Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Now
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Philosophy Now »

Raymond Tallis doesn’t know, at present.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/92/Did_ ... ith_A_Bang
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

The article is a perfect illustration of how worthless Kant's reasoning was and that one cannot resolve physical problems by relying on such drivel as Kant contemplated. The author also appears not to realize that Kant's reasoning was refuted in the same way that Zeno's paradox about the rabbit and the turtle, by the introduction of limits into mathematics. The author, for some reason, ignores this aspect of mathematical reasoning in favor of keeping open the gibberish of Kant, and he does this in the face of modern physics, no less.

Sorry, not impressed. The author would be better off studying real physics.
Impenitent
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Impenitent »

sound doesn't travel through a vacuum...

-Imp
User avatar
Resha Caner
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Resha Caner »

"... physicists who dismiss philosophy are often doing philosophy themselves, but very badly."

That quote from the article is a keeper. Keep in mind that the whole article is more a teaser for a book than a claim to have solved anything. As such, the other items worth noting are the recommendation to read LePoidevin and the suggestion that examining Kant's assumptions is the key to answering his supposed dilemma. I understand that the idea of "empty time" is still a puzzler for many atheists, but it's not really an issue that theists need to fret over.

With that said, math doesn't answer Zeno. Rather, as Papa-Grimaldi tries to explain, such solutions miss Zeno's point.

Papa-Grimaldi, Alba. "Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition." The Review of Metaphysics 50 (Dec 96): 299-314.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by reasonvemotion »

Let us look at the claim that time and the world began with the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago.
I would like the facts that prove this time period...... 13.75 billion years ago is correct and then let us proceed from there.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Resha Caner wrote:"... physicists who dismiss philosophy are often doing philosophy themselves, but very badly."

That quote from the article is a keeper. Keep in mind that the whole article is more a teaser for a book than a claim to have solved anything. As such, the other items worth noting are the recommendation to read LePoidevin and the suggestion that examining Kant's assumptions is the key to answering his supposed dilemma. I understand that the idea of "empty time" is still a puzzler for many atheists, but it's not really an issue that theists need to fret over.

With that said, math doesn't answer Zeno. Rather, as Papa-Grimaldi tries to explain, such solutions miss Zeno's point.

Papa-Grimaldi, Alba. "Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition." The Review of Metaphysics 50 (Dec 96): 299-314.
Too bad for you that no physicist will waste time on this nonsense. That's been the way it has been for decades. Scientist do science while philosophers sit and contemplate nonsense. This theory of the author's is idiotic, at best. Harmful, at worst.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

reasonvemotion wrote:
Let us look at the claim that time and the world began with the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago.
I would like the facts that prove this time period...... 13.75 billion years ago is correct and then let us proceed from there.
I don't understand how you can claim you would like to get the facts on this topic, when there are numerous sources, from reputable publishing companies, for many different audiences, from the lay person to the university professor, where you can read this information.
User avatar
Resha Caner
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Resha Caner »

ForgedinHell wrote:This theory of the author's is idiotic, at best. Harmful, at worst.
To which author do you refer?
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Resha Caner wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:This theory of the author's is idiotic, at best. Harmful, at worst.
To which author do you refer?
Tallis. He's writing pure nonsense. If he had a valid theory of time, then why not get it published in a physics journal? He can't, because it is nonsense. Now, anyone reading his nonsense will misunderstand science, and that is harmful. The man should be ashamed.
User avatar
Resha Caner
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Resha Caner »

ForgedinHell wrote:Tallis. He's writing pure nonsense. If he had a valid theory of time, then why not get it published in a physics journal? He can't, because it is nonsense. Now, anyone reading his nonsense will misunderstand science, and that is harmful. The man should be ashamed.
Given that the question Tallis asked (Does time have a beginning?) is one that Stephen Hawking has also mentioned, it doesn't seem to me that scientists consider it nonsense. The possibility that Hawking threw out was that 3-space+time might be able to transform into 4-space. Mars took that to heart and published a paper showing the math that would support that idea. I don't claim to understand that work in great detail, but I think the problem that remains is the directionality of time. In other words, it might work for time to stop by time becoming space but there is a problem with saying that time starts by space becoming time.

So, as far as I know, the question is still an open one.

As such, some physicists are beginning to challenge the idea of spacetime - the idea that time even exists (a pretty philosophical position to take). I know of one physicist who is pointing to some work done by biologists that indicates some animals use temporal positioning to perceive duration (I forget the reference but I can look it up later if anyone is interested). In other words, the claim is that time doesn't exist as an independent dimension, but is a perception of spatial sequence.

