The universe expands ...

[tillingborn]

time and spatial dimensions have no meaning in the absence of matter .
isn't that like a child who puts their hands over their eyes and thinks ,
daddy isn't there anymore ,???

Maybe. The thing is, can you explain dimensions without referring to things or events?
I'm not sure that trees falling is analogous; I've always understood the point being that for all that we understand the physical processes involved in the chain of events that result in the excitation of parts of the brain, without a sentient witness, there is no sensation of sound.
The point about time and space is that they are very useful mathematical tools, but they are defined by physical events or separations. A second is a certain number of swings of a pendulum or vibrations of atoms, a metre is so many wavelengths per second; there isn't a way to make sense of time or distance without things happening. Some people think time needs to exist for things to happen, others think time is just things happening. I'm in the latter group and until someone can show me a bucket of time, I will probably stay there.

[SpheresOfBalance]

time and spatial dimensions have no meaning in the absence of matter .
isn't that like a child who puts their hands over their eyes and thinks ,
daddy isn't there anymore ,???

Maybe. The thing is, can you explain dimensions without referring to things or events?
I'm not sure that trees falling is analogous; I've always understood the point being that for all that we understand the physical processes involved in the chain of events that result in the excitation of parts of the brain, without a sentient witness, there is no sensation of sound.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality." --wikipedia-- The typical philosophical answer is no. However I disagree, as again I worked with sound during my 16 year stint helping the US DOD! As then, I see sound like this particular dictionary definition:
"sound [sound] noun
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level." --Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.--
The reason I see it this way, is because it is, the fact of the matter. Because it is true that humans developed sensory organs, to make use of something already in existence. They all came after the fact, of that which they sense; that what there was to sense, gave way to the development of the sensors, as the animal evolved. It is true that we as educated humans, acknowledged them after the fact of sensing them, and then defined them. But I see that to then talk as if the objects of our sensing, depends on us sensing them, is nothing short of arrogance, and is one of the primary reasons we are currently killing ourselves. The only thing that is true, as to seeing it from a reversed sequence of events perspective, is that for anyone of us to 'know,' of a particular instance, of any condition, capable of being sensed, they have to be present. Which only speaks of our 'knowing,' of a particular instance, and not the conditions 'existence,' in and of itself, that allows us to sense.

The point about time and space is that they are very useful mathematical tools, but they are defined by physical events or separations. A second is a certain number of swings of a pendulum or vibrations of atoms, a metre is so many wavelengths per second; there isn't a way to make sense of time or distance without things happening. Some people think time needs to exist for things to happen, others think time is just things happening. I'm in the latter group and until someone can show me a bucket of time, I will probably stay there.
I see that time is a man made construct and is nothing more than a method to organize a sequence of events/movement, such that we may refer to the sequence. "Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --Wikipedia--

[Godfree]

I see that time is a man made construct and is nothing more than a method to organize a sequence of events/movement, such that we may refer to the sequence. "Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --Wikipedia--
[/quote][/quote]
I like it , I suppose for me the thing is time represents existence ,
for anything to exist , it exists in time for a time ,
so to say before the bb there was no time ,
to my mind your saying there was no universe , and they are trying to say exactly that ,
the "no space time" , according the version of the bb I was taught ,
the bang created space and time ,,?
and yet as SOB has just pointed out time is a man made concept ,
man didn't exist back then , so there was no time,???
or aren't we actually saying ,
nobody was there to measure it , but clearly some time occurred ,
so if we want to contemplate before the bang ,
there is a real reference we can use to try and calculate things ,
the movement of the planets and stars , the cycles , we can determine the length of the cycle ,
then we look at how long it would take to form a black hole the size of the one they think went bang ,
I think bangs happen on a galactic scale and not a universal one,
so to me the whole bb debate ,
is just about as real as religion or alien abductions.

