Imaginary Time

[WinePusher]

Stephen Hawking coined this term in "A Brief History Of Time" and I am no expert on this, I know only what I've read from his exerpts.

Establishing the fact the Hawking believes a singuarlity occured, and space and time began to exist as well, he creates the notion of imaginary time to provide a possible explanation. He argues that imaginary time runs perpendicular to actual time, and any singularity is only a singularity in actual time, not imaginary.

Now, somebody looking at the word "imaginary time" would probably write it off as bogus, for they see the word "imaginary." Is imaginary time a legitamate proposal, or is it all in Hawkings Imagination.

[Grumpy]

winepusher

Learn some real physics, ok?


Ahh......Of course because we differ on opinion I must be wrong because the physics I have learned is not real. This may be the so called "toxic rhetoric" we have heard so much about from some forum members. But because a non-theist engages in it, no condemnation will be seen.

No, toxic rhetoric would be...

It's certainly an intriguing topic, but IMO, it shows the extreme lengths scientists of the atheist persuasion will go to in order to avoid any type of theistic explanation or implication.

If you read my post, you will see I said IMO. That means IN MY OPINION. Not in my FACT, I never claimed to be stating a fact so you are raising a false topic.

Do you labor under the false impression that it makes any difference whatsoever that you proclaim your slander to be merely opinion?

And, again, because my opinion differs from yours it must also be Slander?

Slander is claiming that scientists will go to great lengths and lie in order to discredit your belief. They will not. If that is your OPINION, fine, you're welcome to it. But to then publicly state such falsehoods is slander, repeating it over and over is propaganda(as well as slander), and organized slander is often all religion seems to be for some. It is not being respectful to always impugn the character of your opponents, in this thread or in any others.

It is possible to debate someone on the merits of their opinions without using such incivility and condescention.

Before trying to remove the splinter from others eyes....

You seem to think that this only applies to those who disagree with you, you don't seem to practice it yourself. Saying everything non-theists do is because we are in cahoots with the devil, or oppose your religion is just not true. YOUR religion and beliefs aren't even that important to other theists, much less those who reject the existence of your whole pantheon and world view. No one is motivated to do anything by your beliefs except you(and those who agree with you). If your beliefs are contradicted by the facts it is not the fault of those who developed and discovered those facts(scientists), and those people have no reason to lie.

Grumpy

[WinePusher]

winepusher

Learn some real physics, ok?


Ahh......Of course because we differ on opinion I must be wrong because the physics I have learned is not real. This may be the so called "toxic rhetoric" we have heard so much about from some forum members. But because a non-theist engages in it, no condemnation will be seen.

No, toxic rhetoric would be...

Calling the opposing view point slander and saying LEARN SOME REAL PHYSICS to suggest that the opposing view point is un-educated.

It's certainly an intriguing topic, but IMO, it shows the extreme lengths scientists of the atheist persuasion will go to in order to avoid any type of theistic explanation or implication.

So you're saying my opinion is toxic. What gives you the capability to decide what is and isn't toxic. Notice, no where did I name call, or mock, or imply any un-civility. I gave me Honest Opinion on the matter, and since you disagree, it is therefore slander and toxic. Notice what you said, LEARN SOME REAL PHYSICS. Are you insinuating that I am un-educated by making such a comment, is that not toxic?

If you read my post, you will see I said IMO. That means IN MY OPINION. Not in my FACT, I never claimed to be stating a fact so you are raising a false topic.

So here is what you have so cleverly and dis-honestly done. You declared my prior post to be "simply slander, not fact." I respond by saying that I never declared my statement to be fact. You then respond by listing my response under "toxic rhetoric."

Do you labor under the false impression that it makes any difference whatsoever that you proclaim your slander to be merely opinion?

Did you not write this: "So your statement is simply slander, not fact."
I never claimed that statement to be fact, as you suggest, if that was a mis-error on your part please retract it. Also, if you read my post you will see I said scientists of the atheist persuasion. There are those christian scientists blinded by dogma and faith into rejecting evolution in the institutions you mentioned, AiG and so on. Do you not think those self declared atheist scientists, Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins could be blinded by that same level of dogmatisim?

Slander is claiming that scientists will go to great lengths and lie in order to discredit your belief. They will not. If that is your OPINION, fine, you're welcome to it. But to then publicly state such falsehoods is slander, repeating it over and over is propaganda(as well as slander), and organized slander is often all religion seems to be for some. It is not being respectful to always impugn the character of your opponents, in this thread or in any others.

