Deepak Kapur

6m + 6m + 6m + 6m + 6m is not 6m * 5m. It is 6m * 5, which is 30m.

You are actually adding 5 6m by 1m rectangles, so it's (6m * 1m) + (6m * 1m) + (6m * 1m) + (6m * 1m) + (6m * 1m) or 30 square meters.

A great reply, Thanks

 

...however....I will think over this..

I have a small room. 6m by 5m.

I want to get it carpeted so I compute its area.

Area= 6m × 5m = 30m2 ( metre square).

 

But....

 

Muliplication is also repeated addition..

so, I add 6m + 6m + 6m + 6m + 6m..... but I get the answer 30m and not 30m2.

 

My point is...

 

Irrespective of how we do multiplication the answer (including the units) should be same....

 

but by repeated addition I get the same numerical value but not the same units.

 

1. Either mathematics does not depict nature/reality properly.

Or

2. I am insane.

@ dimreepr

 

i stands for god here.

@ dimreepr

 

plz explain in simple words (rather than saying kindapoint), i dont get your point.

Kinda my point really; we have evidence that atoms are infinite.

What evidence....

It's not infinite, it's exactly as finite as you are; Kinda my point really.

Actually, i was talking about the infinte power/thought/imagination of god.

OK. Let me substitute an eternal god with an eternal series of causes and effects.

 

How could that be traversed to reach here and now?

 

How would you define "the present moment/time"?

Good question.

 

I think relativistic effects came into play only when this universe was created.

 

I am talking about 'prior to big bang" i.e. i am talking in very generalised terms, not at all limited to this universe.

I can't help but think there are multiple religious answers to this question. They will most likely be presented as fact, and they will contradict each other, and thus they will have limited meaning.

 

Science, on the other hand, would warn you about the dangers of treating infinity as a common number.

Why should science warn, this scenario seems highly plausible/possible/even certain....

When you say "the universe", you're naturally using the word to refer to the universe we're currently experiencing.

This current universe seems to have started about 13.4 BY ago. At the point of the Big Bang.

 

But perhaps there were earlier universes. Which were created, expanded, and eventually came to some kind of end. Big Crunch or Heat-Death, whatever.

They then got replaced by another universe, in an eternalsuccession of universes. Constantly created by an eternal God.

 

I think the thrust of your post is that an eternal god might have got bored, in the long time before He suddenly thought of the Big Bang.

 

But that's not so - couldn't His time have been fruitfully occupied in devising myriads of pre-BB universes?

I mean that even if an eternal god had been creating an eternal succession of universes, how all this infinite time could be traversed to reach 'the present moment/time'

 

 

 

The imagination: youre a finite being, so power/energy/thought is also finite, its only our atoms that are infinite.

What is the source of this infinite imagination?...

If god is eternal, how did he traverse all the infinite time before the point, at which he thought of creating the universe?

I think...

 

Neither science nor religion can answer all the questions...

 

Unanswered questions, mysteries, the unknowable, the infinite regress will always wink at humanity or any other super intelligent life...

 

Even god will be searching the answers to questions like....

 

From where i came?....

 

What is the source of infinte power/energy/thought that i possess?

 

etc.

Tao would not be 'made' or have intentions. For much more than this best to read Lao-tsu, Chuang-tsu etc.

 

I'm away to a funeral for a few days, so will have to depart for now...

I read what you said....

 

I have questions...

 

What is the origin of Tao?

 

What is the mechanism that led to origin of Tao?

 

If there are no answers to the above questions, why to call Tao the ultimate thing?

@ Fred Champion

 

You say that everything is action and reaction i.e. cause and effect.

 

A simple scenario.....

 

A rock is lying on the moon. It moves.

 

Why?...a fragment of a meteorite strikes it.

 

Why does the meteor come to moon?.....because some rocks from the aestroid belt strayed into the moon's gravity.

 

Why did the rocks stray?....because everything is moving and such things happen.

 

Why is everything moving?...it's because all this motion has ultimate origin in the big bang. Every action reaction has it's origin there only.

 

Why did the ultimate cause i.e. big bang happen?

 

Fred, do we need 'time' now?

ah..yes...he is the guy about whom i read on the internet....

@ imfatlaal

 

a good thread.....learnt a lot

My two penny.....

 

It is said, For a photon there is zero time and zero distance.....??

 

This seems opposite to the idea that there can't be anything smaller than plank time and plank distance.

