"Phase Change" hypothesis

[JaiMaaDurga]

Namaste,

Here is a story describing an alternate framework for the origins
of the universe; I could not help but think "This 'formlessness into form'
is not exactly a new concept for some of us!"

JAI MATA DI

[wundermonk]

Hi JMD,

I think on questions of cosmogony, even scientists should be very careful about how they word their hypotheses and what inferences they wish to draw from these.

For eg., from the article,

the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time,

The above seems to indicate that space and time were obtained as the effects of a formless liquid-water-like universe cooled. But, from a philosophical POV, this is immediately problematic. For, what does it mean to say that something is the cause of time? If A causes B, then A necessarily has to temporally precede B (unless we are talking of logical/ontological/material causes in which case both cause and effect are coeval). Thus, B can never represent time (or space).

The universe is currently about 13.7 billion years old.

Perhaps what is meant here is that the Big Bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago (bya). I do not think the physicists are claiming that time 13.8 or 14 bya refers to a non-existent time/universe. So, it can be highly misleading to claim that the universe came into existence 13.7 bya.

If the universe came into existence 13.7 bya and there was absolutely nothing preceding that time, it would imply that the universe is essentially uncaused. But then ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing).

[Twilightdance]

scientists should be very careful about how they word their hypotheses and what inferences they wish to draw from these.

I suggest you should be careful in trying to comment with lame logic regarding science or scientific topics, be it phase theory or incompleteness theorems. Best is to avoid talking about things which one does not understand.

[wundermonk]

I suggest you should be careful in trying to comment with lame logic regarding science or scientific topics, be it phase theory or incompleteness theorems. Best is to avoid talking about things which one does not understand.

Dear sm78,

I appreciate your polite and thoughtful reply.

I must admit that my mind goes for a complete toss when scientists claim that the universe "began to exist" 13.7 bya or that time began 13.7 bya. I must state that not all scientists claim so. There does not seem to be any sort of consensus regarding the universe "beginning to exist". Even amongst scientists there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding this so I guess I am in elite company.

You, being the most scientifically knowledgeable person on HDF, may perhaps help clear the cobwebs of confusion in my mind regarding this.

Thank you and looking forward to an equally if not more polite and thoughtful reply from you than your earlier post.

Regards.

[Twilightdance]

Time is a "concept" humans created to measure a parameter of the universe. It is widely almost universally believed not to be real. Our mental conception of time is our own creations and mostly learned since birth. If you can contemplate a little, this should be no mystery. There is a small group of scientist who believe time may be more substantial, but that is besides the point.

When scientists are talking about beginning of time, they are referring to the beginning of universe and the measurement of the parameter called time. There is no contradiction except linguistic for which you can refer to use another name like "parameter called time" or "scientific time" to avoid confusing with the notion of time you have in your head.

In short your problem with time is completely your own creation with the notion you have attached to the word time.


My scientific knowledge is besides the point, since it does not require science to point out the stupidity of someone mixing notions they have in their head about a word and scientific theories.

Scientist may have various theories of time, but no one among them seem to be slightest bit bothered about the precarious fallacy which seem to have destroyed your good nights sleep. That itself should give you the hint that may be you have a basic problem at understanding. In such circumstances it is better to keep quiet than go on binge to display your amazing grasp with logic [or mathematical logic is it?].

[wundermonk]

Time is a "concept" humans created to measure a parameter of the universe.

Straight off the bat, the above is devoid of meaning. Is time a human conception OR is it a parameter of the universe? Humans with minds to create concepts seem to have evolved a few million years ago only while the universe seems to have been existing for much longer than that. So, which is it? How can humans who evolved only a few million years ago talk of an event that seems to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago when no humans existed, if time were not an ontological real?

It is widely almost universally believed not to be real.

Please provide evidence to back this.

Our mental conception of time is our own creations and mostly learned since birth.

What mind/consciousness was there 13.7 billion years ago for us to be able to talk of an event that occurred that far back in time?

There is a small group of scientist who believe time may be more substantial, but that is besides the point.

Why is this besides the point? I would love to know what the reasons are due to which they believe "time may be more substantial".

When scientists are talking about beginning of time, they are referring to the beginning of universe and the measurement of the parameter called time.

