Salutatio Mark!
02-Feb-98, Mark Bloss wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again
 MB> > >Richard Meic wrote to Mr. Rigor about Time and Again
 RM>> Okay, ignore what we have just gone through.
 RM>> Question:  Leading theorists of our day claim that time began at
 RM>> the Big Bang (the BB is something I still dispute).  Why does
 RM>> time have to have a beginning?  IMO, claiming such is sheer
 RM>> speculation, built from assumption.
 RM>> There starting from scratch.  Your turn.  ;)
 MB> Time began at the Big Bang.
Too concrete of an answer.  Sorry, I am not looking for the conclusions
of the "established" theory, I have heard them before many many times.
 MB> The reason this is the best natural
 MB> explanation is not because "time" is an existant "thing" like a
[...]
 MB> there can be no time.  Hmm, I think I just said that... ;)
 MB> Alright, that's one explanation.
Again, this is relying too much on the assumption that the Big Bang is
absolute fact.  If we are going to work from that assumption, then I
must ask how they are so certain that time DID begin at the BB?  What
observations were made that lead to THAT particular conclusion?  An
expanding universe?  Then, what evidence is there that the universe is
expanding?  Red shift?  What if I was to tell you that recent
observations found a huge "river" of galaxies and clusters moving in a
totally weird direction?  Is an expanding universe still that accurate
of a conclusion?  So, if it is possible that the BB may not be true,
then it is possible that time did not begin at the BB,... right?
So, I do not accept this conclusion.
 MB> Given the theory that the
 MB> universe "always was", or did not have a beginning, such as what
 MB> we think of when we think of "beginning" - then time is even less
 MB> meaningful.
I do not see it that way.
 MB> How does one measure something which is infinite in nature?
By measuring it in parts; second, minute, hour, day, year... etc.  Time,
then, has meaning.
 MB> A mile is equal to a millimeter, an hour takes the same
 MB> amount of time as a millenium.
Huh?  How do you conclude THAT, Mark?  I cannot see how you can say that
a millenium can take no longer to pass then an hour.  That does not
sound logical to me, infinite time or not.
 MB> Therefore, "time" loses its meaning
 MB> in the context of infinity; because there is no contextual
 MB> dimension with which we can _reliably_ claim any moment is
 MB> definite.
Regardless of whether time is infinite in duration or not, an hour takes
the same amount of time to pass and a millenium takes much longer.
 MB> How do you know you are how tall you are?  Because in
 MB> _relation_ with your surroundings, you stay the same size all the
 MB> time.  Hold a tape measure next to your body, and you can see how
 MB> tall you are.  Mark the wall when you stand next to it, and the
 MB> mark is definite, it does not move.  Now remove the wall, the tape
 MB> measure, in fact, ever last thing in existence, then tell me how
 MB> tall you are.  You cannot, because there is no contextual
 MB> relationship between you and "existence".
I cannot see how you can make the incredible leap of logic from infinite
time to non-existence of everything.
 MB> In fact, you are now
 MB> incapable of even demonstrating that you exist at all.
Your argument is meaningless in light of the fact that there are three
spacial dimensions and one of time, the fact that there are things like
walls, people, planets, stars etc that exist.
 MB> Time is
 MB> part of our reality, but it is only a part of a reality as long as
 MB> reality _is_ reality.  Remove time from reality, and you have no
 MB> reality; remove all existent things from reality, and you have no
 MB> time.
How do you draw the conclusion that if nothing existed then time does
not exist.  Remember, in the BB theory, there was SOMETHING that
existed, the "primordial atom".
 MB> Now, let me pose a question: scientists have grasped hold
 MB> of the idea that the universe is expanding.  What, pray tell, is
 MB> the universe expanding into?
Empty space?  I see no reason to think of anything more elaborate or
incredible than that.  The primordial atom just sitting there in the
middle of infinite space/time is simple enough that we do not require
time to begin.
 MB> But before you answer that:
Too late.  ;)
 MB> let me
 MB> see if you are capable of this thought experiment (Einstein loved
 MB> those).  Imagine you are not Human.  In fact, imagine you've never
 MB> seen any planets or stars - imagine you are a disembodied entity -
 MB> you have no form or measure - only pure thought.  You have never
 MB> seen a clock, never heard a tick-tock, never seen numbers or a
 MB> ruler, or conceived of a thing as being distant, and another thing
 MB> as being nearby.  Perhaps you can imagine you are that thing into
 MB> which the universe itself is expanding.  Or perhaps not.  It's up
 MB> to you how to proceed.  By what measure do you use to judge
 MB> distance?  By what "clock" do you measure the elapsing intervals
 MB> of moments?
Are you saying that time only exists because matter exists, because
motion exists?  I would like to see the chain of logic that brought you
to that conclusion.
 MB> By what method do you judge weightiness or vacuum or
 MB> color or vibration?  If you are that into which the universe is
 MB> expanding, how close is its edge to you?  Can you see it coming?
 MB> How fast is it moving?  Very fast? Or very slow?  That's step one.
Empty questions, because this is not the reality of the situation.  I am
not that which the universe is expanding into.
 MB>  Step two now is imagine that none of us has ever existed. None of
 MB> us, though we all are conscious beings: have never seen a planet
[...]
 MB> How do we judge its size, its mass, its velocity of expansion?
 MB> How close is it to "us"?  What is it?
More empty questions, IMO.  They do not reflect reality, so they are
useless.
One cannot make up an alternate reality and arrive at any meaningful
conclusion.  If there was a pink hippo named "Daisy" that hung around a
certain person's back yard and partied a lot, would Daisy then be God?
This question is as meaningless as the ones you just proposed.  Thought
experiments are fine, fun, and give us unique insights into non-reality,
but they are useless as methods of answering questions about reality.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro
---------------