About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
We cannot imagine "what happened before the big bang" because there was no "before" - yet our minds cannot grasp the non-temporal on an intuitive level, so we balk.
I don't follow you here, Ted. The Big Bang was an event. For the event to take place, there had to be something that preceded it, because nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing.

- Bill

Post 61

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Btw, Ted, I think I'm going to bow out since this thread has gone way out of the bounds of it intended discussion due to my pedantic attitude, so I'm sorry.

I do agree that your claims to the apriori propositions of Peikoff are wrong.

-- Bridget

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I enjoy argument and disagreement, Bridget, but you have to understand what it is you're disagreeing with. I see that you do understand my underlying point about the a priori claims. Peikoff does indeed repeat them in DIM 5a&b. I myself am not wed to the Big Bang or any other theory. I simply see the Hubble Constant, the ratios of elements in the Universe, the Cosmic Background Radiation and such facts as plausibly pointing to a big bang. If there were a definitive statement, I would direct people there. Physicists do see the contradictions, and that is the reason they keep positing theoretical entities and constructs, to see if any mathematical formulation pans out, so that they can then see if its predictions are verifiable. I am not a hard-core ontological positivist, but as an heuristic, posited entities and positivistic verifiability has worked. Ferdinand Saussure used this method to predict the existence of silent consonants (coefficients sonantiques, known now as the Laryngeal Theory) in the Indo-European proto-language, which had disappeared by the time of written Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit, leaving only a few apparent irregularities which many were happy to gloss over. Saussure died at the turn of the last century. When cuneiform Hittite scripts were discovered and translated between the Wars, the language turned out to be the oldest known Indo-European dialect, and it had the posited consonant sounds just as he had predicted. Science can and does work in both directions from evidence to theory. When certain theories are disallowed for religious reasons, the censors have left reality.

Ted Keer


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 5:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, the difficulty comes because we must consider the Big Bang as the origin of Space-time. There was no space or time before the big bang. It cannot be viewed as a normal event which we want to view under what we might Kantianly call our presuppositions. The best analogy is to think of asking what is south of the south pole. The question is ill formed. Or ask, what is nothing like, do you imagine black silence? Black and silence aren’t nothing. Hawking's popular works explain this much better than I can.

Robert, you are not the first to have mentioned Plasma theory to me. I don't know it well enough to argue it, but from what I've seen on line, its proponents don't claim it as any stronger a thesis that of a big bang. It is chosen fvor aesthetic dislike of a non-eternal universe. My point is that no matter what tactic one uses, one has to end with either infinite regress or an inexplicable "first event." I find the infinite regress tactic fruitless. But I am willing to stomach a first event, which cannot be explained in terms of priors, because the priors would be non-existent. This seems much more sympathetic to Rand's axiomatic approach. Yet Peikoff and Speicher and others at ARI are dead set against the Big Bang primarily because some religious people take solace in it, and even if the evidence, while not explained, does actually point in that direction. I find that is simply panic on their part. The priority of existence is enough for me to dismiss an intelligent creator. I can't say that and don't know if a big bang will ever be provable or really explicable. I think that axioms, qualia, and the like may simply lie there forever as horizons to our knowledge - things we must except without being able to get behind them to "explain" them. This is neither mysticism nor defeatism. We know enough to act in the meantime without panic or faith or despondence.

The appropriate viewpoint here is that of Epicurus, which Rand called the benevolent universe premise. So long as we have good reason not to fear petulant gods or malevolent natural phenomena or eternal damnation, we can live in serenity. And we can hope to find joy.

Ted Keer, 18 November, 2006, NYC

Post 64

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 6:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Correction to post 62

Peikoff's lecture on Art are in 5a & 5b, the intended lectures on physics are in 6a & 6b.

I have finished listening to DIM. Peikoff does not further qualify his remarks on Physics and does not mention any other science except psychology. His concluding remark that the two Bushes are the worst presidents ever was interesting. I would probably have named Woodrow Wilson as the worst, myself.

