May 14th, '08, 04:04

Post by AF_1 » May 15th, '08, 03:30

Hah, I have no problem with infinity. The curvature of space/time implies a Universe that is both finite and infinite. As I said, you could travel forever and never reach an "edge of Universe." Anyway, that makes sense to me. Your attempts to create uncertainty have already been accounted for when I said it was merely a strong belief. And nothing you have said was even slightly compelling with regard to changing it. But you can keep trying if you wish.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 15th, '08, 19:40

Britishk wrote:You can not have a curve without having a way to know it.
There are ways of knowing it, mate.. It's called four dimensional geometry.. It's not just a nice sounding idea..
Why do you think I have no regard for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence? If it can be shown to be factual (i.e., in accordance to reality) it does not matter the method used to verify it.
Being uncharitable, I think it's pure ignorance, combined with not being that sharp, combined with deluding yourself that you have absolute knowledge of your purpose in life because you carnt handle uncertainty.. But that's just my guess.. :P
If it can be shown to be factual (i.e., in accordance to reality) it does not matter the method used to verify it.
What the bloody hell do you think an experiment is supposed to correspond to?? Fantasy??
All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed.
You got it.. A very small thing.. :D
1. “Nothing" has never existed; this is a very serious epistemological error common in the modern physical sciences.
No it isn't.. It's non existent as an error.. Please point me to the theory that postulates the existence of nothing..
2. A very small something requires a container for it. This container is the universe; it then necessarily has always existed.
The something is the container.. Or maybe everything including matter is the container.. Who knows?? I agree, the universe must always have existed, but only for 13.7 billion years or so on current evidence..
3. [put your offering here]
I agree with this last point.. What relevance has it to your general dismissal of physics with the accusation of fantasy??

For the four millionth time, mate!! One may point out the invalidity of an argument without giving a bloody offering.. This is not a pissing contest, it is supposed to be reasoned debate.. You don't seem to have grasped even the principle of this process.. :-(

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 15th, '08, 19:44

er....which page did you say you were on..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 15th, '08, 20:15

Jscorpio wrote:There are ways of knowing it, mate.. It's called four dimensional geometry.. It's not just a nice sounding idea..
OK. Your claiming since a box has four sides this proves a fourth dimension is in physical reality? OH! How bloody intellectually potent!
Being uncharitable, I think it's pure ignorance, combined with not being that sharp, combined with deluding yourself that you have absolute knowledge of your purpose in life because you carnt handle uncertainty.. But that's just my guess..
AH! A very good explanation. In keeping with all the others that you have offered.
What the bloody hell do you think an experiment is supposed to correspond to?? Fantasy??
I was not sure you had this grasp.
You got it.. A very small thing..
Thanks for your vote.
No it isn't.. It's non existent as an error.. Please point me to the theory that postulates the existence of nothing..
Do I need to remind you of your claim that life did not always exist?
The something is the container.. Or maybe everything including matter is the container.. Who knows?? I agree, the universe must always have existed, but only for 13.7 billion years or so on current evidence..
I see "always" is limited to about 13.7 billion years or so. How about never; what is its limit?
Your science can create truth it does not depend on it; very neat indeed; this allows you to say anything you want without being held responsible for its truth or falsehood.
I agree with this last point.. What relevance has it to your general dismissal of physics with the accusation of fantasy??
You have demonstrated this far better than I could explain.
For the four millionth time, mate!! One may point out the invalidity of an argument without giving a bloody offering.. This is not a pissing contest, it is supposed to be reasoned debate.. You don't seem to have grasped even the principle of this process..
I offer my view in a debate with you. I lose because you simply deny the validity of my view. I don't like your game. You're dismissed.

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 15th, '08, 22:13

Britishk wrote:Why do you think I have no regard for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence? If it can be shown to be factual (i.e., in accordance to reality) it does not matter the method used to verify it.
So if you have no regard for the experimental method, what method do you propose for becoming acquainted with the facts of reality?

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 16th, '08, 00:07

<b>WHAT?</b>

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 16th, '08, 02:16

Britishk wrote:<b>WHAT?</b>
You have, and I quote, "no regard for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence", ie. the experimental method. The quote in context is:
Why do you think I have no regard for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence? If it can be shown to be factual (i.e., in accordance to reality) it does not matter the method used to verify it.
So what method do you propose for becoming acquainted with the facts of reality? If you believe this is an unreasonable interpretation of your claim, could you please explain exactly what you meant in your response to Jscorpio?

