Time - does it have any meaning?

quote:

Originally posted by Martin Payne:
[QUOTE]]



[QUOTE] but because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science.

There is an amazing amount of faith in some science and some of the promulgators of this faith are like religious zealots.

quote:

The latest version of the repeating big-bang, or similar is driven by string theory, and may involve our universe being a three-dimensional "brane" within an 11- or 12- dimensional hyper-volume.

There is not the slightest evidense for string theory. Not one speck. It is and will remain mathematical masturbation. Of course if you are good at this masturbation you can win a Fields Medal and get a fat job at Princeton but eventually you will be shown to be peddling the emperors new clothes.

Erik

Ultimately, there is no cogent evidence for anything; science, religion, philosophy...

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Erik

Ultimately, there is no cogent evidence for anything; science, religion, philosophy...

... cable burn-in ....

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
If dreams are not subject to causality how do they arise? You are saying there can be an effect (a dream or elements of a dream)which do not have a cause? How then can something arise from nothing?...nothing is entirely random. Somethings are just too complex for us to perceive the individual cause but all effects do have causes - and that includes absurd dreams.

Please read my initial post again. I wrote, that I think there are some areas, where the principle of causality doesn´t reign. Assuming so, I reject the postulate implying, that everything must have a cause. I think, that the matters discussed in this thread almost prove that this postulate must be wrong in some special situations. The fact, that you sometimes can´t percive a cause/effect relation, does not prove its existence, (something I somewhat polemically can say you almost seem to assume above), and actually we don´t know, if it exists. I have choosen to think, that it doesn´t exist in certain contexts. This is in my opinion more logical than assuming that the cause/effect relation always exists, and ending up with insoluble paradoxes like: how can anything come from nothing. The mere word "effect" is on its own terms confusing, as it always presupposes a cause. Instead of effects we should rather talk about events, at least in these special cases.

For those that didn't know; June 30 is one of the two times (the other being December 31) when the addition or subtraction of a second from our clock time is allowed to coordinate atomic and astronomical time. The determination to adjust is made by the International Earth Rotation Service of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Paris. A leap second is an intercalary, one-second adjustment that keeps broadcast standards for time of day close to mean solar time. Leap seconds are necessary to keep time standards synchronised with civil calendars, the basis of which is astronomical. The announcement to insert a leap second is given whenever the difference between UTC and UT1 approaches one-half second, to keep the difference between UTC and UT1 from exceeding ±0.9 s. After UTC 23:59:59, a positive leap second at 23:59:60 would be counted, before the clock indicates 00:00:00 of the next day. Negative leap seconds are also possible should the Earth's rotation becomes slightly faster; in that case, 23:59:58 would be followed by 00:00:00.

Beano

quote:

scientists said that they couldn't see past the big bang to whatever existed "before". This wasn't because there was any problem with the question, but because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science.

Martin,

I like what you have written. Its easy to read and covers additional ground that I have read about (eg the concept of Branes, String Theory, and Loop Quantum Gravity).

However, I rather suspect that we will differ (and so will a lot of other people, each with their own views) with regard to the above quote, or at least the bit "because making statements about something without evidence is faith, not science".

Possibly its no more than semantics. eg "what counts as evidence" and "how much of the statement is actually supported by the evidence".

When Einsein stated his theories of General and Special Relativity, he had a bit of evidence, and likewise with String Theory (is their any evidence?) and Loop Quantum Gravity Theory. More evidence has been added from time to time, but not with universal agreement amongst "scientists". In other words, a lot of scientists generate theories without much (or any) evidence.

I know a lot of people who have personal evidence of the existance of "God" and are satisfied with the evidence as experienced by others and recorded in the Bible (or similar writings).

Whilst I "believe" in a "God", it is no more than an act of blind faith and I have no idea what "God" is. I have no personal evidence and I am sceptical about all the evidence of others, including the written scriptures. Perhaps, in my case, its not much more tham a comfortable hope of Something after death. But I still believe.

Likewise, I am somewhat sceptical about many scientific theories, and particularly ones where the promoters make strong claims about as-yet-un-proven consequences eg the Big-Bang and the consequence of Nothing preceding it. Nevertheless, I am interested in what they have to say, and in a few cases, I trust them and their "evidence"

Funny old world

Cheers

Don

I always see time as a measure of change. If nothing changes does time exist?

What I do find interesting is our perception of time. When you're switched on, you can fit lots of thoughts in between the clicks of the secondhand. When you're tired the second hand just races past.

quote:

Originally posted by pe-zulu:
[QUOTE]

Dear pe-zulu,

[QUOTE] Please read my initial post again. I wrote, that I think there are some areas, where the principle of causality doesn´t reign.

I am sure I understood perfectly what you wrote (although what you wrote may not be what you wanted to communicate).