Ted

Post 65

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 7:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted -- Well put points in the above posts! I've a bit of a science background (astronomy and physics) and last year had this discussion with Objectivist friends about the type of Objectivists who might allow presuppositions to get on the way of science, quantum physics to be specific. There might well be things behind the Big Bang and quantum phenomenon -- strings in 11 dimensions, branes -- but they will be discovered in the context of the observed phenomena that operate according to specific laws. I worry that some Objectivists, sitting with Niels Bohr nearly a century ago, never would have gotten to the exact descriptions of quantum phenomena that we have today.
(Edited by Ed Hudgins on 11/21, 6:32am)


Post 66

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
Bill, the difficulty comes because we must consider the Big Bang as the origin of Space-time. There was no space or time before the big bang. It cannot be viewed as a normal event which we want to view under what we might Kantianly call our presuppositions. The best analogy is to think of asking what is south of the south pole. The question is ill formed. Or ask, what is nothing like, do you imagine black silence? Black and silence aren’t nothing. Hawking's popular works explain this much better than I can.
Ted, I don't think this is correct. In saying that the Big Bang is the origin of space-time, aren't you suggesting that prior to the Big Bang, there was nothing in existence? But if so, then whence comes the Big Bang? What were its causal antecedents? Didn't there have to be something in existence that gave rise to it? Otherwise, you'd have something arising out of nothing, which would violate the law of causality. Since nothing comes from nothing, there was never a point at which existence was created. Existence always existed. While the Big Bang can be considered the origin of the universe in its present state, it cannot be the origin of the universe qua existence.

You also wrote,
My point is that no matter what tactic one uses, one has to end with either infinite regress or an inexplicable "first event." I find the infinite regress tactic fruitless. But I am willing to stomach a first event, which cannot be explained in terms of priors, because the priors would be non-existent.
No, this is a false alternative. There was neither an infinite regress nor a first cause. The problem with the argument that without a first cause there must be an infinite regress is that it reverses cause and effect. As Branden points out in his refutation of the first-cause argument, causality presupposes existence; existence doesn't presuppose causality. The infinite regress gambit assumes the latter -- that existence presupposes causality, which is a non-sequitur. Existence cannot presuppose causality, because the cause itself would have to exist in order to serve as a cause. The point is that existence did not begin; it did not spring into existence out of nothing. Like the theist's version of God, existence (in some form or other) always was and always will be.

You continued,
This seems much more sympathetic to Rand's axiomatic approach.
No, this was not Rand's view. If one is considering the Big Bang as the origin of existence -- which is the wrong way to view it -- then Peikoff is correct in dismissing it.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/20, 8:37pm)


(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/21, 8:38am)


Post 67

Sunday, September 21, 2008 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Noch Einmal


(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/21, 5:05pm)


Post 68

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill & Ted,

I am in agreement with Ted, that we must consider the Big Bang as the origin of Space-Time, because that is the strongest contender as far as theories go -at present. I also agree that, despite the best efforts of the best minds we have to offer, physicists may not ever be able to determine - absolutely - what theory will hold true. In the meantime, there is not just room for discussion, there is need for discussion and further study. Of necessity, most of this work is theoretical. Rarely is there an opportunity to obtain some measurements which will definitively support one theory over another. So physicists must continue working to find a theory that explains the behavior of all they can measure. Rejecting a theory for any reason other than an error in the mathematical equations, is wishful thinking, not science.

I myself, cannot honestly say that I can wrap my mind around the concept of there being 'nothing' - neither time nor space - before the Big Bang. It goes against any natural intuition I might have. I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician. Nevertheless, I do not believe this concept was arrived at willy-nilly, and I respect that this concept answers most of the questions. So it is, at least, a partial answer. Hopefully more may be learned by continuing study into String theory.

jt


(Edited by Jay Abbott on 9/22, 1:01pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What is south of the south pole? There is no south of the south pole. There is no time or space "before" the big bang because there is no "before" the big bang. Just as the surface of the Earth is curved, (those who fear that one might fall off the edge if it does not go on forever are not taking the curvature of the earth into consideration,) spacetime is curved, and existence need have no edge nor go on forever.