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 16th, '08, 02:38

Halfass,

You win the award for the most obviously foolish post.

Go to the first post of this page read my second quote which Jscorpio copied and correct your own error.

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 16th, '08, 02:50

Britishk wrote:Halfass,

You win the award for the most obviously foolish post.

Go to the first post of this page read my second quote which Jscorpio copied and correct your own error.
Your claim that; "All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed." What the heck is that to do with your lack of regard "for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence"? For instance, how do you <i>know</i> that, "at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed".

It gives me no pleasure to note your evasion, or that the foolishness is on your part.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 16th, '08, 03:02

Some how you have gotten my meaning completely turned around. I will accept any responsibility for this that is necessary to get it straightened out.

1. <b>"All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed."</b> Is part of an over all attempt to refute the big bang theory. My claim that the creation theory fails by it own weight.

2. I have been accused of having no regard for experimental evidence when in fact I require proof of a things truth either by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence of it or by closely controlled repeatable experimental evidence that reveals truth by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence.

3. I also refute the idea that the universe will collapse to a singularity by pointing out the the universe is singular and if it collapses to a singular it does so at its own peril because it is being compared or evaluated as a singular within a larger existence the existence of which denies its singularity.

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 16th, '08, 03:47

Britishk wrote:1.<b> "All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed."</b> Is part of an over all attempt to refute the big bang theory. My claim that the creation theory fails by it own weight.
It's a ridiculous claim that you have provided no arguments for. In fact you have simply provided circumstantial evidence that you don't understand nearly enough about the subject to so much as comment..
2. I have been accused of having no regard for experimental evidence when in fact I require proof of a things truth either by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence of it or by closely controlled repeatable experimental evidence that reveals truth by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence.
Precisely how direct does this evidence have to be?? Or rather, what level of indirectness will Britishk tolerate, given that all sensation is indirect?? How does Britishk account for the precession of the orbit of mercury?? How does Britishk account for the observed bending of starlight passing the sun?? How does Britishk account for the real time discrepancies of real clocks that are put in high speed jets and rockets??
3. I also refute the idea that the universe will collapse to a singularity by pointing out the the universe is singular and if it collapses to a singular it does so at its own peril because it is being compared or evaluated as a singular within a larger existence the existence of which denies its singularity.
Firstly, you appear to have no idea what a singularity is, so perhaps you should find out before "refuting" it..

Secondly, who predicts that the universe is in fact going to collapse??

Thirdly, you appear to have no idea what a singularity is..

By the way, does Britishk think that space is "a real physical thing?"

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 16th, '08, 04:02

Adri gf, something bugging you? Why so pissy tonight? Did you just er::
Firstly,<b>you appear to have no idea what a singularity is</b>, so perhaps you should find out before "refuting" it..

Secondly, who predicts that the universe is in fact going to collapse??

Thirdly, <b>you appear to have no idea what a singularity is..</b>

By the way, does Britishk think that space is "a real physical thing?"
*Emphasis mine*

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 16th, '08, 04:06

Nevermind Adri gf, Forget that I asked, I think I've found the reason why you're so pissy tonight. LOLLOL&LOL! :P

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 16th, '08, 04:15

:offtopic:

:cussing: :x :cussing: :x

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 16th, '08, 14:23

Britishk wrote:Some how you have gotten my meaning completely turned around. I will accept any responsibility for this that is necessary to get it straightened out.

1. <b>"All one needs to be aware of is that it requires that at one time nothing (or at least a very small something) existed."</b> Is part of an over all attempt to refute the big bang theory. My claim that the creation theory fails by it own weight.
Firstly, big bang theory is <i>not</i> a "creation theory", being that creation requires by definition an agent to initiate that creation, which of course big bang theory does not require; by extension, the term "creation theory" is an oxymoron, being that the idea of an agent initiating creation is essentially untestable and therefore cannot be a theory. Your attempt to refute big bang theory, though, is a pretty irrefutable example of your lack of regard "for demonstrating fact by experimental evidence", and your argument against it amounts to little more than an argument to incredulity. There are more things in heaven and earth, mon amie, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, so it's time to start making adjustments.
2. I have been accused of having no regard for experimental evidence when in fact I require proof of a things truth either by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence of it or by closely controlled repeatable experimental evidence that reveals truth by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence.
This is a rather... idiosyncratic interpretation of the experimental method... do you have problems with the existence of molecules and atoms?
3. I also refute the idea that the universe will collapse to a singularity by pointing out the the universe is singular and if it collapses to a singular it does so at its own peril because it is being compared or evaluated as a singular within a larger existence the existence of which denies its singularity.
This is important-sounding but meaningless muppetry; mon amie, I sincerely recommend that you establish what the phrase 'singularity' means in this context and adjust your views accordingly.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 16th, '08, 16:01

Jscorpio wrote:It's a ridiculous claim that you have provided no arguments for. In fact you have simply provided circumstantial evidence that you don't understand nearly enough about the subject to so much as comment..
I have given something for you to consider and **** about. But that is where you stop. You are assuming that a simple **** is intellectually potent. Some old guy says that the universe was created by a "BIG BANG" and you simply fall in line and march the march of believers.

