A Universe from Nothing?

[Polymath257]

You mean you have been debating me on the 'tangibility' of time for pages and pages of this thread and you do not even know the meaning intended? Bad form. It means in the context I have been are using the word, 'perceptible to the senses', ie, touch, taste, smell, hear, and see.

OK, so is an electron tangible? Do you only accept things that are tangible as real?

Back to the tangibility of the reality represented by the concept of time, it does not exist, the only tangibility of observing something for some duration (which duration is conceived as time) is that of seeing what in front of the eyes, there is not entity known as time that can be seen. It is merely the measurement of the duration using calibrated cyclic movement, that is called time, an abstraction.

Yes, duration, i.e, the time interval is perceptible to the senses. Just like space in and of itself isn't, but spatial intervals are.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

E&M waves are changing E&M fields. That is all.

There are no E&M fields without energy either.

Yes, I understand, there is an underlying unity to all of this wave, energy, electromagnetic, radiation terminology. Oh, that's a term I don't think I've yet used...em radiated wave energy..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, so is an electron tangible? Do you only accept things that are tangible as real?

Yes, duration, i.e, the time interval is perceptible to the senses. Just like space in and of itself isn't, but spatial intervals are.

Sure electrons are tangible, in the old days of Electron Tubes, Vacuum Tubes, Radio Valves, if you disconnected the + HV from the anode of say a working diode, triode, pentode, etc., you could see a cloud of electrons build up around the heated cathode, it was like a dark grey cloud. Of course there are many indirect ways to show the tangibility of electrons, say the two split experiment, CRTs, etc.

I accept that concepts are real in the sense they are real concepts, thoughts, words, numbers, symbols, abstractions, etc., but they are not the real they are meant to represent. For example, you have in your mind concepts like space, light, and sound, now these are real as concepts even though they are not tangibly real like the tangible space, light, sound they stand for. Now when it comes to the concept of time, the actual reality the concept time is meant to represent is not tangibly real, instead what is real is the time measurement device which acts as a tangible proxy for the purely mental idea of time as a seemingly tangible reality.

A time interval is a measurement, an abstraction from timelessness by the human mind. A measurement of a finite duration is tangible process, but what is being measured is only the finite number of cycles of the tangible time piece, not an actual tangible universal entity like space, light, or sound. The eternal now though is tangible, it is all there is, the imagined future is discontinuous with the present now, the remembered past is discontinuous with the present now....that's the nature of universal being...to eternally be....now.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure electrons are tangible, in the old days of Electron Tubes, Vacuum Tubes, Radio Valves, if you disconnected the + HV from the anode of say a working diode, triode, pentode, etc., you could see a cloud of electrons build up around the heated cathode, it was like a dark grey cloud. Of course there are many indirect ways to show the tangibility of electrons, say the two split experiment, CRTs, etc.

And, of course, this was NOT directly seeing the electrons. What you see is the photons produced from the electrons changing state.

I accept that concepts are real in the sense they are real concepts, thoughts, words, numbers, symbols, abstractions, etc., but they are not the real they are meant to represent. For example, you have in your mind concepts like space, light, and sound, now these are real as concepts even though they are not tangibly real like the tangible space, light, sound they stand for. Now when it comes to the concept of time, the actual reality the concept time is meant to represent is not tangibly real, instead what is real is the time measurement device which acts as a tangible proxy for the purely mental idea of time as a seemingly tangible reality.

Is a radio wave tangible or is it abstract? We certainly can't see it directly.

A time interval is a measurement, an abstraction from timelessness by the human mind. A measurement of a finite duration is tangible process, but what is being measured is only the finite number of cycles of the tangible time piece, not an actual tangible universal entity like space, light, or sound. The eternal now though is tangible, it is all there is, the imagined future is discontinuous with the present now, the remembered past is discontinuous with the present now....that's the nature of universal being...to eternally be....now.

