Many people think it has something to do with a superior being they call God. I don’t agree with them either.
Time has a beginning?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
Wait a sec...we have a choice in the matter?
Hope this isn’t too much of a de-rail but - If the age of the universe is calculated from the rate of it’s current expansion in reverse, wouldn’t the universe be substantially younger with an increasing rate of expansion (current view) than was calculated when it was previously thought to be expanding at a slowing or constant rate? In other words, is our current estimate of the age of the universe substantially less than it once was?
Are you saying that everything that math expresses has to be accepted as being actually possible in the real Universe (not merely an abstract concept). If so please give me a real world actual example of 0 (nothing) that isn‘t merely an abstract concept.
I'm saying that we don't get to pick and choose what's right. Either it is or it is not.
As for providing a real world example of nothing, as far as I know there isn't one. Wait...does that mean there is one? But if there is one, then there isn't one.
Aaaaaahhh!
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
The best way to answer that is to give examples. The simplest is the analogue of a spatial boundary - a surface at which one imposes a boundary condition. You can do precisely the same for time, with no modification.
Slightly more complicated is the analogue of a spatially closed manifold without boundary (think of the surface of a sphere). A relatively simple example of that is the Hartle-Hawking instanton, which we've discussed here before.
As I've said over and over - the math doesn't say it's so. The math says it's possible, along with many other things.
And if you really think your naive assertions about what is possible in situations far beyond your (or anyone else's) experience are more reliable than some mild mathematical extensions of the laws of physics, you're a fool.
It's never too late - you can find successful researchers in physics that came into the field late, by non-standard routes.
You have it backwards. But yes, the discovery of dark energy affected the estimates of the universe's age.
Ummm... gee. You open your wallet and find no money. How much money do you have? You have an apple. You eat it. How many apples do you have now? What's the distance from you to your current location? How many blue elephants are there? What year was is 2009 years ago, in the astronomical numbering system? Shall I go on?
Last edited:
0 money, 0 apples, 0 elephants, etc are all abstract concepts used to describe what doesn’t exist in a particular location not what does. The absence of a thing in a particular location is an actual situation but the thing that is absent has no actual existence in that location. There is no 0 money in my wallet any more than all the other things in the Universe that aren’t in my wallet. If there is no money in my wallet then any relationship between my wallet and money is purely abstract. Shall I go on?
You could easily prove me wrong by posting a photo of a 0 apple. Be careful you don’t post a photo of a 0 banana by mistake.
Last edited:
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
"One apple" is just as abstract. Is it still one apple if it has leaves attached? What if you remove them and the stem? What if you take a bite - still one apple? What if you mash it, remove half, and mix what remains with half of another? There is nothing more or less abstract about zero - in fact if anything it's much more concrete.
And you didn't answer my question: what year was it 2009 years ago using the astronomical numbering system (since in the Gregorian system it was 1BC). I'll give you a hint - it was the year 0. OMG, PARADOX!!!!!!!
So?
Last time I checked, wallets existed for the purpose of carrying money.
Why don't you post a picture of 1 apple? Make sure none is missing!
Last edited:
Define abstract concept.
Let's say I am in the vacuum of space. I construct a cubical container with an internal volume of a cubic meter. I have two iron cubes each one cubic meter. I can put the first one in my container. I cannot put the second in there without removing the first one. That doesn't seem abstract at all to me.
Let's say I am in the vacuum of space. I construct a cubical container with an internal volume of a cubic meter. I have two iron cubes each one cubic meter. I can put the first one in my container. I cannot put the second in there without removing the first one. That doesn't seem abstract at all to me.
All “things” are abstract composites of the smallest thing(s) possible or are abstract parts of the largest thing possible (the Universe). Regardless of how “things” or things are described or represented however they all have actual existence in a particular place at a particular time. To describe that a “thing” or thing is not in a particular location at a particular time is merely an abstract representation of the “thing” or thing.
Years are years regardless of how they are abstractly named.
So there is an abstract relationship in an abstract purpose. So what?
I agree that “1 apple” is an abstract concept. But it’s an abstract concept of things that actually exist in a particular place at a particular time..
Last edited:
All concepts are abstract.
Iron cube 1 is in the container and iron cube 2 isn’t. You can‘t put iron cube 2 in until you take iron cube 1 out. An actual, factual situation - so what? Sorry but if you’re trying to make a point I don’t get it.
Last edited:
But from prior experience you considered the possibility that money could be found in your wallet, or at least other people find money in their wallets. Whereas no one concerns themselves with how many elephants they have in their wallet.
If I'm in hospital and have a heart rate of 0, that's a) measurable and b) not an abstract concept.
Your objections seem more along the lines of the quantum observer-interferes-with-the-measurement philosophy, which in all respect seems to be more philosophy than physics.