I deny the claim as being logically impossible because physics denies the existence of nothing or the existence of a very small something surrounded by nothing and all you do is ****. There is no such condition where nothing exists; this is a serious epistemological contradiction.

<b>Nothing cannot exist.</b>
Precisely how direct does this evidence have to be?? Or rather, what level of indirectness will Britishk tolerate, given that all sensation is indirect?? How does Britishk account for the precession of the orbit of mercury?? How does Britishk account for the observed bending of starlight passing the sun?? How does Britishk account for the real time discrepancies of real clocks that are put in high speed jets and rockets??
Your first claim - Sensation is the direct physical contact by a real physical thing with a real physical sense-organ. Your claim that this describes an indirect contact is just purely absurd.

Your second claim - By measuring it! If something is known to be precise or not it is because it has been measured and found to be so. If you don't know why it is so and you want to know more about the cause of its precision - KEEP OBSERVING IT AND MEASURING THE RESULT. This is the method to greater knowledge!

Your third claim - Gravity! Never heard of it?

Your fourth claim - A human built the damn thing; right? If they operate differently at different speeds perhaps he needs to go back to the drawing board and improve on the design. Time is only a relational measurement. If you send a clock someplace quickly and it shows a time you were not expecting does this tell you that it somehow traveled "in time"? Is time speed dependent? What if you traveled really slowly would you travel the opposite "in time"? How do you study time? You don't. Time is an element (a factor) used in the study of change.
Firstly, you appear to have no idea what a singularity is, so perhaps you should find out before "refuting" it..
And you expect that your denial of my knowledge of a thing proves your knowledge of it. This is typical of your posts.
Secondly, who predicts that the universe is in fact going to collapse??
I don't care; is wrong who ever is doing it. Are you denying that a collapsing universe is a activly persued theory?
Thirdly, you appear to have no idea what a singularity is..
Da ja vue!
By the way, does Britishk think that space is "a real physical thing?"
If one defines space as a complete void and another defines space as a bounded and contained region and yet another defines space as a thing where everything is - who's correct.

Your question implies the equivalence to a solid material mass; which space is not. Space is a relational concept; it relates two material real things to each other. Space is what exists between real things and is dependent on the identification of those real things. For example the space between New York and L.A. is full of stuff. The space between the sun and mercury is full of a different kind if stuff. The space between the electrons of carbon is full of yet another kind of stuff.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 16th, '08, 16:46

Halfass wrote:Firstly, big bang theory is not a "creation theory", being that creation requires [...]
So your claim is that the "Big Bang" happened but nothing caused it to happen; Right! It just simply happened; no cause which effectuated into a "Big Bang" just an uncaused "Big Bang".

And you say my philosophy needs adjustment. Give me a break, my friend.
This is a rather... idiosyncratic interpretation of the experimental method... do you have problems with the existence of molecules and atoms?
<b>What!</b>

Are you saying that atoms and molecules are know to exist outside of sensor-perceptual awareness of them!
This is important-sounding but meaningless muppetry; mon amie, I sincerely recommend that you establish what the phrase 'singularity' means in this context and adjust your views accordingly.
From Wikipedia:
In general relativity, a naked singularity is a gravitational singularity without an event horizon. The singularities inside black holes are always surrounded by an area which does not allow light to escape, and therefore cannot be directly observed. A naked singularity, by contrast, is a point in space where the density is infinite and which is observable from the outside.

The theoretical existence of naked singularities is important because their existence would mean that it would be possible to observe the collapse of an object to infinite density."
You have an argument here.

My point is (if I have one) is that the universe cannot collapse to a singular if there remains the possibility to observe it; which is implied.

ethidda
Fansubber
Fansubber
Posts: 501
Joined: Feb 16th, '07, 01:51
Contact:

Post by ethidda » May 16th, '08, 16:53

Completely have no idea what you are all talking about now, but I'm answering to the first several posts in the thread.