I think your focus on 'tangibility' is a red herring. There are a great many things about the universe that our poor sensory system can't detect. Neutrinos, for example. We don't detect electrons directly. We don't detect most types of radioactivity. We don't detect infrared, ultraviolet, gamma rays, etc. ALL of these require some other technique to measure. If anything, tie is easier to measure than most of these.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And, of course, this was NOT directly seeing the electrons. What you see is the photons produced from the electrons changing state.


Is a radio wave tangible or is it abstract? We certainly can't see it directly.


I think your focus on 'tangibility' is a red herring. There are a great many things about the universe that our poor sensory system can't detect. Neutrinos, for example. We don't detect electrons directly. We don't detect most types of radioactivity. We don't detect infrared, ultraviolet, gamma rays, etc. ALL of these require some other technique to measure. If anything, tie is easier to measure than most of these.

Not in the first instance, it is the electrons that form the 'cloud' around the cathode, not photons. In the case of a CRT display, yes it is photons emitted by the electrons impacting on the screen, that is why I qualified it as an 'indirect' example.

I trust you got my point not to confuse the concept of something as being the something, and that the something that the concept of time stands for is not tangible, unless it refers to a measurement of cycles.
I did not mention a radio wave, I mentioned light, but yes it is tangible also. I have personally placed my hand up close in front of an aircraft radar antenna with nose cone removed, and felt the heat build up very quickly. Not a recommended test of tangibility but a one off won't hurt as long as it is only for a few seconds. I can give you an indirect way also, in the hangar, one of my favorite tricks was to prearrange the radar antenna to point at one of the turned off fluorescent light arrays above, and then ask people to look up at it. I would then turn the transmitter on and lo, the whole array would light up as though they were turned on. Also not a recommended test, as as close range the return pulse from the metal hangar roof may be so high as to burn out the receiver.

Not a problem, any aspect of the universe that can be detected indirectly as a tangible thing in the here can be said to exist as a real entity. Neutrinos can be detected with special detectors, the Casimir Effect shows that zpe exists, but the very theoretical reality time is supposed to have has no mass and no energy, so it is immaterial and thus not tangible. I repeat, a clock is not detecting anything except the built in numerical counter of some cyclic mechanism/phenomenon.

 

[Polymath257]

Not in the first instance, it is the electrons that form the 'cloud' around the cathode, not photons. In the case of a CRT display, yes it is photons emitted by the electrons impacting on the screen, that is why I qualified it as an 'indirect' example.

I trust you got my point not to confuse the concept of something as being the something, and that the something that the concept of time stands for is not tangible, unless it refers to a measurement of cycles.
I did not mention a radio wave, I mentioned light, but yes it is tangible also. I have personally placed my hand up close in front of an aircraft radar antenna with nose cone removed, and felt the heat build up very quickly. Not a recommended test of tangibility but a one off won't hurt as long as it is only for a few seconds. I can give you an indirect way also, in the hangar, one of my favorite tricks was to prearrange the radar antenna to point at one of the turned off fluorescent light arrays above, and then ask people to look up at it. I would then turn the transmitter on and lo, the whole array would light up as though they were turned on. Also not a recommended test, as as close range the return pulse from the metal hangar roof may be so high as to burn out the receiver.

Not a problem, any aspect of the universe that can be detected indirectly as a tangible thing in the here can be said to exist as a real entity. Neutrinos can be detected with special detectors, the Casimir Effect shows that zpe exists, but the very theoretical reality time is supposed to have has no mass and no energy, so it is immaterial and thus not tangible. I repeat, a clock is not detecting anything except the built in numerical counter of some cyclic mechanism/phenomenon.

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Time is defined so that motion looks simple"

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Polymath257]

Not in the first instance, it is the electrons that form the 'cloud' around the cathode, not photons. In the case of a CRT display, yes it is photons emitted by the electrons impacting on the screen, that is why I qualified it as an 'indirect' example.

The electrons form a cloud, but you don't see the electron. You see the photons produced from those electrons.

