Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[ratiocinator]

Reality is simply reality, thinking about reality can have purpose, but beyond that it just muddies the waters. Reality is unmuddied when you do not conceptualize it, ie., meditate on it, not think about it.

If you ignore the way reality actually behaves when we interact with it, then you are taking a step away from it, not towards it. Meditation may have therapeutic value or tell you about yourself, but I've never seen any evidence that it can tell you anything at all about reality outside your own mind.

 

[Pogo]

Reality is forever on the other side of concepts, nothing you ever think is real, it may represent reality to you, but it is not reality. I mostly deal in realty itself, not the conceptualization of it. Simply put, time is the continuity of existence, and though that is a conceptualization, you understand the reality it is meant to represent, I hope.

Reality is on the side of concepts that comport with reality, but just because a concept agrees with your desires doesn't mean anything.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nonsense. Before Einstein, they were treated separately. Now we know that they can't be because such models don't work.

It's not nonsense .. you are merely trying to deflect away from the real issue.
Is 'time' measured in relation to space, or not?

I'll answer that for you. Yes, it is.
Does that mean, because we scientifically define it as such, that that is exclusively what it is?

The answer is 'no', I'm afraid, however much you want it to be so.
You can't define something, and then conclude the nature of it is purely as defined.

We can measure space .. but we can't measure time, without including space in the calculation.
..and we know that time passed is relative to velocity.

Do you know what absolute velocity, your person is traveling? No!
Does it even mean anything, unless we measure it relative to another object?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh, right, I see, you alone have magical access to reality itself. Right.

No, a great number of philosophers understand the concept, but you can't?

 

[ratiocinator]

It's not nonsense .. you are merely trying to deflect away from the real issue.

No. It's a question of which model works to predict reality. Treating time and space separately was the model used until Einstein, but it's only a good approximation.

You seem to be obsessing over the mechanics of measurement. You can't measure time without space, but you can't measure space in without time either (try measuring a distance in zero time) - so what?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, a great number of philosophers understand the concept, but you can't?

I understand fine, it's just that philosophy only ever gave us options about time, not a conclusion. Now we have actual evidence about the question, and have a conclusion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. It's a question of which model works to predict reality. Treating time and space separately was the model used until Einstein, but it's only a good approximation..

No, no .. elapsed time has always been measured relative to space .. nothing to do
with Einstein.

You seem to be obsessing over the mechanics of measurement. You can't measure time without space, but you can't measure space in without time either (try measuring a distance in zero time) - so what?

What does that even mean, 'zero time' ?
If you mean, 'at this moment in time', of course you can.

..and by the way 'this moment in time' is not a measurement.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I understand fine, it's just that philosophy only ever gave us options about time, not a conclusion. Now we have actual evidence about the question, and have a conclusion.

No, not at all.
Science is concerned with observations in this universe.
Philosophy is a MUCH broader discipline, and can't be 'replaced' by physical science.

That's what you're doing, and feel you're justified.
You ignore everything that doesn't fit into your neat little box of physical observation.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, no .. elapsed time has always been measured relative to space .. nothing to do
with Einstein.

You're mixing up the mechanics of measuring something with how the relevant model works. Newton described time and space and entirely separate and different. That worked fine, and still does for most situations, but treating them together as space-time is far more accurate and necessary for modern technology to work.

What does that even mean, 'zero time' ?

I mean literally in no time at all. You can't, because you can't do anything at all (even think) without time. The mechanics of measuring anything require both space and time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science is concerned with observations in this universe.
Philosophy is a MUCH broader discipline, and can't be 'replaced' by physical science.

In case you haven't noticed, this universe is all we actually have access to. As far as how time works, philosophy came up with some ideas (like eternalism, presentism, and a growing past) but couldn't say which was true.

Philosophical presentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Growing block universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We now have good evidence about how time works, and it's more complicated than any philosopher ever imagined before the science came along.

Philosophy is a MUCH broader discipline, and can't be 'replaced' by physical science.

So what, exactly, do you think it can tell us about time that science can't? You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Is it just subjective time, or something else?

Be specific, rather than the grand proclamations and vague hand-waving.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I mean literally in no time at all. You can't, because you can't do anything at all (even think) without time..

Errr .. irrelevant. At 'a moment in time', space has dimensions.

You are referring to the fact that it takes time to "get our ruler out"

 

[muhammad_isa]

In case you haven't noticed, this universe is all we actually have access to.

No .. that is a philosophical stance, that denies (or discards) the existence of anything but physical reality.

So what, exactly, do you think it can tell us about time that science can't? You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Is it just subjective time, or something else?

Be specific, rather than the grand proclamations and vague hand-waving.

Unlike you, I don't believe that the physical reality that we see is all that is.
I think we can see, that our increasing scientific knowledge over the last century proves that fact.

What we "see" is not always what it appears to be.
..and time is definitely one of those things. Time dilation was discovered, and we see how
time is relative to the observer .. does it end there?