What areas are there where the principle of causality does not reign other than the example you have previously given and which I refuted using simple common sense?

quote:

Assuming so, I reject the postulate implying, that everything must have a cause.

Don't assume anything if you are making claims about a final position.

quote:

I think, that the matters discussed in this thread almost prove that this postulate must be wrong in some special situations.

Can you give examples of the 'special situations' and what might cause these situation to be special?

quote:

The fact, that you sometimes can´t percive a cause/effect relation, does not prove its existence,

Of course, did I say otherwise?

quote:

(something I somewhat polemically can say you almost seem to assume above), and actually we don´t know, if it exists.

I don't think I made any assumptions. Actually we don't know if what exists? I'm not sure what you are saying does not exist.

quote:

I have choosen to think, that it doesn´t exist in certain contexts.

Yes, you have chosen to think this (assuming you are talking about cause and effect?)But is your choice based on any evidense?

quote:

This is in my opinion more logical than assuming that the cause/effect relation always exists, and ending up with insoluble paradoxes like: how can anything come from nothing.

I do not see how you can say your opinion is more logical when you can not show a single example of an effect (or event)that does not have a cause. In the face of overwhelming evidense of every day experience, science and philosophy that suggests otherwise.

quote:

The mere word "effect" is on its own terms confusing, as it always presupposes a cause.

Whether the word 'effect' is used on its own or in relation to the word 'cause' is irrelevant as it does indeed imply a previous cause. So what?

quote:

Instead of effects we should rather talk about events, at least in these special cases.

Well, can you lists any events that do not have any causes? You mention 'these special cases' as if you have given some example but you have not as yet given any.

I await your examples but even if you talk about the seemingly random effect of atoms apparently coming into and out of existence I have a detailed refutation for you. My challenge remains: Find one effect (or event), ever, in the entire history of the universe that did not have a cause.

The problem here is that you are trying to show (without examples or logic for that matter)that 'something' can come from 'nothing' but 'something' and 'nothing' are completely different entities, having no commonality whatsoever. And if 'something can come from nothing, then deep darkness can arise from tongues of flame' to quote Chandrakirti.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
Erik

Ultimately, there is no cogent evidence for anything; science, religion, philosophy...

Are you saying there is no cogent evidense for the world being round and not flat? Or that meditation does not demonstrably change brain waves and even the physical architecture of the brain? Or that there is no cogent proof that a philosophy of Aryan supremacy adopted at a national level does not leadto victimisation of so called 'inferior' races? What would constitute ultimate cogent evidense and why is not available in your view?

Eric,

there is a reasonable amount of evidence that in England we spell evidence with a "c" rather than an "s"

On a day-to-day basis for dealing with life, there is a lot of evidence that many things can be predicted with practical acuracy. But move towards the infinitely small or infinitely large, (in time or space or any other dimension) and the evidence gets progressively weaker to the point where, to all practical purpose, there is no evidence at all that we understand anything.

I think.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Eric,

Hi Don,

[QUOTE] there is a reasonable amount of evidence that in England we spell evidence with a "c" rather than an "s"

This is true.

quote:

On a day-to-day basis for dealing with life, there is a lot of evidence that many things can be predicted with practical acuracy. But move towards the infinitely small or infinitely large, (in time or space or any other dimension) and the evidence gets progressively weaker to the point where, to all practical purpose, there is no evidence at all that we understand anything.

Who is we? What is your point? Are you saying there are effects without causes? The predictions of quantum theory are spectacularly accurate 'the level of accuracy is like taking a rifle and hitting a coke can..on the moon' to quote one quantum physicist.

Apart from drawing my attention to a spelling mistake why are you replying to me?

You say you don't understand anything. I agree. However, some of us do.

BTW on a point of pedentry, you say you believe in a God but you have no idea who or what God is. You have blind faith in something but you dont know what that something is. Speak for yourself when you say 'we' dont understand anything.

Cheers,

Erik

ps - please note the spelling of my name

Since reading your last post Erik, I thought to myself, I wonder if I've been spelling your name wrong. My apologies!

Paul

Erik

"we" is modern man. This includes arrogant scientists who say they have discovered fundamentals about our universe and what might lie beyond and others who believe them.

Sooner or later they (arrogant scientists and others who believe them), or more often someone else, find evidence that shatters their precious dream. The rest of us accept from the start that our discoveries (or those we have read about) might be flawed.


You quote "You say you don't understand anything" Read my post again, but this time, in context.

I am responding becuase I choose to and I shall continue to include "you" in "we" because you are a member of the modern-man species.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Find one effect (or event), ever, in the entire history of the universe that did not have a cause.

Dear Erik

I think you make the things the wrong way around. You claim the universality of the principle of causality, I question your claim that it always rules. It is you, which have to prove you claim, not me.