Speaking of QM and 'hail the math', you probably know that math equations are the only way to 'understand' QM. The physical (visual) representations of things like little fuzzy particles blinking in and out of existence in near total vacuum of deep space are incomprehensible and ...well, goofy imho- but QM is real.
OneShotKi11
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 789
So a layman can keep up with the reading in this topic can someone please define "Abstract concept" in the context of its current use by everyone.
Im having trouble grasping what exactly every means by the term, and it seems to slightly shift meaning from person to person.
Thank You in advance!
Im having trouble grasping what exactly every means by the term, and it seems to slightly shift meaning from person to person.
Thank You in advance!
An example is not a definition. Let me remind you of what is being discussed here. I had claimed:
To which your response was:
Now I would like to see one such definition so that I may prove my claim.
This is my understanding. If anyone wants to offer a better explanation, please do so.
An "abstract" concept is a concept that is exists only in the mind. But, by definition, all "concepts" must exist only in the mind (as in, you will never find a physical thing called "concept" lying around in your room somewhere, for example). So the term "abstract concept" is actually a tautology, because it basically means "a mental construct that exists in the mind". Where else can a mental construct exist? Outside the mind???
Nevertheless, some abstract concepts have real, physical counterparts. For example, we know that apples exist. We can see them, touch them, eat them, so there are real, physical things that we call "apples". However, there is also the concept of apples in our minds. We can conceive of apples in our mind even when there is no actual apple that is being perceived through our senses. This mental conception of the apple is the "abstract concept" of this apple; a concept that we can neither see, nor touch, nor eat.
An obvious example of an "abstract concept" that has no real counterpart is a unicorn.
The issue being discussed in some of the earlier posts on this thread is whether or not the concept zero has a real counterpart. A bit of confusion is being caused here because there are two different kinds of zeros. One is the zero of nothingness (the quantitative zero) ; the other is the zero of relation (the qualitative zero).
The zero of nothingness is that by which you attribute the quantity of zero to a set. For example, I can say that this basket has zero apples. This simply means that there are no apples in this basket. This zero basically negates the existence of the item to which it is applied. Hence, it is also called the zero of negation.
The zero of relation (or the qualitative zero) is that by which you ascribe a value to an item relative to those beside it. For example, when I say that the temperature of a thing is zero degrees Celsius, I am not denying the existence of temperature in that thing (unlike the zero of nothingness), I am simply saying that relative to +1 degree C, this thing is cooler, and relative to -1 degree C, this thing is warmer. So this zero refers to the quality of the thing it is being used in reference to, not the quantity. Another example is the year 0 (according to any calendar system), where we are describing that particular period (year 0) in terms of those before it and after it. Year 0 in any calendar system is not denial of the existence of time at that moment (since it is the qualitative 0 being used).
So, coming back to the actual issue, when we use the term 'zero', does this have a real counterpart? If we are referring to the zero of nothingness, then it's real counterpart would be non-existence or absence (of a thing).
But if we are referring to the zero of relation, then the question of whether or not it has a real counterpart becomes absurd, since, with this definition, we do not refer to zero as a thing, but rather as a relation. And a relation is a mental connection, not a physical one. For example, when we say that an object is heavier than another, we have formed a mental relation between the two objects, even though those two objects might be completely physically unrelated. So when we say that a certain thing has a qualitative value of zero in relation to some particular scale that we have agreed to use (like the temperature of a thing being zero in the Celsius temperature scale), then we are defining this zero to be a quality (or set of qualities) of that thing relative to other similar qualities. So, by defining this zero to be a relative or relational quality, the question of whether or not this zero has a real counterpart becomes absurd, since relations necessarily exist only in the mind, not in reality.
Last edited:
OneShotKi11
Muse
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 789
Thank you so much. This definately helps out alot with the conversation.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
As I said there are many such definitions, and I already gave you some examples. The simplest is that there is an earliest moment, a temporal boundary. All events take place after that moment; no events take place before it. So "beginning" in "time has a beginning" simply means that that moment existed.
The only thing that makes this sound even slightly paradoxical is that English syntax is not particularly well suited to discussing it.
Alright, so how about providing one.
And, as I have already mentioned, an example is not a definition.
But you have not defined "beginning" here. You are simply restating what you believe it means in this context.
I already know how people interpret the statement "time has a beginning". My claim was that "there is no meaningful, non-circular definition of "beginning" that does not lead to a logical contradiction in that assertion."
If you disagree with this, then please provide me with a meaningful, non-circular definition of "beginning".
Before you can question if time had a beginning you need to define what time is. I don’t think time is an actual thing that has actual or independent existence. IMO It is a generic term (verb) used to describe that rate of relative change/movement of actual things that have independent existence. The beginning of time therefore would be the beginning of change/movement of actual things. If everything was once in the form of a singularity that didn’t experience any change/movement how did it ever begin to change/move? It’s all a bit “chicken and egg”.
Last edited:
Good on you. Keep asking valid questions and don’t be fudged by mere assertions.