Time is a dimension. According to String Theory (and there's a really good nova mini series on that), there are 11 or 12 dimensions, though they thought there were only 10 before. How did they get to this number? They had mathematical equations, and when solved, there were 11 or 12 unknowns. Well, I guess you can always cite that mathematics is either incomplete or inconsistent, but in general, we think it's incomplete and so the proof works.

If there are no living things, nonliving things can still deteriorate. The wind in the desert will blow the sands to different places, for example. There will still be high and low tides from the gravity of the moon.

If there are NO things, does time exist? Well, that's asking the same question as, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it still make a sound? In my opinion, the answer is, it doesn't matter, since nothing would be affected by its existence or nonexistence.

As for the 3 dimensions we cherish and love and knew since we were little... They are physical things, in the sense that we have the choice of where we want to be in those three dimensions, for the most part. There is of course, Einstein's theory of relativity (which I don't claim to understand completely).

And the big bang and big suckage (or whatever it's called) is most definitely not a creation theory. Creation theories are usually juxtaposed with the theory of evolution, since the big bang actually isn't that provable. Furthermore, in which religious text, do you read... "All the mass were converged, and then they exploded into a giant dustcloud, which through gravity, then formed billions and billions of stars and planets and moons"? (Well, I guess you could write your own.) In general, the big bang is ignored as a theory for the start of the universe, since it implies that there was something that collapsed into that single, extremely dense body in space. It is only the answer to why our current universe formed and why the universe is stretching. Besides, this isn't even philosophy (i.e. off topic) if I (we? you?) are talking about WHAT the theory is and not why it is true or false.

b.t.w. All horses are of the same color.

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 16th, '08, 17:21

oh man....how many pages are we on now...... @ethidda.... good post.....thanks for sharing.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 16th, '08, 22:17

Britishk wrote:I have given something for you to consider and **** about. But that is where you stop. You are assuming that a simple **** is intellectually potent.
I'm getting rather tired of this "intellectually potent" catch phrase. Did you read it in British's big book of big words to try and sound smart with?? Once again, you have given a complete pile of crap, describing the universe as a singularity, and don't like it when everyone jumps on you for it.
Some old guy says that the universe was created by a "BIG BANG" and you simply fall in line and march the march of believers.
Not at all, I have no intellectual or emotional investment in the theory. Unlike you, I am perfectly at home with uncertainty and tentative, provisional belief. Nothing you have presented has led me to doubt the BB for one second. The reason for this, is that you have presented anti-science gibberish at the intellectual level of an 8 yr old. :x
I deny the claim as being logically impossible because physics denies the existence of nothing or the existence of a very small something surrounded by nothing and all you do is ****.
Perhaps I'm just b*tching because this is such bullsh*t? "Nothing" has nothing to do with BB theories. There is no point at which they say "here, at time zero, there is nothing"..
There is no such condition where nothing exists; this is a serious epistemological contradiction.
A contradiction with no relevance to BB theory..
Your first claim - Sensation is the direct physical contact by a real physical thing with a real physical sense-organ. Your claim that this describes an indirect contact is just purely absurd.
You are describing the inferred mechanisms of sensation. Obviously, we assume that there is a chain of physical interactions leading from the existence of an object to our brain perceiving something, but it is a very long and indirect chain. There is no direct contact between the object perceived and the mind. A percept is not just imprinted on the mind by the outside world, it is actively constructed by the mind. There is no means of objectively verifying the accuracy of perception, only its coherence with other perceptions. Whether you are observing a cow using reflected photons refracted through the lens of your eye, or an individual biomolecule via the photons emitted off the phosphorescent display of an electron microscope, all "knowledge" is inferred rather than directly perceived.
Your second claim - By measuring it! If something is known to be precise or not it is because it has been measured and found to be so.
Really. So what is the ultimate guarantee of accuracy? Britishk's measuring ruler? Which do you take to be basic, length, velocity, light speed, time? All measurements can only rely on coherence with other measurements. We have no way of knowing if there is a systematic error in all of them.
If you don't know why it is so and you want to know more about the cause of its precision - KEEP OBSERVING IT AND MEASURING THE RESULT. This is the method to greater knowledge!
This is an 8 yr olds method. What the bloody hell is the "cause of its precision" anyway?? This method is hardly going to solve the Michelson-Morley experiment problem is it??

