Stephen Hawking did a good job explaining this in A Brief History of Time. Good book. You should give it a read.

Yeah ok, I'll get the book right now and read it (ha ha).
[sarcasm: off]

 

[sarcasm: off]

[kindle: on]

 

[kindle: on]

I was hoping for a synopsis. I don't want to have to read an entire book to understand what you are trying to say.
So briefly what is it that you were referring to that he had said about this. Is it the same old story? Time wasn't around yet so there would be nothing to go to 'before' it. In this sense there is nothing 'before' so we don't have to worry about there being any time. However, there is still a context. We can still talk about it. Since there is a context, it must be different than the one we have now since in one context we have time and in the other we do not have any time. Time here implying some sort of context where evolution can take place. I'm not sure if the explanation that it could have just come into existence sporadically can satisfy me unless we introduce some kind of higher intelligence or higher power of some kind.

It seems like something is missing. Spacetime is part of the story, but perhaps there is another pseudo dimension. For example, what if gravity was a separate dimension from Spacetime. Then we would have Spacetimegravity. I'm not trying to push it as fact now though, there are other more popular ideas out there.

 

I was hoping for a synopsis. I don't want to have to read an entire book to understand what you are trying to say.
So briefly what is it that you were referring to that he had said about this. Is it the same old story? Time wasn't around yet so there would be nothing to go to 'before' it. In this sense there is nothing 'before' so we don't have to worry about there being any time. However, there is still a context. We can still talk about it. Since there is a context, it must be different than the one we have now since in one context we have time and in the other we do not have any time. Time here implying some sort of context where evolution can take place. I'm not sure if the explanation that it could have just come into existence sporadically can satisfy me unless we introduce some kind of higher intelligence or higher power of some kind.

It seems like something is missing. Spacetime is part of the story, but perhaps there is another pseudo dimension. For example, what if gravity was a separate dimension from Spacetime. Then we would have Spacetimegravity. I'm not trying to push it as fact now though, there are other more popular ideas out there.

While you're at it, read Kip Thorn's Black Holes and Time Warps.

A good prerequisite for these is Einstein's own Relativity.

 

While you're at it, read Kip Thorn's Black Holes and Time Warps.

A good prerequisite for these is Einstein's own Relativity.

Read this: "No thanks".

If you can't even summarize then maybe you don't even know what it says yourself. I don't have time to read everything sorry, and that's not what a forum like this is for. It's true that for an in-depth study it's good to read things, even longer things and recommend literature, but that is not this.

 

While you're at it, read Kip Thorn's Black Holes and Time Warps.

A good prerequisite for these is Einstein's own Relativity.

Hello again,

The best answer I can come up with so far is that time is not fundamental but rather rides on the idea of change. Change being more fundamental than time itself. That means things can change without involving time, and some equations that have come about not that long ago eliminate time altogether. I think quantum gravity might be one of these, but if not there are others.
This idea, that change is more fundamental than time, is very interesting. It means that time emerges from change, but I don't understand it all just yet.
In the past, I've thought of time and change as being interdependent. That's only from common experience though.

 

Hello again,

The best answer I can come up with so far is that time is not fundamental but rather rides on the idea of change. Change being more fundamental than time itself. That means things can change without involving time, and some equations that have come about not that long ago eliminate time altogether. I think quantum gravity might be one of these, but if not there are others.
This idea, that change is more fundamental than time, is very interesting. It means that time emerges from change, but I don't understand it all just yet.
In the past, I've thought of time and change as being interdependent. That's only from common experience though.

I suggest reading people like Einstein and Eddington and more recently Penrose. Hawking was fascinating but his books are pop-science, he was extremely competent but frankly overrated, the public often treat scientists as pop stars and some are good at playing the role, Richard Dawkins is another example.

The book The meaning of relativity by Einstein will teach you far more about the epistemological and philosophical issues that "time" represents than pulp science.

 

 

I was hoping for a synopsis. I don't want to have to read an entire book to understand what you are trying to say.
So briefly what is it that you were referring to that he had said about this. Is it the same old story? Time wasn't around yet so there would be nothing to go to 'before' it. In this sense there is nothing 'before' so we don't have to worry about there being any time. However, there is still a context. We can still talk about it. Since there is a context, it must be different than the one we have now since in one context we have time and in the other we do not have any time. Time here implying some sort of context where evolution can take place. I'm not sure if the explanation that it could have just come into existence sporadically can satisfy me unless we introduce some kind of higher intelligence or higher power of some kind.

