sigurdV

"Moment in time" is not well-defined. Time is not invariant; when you change reference frames it changes, so events that are simultaneous in one frame need not be simultaneous in another.

But isnt the age of the universe a well defined concept in both frames?

 

This was just messaged to me on my question...Ill think it over:

Consider a set of observers in different locations in the universe, all of whom are at rest with respect to the matter in their vicinity (these characters are usually termed fundamental observers). We can envisage them as each sitting on a different galaxy, and so receding from each other with the general expansion of the universe. We can define a global time coordinate t, which is the time measured by these observers - i.e. t is the proper time measured by an observer at rest with respect to the local matter distribution. This time, t, is called the Cosmological Time. This is the time for which the age of the universe is defined by.

Well. One thing is sure. There really is something. I don't know could it be so that there would be nothing. COuld there be that kind of possibility. Hard to say.

This question is ancient,

Parmenides gave this answer:

 

Suppose nothing is,

then it is so that nothing is.

But if something is so then nothing is not.

I don't see your point, and perhaps it should be clearified that as Hegel makes this remarks about Being (as the first concept one can think of that is not itself based on some other concept),

So far ok...

which is indeterminate or pure Being (which is to say, it is not a definite something,

Being is not an ordinary something... but it is something that can be said of something, so it is definitely a something.

And further: it is the only something that can be said about any something.So its a determinate something!

I dont accept the step from being to indeterminate or pure being. How is the step motivated?

It's not circular, just mathematically precise. All it's really saying is that if you have two visible events (in our case we'll use flashing lights) set some distance apart (called ab) then the lights can be said to flash simultaneously if and only if the light from A and the light from B reach the exact mid point of the distance between them (midpoint of ab) at exactly the same moment in time.

I just dont get it: Why then cant we simplify things by saying that a and b are simultaneous if they happen at exactly the same moment in time? I mean Im not saying that there is anything wrong when you calculate things by the methods of Special Relativity... Its just that the original definition looks circular to me and I wondered if the concepts on the different sides of the definition perhaps were different concepts... that would make the definition non circular but then there would be TWO concepts of simultanity and...

Well Ill be happy when the matter clears up

 

If there is a better thread for clearing my possible misunderstandings of relativity then tell me and Ill move, but seriously: Im more interested in the people Im discussing with than the thread itself One problem of mine was solved to my satisfaction in here ( Eh... the matter of the strength of the interference from an eventual ether isnt yet settled but I have confidence that it will be.)

 

 

Perhaps I might tell it all now instead of taking one piece at the time? It started when the age of the universe was...Measured? Estimated?

Guessed at? I wondered: Will this affect the theory of relativity in any way? Suppose we could measure the age wherever we are, as fast as convenient and as exact as convenient. Wouldnt we then have access to a measure of simultanity? Something equivalent to absolute time as concieved by Newton? Take the two ships passing each other with constant speed in intergalactic space...it is said that it cant be decided if one ship is resting and the other moves... Would not a comparisation betwen local time and the age of the universe tell? If a ship moves relative to the universe then local time should pass slower than the aging of the universe. If the ship is at rest the speeds would be the same.

 

So I felt I should do some reading...and lol! I got stuck already on the MM experiment and again stuck on the definition of simultanity and gave up the idea! Still my question irritated me and here I am to get the matter explained.

Thank you guys! The boats and the current made it clear...damned how stupid I can be out of my proper surrounding.

So I guess I no longer expect a null result unless the current is very weak... How strong must the ether wind be to be detected?

Might it be so weak that very long distances are needed for the effect to be noticeable?

 

Where do I get my next obstacle cleared? Its the definition of simultanity, isnt it circular?

"Two events a and b are simultaneous if and only if the arrival of light emitted from a and b at the midpoint of ab is simultaneous."

Being and nothing

As Hegel would have explained (see: Science of Logic - Doctrine of Being) the idea that Being and nothing are only seperate - thus denying their unity and unseperatness - is not dialectic but sophistry. Being and nothing, as nothing is determined in them, only exist within their unity - in which one is the opposite of the other - but in that form they are still nothing and in fact the same. They do not have a seperate truth. Their only truth lies in Becoming (or ceasing-to-be), in which it is already understood that being passes into nothing and vice versa.

I will never believe a square is a circle or that nothing is something...

Any argument leading to such conclusions is fallacious.

 

In the Ancient style:

 

1 Suppose nothing is.

2 Then it is so, that nothing is!

3 But since something is so, then nothing is not.

 

In a more Modern style: Theres the basic statement function: "x is" (Satisfied by anything except what is nothing.)

And theres its complementary function: "x is not" (Satisfied only by what is nothing.)

 

Theres is no way but sophistry for them to be a unity!

It does not matter if god exists or not since if god does not exist then Reality has to contain all necessary attributes of god.

 

In a sense then... Reality is god! So god exists! This seems to be a proof of the existence of god so how is it refuted?

 

My point here is that one function of god is to create reality... but that only moves the problem one step away,

 

since now one asks who created god? So god created himself they say.

 

So if theres no god... then why couldnt Reality do what god was supposed to do? We dont know if Reality is godlike or not, do we?

We can't really know anything other than what we observe, how could we?

 

We can theorize about it and see if it matches what we observe but to say anything about things we cannot observe is nothing but speculation.

Not all knowledge is about observable things...theres mathematics and logic for instance so I think reason (together with observation) is how we get knowledge in general... I just wanted to point out that we cant observe the principle that we come by knowledge by observing things.

 

What we know about "nothing" seems to come mostly from reason...since it cant be observed. Tricky topic this one.

Im slightly surprised to see you in a thread dominated by Hegelian abuse of logic, wouldnt you just inform us that the first law of Thermodynamics forbids energy to be created out of nothing?

 

 

 

Because "Nothing" is exclusive.

You cannot have "nothing" and something else.

 

If you take as granted that anything possible can occur, "nothing" is so exclusive that it should be logically provable that "nothing" cannot occur and thus "nothing" is impossible.

However that proof escapes from my mind at this right moment.

We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is!

Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is!

Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it is SO that nothing is?

We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is!

But if something is... then nothing is not...

So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not.

If we change the tense used in the proof

we can likewise prove that nothing was not

and that nothing will never be.

That's not logical at all, all we know about is what we can observe, we have no idea of anything other than what we can observe. There are models that postulate that what we see as the universe is really only a small part of something else but these are models and cannot be tested at this time. But to say with any authority that nothing existed before the universe is as nonsensical as saying something exists outside the universe...

Hi Moontanman!

How do we know that all we know about is what we can observe?

Can we actually observe it, or do we somehow reason us to it?

It seems to me that when the day comes that everyone participating in this thread agrees on what it means for something to exist the answer to this question will come quickly.

 

<br /><br /><br />I disagree. IT might verywell be that the universe is jus one big quantum state. Before "time" it might very well be that the universe was described by a static quantum state. The big bang might just have been that state going from a static state to a time dependant state. So in the big picture the universes quantum state was always time depenant. The big bang might therefore have been the universes quantum state going through a change of state. I.e.

 

[math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math]

 

where

 

t < 0 ===> [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math] = [math]|Psi®>[/math]

 

and

 

t > 0 ===> [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math] = [math]|Psi(r, t)>[/math]

 

Hi! Your thinking is not so easy to follow.

The topic is Ancient! A fellow named Parmenides

gave around three thousand years ago

a satisfactory treatment of the problem.

 

He claimed that the statement:" Nothing is." is self contradictory and therefore not true!

Not much of his texts have survived only the claim but not the proof so lets try ourselves:

 

We begin by firmly claiming that: Nothing is!

Eh... we are saying that it indeed is so that nothing is!

Oh! Arent we saying that it IS so that it IS so that nothing is?

We are actually saying that something IS when we are saying that nothing is!

But if something is... then nothing is not...

So it is really so that we have proved that something is and nothing is not.

 

If we change the tense used in the proof

we can likewise prove that nothing was not

and that nothing will never be.

 

This is Logic as Ancient as we can trace it

Ah ha!!! Now I recall the experiment. It's quite famous. It's the Kennedy-Thorndyke Experiment It's much more precise thanthe Michelson-Morely experiment of which it is a modified version of.

 

See http://en.wikipedia....dike_experiment

Hi whats the most elementary thread in here on the MM experiment?

I never understood why the experiment was expected not to have a null result.

(And dont expect ever to understand why...My immediate reaction was that

what was lost in the travel to the mirror would be gained on the way back.)

 

 

 

Here is an argument I want to get checked.

I first posted it in Philosophy since its immediate concequences are probably most of philosophical interest.

But now ,on second thought, I decided that Philosophers lacks the necessary qualifications:

They dont usually show any logic ability. Their forte is NOT checking proofs

The question of Paradoxes is of some Mathematical interest:

It is known how to remove them (preventing self reference) ,

but then they can no longer be derived,analysed and solved.

So Dear Mathematician: Is there an error somewhere in the argument below?

(Ahem...I did not intend underlining everything above, and neither this line...sigh)

Definition:

y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true", and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y.

 

No liar identity is Logically true.

Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb)

 

1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption)

2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1)

3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2)

4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED)

The logical form of the Liar Paradox:

 

1. x is not true.

2. x = "x is not true".

Some values for x makes the Liar Identity Empirically true:

 

1. Sentence 1 is not true.

2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true."

 

To get to the paradox one must produce

 

"3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2.

 

But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence!

Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1.

 

Any comment this far?

A new approach to Paradoxes.

 

Definition:

y is a Liar Identity if and only if y is of the form: x = "x is not true",

and if y is true then x is a Liar Sentence defined by y.

No liar identity is Logically true.

Proof (Based on: (a=b) implies (Ta<-->Tb)

 

1. Suppose x="x is not true" (assumption)

2. Then x is true if and only if "x is not true" is true (from 1)

3. And we get: x is true if and only if x is not true (from 2)

4. This contradicts the assumption. (QED)

The logical form of the Liar Paradox:

1. x is not true.

2. x = "x is not true".

Some values for x makes the liar Identity Empirically true:

1. Sentence 1 is not true.

2. Sentence 1 = " Sentence 1 is not true."

 

To get to the paradox one must produce "

3. Sentence 1 is true." from sentences 1 and 2.

 

But since sentence 2 is BOTH Empirically true and Logically false it can not be a well formed sentence!

Therefore no paradox can be derived from sentence 1.

 

Any comment this far?

PS To the moderator: I decided to ask the Mathematicians for checking my argument, since I believe they are better equipped for checking arguments. If one thread must be closed so close this one. I will then later return to Philosophy to continue on its philosophical consequences once its verified that my argument does not contain any errors.

Hi,

I am a Grade 11 Student (CBSE) from India and some questions popped up in my mind. Would be glad if you could help me out!

 

What is the exact beginning of life? Who provided the force needed to create this massive universe, the supernovas and the Earth ? Who provided the angular velocity for earth to rotate and revolve? Does the universe continuously expand?

Should the definition of 'Living Things' be redefined to objects or substances or phenomenon that possess Kinetic Energy? Lots of external factors influence life tremendously and these things have complete control over our life - Pressure,Air,etc.

 

Ilya prigogine defined life as a dissipative system far from equilibrium...A thermodynamic picture!

 

Otherwise theres not much news on theese old questions.

 

 

 

 

About 4.6 billion years ago.

 

Part of what life is requires living things to maintain an internal environment with as little change as possible, despite changes in the environment. This is called homeostasis.

 

One minor criticism: Theres no proof life started on earth...It might have come from elsewhere!

 

 

 

 

Outside the universe, hmm, universe is infinately vast, so there can't be an outside. Maybe they should change the name universe to infinateverse.

 

 

 

Theres no proof that the universe is infinitely vast in any direction.

 

Theres no proof that theres no infinity "behind the first: 1 3 5 7 9......2 4 6 8 ......

 

Theres no proof that the universe has no outside.

 

 

ok. Im sigurd vojnov from stockholm sweden

Im oriented towards foundation of subjects.