Perhaps, you could be talking about the "precession" of mercury that I raised. Further measurements would have been of precisely no help in this case..
Your third claim - Gravity! Never heard of it?
Very good. Gravity. So you accept relativity theory after all?? Because Newtonian gravity certainly doesn't account for it..
Your fourth claim - A human built the damn thing; right? If they operate differently at different speeds perhaps he needs to go back to the drawing board and improve on the design.
Or perhaps you don't.. It has nothing to do with clock design as you well know. (or do you?? Are you really this dense??)
Time is only a relational measurement.
Yep, one that has no absolute rate and will which you cannot even tell which order two events occur in..
If you send a clock someplace quickly and it shows a time you were not expecting does this tell you that it somehow traveled "in time"?
Relative to us it did, yes..
Is time speed dependent?
Yes..
What if you traveled really slowly would you travel the opposite "in time"?
No.. Is this stuff really new to you??
How do you study time? You don't. Time is an element (a factor) used in the study of change.
Tautology.. The concept of change is meaningless without that of time. You are talking about the same thing.. I do find it amusing that someone can think they know enough to expound at great length on a subject, whilst being so profoundly ignorant of any other thought on the subject..
And you expect that your denial of my knowledge of a thing proves your knowledge of it. This is typical of your posts.
I point out specific problems with your posts. My knowledge has nothing to do with it, though it is sufficient to see that you know very little about physics, physiology, or philosophy. I know you think that your ideas become correct if no one "offers an alternative" but in reality my knowledge or lack thereof is pretty irrelevant..

I don't care; is wrong who ever is doing it. Are you denying that a collapsing universe is a activly persued theory?
It's a hypothesis at best, out of favour with the vast majority of cosmologists atm..
If one defines space as a complete void and another defines space as a bounded and contained region and yet another defines space as a thing where everything is - who's correct.
The nature of space has been a subject of scientific/philosophical debate for centuries. One might think that you could make the small effort required to read about it if interested. The debate has not been settled..
Your question implies the equivalence to a solid material mass; which space is not. Space is a relational concept; it relates two material real things to each other.
Aha!! There is a word for your position then.. You are a relationist, like Leibniz (not like Newton)..
Space is what exists between real things and is dependent on the identification of those real things. For example the space between New York and L.A. is full of stuff. The space between the sun and mercury is full of a different kind if stuff. The space between the electrons of carbon is full of yet another kind of stuff.
Except you get confused here. You talk of space "existing between" which is granting it substantive status. If you think space only exists insofar as it is the catalogue of all the relations between objects, then you should probably avoid this. If space is "full" that implies that if you remove all the objects in the universe, empty space will still be there.

I carnt help feeling that your time would be better spent reading what other people have thought about these issues rather than lecturing the world on your own home cooked terms as if you have leapfrogged a couple of millenia of human thought and expect us to act like the scales have fallen from our eyes on exposure to your life-changing wisdom.. :P

User avatar
Halfass
Posts: 102
Joined: Apr 26th, '08, 01:32

Post by Halfass » May 17th, '08, 06:44

Britishk wrote:So your claim is that the "Big Bang" happened but nothing caused it to happen; Right! It just simply happened; no cause which effectuated into a "Big Bang" just an uncaused "Big Bang".

And you say my philosophy needs adjustment. Give me a break, my friend.
Your previous comments to Jscorpio on page 4 would suggest that your philosophy is beyond adjustment, considering that with a couple of paragraphs you deny basic physiology and the past century of advancement in physics. Your use of a strawman here would further evidence the bankruptcy of your position. Nowhere do I claim that nothing caused the Big Bang to happen, however I would note that the question of what happened prior to the Big Bang is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless. I note that such problems are typically not an issue for you.
<b>What!</b>

Are you saying that atoms and molecules are know to exist outside of sensor-perceptual awareness of them!
Is the prevarication of this rather tortuously phrased question intentional? Let's remind ourselves of my question: you stated that your condition of proof required "truth by direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence" (sic). Setting aside the problem that we have no "direct physical sensorial-perceptual evidence" of anything (simply by the nature of our perceptual systems), then molecules and atoms should be a bit of a problem for you, being that they're too small to see, hear or touch. Taste and smell are slightly more sensitive, but the sensory data that they produce would not directly reveal the presence of molecules and atoms.
From Wikipedia:
In general relativity, a naked singularity is a gravitational singularity without an event horizon. The singularities inside black holes are always surrounded by an area which does not allow light to escape, and therefore cannot be directly observed. A naked singularity, by contrast, is a point in space where the density is infinite and which is observable from the outside.