Since you take issue with my statement, I will retract it. But keep in mind you are bound by that same standard you set. You've declared my opinion as a "falsehood" "slander" "propaganda" "organized slander." I would like to know how my opinion is a falsehood.......

You seem to think that this only applies to those who disagree with you, you don't seem to practice it yourself. Saying everything non-theists do is because we are in cahoots with the devil, or oppose your religion is just not true.

Please provide direct quotes where I say such things. If you cannot, please admitt you have mis-construted my actual quote.

YOUR religion and beliefs aren't even that important to other theists, much less those who reject the existence of your whole pantheon and world view. No one is motivated to do anything by your beliefs except you(and those who agree with you). If your beliefs are contradicted by the facts it is not the fault of those who developed and discovered those facts(scientists), and those people have no reason to lie.

Who are you responding to? I didn't raise any of these topics. Which of my beliefs have been contradicted by the facts?

[LiamOS]

If those involved would wish to stop putting each other, and others, down, this thread might get somewhere.

[WinePusher]

Without meaning to sound rude, on what basis do you have an opinion?

We have the fact of a fine tuned universe (would you agree?). Thus an explanation is required. If we saw a nicely arranged boquet of flowers, or complex sand castles built on a beach, I would immeditaly assume design (I cannot speak for you or what you would assume). Design by a designer would be an adequate explanation for the seen complexity and order. Thus, when a theist sees a universe finely tuned for life, design would seem to be an adequate explanation. However, intelligent design brings up many theistic implications, so those atheists (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier) when faced with this argument invoke the possibility of a multiverse. IMO, this is equivalent to a person who sees a line of complex sand castles and immediatly rules out design because of their personal beliefs, and they seek alternative explanations, (perhaps the waves along with the wind and erosion over a span of millions of years formed the sand castles.) My opinion is formed because it seems they reject the most obvious explanation of intelligent design due to their dogmatic beliefs, and have to create many invisible universes to get around the obvious explanation of intelligent design. As I said, the creationist scientists are also blinded due to their fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of scripture. But anyways, thats how I have formed my opinion.

Do you have a background in physics? Have you studied space and time and the mathematical models used to describe them by scientists, understanding why they used the models they use?

Two secondary level conceptual physics classes and one higher level physics class (as well as some very minor independent reading.) I'm no Ph.D or even a B.S on the subject, and plan to do no further course work on it, as it is not my primary interest. I have studied space and time in was presented in the textbooks I had to read and study.

Do you have data from your own experiments that countermands their data or shows it to be incomplete? For what reason is your opinion different then their opinion?

You speak as if the entire community of physicists are in agreement. On the subject of the fine tuned universe, no definite explanation has been provided and there is only speculation. Some scientists and philosophers look to intelligent design, others do not, I form my opinion on this subject based off of the debates and readings I have been exposed to on both sides of the aisle. I believe that design is the best current explanation, so my opinion is different from those scientists who dis-agree. If there is empirical evidence proving the existence of other universes, I will not remain stuck in my ideological opinion.

Now, I am not a total novice in physics, I understand many of the principles and not quite as many of the formulae used in their study. With that said, I haven't even a sliver of a shadow of the total sum knowledge necessary to form an independent opinion, let alone an independent opinion that runs counter to everything the greatest minds in the field hold to be true.

You are again insinuating that the entire community of physicists are in agreement. Now, I never claimed to have an independent opinion that runs "counter to everything the greatest minds in the field hold to be true" (which seems a little misleading to say.) My opinion was not about any substantive scientific issue, but about those scientists who are delcared non believers/atheists. Just as the fundamentalist christian scientists allows literal biblical interpretation to blind their scientific mind, the dogmatic atheist is subject to this as well and I do not exclude them from this.

This holds true of concepts like spacetime or imaginary time, I simply lack the requisite knowledge and skillset to offer a meaningful evaluation of it, certainly not to the degree that I would accuse Stephen Hawking of Bad science or making stuff up.

Never accused Hawkings of bad science or making stuff up. I am accusing him of his already stated position. That the singularity, placed in the context of imaginary time, provides an adequate explanation for the universe's orgin other than a first un caused, cause.

So, as I consider myself wholly unqualified to even attempt to run the mathematical models and applied knowledge necessary to offer an opinion and I daresay I have greater understanding in the field than yourself (though by no means would I claim to be the best here), on what basis do you have an opinion on the topic?