Post 70

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To say that there was no "before" the Big Bang assumes that the Big Bang was the origin of existence, but of course there was no origin of existence. Like every event in the universe, the Big Bang necessarily had causal antecedents which preceded its occurrence. An event, like the Big Bang, presupposes existence -- the existence of that which causes it. Existence, as such, does not presuppose an event, like the Big Bang.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/22, 6:44pm)


Post 71

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill, the Big Bang as a place in spacetime is no more an 'event' in the normal sense than the south pole is an 'event'. We move forward in time just as a traveller might march north from the south pole. A traveller wouldn't complain that there can't be a south pole because there is always something further south. Time is a relationship between events. There was no time before there were any events. You cannot ask what happened before anything happened - that is stealing the concept.

No matter where a traveller heads from the south pole he must head north. No matter where one wants to go from the big bang one must head forward in time.

I suggest reading Jay's uncle's book, Flatland and then hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell. Without understanding the curvature of spacetime in higher dimensions, it may be hard to gat a grasp on these ideas. But they are rigorous and well understood by physicists and mathematicians. Before it was understood that the surface of the earth was curved, philosophers could argue that it must extend forever, or there must be a wall or edge. They would have been wrong. They did not have the conceptual tools to understand the implications of a curved surface. The same mistake is being made now. Spacetime is curved. There is neither infinite time - as you argue - nor an edge to time - as you think I argue. But I do not. Don't take my word for it - go to the library.

My interest in this thread was to rehash Peikoff's vote Democrat command. See post one for that.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/22, 7:32pm)


Post 72

Monday, September 22, 2008 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“There is [not] infinite time - as you argue [for]”

Actually, Bill does not argue for infinite time. He argues that time goes back and back and back and back…there is no stopping how far back you may wish me to repeat back and back and back and back and back. He argues there was no start, no beginning, rather he argues existence always was, it goes back and back and back and back…

But history is not infinite, he argues, because no matter how far back a time you name, you have only named a time X far back, which is X, a specific amount of time back, and not infinity, which is impossible.

Likewise, he argues that the future will go on and on and on and on, without end. But, since any future date you might care to name will be a specific date, again no matter how far in the future it is, any future date you name will be a specific date with a specific, finite, distance from today’s date. And therefore the future is not infinite, either. It’ll never end, he admits, but good luck naming me THAT date, he argues.



Post 73

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - 12:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
Bill, the Big Bang as a place in spacetime is no more an 'event' in the normal sense than the south pole is an 'event'.
What do you mean "in the normal sense"? It was certainly an event.
We move forward in time just as a traveller might march north from the south pole. A traveller wouldn't complain that there can't be a south pole because there is always something further south. Time is a relationship between events. There was no time before there were any events. You cannot ask what happened before anything happened - that is stealing the concept.
I agree, but why do you assume that nothing happened before the Big Bang?

You say, “There is neither infinite time - as you argue . . .” To which Jon replied,
Actually, Bill does not argue for infinite time. He argues that time goes back and back and back and back…there is no stopping how far back you may wish me to repeat back and back and back and back and back. He argues there was no start, no beginning, rather he argues existence always was, it goes back and back and back and back.
My view is that the past is potentially infinite, but not actually infinite, because however far back you measure, you'll arrive at a finite time. That doesn't mean that the potential for continuing the measurement must be finite, however. It doesn't mean that however far back you go, you must eventually reach a beginning beyond which you can no longer perform the measurement.
Likewise, he argues that the future will go on and on and on and on, without end. But, since any future date you might care to name will be a specific date, again no matter how far in the future it is, any future date you name will be a specific date with a specific, finite, distance from today’s date. And therefore the future is not infinite, either. It’ll never end, he admits, but good luck naming me THAT date, he argues.
Right, the future is potentially infinite, but finite at every age, because however old the universe becomes, it will be that old and no older. To say, however, that its age is forever finite doesn't mean that it will eventually come to an end and cease to exist. In that respect, the future is potentially infinite.

- Bill



(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/24, 12:44am)


Post 74

Thursday, September 25, 2008 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I will try one last time. This is not a matter for argument, per se. It is a matter for explanation. That spacetime could have an earliest "moment" in the way that the earth could have a southernmost "point" is a rigorous mathematical-scientific notion. I really do suggest you research the matter elsewhere if you want to understand it. Agai8n, I refer you to Flatland by Abbott (available free at gutenberg.org) and to the Universe in a Nutshell. I am not an expert, but I understand the concept well enough to know that the big bang theory is not creation "ex" anything.