[Ginkgo]

I see that time is a man made construct and is nothing more than a method to organize a sequence of events/movement, such that we may refer to the sequence. "Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --Wikipedia--

[/quote]
I like it , I suppose for me the thing is time represents existence ,
for anything to exist , it exists in time for a time ,
so to say before the bb there was no time ,
to my mind your saying there was no universe , and they are trying to say exactly that ,
the "no space time" , according the version of the bb I was taught ,
the bang created space and time ,,?
and yet as SOB has just pointed out time is a man made concept ,
man didn't exist back then , so there was no time,???
or aren't we actually saying ,
nobody was there to measure it , but clearly some time occurred ,
so if we want to contemplate before the bang ,
there is a real reference we can use to try and calculate things ,
the movement of the planets and stars , the cycles , we can determine the length of the cycle ,
then we look at how long it would take to form a black hole the size of the one they think went bang ,
I think bangs happen on a galactic scale and not a universal one,
so to me the whole bb debate ,
is just about as real as religion or alien abductions.[/quote]


I think we can gain some foot holds out of the discussion in terms of time and space.All be it a loose one. Kant views time and space as categories of understanding. In other words, time and space are the glasses we are forced to wear whenever we make an observational judgement. However, Kant is not saying that without the observer nothing exists. For Kant there are, "things-for-us" ( as the observers) and "things-in-themselves" ( 'reality' when there is no observer). As far as Kant is concerned we can never know anything about "things-in-themselves"

Interestingly enough, quantum mechanics has entered the debate in terms of time and space and the role of the observer. I can see a link to Kant in terms of "things-for-us" and "things-in-themselves" . One interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the act of observation creates a 'now' in terms of time. Before the act of observation the 'background' consists of probability waves just waiting for someone to make a judgement in terms of observation. In Kantian terms I guess we could say that the probability wave collapses into a "thing-for-us".

[SpheresOfBalance]

I see that time is a man made construct and is nothing more than a method to organize a sequence of events/movement, such that we may refer to the sequence. "Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --Wikipedia--

I like it , I suppose for me the thing is time represents existence ,
for anything to exist , it exists in time for a time ,
so to say before the bb there was no time ,
to my mind your saying there was no universe , and they are trying to say exactly that ,
the "no space time" , according the version of the bb I was taught ,
the bang created space and time ,,?
and yet as SOB has just pointed out time is a man made concept ,
man didn't exist back then , so there was no time,???
or aren't we actually saying ,
nobody was there to measure it , but clearly some time occurred ,
so if we want to contemplate before the bang ,
there is a real reference we can use to try and calculate things ,
the movement of the planets and stars , the cycles , we can determine the length of the cycle ,
then we look at how long it would take to form a black hole the size of the one they think went bang ,
I think bangs happen on a galactic scale and not a universal one,
so to me the whole bb debate ,
is just about as real as religion or alien abductions.[/quote]


I think we can gain some foot holds out of the discussion in terms of time and space.All be it a loose one. Kant views time and space as categories of understanding. In other words, time and space are the glasses we are forced to wear whenever we make an observational judgement. However, Kant is not saying that without the observer nothing exists. For Kant there are, "things-for-us" ( as the observers) and "things-in-themselves" ( 'reality' when there is no observer). As far as Kant is concerned we can never know anything about "things-in-themselves"

Interestingly enough, quantum mechanics has entered the debate in terms of time and space and the role of the observer. I can see a link to Kant in terms of "things-for-us" and "things-in-themselves" . One interpretation of quantum mechanics is that the act of observation creates a 'now' in terms of time. Before the act of observation the 'background' consists of probability waves just waiting for someone to make a judgement in terms of observation. In Kantian terms I guess we could say that the probability wave collapses into a "thing-for-us".[/quote]

As Kant put it:

"Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience. With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events." --Wikipedia--

Of course this thought process kills the idea of time travel, which, to me, has always seemed suspect. And is why I say that time does not actually exist, that it is a figment of mans imagination, so that he can make sense of the sequence of things dealing with movement and changes due to chemical interaction.