I have severe doubts, whether the principle is valid as to the origin of the matter, and you haven´t said anything, which can make it just a tad probable, that you are right. How do you explain the existence of matter using a cause/effect relation. This problem was the first cause (pun intended) of my post, the dream talking was just an allegory.

Maybe we have to accept, that it seems, as if something can arise from nothing, I don´t know, at least we have no better explanation at hand at the moment. What I try to say (excuse my fallible English - I do my best) is, that we in accepting the principle of causality, while it seems to reign at most, may be victims of self-delusion. Who knows? None of us really knows.

quote:

The problem here is that you are trying to show (without examples or logic for that matter)that 'something' can come from 'nothing' but 'something' and 'nothing' are completely different entities, having no commonality whatsoever.

How can you say so? Do you know more than usual human beings? Did you create the matter? Do we know at all, what nothing really is (pun again intended)? None of us has been there to see it. The concept "nothing" is essentially an intellectual abstraction.

Regards,

Dear Erik

Or to put it in another way:

Do you (Erik) know matter? Yes, you know matter, but no matter what you say, you don´t know no matter or nothing. It would matter if you knew that you knew nothing about nothing, that would be something, - and this is how nothing suddenly might become transformed into something, something that matters.

Regards,

The great thing about being an intellectual midget is that you read things, and you think you understand what is being driven at, but probably don't, but also once I give up the battle, I can always listen to some Bach, and then time is suspensed. I know other people find the same phenomenon in other ways, but art can be the antidote to being intellectual.

Thanks to my genetic material, I is too tick to join in! But it is fun reading it.

I always go for an empirical approach, and tomorrow I will post something rather nice on this thread, which shows this approach at work, even if it may be seen as Off Topic!

All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Or to put it in another way:

Do you (Erik) know matter? Yes, you know matter, but no matter what you say, you don´t know no matter or nothing. It would matter if you knew that you knew nothing about nothing, that would be something, - and this is how nothing suddenly might become transformed into something, something that matters.

pretty good for someboby who thinks their English might be fallible!!!!

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

Thanks to my genetic material, I is too tick to join in! But it is fun reading it.


All the best from Fredrik

Ditto!

Beano

quote:

Originally posted by erik scothron:
Pe_zulu,

If dreams are not subject to causality how do they arise? You are saying there can be an effect (a dream or elements of a dream)which do not have a cause? How then can something arise from nothing?

There has never been in the whole history of the universe an effect which has had no cause. The fact that a dream (which is an example of a more subtle/less gross mind than the normal waking mind)may appear to be absurd is still made up of recognisable elements e.g. a pink elephant is absurd but the elements of pink and elephant are common place.

Also how do we know what is going on with the more subtle levels of mind all the time? Through training out mind in contemplative techniques we can experience our dream mind in totally lucid focussed detail. We can then experience the causes in the way we can in focussed waking concentration. An absurd dream is just our dream mind/subconscious manifesting 'stuff' from our waking mind/subconscious moments in a seemingly less coherent way but nothing is entirely random. Somethings are just too complex for us to perceive the individual cause but all effects do have causes - and that includes absurd dreams.

Erik

Hello Erik

I have greatly enjoyed your posts and recommended links, having read a little about philosophers but admittedly not the original texts, and I must say that I find it a mental struggle but usually rewarding.

As well as the common ground you point out between Buddhism and Quantum Theory, there seem to be similarities with some Western philosophers like Berkeley, Kant and Schopenhauer. I find it hard to get my head around the cause and effect issues and wonder if you may be able to give short replies to a couple of questions:

Is the metamind of Buddhist teaching completely outside the realm of phenomena?
Do you consider the world of phenomena to be caused by the underlying reality (like Kant, I think) or just the manifestation of it (like Schopenhauer, I think)?

If it is the latter, rather than the former, could the metamind be thought to be completely outside the realm of cause and effect?

Hope this makes some sort of sense. Best wishes from Ears.

quote:

Originally posted by Beano:
Since reading your last post Erik, I thought to myself, I wonder if I've been spelling your name wrong. My apologies!

Paul

Hello Paul,

In truth I'm not bothered if anyone spells my name incorrectly. It often happens here and I don't think I've ever mentioned it. I just could not resist a riposte in Don's direction, in the spirit of banter.

Erik

ps - did you find the stones?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Erik

"we" is modern man. This includes arrogant scientists who say they have discovered fundamentals about our universe and what might lie beyond and others who believe them.

Sooner or later they (arrogant scientists and others who believe them), or more often someone else, find evidence that shatters their precious dream. The rest of us accept from the start that our discoveries (or those we have read about) might be flawed.


You quote "You say you don't understand anything" Read my post again, but this time, in context.