Of course not .. not for those who don't confine themselves to the realm of "what we already know".

I notice you have not commented on your 'absolute velocity' through space..
"space expands as the light travels through it, resulting in numerical values which locate the most distant galaxies beyond the Hubble sphere and therefore with recession velocities greater than the speed of light c."
Is it approaching the speed of light? Who knows?

 

[ratiocinator]

You are referring to the fact that it takes time to "get our ruler out"

If that's how you decide to measure it.

No .. that is a philosophical stance, that denies (or discards) the existence of anything but physical reality.

No, it isn't. I don't deny the existence of anything else, I'm just waiting for somebody to give me some reason to take any specific ideas of anything else at all seriously. And waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting....

What we "see" is not always what it appears to be.
..and time is definitely one of those things. Time dilation was discovered, and we see how
time is relative to the observer .. does it end there?

Of course not .. not for those who don't confine themselves to the realm of "what we already know".

We currently have a theory of space-time that explains every single observation and experiment we've ever been able to make or do. Of course, it isn't the end. We know that we don't have a complete picture yet because it doesn't play nicely with the theory we have that covers everything else.

I notice you have not commented on your 'absolute velocity' through space..
"space expands as the light travels through it, resulting in numerical values which locate the most distant galaxies beyond the Hubble sphere and therefore with recession velocities greater than the speed of light c."
Is it approaching the speed of light? Who knows?

Is there a point in here, struggling to get out? Yes, the expansion of space can mean that, beyond a certain distance, the recession velocity will exceed light. This is well understood and doesn't violate special relativity because (simply put) it is an expansion of space, not through space.

What you have totally failed to do is actually answer my question about your claim about philosophy:

Philosophy is a MUCH broader discipline, and can't be 'replaced' by physical science.

So what, exactly, do you think it can tell us about time that science can't? You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Is it just subjective time, or something else?

Be specific, rather than the grand proclamations and vague hand-waving.

It's alright, I'm used to waiting.......

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is there a point in here, struggling to get out? Yes, the expansion of space can mean that, beyond a certain distance, the recession velocity will exceed light. This is well understood and doesn't violate special relativity because (simply put) it is an expansion of space, not through space.

I didn't suggest any law was being violated .. I am merely pointing out that measurement of
elapsed time is dependent on relative velocity of objects ..
..so how does that define time in an absolute sense? It doesn't.

eg. what is the definition of a second, and what environment is it being measured in?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not get the connection?

Yes, there is a 'universal essence' but it is not the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, etc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, there is a 'universal essence' but it is not the Abrahamic God of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahais, etc.

Did I imply it was, please point out my exact words where I connected it with God of Jews, or Muslims, or Bahai, etc.?

 

[ratiocinator]

I didn't suggest any law was being violated .. I am merely pointing out that measurement of
elapsed time is dependent on relative velocity of objects ..
..so how does that define time in an absolute sense? It doesn't.

There is no time in "an absolute sense". It's relative to an observer/frame of reference. Before you mentioned "absolute velocity" too, which also isn't a thing. You seem to have misunderstood something and I'm not entirely sure what...

eg. what is the definition of a second, and what environment is it being measured in?

A second is a unit of measurement, not the thing being measured, but it's easy enough to look up:

Second - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no time in "an absolute sense". It's relative to an observer/frame of reference.

Exactly!

A second is a unit of measurement, not the thing being measured..

The term "time" is generally used for many close but different concepts, including:

• instant as an object – one point on the time axis. Being an object, it has no value;
  
  • date as a quantity characterising an instant. As a quantity, it has a value which may be expressed in a variety of ways, for example "2014-04-26T09:42:36,75" in ISO standard format, or more colloquially such as "today, 9:42 a.m.";
• time interval as an object – part of the time axis limited by two instants. Being an object, it has no value;
  
  • duration as a quantity characterizing a time interval. As a quantity, it has a value, such as a number of minutes, or may be described in terms of the quantities (such as times and dates) of its beginning and end.
• chronology, an ordered sequence of events in the past.

Time_standard - Wikipedia

International Atomic Time (TAI) is the primary physically realized time standard. TAI is produced by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), and is based on the combined input of many atomic clocks around the world, each corrected for environmental and relativistic effects (both gravitational and because of speed, like in GNSS).

..so measured "relative to the world", and not to the galaxy or universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

..so measured "relative to the world", and not to the galaxy or universe.

I have literally no idea why you are going on about time units and standards. The discussion is about the basic nature of time itself.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about your claim about philosophy:

Philosophy is a MUCH broader discipline, and can't be 'replaced' by physical science.

So what, exactly, do you think it can tell us about time that science can't? You seem to keep changing your mind about this. Is it just subjective time, or something else?

Be specific, rather than the grand proclamations and vague hand-waving.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about your claim about philosophy:

What, that man's imagination and thought has no role to play, other than confirming what
is already scientifically established, and ignoring any other possibility?

That's narrow-minded, and false.