Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.

There is a problem here concerning your use of 'detect.' Time is measured not detected.

 

[ratiocinator]

Clocks, counting, movement... measure time, not detect time.

It's usually quite difficult to measure something if it doesn't exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's usually quite difficult to measure something if it doesn't exist.

Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists. I believe this circular vocabulary is not helpful nor meaningful. The continuous time of our time space universe and any other possible universe. At the smallest scale of the Quantum world we have momentary time related to Quantum events only, bit not continuous.

It is best for us to discuss the more meaningful and unanswered questions concerning time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists.

Not you too. I suggest reading back. There is plentiful evidence for general relativity and hence a space-time manifold. And, as I said, how do you measure something that doesn't exist?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, ah . . . time is not a thing that physically exists.

Depends. What do you mean by the phrase 'physically exists'?

Time, and its dynamics, is certainly studied by physics. We know that time can curve, that it is affected by gravitational systems, that it has fundamental geometric aspects of our universe.

So in what way is it NOT physical?

No, it is not made out of fermions. But a great number of things that are undeniably physical are also not made of fermions.

I would also ask if you think that space 'physically exists'? If so, in what way does space do so and time does not?

 

[shunyadragon]

Depends. What do you mean by the phrase 'physically exists'?

It we do not have the time/space physical universe the continuous time arrow does not exist. Time is only observed when we have an observable measurable change. Time is only temporal, get it. I do not consider this a meaningful discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

It we do not have the time/space physical universe the continuous time arrow does not exist. Time is only observed when we have an observable measurable change. Time is only temporal, get it. I do not consider this a meaningful discussion.

If we don't have the time/space physical universe, the continuous directional arrow does not exist. Space is only observed when we have an observable measurable separation. Space is only directional, get it.

You didn't answer my question: in what sense is time NOT physical?

 

[Polymath257]

There is a problem here concerning your use of 'detect.' Time is measured not detected.

See post #2803

 

[Subduction Zone]

Counting is another way of detecting time, just not as accurate as a clock.

Wrong! Let me show you:

1,2, 3, 7, . . . 7? Oh poop!

 

[Zwing]

I think philosophers like to claim this, but in reality, it isn't really what happens.

Philosophy is at its best when asking questions and pointing out flaws in the arguments made by others. It is a fun subject to discuss among friends over dinner and drinks. But it is at its worst when actually arriving at conclusions. Usually those conclusions are not based on any facts, but rather on uninformed opinions.

Philosophers like to think that they support all other subjects and that those subjects would be worthless without the conclusions of the philosophers. In reality, philosophers of science are usually a joke and those of metaphysics are uniformly jokes. Not only do they get wrong conclusions, but the wrongness would be obvious if they only studied their subject for a bit.

Another difficulty comes when philosophers claim that things 'must be' a particular way. This is very common in metaphysics, for example. Again, those who actually study physics usually just ignore philosophy as irrelevant. And they do this for good reason. It turns out that the way philosophers say things 'must be' is usually NOT how things actually are.

In the end, philosophers of science are similar to literary critics. They don't produce anything of substance themselves, they merely give their opinions. They don't often even understand what they are criticising, and so they usually get things wrong.


If only that were actually the case. Philosophy has made a hash out of basic concepts like causality, the nature of deduction, etc.

I reached this conclusion, by the way, when reading Kant. He was going off about synthetic and analytic knowledge and a priori and posteriori for each. The example he gave for analytic a priori knowledge was geometry. He basically said that Euclidean geometry is the only one conceivable. Well, he was wrong. They are many non-Euclidean geometries.

Of course, he then proceeded to base a good deal of his viewpoint on the existence of synthetic a priori knowledge, when he actually gave no example of such. And, in fact, we still know of no example of such.

Good thing not everybody would agree.

 

[Polymath257]

Good thing not everybody would agree.

The vast majority of working physicists do, however. And for good reason.

I think it would be good if philosophers started listening to other disciplines and realizing their ideas are not set in stone.

For example, I think that metaphysics is in dire need of a complete revision. We seem to still be debating ideas from the time of Plato and Aristotle even though we *know* Aristotle was just wrong with most of his physics and Plato's cave is probably the worst philosophical mistake of western philosophy (although it is a nice story). Even the *categories* are extremely suspect (necessary existence, for example).

 

[vulcanlogician]

I think it would be good if philosophers started listening to other disciplines and realizing their ideas are not set in stone.

They started that around 200 years ago, Poly. No contemporary philosopher ignores science.