Sorry. The term "beginning of time" is meaningless unless you can clearly explain how time can begin. Even if the term refers to "beginning of (the) universe", how can we know that something (including the universe) can begin unless there was a point in time when the universe did not exist followed temporally by another point in time when the universe did exist?

There is no contradiction except linguistic for which you can refer to use another name like "parameter called time" or "scientific time" to avoid confusing with the notion of time you have in your head. In short your problem with time is completely your own creation with the notion you have attached to the word time.

Words have meanings and terms like "beginning of time" have no correspondence to the real/outside world (assuming that exists). So, yes, there is a blatant linguistic contradiction in claiming "time began to exist". Since words and linguistic usage derives and is causally dependent on the outside world (assuming the outside world exists), the contradiction easily gets transferred to the outside world.

Perhaps you can avoid using terms like "begin", "then", "prior", "before", "after", etc. which presuppose the existence of time and clearly explain what is meant by saying "time began to exist"?

My scientific knowledge is besides the point, since it does not require science to point out the stupidity of someone mixing notions they have in their head about a word and scientific theories.

Well, the little bit of hardcore science I did was many years back and I seem to recollect constantly trying to do stuff like "differentiate displacement with respect to time", "integrate the change over time". Since time was not expressed in more fundamental terms and was referred to in terms of a symbol, t, I took it to mean that scientists believe time is an ontological real. Was I wrong? Are scientists solipsists, as you seem to suggest they are?

Scientist may have various theories of time

How come?

but no one among them seem to be slightest bit bothered about the precarious fallacy which seem to have destroyed your good nights sleep.

Is it okay to say "I slept for 7 hours last night"? If time is a mental construct, and my mind was non-functional in sleep, I wonder which mind was active to measure the 7 hours time that passed.

That itself should give you the hint that may be you have a basic problem at understanding. In such circumstances it is better to keep quiet than go on binge to display your amazing grasp with logic [or mathematical logic is it?].

(1)This is a discussion board.

(2)I sure do hope that you are not in the teaching business. If my teacher told me something like this, I would screw her happiness in my feedback of her at the end of the term.

[Twilightdance]

Ok, have it your way and revel in the logical inconsistencies of science, which only you seem to be aware of. I can suggest to you also to bring your temporal fallacies to a respected science journal. Who knows you may rock the boat of physics with this incredible fallacy, or may be shown the door after a post or two.

[wundermonk]

Ok, have it your way and revel in the logical inconsistencies of science

If this is what you think my point has been in this thread, you have not even the faintest idea what my actual position is and what my arguments for that position are.

[Twilightdance]

If this is what you think my point has been in this thread, you have not even the faintest idea what my actual position is and what my arguments for that position are.

Agreed, but I am unable or don't have enough patience to articulate carefully in a long winded discussion of something which appears very trivial. I did a careful Google search and nowhere your fallacy was of any concern to anybody.

As I said, it is purely a linguistic issue. Physics don't use natural language to arrive at conclusions, maths has long replaced that. Physics theories are based on rigorous maths without any fallacy. That natural language, which is strongly embedded human psychology and intuition, is proving to be confusing [not a fallacy, just a bit confusing] to explain a physical theory is of no concern to anybody. Many phenomena are not intuitive to how we think and speak - "counter intuition" is spread all over maths and science.

[wundermonk]

Agreed, but I am unable or don't have enough patience to articulate carefully in a long winded discussion of something which appears very trivial.

Well, that defeats to some extent the purpose of having a message board at all. If everybody were to dismiss arguments because they "appear very trivial", discourse cannot move forward at all.

I did a careful Google search and nowhere your fallacy was of any concern to anybody.

Would you like to express in your own words what you think is "my fallacy" and why it is of no concern to anybody? What google search keywords did you use that you can share with us?

As I said, it is purely a linguistic issue. Physics don't use natural language to arrive at conclusions, maths has long replaced that.

Then, I have no clue how the physicists ended up converting the math into linguistic sentences like the following from the OP article:

the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time,

(especially, if as you claim that it is universally acknowledged that time is a mental construct, what do the emphasized terms in the quote above even mean?)

or

The universe is currently about 13.7 billion years old.

Does the above mean that 14 billion years prior to today, the universe did not exist?