I have listed the process by which my opinions are formulated above. They are not independently formed, as I am not expert, but are based off of minor readings by scientists such as quentin smith and Lee Smolin. I would assume your opinions concerning unsettled scientific problems runs counter to professional scientists, so I would ask you the same questions you ask me. And on what grounds are you able to determine that you have a greater understanding of this field rather than myself. I will grant it to you, as my interests lie more in language and literature, but I wouldn't claim to have a better understanding of the subject then you, as that would be considered condescention.

[LiamOS]

We have the fact of a fine tuned universe (would you agree?).

Please stop attempting to use this argument. It has been seen to innumerable times.
For this universe to be fine tuned, there must be a goal. Can you prove there is a goal for this universe?
Far as I can tell, we just live in the right kind of universe for this sort of thing to happen.

To your slightly altered watchmaker argument, you assume existence requires a designer, which is clearly self-contradictory.
Something has to break the chain of infinite regress, and why does it have to be something for which no proof can be found?

On the subject of the fine tuned universe, no definite explanation has been provided and there is only speculation.

On the subject of a fine tuned universe, no explanation is needed as it cannot be shown that this universe is fine tuned.
In the case of this universe, looking for a 'why' may even be redundant. Who knows?
Oh yeah, you, apparently.

I believe that design is the best current explanation

So because there's no concrete scientific theory, you're just happy to accept that something wanted this and made it so?
Because that's a pretty bad move, on its part.

If there is empirical evidence proving the existence of other universes, I will not remain stuck in my ideological opinion

I don't think that even string theorists ever expect there to be.
Quite simply, if string theory predicts every observable phenomenon, then we'd probably be left to take its other predictions quite seriously.
Would you have believed in the Neutrino or antimatter before they were proven?
They were implied mathematically at first.

That the singularity, placed in the context of imaginary time, provides an adequate explanation for the universe's orgin other than a first un caused, cause.

I'd like to think it more explanatory than the alternative you're offering.

If you could offer a hypothesis of a designed universe, outlining how to detect design(Don't try things like nature or the solar system, because not only are they examples of poor design, but have pretty solid naturalistic explanations), and subsequently what this means for Big Bang cosmology, I really would take your hypothesis seriously.

[Abraxas]

Without meaning to sound rude, on what basis do you have an opinion?

We have the fact of a fine tuned universe (would you agree?).

No.

Thus an explanation is required. If we saw a nicely arranged boquet of flowers, or complex sand castles built on a beach, I would immeditaly assume design (I cannot speak for you or what you would assume). Design by a designer would be an adequate explanation for the seen complexity and order. Thus, when a theist sees a universe finely tuned for life, design would seem to be an adequate explanation. However, intelligent design brings up many theistic implications, so those atheists (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier) when faced with this argument invoke the possibility of a multiverse. IMO, this is equivalent to a person who sees a line of complex sand castles and immediatly rules out design because of their personal beliefs, and they seek alternative explanations, (perhaps the waves along with the wind and erosion over a span of millions of years formed the sand castles.) My opinion is formed because it seems they reject the most obvious explanation of intelligent design due to their dogmatic beliefs, and have to create many invisible universes to get around the obvious explanation of intelligent design. As I said, the creationist scientists are also blinded due to their fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of scripture. But anyways, thats how I have formed my opinion.

Intelligent design is an independent topic. What was under discussion was the accuracy and methodology of science and scientists. You concluded their methods are wrong because you think the world appears to be designed. Is that not using your presupposed worldview for the conclusion of the search as the measuring post instead of seeking the evidence first and then drawing conclusions?

Further, what does any of this have to do with imaginary time? Why is imaginary time "great lengths"?

Do you have a background in physics? Have you studied space and time and the mathematical models used to describe them by scientists, understanding why they used the models they use?

Two secondary level conceptual physics classes and one higher level physics class (as well as some very minor independent reading.) I'm no Ph.D or even a B.S on the subject, and plan to do no further course work on it, as it is not my primary interest. I have studied space and time in was presented in the textbooks I had to read and study.

Which is much the problem. Imaginary time and a great many quantum mechanics principles are on the leading, bleeding edge of the most advanced mathematical and physical modeling we have. I sincerely doubt anyone here can sufficiently understand it, let alone compose an informed objection to it.

Do you have data from your own experiments that countermands their data or shows it to be incomplete? For what reason is your opinion different then their opinion?

You speak as if the entire community of physicists are in agreement. On the subject of the fine tuned universe, no definite explanation has been provided and there is only speculation. Some scientists and philosophers look to intelligent design, others do not, I form my opinion on this subject based off of the debates and readings I have been exposed to on both sides of the aisle. I believe that design is the best current explanation, so my opinion is different from those scientists who dis-agree. If there is empirical evidence proving the existence of other universes, I will not remain stuck in my ideological opinion.