I am responding becuase I choose to and I shall continue to include "you" in "we" because you are a member of the modern-man species.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I feel you may be interested in reading a book called Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind

This book is an excellent introduction as to why scientists think the way they do and highlights in considerable detail the manner in which abstract maths or theories without evidence are reified into the so called laws of the universe which are generally believed to be objectively true.

It is written by a trained scientist with a Ph.D in physics. The Buddhist part is pure philosophy and has nothing to do with issues of faith or belief in holy beings (the religious aspect of Buddhism).

I think you will find a kindred spirit here. You have an eye for an erroneous viewpoint (western science is full of erroneous belief)so I think you will find it a rewarding read.

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by pe-zulu:
[QUOTE]

Dear Pe-zulu,

Or can I call you pe?

[QUOTE] I think you make the things the wrong way around. You claim the universality of the principle of causality, I question your claim that it always rules. It is you, which have to prove you claim, not me.

You made the initial claim, I merely responded to it. I think therefore, it is for you to back up your claim. I suspect you can't which is why you seek to turn the tables on me. Am I right?

quote:

How do you explain the existence of matter using a cause/effect relation. This problem was the first cause (pun intended) of my post, the dream talking was just an allegory.

We are talking about complicated issues here. I can't readily give you an answer becasue to explain A you have to know B and to explain B you have know C. In short their is no simple answer. I can, however, point you in the direction of a website where you might find some answers.

quote:

How do you explain the existence of matter using a cause/effect relation. This problem was the first cause (pun intended) of my post, the dream talking was just an allegory.

Maybe we have to accept, that it seems, as if something can arise from nothing, I don´t know, at least we have no better explanation at hand at the moment. What I try to say (excuse my fallible English - I do my best) is, that we in accepting the principle of causality, while it seems to reign at most, may be victims of self-delusion. Who knows? None of us really knows.

It does indeed 'seem' as if something can arise from nothing but if we check we find that this neither makes sense in (classical) physics and, for the most part, neither does it make sense in quantum theory and it certainly makes no sense philosopically. So I sugggest that we do indeed have 'better explanations at hand' if we but try to find
them. Better explanations do indeed exist.

quote:

How can you say so? Do you know more than usual human beings? Did you create the matter? Do we know at all, what nothing really is (pun again intended)? None of us has been there to see it. The concept "nothing" is essentially an intellectual abstraction.

I know more than most human beings about these issues but I do not claim for a second to know more than any human being about these issues. There is one person whom I know who knows as much as anyone about these issues and I am helping him a write a book, the details of which can be found here

The introduction to the book which is available for download on the website has been substantially re-written but you will get the gist nonetheless. The first chapter is also available. There is another chapter called 'What is the matter with matter' which would answer many of your questions and I would be happy to e-mail it to you if you were genuinely interested having read the the Intro and first chapter. The book is stuffed full of quotes from all the top scientists and the buddhist element is pure philosophy and has nothing to do with faith or belief in holy beings and has, therefore, no religious element to it.

Regards,

Erik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
The great thing about being an intellectual midget is that you read things, and you think you understand what is being driven at, but probably don't, but also once I give up the battle, I can always listen to some Bach, and then time is suspensed. I know other people find the same phenomenon in other ways, but art can be the antidote to being intellectual.

Thanks to my genetic material, I is too tick to join in! But it is fun reading it.

I always go for an empirical approach, and tomorrow I will post something rather nice on this thread, which shows this approach at work, even if it may be seen as Off Topic!

All the best from Fredrik

I'm looking forward to reading about it Fredrik.

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:
[QUOTE]

Hello Ears,

[QUOTE] As well as the common ground you point out between Buddhism and Quantum Theory, there seem to be similarities with some Western philosophers like Berkeley, Kant and Schopenhauer.

You are right there is much common ground between those whose names you list above and Buddhist 'centrist' philosophers. However, although they get close to finally 'getting it' they fall short in different ways. Wittgenstein almost 'got it' too. If we could have put them all in a room together with a couple of Buddhist philosophers like Chandrakirti and Nagarjuna and quantum physicists like David Bohm (a genius in my view)I'm sure great breakthroughs would have been made.

quote:

Is the metamind of Buddhist teaching completely outside the realm of phenomena?
Do you consider the world of phenomena to be caused by the underlying reality (like Kant, I think) or just the manifestation of it (like Schopenhauer, I think)?

If it is the latter, rather than the former, could the metamind be thought to be completely outside the realm of cause and effect?

The sun is shining and I have appointment so I am off out for a walk. I will answer this later.

Cheers,

Erik

Marvelous! A natural continuation of the 'Biblical Swine?' thread I started and read with amazement, and admiration for the participants!

Fredrik the Thick!