The theoretical existence of naked singularities is important because their existence would mean that it would be possible to observe the collapse of an object to infinite density."
You have an argument here.
I'll interpret this as your way of admitting that, as your comments clearly indicated, you didn't understand what "singularity" meant in this context.
My point is (if I have one) is that the universe cannot collapse to a singular if there remains the possibility to observe it; which is implied.
There is no such implication, and as such, your claim is heavy with the desperation of someone who has been caught out but is unwilling to admit so.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 17th, '08, 15:39

Jscorpio wrote:I'm getting rather tired of this "intellectually potent" catch phrase. Did you read it in British's big book of big words to try and sound smart with?? Once again, you have given a complete pile of crap, describing the universe as a singularity, and don't like it when everyone jumps on you for it.
Nobody has "jumped on" me for my view of singularity. You seem to be unaware that there is a "collapsing universe" theory requiring the principle of singularity in-order to fully explain it. I have made the just observation that the universe in its current configuration is the singular.
Not at all, I have no intellectual or emotional investment in the theory. Unlike you, I I am perfectly at home with uncertainty and tentative, provisional belief. Nothing you have presented has led me to doubt the BB for one second. The reason for this, is that you have presented anti-science gibberish at the intellectual level of an 8 yr old. :x
You prefer to "believe" a theory requiring a "creation event." While my view is that there necessarily could not have been any "creation event." True creation is incompatible with what we know about the existence of things. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Converting matter into energy does not violate this principle; it only refines what we know about each.
Perhaps I'm just b*tching because this is such bullsh*t? "Nothing" has nothing to do with BB theories. There is no point at which they say "here, at time zero, there is nothing"..
Exactly! Nothing cannot exist. There was no BB; the universe has always existed - including all the relationships that exist naturally within the universe: And these include that special relationship know by the word life.
A contradiction with no relevance to BB theory..
More than that: A contradiction that denies the BB.
You are describing the inferred mechanisms of sensation. Obviously, we assume that there is a chain of physical interactions leading from the existence of an object to our brain perceiving something, but it is a very long and indirect chain.
You have reduced your knowledge of yourself to an assumption! Why?
There is no direct contact between the object perceived and the mind.
I never made this claim. You have substituted "mind" in the place where I use "brain." Why?
A percept is not just imprinted on the mind by the outside world, it is actively constructed by the mind.
I never made this claim. The physical facts of reality directly imprint on the physical brain. The brain functioning known by the word ‘mind’ identifies these and now human knowledge exists.
There is no means of objectively verifying the accuracy of perception, only its coherence with other perceptions. Whether you are observing a cow using reflected photons refracted through the lens of your eye, or an individual biomolecule via the photons emitted off the phosphorescent display of an electron microscope, all "knowledge" is inferred rather than directly perceived.
Your claim that sight is not a physical sensual-perceptual is absurd. Facts of reality physically stimulate the eye sensors? Otherwise how the "H" could we know of such a thing?
Really. So what is the ultimate guarantee of accuracy? Britishk's measuring ruler? Which do you take to be basic, length, velocity, light speed, time? All measurements can only rely on coherence with other measurements. We have no way of knowing if there is a systematic error in all of them.
Have you never heard of the International System of Units?
This is an 8 yr olds method. What the bloody hell is the "cause of its precision" anyway?? This method is hardly going to solve the Michelson-Morley experiment problem is it??
Perhaps, you could be talking about the "precession" of mercury that I raised. Further measurements would have been of precisely no help in this case..
How about more observations. If what you are observing presents a problem which those observations are unable to resolve perhaps you need to be looking for other evidence. Experiments cannot create truth they can only validate it. If your experiments are unable to validate what is true either your experiments are faulty or you are trying to <b>created</b> a truth.

You have characterised the entire science of physics as being at the level of an 8 yr. old. Why?
Very good. Gravity. So you accept relativity theory after all?? Because Newtonian gravity certainly doesn't account for it..
I accept gravity. Why have you tried to extend this into an existing controversy?
Or perhaps you don't.. It has nothing to do with clock design as you well know. (or do you?? Are you really this dense??)
I know that in-order to have a clock it must be built. I know that in-order to build a clock it must be designed. You have made a claim depending on the existence of a clock. If it is not performing according to expectations it very well could be a design flaw. To arbitrarily discount the clocks method of operation in-order to accept an unexplained result of its operation is naive at the best.
Yep, one that has no absolute rate and will which you cannot even tell which order two events occur in..
Order of events is a third party problem. It takes a third party who is outside the relationship to order the sequence of their events.
Relative to us it did, yes..
Can you explain how this happened this? If the clock is no longer "in our time" how are we able to observe it?
Yes..
What is the dependent factor?
No.. Is this stuff really new to you??
You said that time was speed dependent; what did you really mean?
Tautology.. The concept of change is meaningless without that of time. You are talking about the same thing.. I do find it amusing that someone can think they know enough to expound at great length on a subject, whilst being so profoundly ignorant of any other thought on the subject..
I agree!