Again, it seems the nature of time still has some unresolved issues.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Resha Caner wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Tallis. He's writing pure nonsense. If he had a valid theory of time, then why not get it published in a physics journal? He can't, because it is nonsense. Now, anyone reading his nonsense will misunderstand science, and that is harmful. The man should be ashamed.
Given that the question Tallis asked (Does time have a beginning?) is one that Stephen Hawking has also mentioned, it doesn't seem to me that scientists consider it nonsense. The possibility that Hawking threw out was that 3-space+time might be able to transform into 4-space. Mars took that to heart and published a paper showing the math that would support that idea. I don't claim to understand that work in great detail, but I think the problem that remains is the directionality of time. In other words, it might work for time to stop by time becoming space but there is a problem with saying that time starts by space becoming time.

So, as far as I know, the question is still an open one.

As such, some physicists are beginning to challenge the idea of spacetime - the idea that time even exists (a pretty philosophical position to take). I know of one physicist who is pointing to some work done by biologists that indicates some animals use temporal positioning to perceive duration (I forget the reference but I can look it up later if anyone is interested). In other words, the claim is that time doesn't exist as an independent dimension, but is a perception of spatial sequence.

Again, it seems the nature of time still has some unresolved issues.
Hawking would laugh at what Tallis wrote, then get ticked off. Time is embedded in space, that's why we have "spacetime." That's not even in dispute. As far as time existing before the Big Bang, that would be true if the multiverse exists. Physicists are merely stating that we measure time for our specific universe from that point because we are not sure yet what went on before. Now, there is nothing Tallis will come up with to resolve the issue. If the Big Bang was the result of crashing membranes in the 11th dimension, then that will entail one solution, if the Big ang started as a black hole from a prior universe, then that will carry another explanation. There is nothing Tallis does to resolve these matters.

Moreover, his statement that we could not have infinity going back wards and still be here is just nonsense. You would have to be somewhere, right? So wherever one would be, according to Tallis, would mean we can not go back in time forever. It's just not a logical, rational conclusion to make. Especially since infinities come in all sorts of different sizes, and collapse where limits converge. It's a waste of time to present this discussion on time as if it is making some inroads that physics is unable to make. It's rubbish. No physicist will pay any attention to this crap.
User avatar
Resha Caner
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Resha Caner »

ForgedinHell wrote:Hawking would laugh at what Tallis wrote, then get ticked off.
I doubt that. He seems much more gracious than that, and much more willing to consider questions like this than you indicate. I'm not saying I agree with Tallis, but at least I'm willing to engage those with views that differ from mine.
ForgedinHell wrote:Time is embedded in space, that's why we have "spacetime." That's not even in dispute.
You seem to have missed that some do dispute it. I found the reference I had mentioned: "The 'Measurement Problem' in Quantum Physics can be partly resolved with Analysis of Relatedness between Space-time, Physical Time and Psychological Time" by Amrit Sorli. In that paper he makes reference to "What Makes Us Tick? Functional and Neural Mechanisms of Interval Timing" by Buhsui and Meck.
ForgedinHell wrote:As far as time existing before the Big Bang, that would be true if the multiverse exists. Physicists are merely stating that we measure time for our specific universe from that point because we are not sure yet what went on before. Now, there is nothing Tallis will come up with to resolve the issue. If the Big Bang was the result of crashing membranes in the 11th dimension, then that will entail one solution, if the Big ang started as a black hole from a prior universe, then that will carry another explanation. There is nothing Tallis does to resolve these matters.
I don't think he ever said he intended to resolve the issues you mention. The point is more that physicists don't have answers to every question, so, even if science does answer some of those questions, history has shown the result to be more questions. There will always be new issues on the horizon where philosophy has a role to play.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Resha Caner wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Hawking would laugh at what Tallis wrote, then get ticked off.
I doubt that. He seems much more gracious than that, and much more willing to consider questions like this than you indicate. I'm not saying I agree with Tallis, but at least I'm willing to engage those with views that differ from mine.

Doubt all you want, but in his last book he specifically wrote that philosophy was dead, and he did that precisely because philosophy has nothing to offer science at this point. He would not take kindly to this book, because it is, literally, pseudoscience. He may even threaten to run him over with his wheel chair. Never under estimate the impact of a wheel chair coming at ya.
ForgedinHell wrote:Time is embedded in space, that's why we have "spacetime." That's not even in dispute.
You seem to have missed that some do dispute it. I found the reference I had mentioned: "The 'Measurement Problem' in Quantum Physics can be partly resolved with Analysis of Relatedness between Space-time, Physical Time and Psychological Time" by Amrit Sorli. In that paper he makes reference to "What Makes Us Tick? Functional and Neural Mechanisms of Interval Timing" by Buhsui and Meck.

