Evidence is bot required for the obvious, as it is right in front of you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, if you want to do philosophy for evidence, I cand do that as I am a general skeptic.
No, that is NOT what (s)he is really saying. (S)he is saying that at a different time slice of spacetime, some event occurs.
This seems to be nonsense outside the realm of theory. “Space” is dimensional and “time” is temporal. Please draw me a graph showing time as a physical property. “Spacetime” is a theoretical concept which helps to explain certain phenomena; it is not a physical reality.
How, if time has no physical basis, can it “curve”?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no physical reality. That is an idea just like God. You can't point to any of them. It is in your mind.
So the fact that we can actually measure the curvature shows that it does have a 'physical basis'.
Many things seem obvious but are, in fact, false. What is 'right in front of you' is simply one observation. it can be mistaken or misinterpreted.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's a model that makes accurate predictions. That gives it a far greater correspondence to reality than any baseless philosophical musings.
Bare assertion.
Begging the question.
To 'draw a graph' limits the dimensionality of the picture. How would I draw a graph of any four dimensional thing?
Perhaps we have different definitions of the notion of 'physical reality'. Could you explain yours? For mine, the fact that it is able to explain many phenomena is part of what makes it a 'physical phenomenon'.
Right!
Exactly.
No. It means that there has been a succession of events. There is no reality which has been “moved along”, as if upon a track. Time is merely a convenience to measure event series and to recognize causation.
Haha, the succession of events is not at all dependent upon some imaginary “thread” (or, whatever other metaphor pleases you). It, or rather they, are merely dependent upon causation.
I would suggest a perusal of McTaggart’s work on time. He was a bright fellow, and his thoughts have stood the test of time.
As is the assertion that there is a thing in the universe called “time”. It works theoretically, but so doesn’t the argument 0.999…=1, which is obviously invalid. This type of disagreement highlights the distinction between theory and fact. Theories are based upon all types of premises, and the invalidity of some of those is ignored by mathematicians and scientists if their contribution supports the theoretical framework in question. Not saying that is a bad thing… it is useful, but we are behooved to be mindful of the inconsistencies which exist.
I agree, but this is a different point entirely, on a different level than the current discussion.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You do like bare, unevidenced, and unargued assertions, don't you? Do you really think they are convincing? I mean, have you ever made such an assertion and had somebody just say something like "oh well, if you say so, it must be true"?
You are putting these assertions up against a model that has made endless exact, numerical predictions that have been shown to be accurate in every single way in which we have been able to test them.
I don't think there is much contest as to which is more likely to be a more accurate representation of reality.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It isn't a bare assertion, it is backed up by evidence.
No it isn't. It's entirely accurate. It's a consequence of the notation we use for real numbers.
You haven't shown that there are any. You have just made a whole lot of baseless assertions.
I have provided a link. If you think I’m going to type out the entire rationale on my infuriating iphone myself, with my fat fingers, then you are kidding yourself.
This hints at what I am saying. “Space” and “time” are quale of an utterly different nature. They may have a relation, but cannot be said to be constituents of any real thing in nature.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. It was evidence-free philosophy. Basically, just somebody's opinion. I don't regard that as being in the least bit comparable with a well tested formalised theory. There is simply no contest. If somebody's opinion is at odds with tested science, it's just too bad for the opinion.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
That is how they are represented in minds. That does not necessarily tell you everything about what is out in reality.
Another bare assertion. You can't put up the way things appear to be to us against a well tested theory. You're doing something similar to insisting that the colours we see are really 'out there' in reality, rather than being an artefact of the way we sense various frequencies of light and combinations of said frequencies.
Theoretical models, of which “spacetime” is an example, do not always provide solid epistemological grounds for understanding reality because they often include faulty premises.