It seems like something is missing. Spacetime is part of the story, but perhaps there is another pseudo dimension. For example, what if gravity was a separate dimension from Spacetime. Then we would have Spacetimegravity. I'm not trying to push it as fact now though, there are other more popular ideas out there.

The only plausible explanation to me is the universe always existed and has no actual quality called size or dimension. Moreover, we all know from experience that reality has both static and dynamic elements which makes a dualistic approach nonsensical because we get meaningless assertions like "there was no time before the big bang". What the hell does this even mean?

How can it be the totality of existence can be changing and non-changing at the same time? This strongly asserts to me that our views on space and reality itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as we keep insisting upon scientific dualism. Of course some guy will come along and say we know all kinds of facts that prove this or that but I argue that person is deluded with fantasy built up on fantasy.

The buddists have been harping about this for literally centuries but very few take the ideal of non-dualism seriously especially in a scientific context. I for one consider it a truism that duality serves a tool like purpose for our minds but is actually not how reality works, at all. Scientific people hate it when I point out their scientific viewpoints are actually metaphysical assumptions which are not even their own, but rather collective assumptions of the entire human race.

And finally, we can say technically that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist scientifically. What's worse is we can't measure what isn't defined which severally complicates things. A example is assuming that space is expanding into "nothing". Try defining what "nothing" really means in a literal sense and you'll find you enter into cyclical definitions quite quickly. At some point you'll come to realize that your idea of what nothing is actually has a definition which suggests what you defined as nothing is actually something because nothing should carry no definition!

This is a brutal problem in my opinion and I'm not sure what can done about it aside from further inquiry by serious and thoughtful people.

 

The only plausible explanation to me is the universe always existed and has no actual quality called size or dimension. Moreover, we all know from experience that reality has both static and dynamic elements which makes a dualistic approach nonsensical because we get meaningless assertions like "there was no time before the big bang". What the hell does this even mean?

How can it be the totality of existence can be changing and non-changing at the same time? This strongly asserts to me that our views on space and reality itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as we keep insisting upon scientific dualism. Of course some guy will come along and say we know all kinds of facts that prove this or that but I argue that person is deluded with fantasy built up on fantasy.

The buddists have been harping about this for literally centuries but very few take the ideal of non-dualism seriously especially in a scientific context. I for one consider it a truism that duality serves a tool like purpose for our minds but is actually not how reality works, at all. Scientific people hate it when I point out their scientific viewpoints are actually metaphysical assumptions which are not even their own, but rather collective assumptions of the entire human race.

And finally, we can say technically that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist scientifically. What's worse is we can't measure what isn't defined which severally complicates things. A example is assuming that space is expanding into "nothing". Try defining what "nothing" really means in a literal sense and you'll find you enter into cyclical definitions quite quickly. At some point you'll come to realize that your idea of what nothing is actually has a definition which suggests what you defined as nothing is actually something because nothing should carry no definition!

This is a brutal problem in my opinion and I'm not sure what can done about it aside from further inquiry by serious and thoughtful people.

You raise some interesting points, but we must ask what exactly is an explanation? Every scientific explanation is (or should be) an exercise in reductionism. But does an ad-infinitum "explanation" actually explain anything? The difficulty as I see it, is that science cannot be used to explain science. Consider the laws of nature, do they exist? if so how can their presence be explained scientifically.

Science presumes laws exist but doesn't explain the existence of those laws.

You mentioned the importance of assumptions and I agree, those steeped in scientism don't seem able to grasp this point though.

The statement "it has always existed" doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation because it isn't reductionist, so to accept it as valid is to accept non-scientific explanations, that's fine but we must not pretend otherwise.

 

Interesting discussion. I suggest you guys look up Alfred Tarsky's theory of truth ... that, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem opened my eyes at the objective consideration of a reality beyond existence (as we know it) itself.

 

View attachment 352414

Thanks, but those books assume the same old, same old. I'm familiar with spacetime curvature interpretation and things like that, but there have been experiments now that suggest that there is more to it than even that.

I am not sure that your thinking fits into this category, but there is a trend to believe some things and not other things, and the things that are believed the most are just those that have been around for a longer time. Physics seems to be always changing, and so we should keep an open mind. Recall that there have been many things in the past that have been 'proven', only to be disproven by a deeper understanding of the situation. The experiments got better, the understanding got better. The case in point is again Newton's gravity vs Einsteins gravity. Newton's was accepted by everyone whole heartedly until Einstein came up with a better explanation. This seems to be an ongoing process in physics. It seems to stem from the gap between our common experience and the actual behavior of the universe and the stuff we say is in it. The question is, with the gap ever be filled completely. The answer is, only if it is not evolving itself.