Time is used in measuring change. So is it time that changed in the clock or was it that the clock somehow changed and time simply recorded it? I'm getting more curious about the source of true ignorance all the time.
I point out specific problems with your posts. My knowledge has nothing to do with it, though it is sufficient to see that you know very little about physics, physiology, or philosophy. I know you think that your ideas become correct if no one "offers an alternative" but in reality my knowledge or lack thereof is pretty irrelevant..
I see; you become correct by simply denying another’s claim. Neat trick, Ms. Adrijana!
It's a hypothesis at best, out of favour with the vast majority of cosmologists atm..
It has come up before and I have responded to it. If I am aware of a post where it has been proposed and I don't respond to it, it could be claimed that I support it; which I don't.
The nature of space has been a subject of scientific/philosophical debate for centuries. One might think that you could make the small effort required to read about it if interested. The debate has not been settled..
Then all I really need to do is to make it clear how I use the word. It’s sort of like the guy who claims the glass is half full. And now a bunch of intellectuals can get paid to stand around and debate - what does "half full" mean?
Aha!! There is a word for your position then.. You are a relationist, like Leibniz (not like Newton)..
Is that a good thing? I certainly do want to be seen as good after all!
Except you get confused here. You talk of space "existing between" which is granting it substantive status. If you think space only exists insofar as it is the catalogue of all the relations between objects, then you should probably avoid this. If space is "full" that implies that if you remove all the objects in the universe, empty space will still be there.
And here we have the dispute. Can (or does) space exist?
This is the metaphysical component of the epistemological question "can nothing exist." The only answer to each is - no.
I carnt help feeling that your time would be better spent reading what other people have thought about these issues rather than lecturing the world on your own home cooked terms as if you have leapfrogged a couple of millenia of human thought and expect us to act like the scales have fallen from our eyes on exposure to your life-changing wisdom.. :P
I prefer to do my own thinking. You seem to read and accept the thinking provided by others as if were real knowledge. I don't see any attempt on your part to do original thinking. In this respect you are a devout religionist. :D

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 17th, '08, 17:00

Now mate, we actually have quite a bit of agreement here, but before I get to that , I have to deal with this irritation:
Britishk wrote:I prefer to do my own thinking. You seem to read and accept the thinking provided by others as if were real knowledge. I don't see any attempt on your part to do original thinking. In this respect you are a devout religionist. :D
The perpetual refrain of the arrogant ignorant! As if great minds of the past couldn't possibly do anything except contaminate the purity of your great ideas! Of course I think for myself, only unlike you I have the humility to realise I am not in a higher league of intelligence all on my own, and a lot of this stuff has been dealt with in ways I could only dream of originating. At the very least, acquainting yourself with the basics allows you to frame your ideas in ways that everyone else can recognise (and frankly, your use of language could be improved Britishk).

You know what I'm not even going to continue this debate with you anymore. Goodbye!

Takekaze
Posts: 62
Joined: Oct 7th, '06, 08:13

Post by Takekaze » May 17th, '08, 19:41

First of, time has nothing to do with philosophy. That goes into physics, which is an actual science, while philosophy is none (it's a load of hot air that never leads to any actual scientific results).

Secondly, don't quote the wiki. I have yet to hear of a university that accepts wiki as a reliable and trustworthy source.

Britishk
Posts: 51
Joined: Apr 28th, '08, 15:26

Post by Britishk » May 17th, '08, 20:41

Jscorpio wrote:Now mate, we actually have quite a bit of agreement here, but before I get to that , I have to deal with this irritation:
Britishk wrote:I prefer to do my own thinking. You seem to read and accept the thinking provided by others as if were real knowledge. I don't see any attempt on your part to do original thinking. In this respect you are a devout religionist. :D
The perpetual refrain of the arrogant ignorant! As if great minds of the past couldn't possibly do anything except contaminate the purity of your great ideas! Of course I think for myself, only unlike you I have the humility to realise I am not in a higher league of intelligence all on my own, and a lot of this stuff has been dealt with in ways I could only dream of originating. At the very least, acquainting yourself with the basics allows you to frame your ideas in ways that everyone else can recognise (and frankly, your use of language could be improved Britishk).