Sure there are fringe theists who market dubious ideas as valid philosophy (like WLC). But even the creationists march out fringe "physicists" and "biologists" (complete with Ph.Ds from reputable schools) to advance their platform to the public. In both cases (philosophy and science) the discipline itself ought not be faulted for the claims of these dishonest individuals.

Philosophy is at its best when asking questions and pointing out flaws in the arguments made by others.

Agreed.

Philosophers like to think that they support all other subjects and that those subjects would be worthless without the conclusions of the philosophers.

SOME philosophers.

Philosophy is only so useful. I'll grant you that. I'll also grant you that science is SO useful that if it would disappear from the world it would leave humanity in a much greater deficit than if philosophy were to spontaneously disappear.

But I would (humbly) posit that if philosophy were to disappear from the world it would be a deficit to humanity too. Nowhere near as great as if science would disappear... but a deficit is a deficit. Philosophy gives us something. We should be careful not to overstate its value. But we should also be careful not to understate it.

Would science (could science?) ever come up with the idea of inalienable human rights? The idea of inalienable human rights, I would argue, has been of great service to humankind. But you don't get to the idea of human rights by observing the world and figuring out the properties of physical things. You get it by thinking about what justice is (or might be).

I have no doubt that your given scientist can think about what justice is. Perhaps as well as any philosopher. But scientists aren't instructed on how to approach that question (ie. how difficult that question is) in their physics classrooms. If they were, there'd be a serious risk of philosophy being superfluous as a discipline. But you guys are so busy talking about Schrodinger's equations and such, that you only have time to talk about philosophy over beers... when you're all done with your day of "sciencing." Good philosophizing can be done over beers after work. Don't get me wrong. But it's even better when you wake up in the morning and discuss Hegel over a bagel.

I don't think that philosophy supports all of the sciences. But I do think that the sciences can't answer (or even ask) every question that is important to us.

 

[We Never Know]

Ultimately, there is no difference between detecting and measuring.

If you say so.

Ultimately there was a pre-BB. The BB is the expansion. It was set in motion by _______?
It wasn't then it was.
Unless it just poofed into existence.

 

[Zwing]

Unless it just poofed into existence.

Yeah, like the cows in Genesis!

 

[We Never Know]

Yeah, like the cows in Genesis!

Cows? Didn't the whole universe poof into existence in genesis?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, the motion detects time. It isn't simply a matter of counting. For example, we determine the lifetime of subatomic particles by looking at how long their paths are before decay. By knowing their velocities, we measure the time.

We detect time through motion, pure and simple.

In fact, I have a fairly famous book on gravity that declares 'time is defined so that motion looks simple'. And that is, in fact, the case.

We measure time in ways similar to how we measure space, momentum, charge, or any other physical property: by looking at its effects on other things. In the case of time, those effects boil down to motion.

Fine, I can put together an electronic counter and capacity link the 60Hz from any electricity power outlet to the input and with appropriate counting arrangements, I could count time, and make a clock even. Is the time being detected at the electrical power generating station. or in my counter. In fact I could make an audio oscillator and do the same thing.

Time is a concept that represents the counting of sequential finite duration regular period of anything and the tracking of the continuity of existence.. For example, earth rotation, lunar cycles, earth orbital periods, pendulums, sun dials, oscillators, electrical power 60hz cycles, quartz xtals, atomic clocks, any regular periodic activity anywhere at all that has a regular period can be used as a proxy for timing the continuity of existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

They can't count. We count time as the effect it has in regards to motion. Time is an objective regularity like other objective regularities. Now stop time because it is all in your mind and not objective. That is a test btw. Stop everything since it is one.

Precisely, that is how one is aware that time is a human concept. There is no cosmic entity on the other side of the concept. When the mind is still, the concepts of the ego mind are seen for what they are, thought bubbles that are meant to represent something real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you say so.

Ultimately there was a pre-BB. The BB is the expansion. It was set in motion by _______?
It wasn't then it was.
Unless it just poofed into existence.

How do you know that there was a "pre-Big Bang"? And you still do not seem to understand that if time began with the Big Bang then the universe always existed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'd also point out that a ruler doesn't detect space: it counts! And yes, the analogy is close.

3D space is full of matter and energy, zpe, atoms, etc., there are vibrations throughout, the space is an entity that is full and real.
Time is that same 3D space continuing to exist. Iow it is the real space continuing to be real space, there is no time entity that is real, just the real continuing to be real which continuity we call time.

Space is a concept to represent the real.
Time is a concept to represent the continuity of the real.

 

[Zwing]

Cows? Didn't the whole universe poof into existence in genesis?

Yes, and I assume that included cows as well; “fiat vaccae, et “poof” vaccae fuerunt”, know what I’m sayin’?