 

You raise some interesting points, but we must ask what exactly is an explanation? Every scientific explanation is (or should be) an exercise in reductionism. But does an ad-infinitum "explanation" actually explain anything? The difficulty as I see it, is that science cannot be used to explain science. Consider the laws of nature, do they exist? if so how can their presence be explained scientifically.

Science presumes laws exist but doesn't explain the existence of those laws.

You mentioned the importance of assumptions and I agree, those steeped in scientism don't seem able to grasp this point though.

The statement "it has always existed" doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation because it isn't reductionist, so to accept it as valid is to accept non-scientific explanations, that's fine but we must not pretend otherwise.

Well maybe we have to define exactly what science really is. It seems to get harder to do that, but we KNOW we don't have some answers already, so can anything really be called 'science' then.

 

Interesting discussion. I suggest you guys look up Alfred Tarsky's theory of truth ... that, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem opened my eyes at the objective consideration of a reality beyond existence (as we know it) itself.

That sounds like something similar. We do not really experience anything through change alone without time, but the reality there maybe that it is actually possible. Our existence seems to require time so it's hard to understand. It's like we are in a bubble that is moving and we don't know how or why it is, and we can't look outside to be able to see how fast.

It's funny ... how do we even know if time stops now and then. We would not experience anything to show that 'happened'.

 

The only plausible explanation to me is the universe always existed and has no actual quality called size or dimension. Moreover, we all know from experience that reality has both static and dynamic elements which makes a dualistic approach nonsensical because we get meaningless assertions like "there was no time before the big bang". What the hell does this even mean?

How can it be the totality of existence can be changing and non-changing at the same time? This strongly asserts to me that our views on space and reality itself is fundamentally flawed insofar as we keep insisting upon scientific dualism. Of course some guy will come along and say we know all kinds of facts that prove this or that but I argue that person is deluded with fantasy built up on fantasy.

The buddists have been harping about this for literally centuries but very few take the ideal of non-dualism seriously especially in a scientific context. I for one consider it a truism that duality serves a tool like purpose for our minds but is actually not how reality works, at all. Scientific people hate it when I point out their scientific viewpoints are actually metaphysical assumptions which are not even their own, but rather collective assumptions of the entire human race.

And finally, we can say technically that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist scientifically. What's worse is we can't measure what isn't defined which severally complicates things. A example is assuming that space is expanding into "nothing". Try defining what "nothing" really means in a literal sense and you'll find you enter into cyclical definitions quite quickly. At some point you'll come to realize that your idea of what nothing is actually has a definition which suggests what you defined as nothing is actually something because nothing should carry no definition!

This is a brutal problem in my opinion and I'm not sure what can done about it aside from further inquiry by serious and thoughtful people.

Well we do have history to help I think. Just like when we try to analyze an electronic circuit which we do all the time. We often need to know the initial conditions which is what happened just before we start the analysis. That's the history of the states of the circuit. From that, in many cases we can deduce what is going to happen next (voltage, current, etc.).

When we look back into the history of physics, we see changes in the theories and ideas behind what happens in the universe. If we use that history, we can project that it's going to change again and maybe without end. That leads us to postulate solutions that 'may' be possible in order to possibly help understand what is going to change next and lead to a better understanding. By better understanding I mean we find solutions that match up with more experiments than before, and these would most likely be more recent experiments. Maybe we can call this process projective science or something. We have to acknowledge it in some way or form because if we don't then we basically have to call some good scientists dummies.
Maybe you'd like to call it something like a "religious front porch to real science", but it seems at least a little more concrete than that.

 

Well maybe we have to define exactly what science really is.

The modern definition is: whatever the Experts say.

 

 

Science is defined as "the study of" and makes no assertion of proof, facts, truth...etc., that's what scientists do.

 

I'd rather focus on the scientific method, and leave the definition of the word "science" to philologists ...

 

Well maybe we have to define exactly what science really is. It seems to get harder to do that, but we KNOW we don't have some answers already, so can anything really be called 'science' then.

I think I can answer that one, Science is a belief system, a belief that the observable world objectively exists and is rationally intelligible, explicable, governed by laws, predictable. And a very reasonable system too but still based on beliefs and presumption.

No system can prove it's own axioms and that holds for science as much as it hold for anything else, science cannot prove the world is rationally intelligible, we must presume it. This means there are questions that cannot be answered scientifically, it is useless to us for certain questions about the world.