It's not in dispute. There are also biologists who "dispute" evolution and think the world is 6,000 years old. We refer to those people as idiots.
ForgedinHell wrote:As far as time existing before the Big Bang, that would be true if the multiverse exists. Physicists are merely stating that we measure time for our specific universe from that point because we are not sure yet what went on before. Now, there is nothing Tallis will come up with to resolve the issue. If the Big Bang was the result of crashing membranes in the 11th dimension, then that will entail one solution, if the Big ang started as a black hole from a prior universe, then that will carry another explanation. There is nothing Tallis does to resolve these matters.
I don't think he ever said he intended to resolve the issues you mention. The point is more that physicists don't have answers to every question, so, even if science does answer some of those questions, history has shown the result to be more questions. There will always be new issues on the horizon where philosophy has a role to play.
He's saying he has some answers and that certain statetements in physics, with an enormous amount of empirical evidence to support them are wrong, and that his erroneous speculations, with zero empirical support are correct. That's what he is saying, not that "science doesn't have all the answers." Unlike you religious people who claim to know everything, scientists readily admit that they don't have all the answers.
User avatar
Resha Caner
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by Resha Caner »

ForgedinHell wrote:Doubt all you want, but in his last book he specifically wrote that philosophy was dead, and he did that precisely because philosophy has nothing to offer science at this point.
I haven't read his latest book, so I don't know if you properly represent it, but it is sad to see this type of thing happen as men age. They start to get bitter when their youthful idealism doesn't come to pass. So, with sweeping statements that have no weight, Hawking the old man shuns Hawking the youthful scientist who was willing to philosophize (and he did quite a bit of it).
ForgedinHell wrote:It's not in dispute. There are also biologists who "dispute" evolution and think the world is 6,000 years old. We refer to those people as idiots.
Yes, your blind dogmatism is often on display. You'll allow pithy phrases that scientists don't know everything, but won't allow an actual challenge.
ForgedinHell wrote:He's saying he has some answers and that certain statetements in physics, with an enormous amount of empirical evidence to support them are wrong, and that his erroneous speculations, with zero empirical support are correct.
I don't recall any such statement, but maybe I missed it. Example?
ForgedinHell wrote:Unlike you religious people who claim to know everything, scientists readily admit that they don't have all the answers.
Since I didn't make that claim, I'll assume this means you don't really have a reply.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Did Time Begin With A Bang?

Post by ForgedinHell »

Resha Caner wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Doubt all you want, but in his last book he specifically wrote that philosophy was dead, and he did that precisely because philosophy has nothing to offer science at this point.
I haven't read his latest book, so I don't know if you properly represent it, but it is sad to see this type of thing happen as men age. They start to get bitter when their youthful idealism doesn't come to pass. So, with sweeping statements that have no weight, Hawking the old man shuns Hawking the youthful scientist who was willing to philosophize (and he did quite a bit of it).

He's not bitter, he's right. Even the Philosophy Today magazine ran some articles about what he wrote, and the article noted many philosophers agreed with him. How can it be such a bitter view when even a lot of philosohers are conceding the point?
ForgedinHell wrote:It's not in dispute. There are also biologists who "dispute" evolution and think the world is 6,000 years old. We refer to those people as idiots.
Yes, your blind dogmatism is often on display. You'll allow pithy phrases that scientists don't know everything, but won't allow an actual challenge.


That's not even close to being right. Go to any mosque and raise your hand and point out the numerous scientific errors in the koran, and they'll toss you out, or worse. Same with any Christian church I know of, synagogues, etc. However, scientists invite people to find errors in their work. BUT, it has to be based on something rational, empirical, not the ravings of an arm-chair amateur with nothing of substance backing it up. Otherwise, science would be the equivalent to any gibberish one wants to put forth.
ForgedinHell wrote:He's saying he has some answers and that certain statetements in physics, with an enormous amount of empirical evidence to support them are wrong, and that his erroneous speculations, with zero empirical support are correct.
I don't recall any such statement, but maybe I missed it. Example?

Seriously?
ForgedinHell wrote:Unlike you religious people who claim to know everything, scientists readily admit that they don't have all the answers.
Since I didn't make that claim, I'll assume this means you don't really have a reply.
If you are admitting the koran is imperfect, good for you.
Post Reply