In fact, you *never* see an electron.

I trust you got my point not to confuse the concept of something as being the something, and that the something that the concept of time stands for is not tangible, unless it refers to a measurement of cycles.

There are other ways of measuring time than cyclic motion. Any type of regular motion will do just as well. That's why there are water clocks, hour glasses, radioactive decay, etc that can be used to measure time.

I did not mention a radio wave, I mentioned light, but yes it is tangible also. I have personally placed my hand up close in front of an aircraft radar antenna with nose cone removed, and felt the heat build up very quickly.

That will only work for certain fairly specific frequencies. What about all the other ones that *don't* interact with the water in your hand?

Not a recommended test of tangibility but a one off won't hurt as long as it is only for a few seconds. I can give you an indirect way also, in the hangar, one of my favorite tricks was to prearrange the radar antenna to point at one of the turned off fluorescent light arrays above, and then ask people to look up at it. I would then turn the transmitter on and lo, the whole array would light up as though they were turned on. Also not a recommended test, as as close range the return pulse from the metal hangar roof may be so high as to burn out the receiver.

Again, an indirect detection, relying on the connection between the radio wave and the florescent lights. In the same way, we rely on the connection between motion and time to measure time.

Not a problem, any aspect of the universe that can be detected indirectly as a tangible thing in the here can be said to exist as a real entity. Neutrinos can be detected with special detectors, the Casimir Effect shows that zpe exists, but the very theoretical reality time is supposed to have has no mass and no energy, so it is immaterial and thus not tangible. I repeat, a clock is not detecting anything except the built in numerical counter of some cyclic mechanism/phenomenon.

Wrong. The clock shows motion, which is used to measure time. Motion is one of those things that is 'tangible': humans are quite sensitive to change, in fact. And change is the detector of time in the way that florescent lights are a detector for (some) radio waves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The electrons form a cloud, but you don't see the electron. You see the photons produced from those electrons.

In fact, you *never* see an electron.

There are other ways of measuring time than cyclic motion. Any type of regular motion will do just as well. That's why there are water clocks, hour glasses, radioactive decay, etc that can be used to measure time.


That will only work for certain fairly specific frequencies. What about all the other ones that *don't* interact with the water in your hand?


Again, an indirect detection, relying on the connection between the radio wave and the florescent lights. In the same way, we rely on the connection between motion and time to measure time.



Wrong. The clock shows motion, which is used to measure time. Motion is one of those things that is 'tangible': humans are quite sensitive to change, in fact. And change is the detector of time in the way that florescent lights are a detector for (some) radio waves.

Is my description dated, for that was the standard explanation in those days? .... https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/audio/part9/page1.html

What mass or energy are these examples of time measuring devices measuring? What precisely are they detecting that is external to them?

Then they can be detected indirectly with a radio antenna and receiver and detector.

Nonsense, our eyes can seen the light of the fluoro as an effect caused by the power of the radio waves impacting on the gasses, motion is also an effect of some cause, what is it that causes the motion? It is not time because time has no mass or energy?

Sure, the clock shows motion, and motion is defined as a 'state of change', I've never seen it described as time. If motion is somehow related to time, we should find out the cause of the motion to discover it. It certainly can't be time that caused it because time has not energy or mass.

 

[Lucifer_]

I'm not sure if I can post a poll on here but who here believes that the universe originated from nothing? As some of the major scientific theories from the 20th century claimed or was there an originator of some sort? Doesn't have to be God necessarily in your opinion. Who believes the universe has no beginning? I'm just curious as to what you guys believe with regard to this topic and what the basis of your belief would be?

If you're allowed to claim that your god came from nothing, then I'm allowed to claim that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Thief]

If you're allowed to claim that your god came from nothing, then I'm allowed to claim that the universe came from nothing.

sounds fair.....until you look around you and see....something
and then rationalize there is a cause for all things
and in the scheme of regression you find yourself at the beginning of all things

and then insist?....substance doesn't need a cause?

