Space.

[Dre89]

Dre, you are allowed to have an opinion. But I think it's ridiculous that you think your opinion holds the same weight as volumes and bodies of scientific literature and thought published by hundreds upon hundreds of experts in the field.

And do you realise that you so simply dismiss the entire field of philosophy?

So because physicists have theorised about time, I have no right to challenge them at all, yet it's ok for young science undergraduates to challenge the time-theories of high-level philosophers.

Do you think that your opinion commands the same authority as Aristotle's, Aquinas', Immanual Levinas', or Immanuel Kant's? Because if you've ever disagreed with me on any philosophical issue, then you must think so.

Obviously I don't think that my opinion holds the same authority as those, but I do think the opinions of hundreds of established philosophers command the same authority as they do.

No physics based explanations of time are fact, they are theories. Philosophers have just as much entitlement to theorise as they do.


No one on these boards holds authroity in any of these issues, we are mostly all young undergraduates. But for the sake of debating, we must talk as if we do.

 

[Eor]

The problem I have though is that it as you yourself admitted, it appears to contradict logic completely, so if it's not irrefutable fact, there is really no reason to believe inseatd of other theories.

Would you agree with this?

No, because the no-boundary proposal fits into what we know and can make predictions. Therefore, it is one of the best theories there is about it. If another theory was to be better, it would have to also fit into what we know, make predictions, and also have less problems then the No Boundary Proposal.

For my mind, the No Boundary Proposal appears to be a good theory really only if you presuppose atheistic Big Bang, because essentially it is the best theory that covers BB's problems.

However, you can look at it two ways. You can say that it is correct because it covers BB's problems, or you could say that because it is seemingly illogical, perhaps BB is flawed if this is the best theory.

But direct evidence and observations have pretty much proven the Big Bang without a doubt. Just because something doesn't fit into what we might consider logical is no reason to say it's flawed. Look at the Uncertainty principle. Using the Double Slit experiment, we can prove that a photon can travel through both slits at the same time. When measuring where an electron is, we cannot know for sure. The best we can do is give a percentage. That's not because our measuring skills suck, or the way we measure them need to be improved. It's a fundamental law of science that disproves determinism.

I know you probably want to knee me in the balls by now, but I still have issues with it though. It's all well and good saying that we can't reach the start and end points of time, but haven't you still failed to account for the existence of a succession of dependant entities?

I'm confused as to what you mean by succession of dependant entities. Do you mean Causality? I figure you do, but I want to know first because any such answer would take a while and I'd rather know first then spend a long time answering something you weren't asking

Also, this theory would suppose that timespace is self-necessary, yet logic suggests two entities cannot be self-necessary. The question then becomes whether time and sapce are one or two entities. I would argue they are separate, seemingly because you can manipulate one without doing so to the other.

Well you answered the first part yourself, they're a single entity. Please explain how you can manipulate one without doing so to the other? Because I'm thinking on how someone could do that but I'm coming up blank.

And do you realise that you so simply dismiss the entire field of philosophy?

So because physicists have theorised about time, I have no right to challenge them at all, yet it's ok for young science undergraduates to challenge the time-theories of high-level philosophers.

Do you think that your opinion commands the same authority as Aristotle's, Aquinas', Immanual Levinas', or Immanuel Kant's? Because if you've ever disagreed with me on any philosophical issue, then you must think so.

Obviously I don't think that my opinion holds the same authority as those, but I do think the opinions of hundreds of established philosophers command the same authority as they do.

No physics based explanations of time are fact, they are theories. Philosophers have just as much entitlement to theorise as they do.


No one on these boards holds authroity in any of these issues, we are mostly all young undergraduates. But for the sake of debating, we must talk as if we do.

Philosophy is not related to evidence. Philosophy is related to rational arguments, but just because someone can make a rational argument against something in the natural world that we can perceive does not change it. You can make as rational argument as you want that I'm not really typing this post, but it doesn't change that I am. I really cannot see why you seem to think that thinking about problems is equal to actually observing and testing solutions to them.

 

[Sucumbio]

the desire for me to start trolling is gaining exponentially with each post made.

(and then everyone runs away, heh)

c'mon now, I was trying to be ironic! see? "to start trolling" even though I already had... "with each post" ... oh nevermind.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I appreciate the idea, but that doesn't really appear necessary. If the best explanations physics has developed to cover up BB's problems are mere theories and not irrefutable fact, why am I not entitled to a say?

If anything, Looping Theory and No Boundary Theory sound more like philosophies to me. If Immanuel Kant had invented NBT it probably would be considered a philosophy rather than a scientific theory.

Besides, physics-based time theories still have to answer to the questions philosophical logic proposes them.

Oh dear, do we have the "only a theory" argument popping up here?

Yes, evolution is a theory too, and so is gravity, after that Quantum Mechanics, plate tectonics as well.

Theories aren't facts! They explain facts. Facts are just anything we can scientifically observe. While theories explain those facts.

Look, I don't think anyone actually thinks that these theories make any sense, but they seem to work. And in science that's all that really matters.

 

[Reaver197]

Science is constrained to trying to accurately represent the nature of reality because of its evidence-based methodology, whereas philosophy doesn't necessarily need to be, as Eor said. Because of this lower-threshold, philosophy will tend to be the weaker of the two fields for accurate depictions of how things really are. By what standard do you determine whether a philosopher is worthy of great authority versus, say, a scientist?

Also, one thing to say is that human intuition is not necessarily (in the purest, mathematical sense) logical. We are creatures whose instincts and ideas of what logically make sense, where evolved and honed to having a quick and rough understanding of how things operate at scales of our size. It has also been established for by various psychological studies that it is fairly easy for the human mind to hold contradicting beliefs, without any overt realization of the inherent contradiction to them.

So, to say at the least, depending upon only human intuition and sense of logic is highly suspect for actually delivering accurate conclusions. You need that outside, objective material and information to make sure the thinking is on the ball, which is something that philosophers might not do (I'm looking at you, Aquinas).

 

[Sucumbio]

I appreciate the idea, but that doesn't really appear necessary. If the best explanations physics has developed to cover up BB's problems are mere theories and not irrefutable fact, why am I not entitled to a say?

Hold on now, physics is mostly rooted in fact. What goes up must come down. No amount of philosophy will make that change. Words cannot make the apple not fall on Newton's head. It happened, and Physics explains why. Just because the Big Bang theory (uh, yeah, it's a theory, it's going to have issues, hence why it's not a Law) requires some densely mathematical explanations, but in essence these things all come from facts. Think of it as trying to explain how a car works to an ancient greek. They may understand the principles of math, but the equations of friction, motion, force, etc will take them on quite a journey, and a lot of it may seem out right ridiculous.

If anything, Looping Theory and No Boundary Theory sound more like philosophies to me. If Immanuel Kant had invented NBT it probably would be considered a philosophy rather than a scientific theory.

Nah, they sound like that cause they're confusing. Now you know why I said Philosophy is BS. I can fully understand ax+by=c but trying to understand how it's possible I'm not actually typing this message right now? yeah, no.

Besides, physics-based time theories still have to answer to the questions philosophical logic proposes them.

Of course this is true, Stephen Hawking is forever acknowledging the serious implications his theories suggest... this however does not preclude their worth.