 

If this is true,a photon isn't travelling at all ( though physicists try to solve this problem by saying that 'photon's view point is undefined'.... how clever and orthodox of them....)

Not all religions say God created anything, or even that He is a real phenomenon. Your view, Deepak, would be more orthodox. God simply is the universe. This is theism, Scotty, but not theism as we know it. Here 'Tao' seems a much more useful idea than God, a term that has become impossibly encrusted with anthropomorphic overtones. Tao would not create anything it would just be what it is, and everything else would follow, including the laws of physics. No intentional creation of anything required. It is a far more scientifically plausible approach than the idea of something being created out of nothing, or some conscious being hunched over a draughtsman's table making plans for a new universe.

Can't Tao be called god....

 

Who/what mechanism, made Tao.....

 

How/through which mechanism, would laws of physics automatically follow Tao.....

 

Can't this 'automatic following' after Tao be called some kind of 'hidden intention' of the thing/mechanism that created Tao.....

I compared time to electricity in my first response. No electron flow no electricity. However you can have the potential between two points for electricity without having any electron flow. The two points on a battery have a potential but electricity doesn't flow until those points are connected by a conductor. I view time this way. There can be a potential for time but until matter moves the clock doesn't start. As for what creates motion or exploits the time potential; time messures movement of matter from a fraction above zero (no movement) to 99.9% of the speed of light. So photon particles or any yet undiscovered faster than the speed of light traveler would be capable of creating motion without time. They would be the conductor joining positive to negative on the battery.

???????????? ( a simple answer is always good,that tries to explain the problem at hand...)

 

So, what causes my hand to move.......my neurons?

 

What causes the motion of neurons...my thought?????

 

Does it mean thought is beyond time..i.e. it does not require time for it's articulation/motion?

 

In any case it seems, time comes first and motion comes afterwards.

Interesting question. The ball may roll after you are done pushing. How long you push is not time in your metaphor. Time for the ball would be total distance traveled by speed. The ball may travel a longer distance in less time if moving quickly or a shorter distance in more time if moving slowly.

Actually, the person wanted to say that the 'cause of motion' cannot happen without time......

 

So, what should i say to this.....

 

How so? Everyone can agree upon comparison in one frame that one clock ran slower than the other.

It would be an illusion for everyone....i.e. their agreement would be regarding sth thatis an illusion.

 

An illusion goes away when viewed under the right circumstances; you get a different answer. If time were shown to be an emergent phenomenon, that would not change the result of our experiments. Moving clocks would still run slow.

 

 

moving clocks running slow.....would itself be an illusion...

Why would there be a single answer?

That's silly.

It's like saying what's your mother's name, what's your father's name?

Is there a single answer to the above questions?

 

Anyway the origin of this discussion was someone saying

"Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician."

And the questions you have asked are subject to scientific inquiry.

(there's a difference between "science knows the answer" and "science studies this sort of thing").

Thus far, I can't see why they think that philosophers should make especially good lab technicians.

If anything, the cliche lab tech is someone who doesn't ask any questions, but does what they are told to do.

Setting aside the fact that it's an insulting and inaccurate cliche, surely it's a description more suited to those who are prepared to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book without questioning it?

U havn't got my point....i am surprised!!!

 

I meant that will there be non-conflicting answers to such questions?

 

If not, these questions should be called ambiguious questions at best,imo

Enough said.

....just as obscurity of religion ends, ambiguity of science begins............

 

Ambiguity of science is superior to obscurity of religion, though....as it has the scientific method behind it¿

Some more questions....

 

What is the cause of inertia?

How does matter curve space..

Why does light move at c...

When does quantum turn into classical and how...

What are space, time, mass,entropy...

Is arrow of time correct...

What is the difference between natural & supernatural...

Will questions ever end..

Should there be an aim of science, if so what....

 

 

Is/will there a/be a single answer to the above questions....

 

That does not follow. It's not a requirement that time and motion "exist" in some metaphysical way in order to say relativity is consistent with experiment and is falsifiable. Even if these are emergent phenomenon, the description given by relativity is correct so far as we have data,, and we have extensive data. Should someone discover an underlying framework for describing nature that eliminates time and motion, it will have to be consistent with our results, which agree with relativity.

 

Falsifiable simply means the ability to, in principle, show the model to be inconsistent with experimental data.

What is the difference between an illusion and an emergent phenomenon in this case.......

'a continuum of matter'.....??

 

imo, continuum means something that has no points in it.....but.....continuum of matter presupposes points ( matter at every point.......)