First, historically, we are presented with a dilemma. Either space and time are infinite, which seems problematic, or they are finite. Yet finiteness seems to imply an edge, leading to the question of what lies beyond the edge. This was the problem with a flat earth. There must be an edge, no? What would happen if you keep heading south? Will you not hit a wall, or "fall off" the face of the earth into, well, nothing? What bounds the earth in a flat earth model?

It turned out that our local perspective, in which the two dimensional surface of the earth seems flat, was deceptive. The earth, it turns out, is neither infinite, nor does it have a boudary. Rasther, it is curved in a third dimension, and closes in upon itself like a flat map whose edges are glued to each other. The earth is finite, yet unbounded.

The surface of the earth does not extend infinitely southward. There is no edge or boundary at some point where further southward travel takes you off the edge. Rather, you can travel south to the south pole, but due to the curvature of the earth, anywhere you head from there is north.

The same applies to spacetime. Think of spacetime as a map, with space as east-west and timw as north south. Is spacetime infinite in every direction? Or does it have an edge, beyond which there lies the dreaded nothing? No. Spacetime is neither infinite, nor does it have an edge. It is curved and finite yet unbounded in space and in the past. (The future is an open question for now. But since the future is indeed potential, I won't go into the issue, other than to acknowledge it.)

What we call the Big Bang is a place in spacetime analogous to the South Pole on the surface of the earth. To ask what happened "before" the Big Bang (or whatever the evidence leads to) is like asking what lies south of the South Pole. The question shows a failure to understand that south is a relative concept, just as time and space are relative concepts. There is no absolute south or absolute time such that one could ask whast lies south of the South Pole or what happened before the earliest moment of time. Time is within, not prior to existence.

Finally, as an aside, the potentially infinte passt of which you speak is problematic. It amounts to either meaninglessness, or the priority of consciousness. The actuallity of reality cannot depend upon its being measured. (Nor, for that matter, can time be infinite in the past, because entropy increases. Heat death will be reached in a finite time, and it is not here yet.) What would it mean to say that time exists in infinite potential if measured? How can time be measured, except in relation to material events? Do these events pop into actrual existence when they are measured? Does consciousness create existence? This is like a philosopher of the middle ages saying that the surface of the earth is potentially infinite - that the further you walk south, the more geography comes into actual existence. It think the problems with this are infinite.


Post 75

Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted wrote,
First, historically, we are presented with a dilemma. Either space and time are infinite, which seems problematic, or they are finite. Yet finiteness seems to imply an edge, leading to the question of what lies beyond the edge. This was the problem with a flat earth. There must be an edge, no? What would happen if you keep heading south? Will you not hit a wall, or "fall off" the face of the earth into, well, nothing? What bounds the earth in a flat earth model?

It turned out that our local perspective, in which the two dimensional surface of the earth seems flat, was deceptive. The earth, it turns out, is neither infinite, nor does it have a boundary. Rather, it is curved in a third dimension, and closes in upon itself like a flat map whose edges are glued to each other. The earth is finite, yet unbounded.
I see the point you're trying to make here. However, just to interject, I wouldn't say the earth is "unbounded"; I wouldn't describe it in those terms, any more than I would say that a basketball is "unbounded." What is the boundary of basketball? Clearly, it's surface is. But, again, I do see your argument, which you continue as follows:
The surface of the earth does not extend infinitely southward. There is no edge or boundary at some point where further southward travel takes you off the edge. Rather, you can travel south to the south pole, but due to the curvature of the earth, anywhere you head from there is north.