[Godfree]

"Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori intuition that allows us (together with the other a priori intuition, space) to comprehend sense experience. With Kant, neither space nor time are conceived as substances, but rather both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject. Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows," that objects "move through," or that is a "container" for events. Spatial measurements are used to quantify the extent of and distances between objects, and temporal measurements are used to quantify the durations of and between events." --Wikipedia--

Of course this thought process kills the idea of time travel, which, to me, has always seemed suspect. And is why I say that time does not actually exist, that it is a figment of mans imagination, so that he can make sense of the sequence of things dealing with movement and changes due to chemical interaction.[/quote]

Well that does sound like Kant decided as I have that time marches on regardless of who or what are here there or wherever to observe count or in any way measure time .
and so space and the existence of space are the same ,
it's always there wether we are there to realize it or not,
to contemplate any other model ,
you would have to work out a logical definition of "No universe"
and I don't believe such a thing exists .

[tillingborn]

Well that does sound like Kant decided as I have that time marches on regardless of who or what are here there or wherever to observe count or in any way measure time .
and so space and the existence of space are the same ,
it's always there wether we are there to realize it or not,

Well, Kant thought you could prove both the thesis, that space and time had a beginning, and the antithesis, that space and time are eternal. As the wikipedia extract supplied by SpheresOfBalance shows, Kant got round this 'antinomy' by saying something more like this:

... time does not actually exist, that it is a figment of mans imagination, so that he can make sense of the sequence of things dealing with movement and changes due to chemical interaction.

Gingko has mentioned the distinction between phenomena and noumena. Western philosophy in Kant's time was split between rationalists and empiricists. Descartes had pointed out that the one thing he couldn't deny is that he was having sensations, I think, therefore I am. The empiricists countered with the claim that Descartes was wrong:the only thing that is not in any doubt is that there is thinking. However nit-picky, bonkers even, it doesn't follow logically from 'There are thoughts' to 'There is a thinker'. In Kantian terms, thoughts are phenomena, the 'you' is an extrapolated noumena, you cannot know you, without thinking about you.
No one in their right mind seriously doubts that they exist in some form and most people assume that there is some reality behind all these sensations; that there is a real universe, with real things in it. Empiricists had divided the properties things have into primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the sorts of things that objects have regardless of anyone encountering them, size, shape, weight; secondary qualities are the things we perceive, colour, smell, texture, taste, sound. It is only because objects have secondary qualities, ie we can see, feel, hear, smell or taste them that we can infer that they have primary qualities.
Anyway; time and space. It seems to me that Kant and the empiricists were right; we can see that there are things in the universe, we can see them moving and changing, we can see that some things are closer than others. What we cannot see is raw space and time and as I said, unless someone can show me a bucket full of time and space, I see no reason to believe they exist independently of objects and events.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What we cannot see is raw space and time...

Because there is no such thing, it only exists, in any way, as an "abstract conceptual framework," "a systematic mental framework" "so as to sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects." In other words, before man, time did not exist, as it only exists in his mind. It is something man made up, so as to cope with the truth of the universe. Man could find no other way to reference sequence, than to create a yardstick. What is a yard, a foot (mans foot), a fathom, an inch, an hour, a year, etc? They are all arbitrary man made constructs, so he can quantify, and that is all. And this then, is why he cannot conceptualize true infinity.

Sit back in silence, close your eyes, take a deep breath, and wrap your head around space as infinite. It will give you a headache. Now try and conceptualize it ending, same headache. I'm saying, actually see it in your mind. You can't, and that is why man created all the BS of time, space, dimension, etc, because his head hurt, in trying to see the truth of the universe.

Now imagine, if you will, a 4 dimensional Tesseract.

"...neither space nor time are conceived as substances, both are elements of a systematic mental framework that necessarily structures the experiences of any rational agent, or observing subject." "Kant thought of time as a fundamental part of an abstract conceptual framework, together with space and number, within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and compare the motions of objects."

Time is only in man's head!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I created this silly little thought experiment in another thread, some time ago to show there is no time.

Time does not exist and I can prove it.

OK, you're in a spaceship that has traveled for billions of light years. Before leaving, your kind had found the secrets to immortality. As far as you can tell, you've been traveling in one direction, but you're not sure, because the universe has expanded to such an extent that you can find no matter, no stars, planets, asteroids or anything else, there is just you and open space. Suddenly all electrical power dies, you're propulsion-less, all your historical data is gone because the computers, your only record keeping medium, if off line, you are extremely thankful that life support utilizes a new technology that requires no electricity, for just such a case. You drift, due to inertia, for what seems like another billion light years, of course you have no idea, because all your 'time' keeping devices need electricity to function. You have all but given up hope, when a space ship shows up, you're saved! The aliens board your ship, which is unfortunately unrepairable, as their systems are not even remotely similar, they are more or less organic, much like your life support systems. After what seemed like forever, you break the communication barrier. Fortunately they offer to take to you home, but first they want you to tell them, so they'll understand, from where and when you are from. Tell me now, so I can take you back home, from where and when are you from? Give me the 4 dimensional coordinates. Where and when are you?

Do we actually measure time itself, or do we merely construct and observe electro-mechanical/chemical devices that relatively move within a frame of reference? How can relative movement indicate time and not just a sequence of movement, with it's periodicity dictated by it's mechanics and chemistry (physical properties) that can be manipulated with certain forces, ie. gravity/electromagnetic energy, etc.

I feel that one thing is certain, as Immanuel Kant put it: 'time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be traveled.'

But I'm not done. You are in the universe as I described above, meeting the aliens and such but in this scenario they are very advanced and you never bridge the communication gap, instead they don't understand you at all, without warning they shoot you with their expansion ray such that you instantly increase in size on the order of a billion googolplex's until you out grow the universe and pass through its boundaries much like osmosis through a permeable membrane. You find yourself standing there in a new reality with the universe from which you came, in the palm of your hand, looking much like a bead of water. From this perspective how far did you travel and how much time elapsed from the moment you left earth, until now? If you met some other aliens in this new universe, and you wanted to show them by sticking a needle in the universe (droplet of water) in your hand, pointing out where you originated and where you ended up, prior to being expanded, how much time would it take as compared to the actual journey you had taken? Come on, tell and show me how much time had elapsed.

Time is just a figment of mans imagination, used to organize sequential events in relative movement.

To me this shows that contemplating relativity is much like that of infinity, that for most it's far to mind boggling, to even consider. Especially in the past, so we created things, that are only in our minds, so we could cope. But today it's just a matter of the status quo of maintaining the foundation of historical acceptance, (Human legacy construct) of actually false data, so as to continue, for the most part, ones quest for power via the glittering prize, like the monkeys that many are, happy to continue mimicking, as their eyes sparkle. The fear of radical change, whether it's truthful or not, as it would probably undermine their ability to control/dictate via perceived power.

[Godfree]

cannot see is raw space and time and as I said, unless someone can show me a bucket full of time and space, I see no reason to believe they exist independently of objects and events.[/quote]

Ok lets imagine there is a area in space , with a few galaxies in it ,
but because they are near other large galaxies , they are soon out of the space the were in ,
they have clumped with the other galaxies ,
so are the voids non existent , there is no matter in them ,
and lets say for the purpose of this argument , no Hydrogen molecules etc either,
surely space is an address , we might need references as to what the address is ,
or where , by it's nearby existing things , but there can be no objects or events ,
in the void , and yet we can know it as a place ,
so then begs the question ,
how many existing things do we need to acknowledge the non existent things ,
or in other words if time and space need things and events to become real ,
does one little real event then become a real reference for all the other non real events or places ,,????

[tillingborn]

Ok lets imagine there is a area in space , with a few galaxies in it ,
but because they are near other large galaxies , they are soon out of the space the were in ,
they have clumped with the other galaxies ,
so are the voids non existent , there is no matter in them ,

What I would ask is if I had a bucketful of this space, what have I got in the bucket? If I move the bucket, is there now a hole in space where my bucketful used to be? I really don't know the answer, but Parmenides struggled with the same problem and came up with some really bizarre conclusions from the premise that nothing doesn't exist.

[Godfree]

Ok lets imagine there is a area in space , with a few galaxies in it ,
but because they are near other large galaxies , they are soon out of the space the were in ,
they have clumped with the other galaxies ,
so are the voids non existent , there is no matter in them ,

What I would ask is if I had a bucketful of this space, what have I got in the bucket? If I move the bucket, is there now a hole in space where my bucketful used to be? I really don't know the answer, but Parmenides struggled with the same problem and came up with some really bizarre conclusions from the premise that nothing doesn't exist.

Ok , if you remove your bucket , apart from the bucket of space ,
what have you removed? , does that physical address still exist ,ie , the bucket of space I took from"over there"
and in answer to what have you got in your bucket ,?
a tiny bit of infinity , and that is relevant ,
because to remove anything from anywhere , is just rearranging ,
although there is not much in space its still a bit like air or water ,
so your under water and you want to remove a bucket of water,?
well your going to have to get out of the water ,
so if you want to remove a bucket of infinity ,
you might have to get out of infinity ,,???
phase in the Twilight music...

[attofishpi]

I heard an interview with physicist Brian Cox recently where he stated that if you took a metre cube of empty space, that there is enough energy within that cube to power the Sun for a thousand years...wish i had been on the phone to him to probe him further re that!

[tillingborn]

Ok , if you remove your bucket , apart from the bucket of space ,
what have you removed? , does that physical address still exist ,ie , the bucket of space I took from"over there"

I would argue that the address is just a series of coordinates, x, y and z; left a bit, up a bit, back a bit or something of that nature, from an agreed object. You can find something perfectly well using x, y and z from a given point, where you are now, for example, but that is directions, rather than address. If you believe that space is something, as you say, like air or water, I can't help thinking that if you send a letter to that address, it should end up in the bucket, wherever it may be.

and in answer to what have you got in your bucket ,?
a tiny bit of infinity , and that is relevant ,
because to remove anything from anywhere , is just rearranging ,
although there is not much in space its still a bit like air or water ,
so your under water and you want to remove a bucket of water,?
well your going to have to get out of the water ,
so if you want to remove a bucket of infinity ,
you might have to get out of infinity ,,???
phase in the Twilight music...

Which is precisely Parmenides' point; if space is some substance, you can't take a lump of it and move it around; you can only move something into nothing, but since on that interpretation of space, nothing doesn't exist, no thing can move. Apparently Parmenides was so convinced of the logic that he believed that all appearance of movement and change must be illusory. Leucippus and Democritus insisted, with good reason, that change was real and that therefore, nothing, void, must exist and that reality is made of void and tiny bits of matter which are uncuttable, atomos in ancient Greek. Oddly enough, modern atomic theory is partially in agreement with Parmenides in that particles are 'waves' in a quantum field. what isnot clearis whether this quantum field is infinite and timeless, as you believe the universe to be, or it is something that popped into existence and went nuts as the Big Bang.

[tillingborn]

I heard an interview with physicist Brian Cox recently where he stated that if you took a metre cube of empty space, that there is enough energy within that cube to power the Sun for a thousand years...wish i had been on the phone to him to probe him further re that!

I think that is probably true. Assuming there is a quantum field, if it is infinite and eternal, it does seem that it is boiling away and that matter is constantly popping into and out of existence. Since it appears that the, Big Bang originated in a space much smaller than a cubic metre, Professor Cox may have underestimated. On the other hand, if quantum field came into being at the Big Bang, it is presumably made of big bang stuff, the one quality of which we know is that it grows. Either way, there is plenty of 'energy' there.