 

[Polymath257]

sounds fair.....until you look around you and see....something
and then rationalize there is a cause for all things
and in the scheme of regression you find yourself at the beginning of all things

and then insist?....substance doesn't need a cause?

Why would it?

 

[Polymath257]

Is my description dated, for that was the standard explanation in those days? .... https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/audio/part9/page1.html

What mass or energy are these examples of time measuring devices measuring? What precisely are they detecting that is external to them?

Well,time is not a mass or energy. On that I think we agree. Their motion is what measures time.

Nonsense, our eyes can seen the light of the fluoro as an effect caused by the power of the radio waves impacting on the gasses, motion is also an effect of some cause, what is it that causes the motion? It is not time because time has no mass or energy?

You are thinking like an Aristotelian. Motion doesn't require a force. Acceleration is what requires a force, not motion.

Sure, the clock shows motion, and motion is defined as a 'state of change', I've never seen it described as time. If motion is somehow related to time, we should find out the cause of the motion to discover it. It certainly can't be time that caused it because time has not energy or mass.

Time is the distance moved divided by the speed. Why do you assume all causes require mass and energy?

 

[Thief]

Why would it?

science!

 

[Lucifer_]

sounds fair.....until you look around you and see....something
and then rationalize there is a cause for all things
and in the scheme of regression you find yourself at the beginning of all things

and then insist?....substance doesn't need a cause?

sounds fair.....until you look around you and see....something
and then rationalize there is a cause for all things
and in the scheme of regression you find yourself at the beginning of all things

and then insist?....substance doesn't need a cause?

It's true that, as an atheist, I have no ultimate explanation for existence. But I will sooner expect an answer from cosmology than from the writings of ancient religious writers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well,time is not a mass or energy. On that I think we agree. Their motion is what measures time.



You are thinking like an Aristotelian. Motion doesn't require a force. Acceleration is what requires a force, not motion.


Time is the distance moved divided by the speed. Why do you assume all causes require mass and energy?

Well since time is not a mass or energy, it has no reality other than that being merely a concept of the mind, a mental construct. What is called a clock is a calibrated instrument designed to count cycles, whether it be a pendulum or electronic oscillation. The clock then is used to count the cycles and divide them into period of seconds, minutes, hours, etc.. These periods are then called time and can be used to measure the cycles of the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the earth around the sun, etc.. None of this indicates the reality represented by the concept of time is anything more than a human mental construct, which is all I m saying.

Then what causes the the earth to orbit the sun if not some force in action, or what causes the pendulum to sing to and fro if not a force, or what causes the oscillation of an electronic circuit if not a force?

Time as a formula is correct, that is all it is, a mental construct.

 

[Polymath257]

Then what causes the the earth to orbit the sun if not some force in action, or what causes the pendulum to sing to and fro if not a force, or what causes the oscillation of an electronic circuit if not a force?

In both cases, the force of gravity. But that force causes the *acceleration*, not the velocity. For the pendulum, the velocity is zero at the extremes of the swing. It is gravity tat accelerates it again. At the bottom of the swing, the velocity is a maximum and gravity serves to accelerate it (negatively) so the velocity decreases again. In the case of the orbit of the Earth, the velocity is a vector pointing in the direction of motion. The sun's gravity changes that vector continually, pulling it inward, leading to an orbit.

 

[Polymath257]

science!

More detail, please. Why do you think that matter cannot be self-causing?

Remember, you allow for a self-causing deity.

 

[Thief]

It's true that, as an atheist, I have no ultimate explanation for existence. But I will sooner expect an answer from cosmology than from the writings of ancient religious writers.

I find the first few lines of Genesis fascinating.....for the cause you just mentioned

 

[Thief]

More detail, please. Why do you think that matter cannot be self-causing?

Remember, you allow for a self-causing deity.

a self causing Deity.....I can accept
Matter has no 'self' at all