The same applies to spacetime. Think of spacetime as a map, with space as east-west and time as north south. Is spacetime infinite in every direction? Or does it have an edge, beyond which there lies the dreaded nothing? No. Spacetime is neither infinite, nor does it have an edge. It is curved and finite yet unbounded in space and in the past. (The future is an open question for now. But since the future is indeed potential, I won't go into the issue, other than to acknowledge it.)
This is an interesting approach to the issue. However, there's a problem with your analogy. If you're going to stick to the analogy, you'd have to say that at a certain point you start going backwards in time (just as you start going North on the globe, once you pass the South Pole) which is theoretically impossible. Time is not curved in the way that you're suggesting. It is linear. You might be able to make a case for space being curved, depending on what you mean by the term. However, as I understand "space," its referent is relational. Space refers to an interval between two or more objects; as, the space between two stars or two hills. If we accept this definition, then without the objects, there would be no space. The term "outer space" refers to any location outside the earth's atmosphere. But when one talks about a "space-time continuum," what exactly is the referent, if not existence as such? Time involves the measurement of motion, so time occupies existence; existence doesn't occupy time (which you acknowledge below).

This brings us back to the question with which we started. Is existence finite or infinite in time? I think I may have jumped the gun by saying that it is potentially infinite (rather than actually infinite). On second thought, I don't think that existence, as such, has a duration. We can say that certain things within existence have a duration, but only in relation to other thing against which we're measuring them. But what can existence as such be measured against, either spatially or temporally? "How much time does existence occupy?" is as meaningless a question as, "how much space does it occupy?".
What we call the Big Bang is a place in spacetime analogous to the South Pole on the surface of the earth. To ask what happened "before" the Big Bang (or whatever the evidence leads to) is like asking what lies south of the South Pole. The question shows a failure to understand that south is a relative concept, just as time and space are relative concepts.
Right, but I'm not sure that you and I would agree on what they're relative to?
There is no absolute south or absolute time such that one could ask what lies south of the South Pole or what happened before the earliest moment of time. Time is within, not prior to existence.
I agree with you here. Obviously, nothing could "happen" before the earliest moment of time, because there is no earliest moment of time.
Finally, as an aside, the potentially infinte past of which you speak is problematic. It amounts to either meaninglessness, or the priority of consciousness. The actuallity of reality cannot depend upon its being measured.
Correct. I think I was assuming in my previous post that it could be, which was a mistake.
(Nor, for that matter, can time be infinite in the past, because entropy increases. Heat death will be reached in a finite time, and it is not here yet.)
Here, it appears you're assuming that within a certain period of time, reality would cease to exist, but you've already acknowledged that reality doesn't exist for a certain period of time -- that time does not apply to existence as such. So I don't think this latter argument is a good one.
What would it mean to say that time exists in infinite potential if measured? How can time be measured, except in relation to material events?
I agree. Point well taken.

- Bill

Post 76

Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill wrote,

I see the point you're trying to make here....
This is an interesting approach to the issue....
Right,...
I agree with you here....
Correct....
I agree. Point well taken.

Hence, I suspect, you may now think it at least plausible that there might be a conception of closed spacetime which could make the Big Bang theory potentially palatable, and that understanding the actual arguments made for a closed self-bounding space time should be fully understood before being rejected on an a priori basis, as it apprears to me that Peikoff is doing? The closed nature of curved spacetime is not a full explanation of the plausibility of the Big Bang, but it satisfies one of the conditions for accepting the theory of the Big Bang - which I take as plausible, but not at all fully validated by a long shot.

Three points you raise.

Yes, of course the three-dimensional earth is bounded by its two dimensional surface from the three dimensional volume of outer space. But you seem to understand that I was talking of the fact that as a two dimensional surface, the surface of the planet is "curved" in upon itself and hence unbounded or self-bounded in a way that a map is not, since a flat map has edges. Indeed, it is only because we start with a limited view of spacetime (or the earth's surface) that we make the flawed asssumption that on a larger scale it needs to be "bounded" in the way of a flat surface. Were we of the scale of the earth itself, we would perceive the completeness of its surface directly, and the question would never arise.

You said:

This is an interesting approach to the issue. However, there's a problem with your analogy. If you're going to stick to the analogy, you'd have to say that at a certain point you start going backwards in time (just as you start going North on the globe, once you pass the South Pole) which is theoretically impossible. Time is not curved in the way that you're suggesting. It is linear."