You know what I'm not even going to continue this debate with you anymore. Goodbye!
Your becoming to angry to communicate with. You're dismissed.
Takekaze wrote:First of, time has nothing to do with philosophy.
Really? Well then why didn't you start it when you had the floor?
That goes into physics, which is an actual science, while philosophy is none (it's a load of hot air that never leads to any actual scientific results).
Really?
Secondly, don't quote the wiki. I have yet to hear of a university that accepts wiki as a reliable and trustworthy source.
I agree.

User avatar
xplicit
Posts: 19
Joined: May 13th, '08, 18:34

Post by xplicit » May 18th, '08, 01:31

Jscorpio wrote:@xplicit:

My apology, mate.. Perhaps, I sounded a bit harsh there.. :P
I should be used to it by now. :mrgreen:

User avatar
G'boy
Posts: 97
Joined: May 3rd, '08, 15:56

Post by G'boy » May 18th, '08, 16:08

Dear Takekaze gf/bf,

I mean really, if nature without recourse to intelligence was sufficient to originate life then a number of events must have happened. One such necessary event was the completely natural origin of the nucleotides we see in life today. But we have no experimental or other empirical evidence to support the view that such an event ever occurred. No natural nucleotides, no natural origin of life. So it seems empirical justification of belief in a natural origin of life is not a live option. In light of this, is it possible for belief in a natural origin of life to be justified, to be rational? If so, on what basis? What else would justify that belief?

To answer that question myself, I would say that if one could justify those presuppositions that constitute metaphysical or philosophical naturalism then that'd serve as a basis to justify belief in a natural origin of life. For if all causes are ultimately physical, and if life was caused, then the origin of life was physical, natural, whether or not we have the slightest bit of empirical evidence to rest any such proposition upon. Of course bf/gf, the justification of metaphysical naturalism is hardly the path of least resistance. I suppose it would be far easier to empirically evince each step necessary to the natural formation of a self-sustaining and self-replicating molecule than it would be to prove philosophical axioms. In any case Darling, are there any other routes to justification or is belief in a natural origin doomed to irrationality?

I intend the nature of this inquiry to be more about principle than practice, to be more epistemic than scientific. Thus the philosophical discussion rather than a science discussion. Mwah!

User avatar
slowmoe
Posts: 276
Joined: Apr 29th, '08, 05:23
Location: westcoast

Post by slowmoe » May 18th, '08, 18:52

wrote a lot....but what was the question bro.....

User avatar
Jscorpio
Posts: 191
Joined: Apr 21st, '08, 20:45

Post by Jscorpio » May 19th, '08, 02:42

G'boy wrote:I mean really, if nature without recourse to intelligence was sufficient to originate life then a number of events must have happened. One such necessary event was the completely natural origin of the nucleotides we see in life today. But we have no experimental or other empirical evidence to support the view that such an event ever occurred.
Incorrect, we know chemistry happens and that there is no reason why it shouldn't occur naturally.. We have evidence that it is a plausible hypothesis, which is a damn sight more than "supernatural" hypotheses have..
No natural nucleotides, no natural origin of life. So it seems empirical justification of belief in a natural origin of life is not a live option. In light of this, is it possible for belief in a natural origin of life to be justified, to be rational? If so, on what basis? What else would justify that belief?
Er, that it is a reasonable hypothesis?? That its the simplest explanation?? That the alternative solves a mystery with a greater mystery??
To answer that question myself, I would say that if one could justify those presuppositions that constitute metaphysical or philosophical naturalism
It is difficult to define those terms very satisfactorily, or indeed explain what not-naturalism would be.. No presuppositions are required to do science, or formulate a hypothesis about abiogenesis..

Paris_Hangover
Posts: 18
Joined: May 16th, '08, 04:48

Post by Paris_Hangover » May 19th, '08, 17:28

Dear G'boy,

Here's my philosophical arguments on gay marriage.

In the absence of religious compulsion, is it true that gay marriage is wrong? Or can you argue definitively that gay marriage is right?

I'm interested in the reasons you would give for or against gay marriage without religion standing behind them. I don't want this to turn into a religious battle, after all.

User avatar
xplicit
Posts: 19
Joined: May 13th, '08, 18:34

Post by xplicit » May 19th, '08, 17:42

Alert - Alert! Intruder sighted!
Prepare missile. Prepare missile. :mrgreen:
G'boy, shall I terminate her?
Currently Watching: The Hour of Dog and Wolf I Last Friends I SP/Security Police I

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests