"The Problem of The Now"

Faith & Science Conversation
102

Of course there can’t be precisely an infinite number of universes since that isn’t an actual number. Regardless, from our POV, it is an indeterminant number and quite possibly in flux. We should pursue empirical questions that are in our weight class.

103

Thank you Mark for stating the obvious. There cannot be an infinite number of present objects or… an infinite number of past events.

Check out this quote by Russell:

“It is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely. In the third place, we wish to define “number” in such a way that infinite numbers may be possible; thus we must be able to speak of the number of terms in an infinite collection, and such a collection must be defined by intension, i.e. by a property common to all its members and peculiar to them.”

Betrand Russell, ‘Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy’

1 Like
104

I carry the rank of captain in that regard.

1 Like
105

And is it not true the cause of the universe is to be found in us or outside of us?

Kant said something along that line, and I’m probably butchering the context:

“We are completely ignorant whether it is to be met within us or outside us.”

106

If I understood him correctly, he is also saying both that the “universe” is eternal and that it is created.

107

It’s quickly becoming a choice between classical theism and something that is dangerously, ever so close to solipsism.

1 Like
108

I don’t even know if the universe did or could have had a cause. Some speculation is so far out on thin ice as not to warrant an opinion.

I’ve always imagined that what supports God belief is as much a part of the unfolding of the cosmos as everything else, only earlier to emerge with a role to play in our own emergence. What possible difference could it make from our point of view?

1 Like
109

Ha! If that’s actually what I said, then clearly, I said what I wanted to say wrong. However, if that’s actually what you think I said, you misunderstood me.

  • I think I’ve mentioned, to you or to someone, or maybe I was just talking to myself, that one of the biggest challenges in trying to talk some things through is coming to an agreement on taxonomy. If you want to say cosmos = universe = world, fine, I can live with that However, In that case, I can only handle one: one cosmos/one universe/one world. Anything smaller is a subset of “The One”; and, IMO, there are subsets of subsets and subsets of subsets of subsets, all the way down to indivisible things that have mass and move through “The One”.
    • AND, because we’ve agreed–if, indeed, we do agree–that “the One Cosmos”, “the One Universe”, “the One World” are synonyms, I am not saying that an infinite number of universes exist NOR would I be silly enough to suggest that there’s a possibility for there to be an infinite number of them.
  • On the other hand, if you’re willing, I prefer: One cosmos, and a subset of many universes in the one cosmos, and subsets of many things in each of the universes.
  • Your call, if you want to make it. If you don’t, then I call the latter option: One cosmos and, potentially (i.e. possibly), an infinite number of universes. Why infinite? Because my Absolute Space is really, REALLY, R-E-A-L-L-Y big and can hold an infinite number of universes, but it’s only big enough to hold one cosmos.
1 Like
110

Maybe this will help cut through the misunderstanding:

Are quantifiable objects relative?

111

As far as what logic requires and what the objective evidence supports I certainly agree with you. But when you factor in what this God belief is supposed to accomplish and what positive roles it can play in human life, then the role God plays in the origin of the universe and ourselves does make a difference.

On the other side of this, it has recently been claimed by some that our ultimate destiny and nature of our existence after death is irrelevant also. But again it depends on what this God belief is supposed to accomplish. Long term planning and living life in the context of long term objectives is a very important part of our humanity. And thus both origins and destiny has a profound impact on how we live our lives and the value we see in it. This is not to say these are the same for everyone to be sure. It is quite true that while theists see more meaning in a life which is in the context of a continuation, atheists often see more meaning in a life which has an end.

112

@heymike3

Whose misunderstanding? yours or mine?
Because if it’s mine, your question doesn’t cut through it. If it’s yours, then you’re asking the wrong person.

113

Some people who talk about the One would question the objective reality of other things. I’m just not sure if you are that kind of thinker, and sometimes I suspect people don’t understand what it is they are really describing.

114

I certainly ain’t one of them kind of guys. In fact, I think, quite the opposite. For example: I can say, and have said, that I am confident that I live, move, and have my existence on an objectively real planet, and I am absolutely, 100% certain of at least two things: that (a) my wife and (b) my dog, both of whom are laying down near me, are my wife and my dog and not yours or anybody else’s nor are they figments of my imagination. Moreover, I am not so egocentric that I believe the world around me will cease to exist when I die.

As for many of the things that I have mentioned in private messages to you and in this thread, my understanding could always be honed to become sharper, but currently I’m of the opinion that my understanding is sufficient here and now.

115

That’s really great to read!

So I’ll take that as a no regarding the relativity of quantity.

As far as the private messages, besides the wall of text that I didn’t bother to read, I felt like the conversation was left hanging on whether a person (as in a disembodied observer, if I wasn’t clear about it) can measure a purely empty space.

1 Like
116

What a relief! I don’t have to apologize. :rofl:

2 Likes
117

A brief comment: IMO, neither claim is unfalsifiable nor provable, empirically, i.e. by experiment. That does not, however, preclude my ability to reject both claims.

1 Like
118

So is it with married bachelors.

119
  • In my OP, I introduced “the problem of The Now” briefly.
    • Note that Einstein was the first, on record, to raise it. Then he discussed it with Rudolf Carnap, according to Carnap’s 1963 account. Fifty years later, the theoretical physicist, Lee Smolin, recapituated and restated the problem, once in his book, “Time Reborn”, and again in a public lecture, Lee Smolin Public Lecture: Time Reborn.
    • Key point: I didn’t cause or create, nor was I the first to identify “the problem”.
  • In my second post in this thread, I described what I believe is “the source” of ‘the problem’ and I proposed a solution to ‘the problem’: restoration of three Absolutes: Space, Time, and Simultaneity.
  • Subsequently @MarkD responded, in Post #3,

and

  • My response, in my Post #4, to Mark’s first comment quoted above was: “My impression from Smolin’s comments (in his book and his Public Lecture) is that the lack of a athematical/physics model bothered Einstein (and Carnap ?), and now bothers Smolin enough to bring it up in writing and lecture. While the rest of us get by well enough without a model.”
  • My response to Mark’s question, quoted above, was terse, tongue-in-cheek, non-informative, and potentially appearing flippant or dismissive. Perhaps I should have said: “I’ll try to show you.”
  • Then, eventually, in my Post #21, I presented a brief essay by a now-deceased acquaintance
    which discusses the concepts of Discreteness and Continuity.
  • Continuing from there, I now offer a standard mathematical definition of a metric space.
    • Let X = {x, y, z} and let d be the distance function or metric on X . If
      • d is a non-negative real number;
      • d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y;
      • d(x,y) = d(y,x); and
      • d(x,y) ≤ d(x,z) + d(y,z)
    • then (X, d) is a metric space.
    • If Y ⸦ X and the metric on Y is d̃ , then ( Y,d̃ ) is a metric subspace .
2 Likes
120
  • Next Step: Assume Absolute Space and Absolute Time are each metric spaces.
    • Absolute Space or simply, Space, is a set. “The elements of Space are points. The points are some distance each from each. Each such distance may be specified as the product of a nonnegative real number and a unit of distance, such as 3 miles or 4,828.032 meters.
      • Space is not a physical substance and cannot be stretched or compressed, nor does it expand or contract. Physical substances that can be stretched or compressed are not continua and owe their mutability to the fact that they are not continua.
      • It makes no sense to say of something that it has changed either its size or its shape unless there is some standard all parts of which retain forever the same size and shape with respect to which standard the size and shape of anything else is defined. This something is Space, so it makes no sense to say of Space or of any part of Space that it changes its size or shape.”
    • Absolute Time or simply, Time, is a set. “The elements of Time are instants. [‘Instant’, in this context, is just the generic name for the elements of time. Thus time is the set of all instants.] The instants are some distance each from each. Each such distance may be specified as the product of a nonnegative real number and a unit of distance, such as .03 days or 2,592 seconds.”
    • Time is not a physical substance and cannot be stretched or compressed, nor does it flow.
1 Like
121

That presumes “space” is eternal, doesn’t it?
 

How about the Minkowski spacetime fabric?