The proper response is to say that one cannot separate space and time, but must speak of four-dimensional (or higher) spacetime, which itself is curved in some higher dimension. In my surface of the earth analogy, time corresponds to latitude, and space to longitude. When one approaches the South Pole, which is a point, longitude shrinks into meaninglessness, and all change of latitude becomes motion northwards - movement forward in time. Hence, if one were to travel backward in time to the big bang, and then keep travelling in the same "straight line" one would be travelling forward in time. In this sense, like a plane flying straight over the south pole, latitude, as well as longitude - time as well as space - is curved.

Finally, in response to my mentioning the Heat Death of the universe, you said:

Here, it appears you're assuming that within a certain period of time, reality would cease to exist, but you've already acknowledged that reality doesn't exist for a certain period of time -- that time does not apply to existence as such. So I don't think this latter argument is a good one.

The heat death of the universe is not a time at which it seeks to exist, but a time at which all potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, and no more fuel is available to drive ordered systems. You can read here at wikipedia.

Post 77

Saturday, September 27, 2008 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I suspect, you may now think it at least plausible that there might be a conception of closed spacetime which could make the Big Bang theory potentially palatable, and that understanding the actual arguments made for a closed self-bounding space time should be fully understood before being rejected on an a priori basis, as it apprears to me that Peikoff is doing? The closed nature of curved spacetime is not a full explanation of the plausibility of the Big Bang, but it satisfies one of the conditions for accepting the theory of the Big Bang - which I take as plausible, but not at all fully validated by a long shot.
Ted, in Post 74, you stated, "What we call the Big Bang is a place in spacetime analogous to the South Pole on the surface of the earth. To ask what happened "before" the Big Bang (or whatever the evidence leads to) is like asking what lies south of the South Pole." I still don't agree with your analogy. There is no contradiction in the idea that something happened before the Big Bang. Why would you think there is? The Big Bang is not the origin of existence.
Three points you raise.

Yes, of course the three-dimensional earth is bounded by its two dimensional surface from the three dimensional volume of outer space. But you seem to understand that I was talking of the fact that as a two dimensional surface, the surface of the planet is "curved" in upon itself and hence unbounded or self-bounded in a way that a map is not, since a flat map has edges. Indeed, it is only because we start with a limited view of spacetime (or the earth's surface) that we make the flawed asssumption that on a larger scale it needs to be "bounded" in the way of a flat surface.
I don't understand the concept of "spacetime." I understand space, which as I said, refers to an interval between two or more objects, and I understand time, which refers to the measurement of motion. But what is "spacetime"? One definition says that it is the four-dimensional continuum in which the events of the universe take place. But collectively, events in the universe don't "take place" anywhere, because the universe doesn't exist in a "place." A "place" is relative to other objects; it refers to a relationship between objects and events within the universe, not to the universe as a whole. The universe doesn't exist in a "place"; places exist in the universe. I lived in Northern California for 30 years, so I can say that I occupied that spacetime continuum. But it makes no sense to say that the totality of events in the universe occupies a spacetime continuum. Nor does that totality take place within a period of time, for as you've noted, time is in the universe; the universe is not in time.

I wrote, "This is an interesting approach to the issue. However, there's a problem with your analogy. If you're going to stick to the analogy, you'd have to say that at a certain point you start going backwards in time (just as you start going North on the globe, once you pass the South Pole) which is theoretically impossible. Time is not curved in the way that you're suggesting. It is linear."
The proper response is to say that one cannot separate space and time, but must speak of four-dimensional (or higher) spacetime, which itself is curved in some higher dimension.
I have no idea what your talking about. What do you mean -- "some higher dimension"?
In my surface of the earth analogy, time corresponds to latitude, and space to longitude. When one approaches the South Pole, which is a point, longitude shrinks into meaninglessness, and all change of latitude becomes motion northwards - movement forward in time. Hence, if one were to travel backward in time to the big bang, and then keep travelling in the same "straight line" one would be travelling forward in time.
But you can't travel backwards in time; you can only travel forwards.
In this sense, like a plane flying straight over the south pole, latitude, as well as longitude - time as well as space - is curved.
Time is not "curved," and neither is space. Time refers to the measurement of motion, and space to an interval between two or more objects. Neither time nor space is an entity with geometrical characteristics.
Finally, in response to my mentioning the Heat Death of the universe, you said:

"Here, it appears you're assuming that within a certain period of time, reality would cease to exist, but you've already acknowledged that reality doesn't exist for a certain period of time -- that time does not apply to existence as such. So I don't think this latter argument is a good one."

The heat death of the universe is not a time at which it [ceases] to exist, but a time at which all potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy, and no more fuel is available to drive ordered systems.
Yes, thank you. That was a stupid response from me. For some reason, I was thinking that you were referring to the death of the universe, not its heat-death. :-P I had been introduced to the "heat-death" concept many years ago and had simply forgotten the terminology. Yes, I do now remember that "heat-death" refers to a state of maximum entropy in which there is no longer any transfer of heat. Nevertheless, it was my understanding at the time I'd considered it that the notion of "heat-death" refers to a closed system and does not therefore apply to the universe as a whole.

- Bill


(Edited by William Dwyer on 9/27, 11:51pm)


Post 78

Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Philosophy and Scientific Cosmology 1, 2, 3

 

Scientific Cosmology

Update (Big Bounce and Loop Quantum Gravity)

Conserved: 1, 2
(A Trait of the Whole)
 
 

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 9/28, 10:11am)


Post 79

Thursday, October 2, 2008 - 1:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These discussion threads really get off the subject sometimes.

The first few posts ( #8 by Robert Malcolm, #10 by Mr. Keer and #11 by Kyrel Zantonavitch) identifies essentially that he isn't smart enough to be very good at philosophy and this is correct, but does not identify what is actually wrong with him.  Peikoff failure not intellectual, but moral.

Peikoff's failure is that he is largely lacking in integrity. 

It is immediately obvious from looking at him that he is devoid of the focussed rational state of mind characterized by Objectivist principles.  What he projects in his manner is not rationality, selfishness, etc. but the selflessness and the ethnic collectivism of the jews. 
 
This failure of integrity is rationalized away by professions of "conscious convictions", the false notion that mere stated agreement with Objectivism is morally sufficient.  This of course, evades the fact that all Objectivist virtues are not merely ideas, but virtues which must be actively maintained through mental action, and failing this moral decay necessarily ensues.  This corruption of the virtue of integrity has had a devastating effect upon the organization, first by corrupting the principles of the philosophy and second by thinning the membership, since very few will follow a man who does not live up to what he believes in. 

A person of this kind is not motivated by the pursuit of virtue, but by a desire for the unearned in moral goodness. 

This lack of integrity extends further to his refusal to recognize his intellectual limitations. 

To be effective at dealing with reality, it is necessary to know the boundaries of one's knowledge, ie. you have to know what you know, and know what you don't know.  To do this one must have the honesty to admit one's own ignorance.  It is in this honesty that Peikoff fails and it is the source of his blundering and much of the damage he has caused to Objectivism. 

Peikoff was selected by Rand as her intellectual heir not because he was intellectually up to the task, but because he was closer to it than anyone else still remaining in her inner circle.  He was, therefore, a transitional leader, destined only to preserve the philosophy, not to advance it.

Just as a son who inherits a family business which he does not have the ability to successful run, and thus hires competent managers rewarding them proportionately to their success, and thus preserving the family fortune and his own rich life, rather than trying to do it himself and losing everything, Peikoff should have actively recruited people of high intelligence to the organization with the hopes of using their ability in lieu of his own and shared in the success they would have brought.  And people of higher ability did appear, but instead of welcoming them and accepting their advice, he insisted on placing his own little mind over their's, and threatened by their criticisms, systematically expelled them all, mostly on fabricated pretexts of immorality.  This has had the effect of dragging down the intellectual quality of the organization to the same level of Peikoff himself, that of inconsequential mediocrity

In spite of all Peikoff's squawking about Objectivism, he really doesn't value it.  What he really cares about is seizing unearned virtue and fame, and for this purpose Objectivism is useful for the self-complements he bestows upon himself and for eliminating his competition from ARI. 

Considering that Rand would place someone as morally flawed as this in charge of her estate and much less elevate him to the status her intellectual heir, I believe, draws her own character strongly into question.  I very much suspect that she shared these same failures. 

Now, what's all this stuff about space-time again? 

(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 10/02, 1:29pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.