I'm not talking about intelligent design, I'm talking about imaginary time. On that, imaginary time does not preclude a designer to begin with. Additionally, imaginary time is an accepted part of quantum mechanics, it is necessary to combine quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics.

Now, I am not a total novice in physics, I understand many of the principles and not quite as many of the formulae used in their study. With that said, I haven't even a sliver of a shadow of the total sum knowledge necessary to form an independent opinion, let alone an independent opinion that runs counter to everything the greatest minds in the field hold to be true.

You are again insinuating that the entire community of physicists are in agreement. Now, I never claimed to have an independent opinion that runs "counter to everything the greatest minds in the field hold to be true" (which seems a little misleading to say.) My opinion was not about any substantive scientific issue, but about those scientists who are delcared non believers/atheists. Just as the fundamentalist christian scientists allows literal biblical interpretation to blind their scientific mind, the dogmatic atheist is subject to this as well and I do not exclude them from this.

I was again specifically refering to your objections to imaginary time, which would indeed put you in disagreement with the leading minds in physics. Honestly, if we look at who supports what in the scientific community, so too would your stance on intelligent design.

This holds true of concepts like spacetime or imaginary time, I simply lack the requisite knowledge and skillset to offer a meaningful evaluation of it, certainly not to the degree that I would accuse Stephen Hawking of Bad science or making stuff up.

Never accused Hawkings of bad science or making stuff up. I am accusing him of his already stated position. That the singularity, placed in the context of imaginary time, provides an adequate explanation for the universe's orgin other than a first un caused, cause.

I don't believe he stated it was uncaused. He simply indicated that imaginary time provided an explanation for how a singularity could be disrupted. Nowever, nothing about that indicates the cause of the singularity or the the cause of the intersection.

So, as I consider myself wholly unqualified to even attempt to run the mathematical models and applied knowledge necessary to offer an opinion and I daresay I have greater understanding in the field than yourself (though by no means would I claim to be the best here), on what basis do you have an opinion on the topic?

I have listed the process by which my opinions are formulated above. They are not independently formed, as I am not expert, but are based off of minor readings by scientists such as quentin smith and Lee Smolin. I would assume your opinions concerning unsettled scientific problems runs counter to professional scientists, so I would ask you the same questions you ask me.

Firstly, most of your responses were not addressed to the topic I was speaking to, granted I was sufficiently vague in my post to cause that. Secondly, which opinions of mine run counter to professional scientists?

And on what grounds are you able to determine that you have a greater understanding of this field rather than myself. I will grant it to you, as my interests lie more in language and literature, but I wouldn't claim to have a better understanding of the subject then you, as that would be considered condescention.

Statements like "time, in the same way, exists only to describe the changes in sequence between events" shows a profound misunderstanding of relativity, as certain relativistic phenomena like Lorentz transformations or even mundane phenomena that require time as a real component of the equation demand time be a full dimension, not merely some arbitrary human marker of change. Granted my sample set of your understanding of physics is not all that large, but things like that lead me to believe I have a somewhat greater understanding of the topic. That said, my own understanding is considerably lesser than Grumpy or AkiThePirate.

EDIT: Glaring typos

[LiamOS]

For those who may be slightly unfamiliar with some relativistic and quantum mechanical principals, I'd suggest reading 'The Feynman Lectures on Physics' by Richard Feynman.
Granted it is a bit out of date, but it goes over most of the basic concepts of relativity, quantum theory, mechanics...

If you're interested in the book, PM me, as I may know a thing or two that you may like to.

[WinePusher]

Please stop attempting to use this argument. It has been seen to innumerable times.

I used this argument to illustrate my position in order to answer a question posed to me by another user.

For this universe to be fine tuned, there must be a goal. Can you prove there is a goal for this universe?

I use the word "fine tuned" with no religious implications. One can know the universe is fine tuned (the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range-wikipedia) based off of observations. Simple as that. One does not need to prove a "goal" exists, a "goal" is a completly off the topic non-sequitor which has nothing to do with this.

Far as I can tell, we just live in the right kind of universe for this sort of thing to happen.

Yes, and an explanation must be provided to explain why this universe "is the right kind for this sort of thing to happen."

To your slightly altered watchmaker argument, you assume existence requires a designer, which is clearly self-contradictory.

No, I assume complexity requires design, not existence.

Something has to break the chain of infinite regress, and why does it have to be something for which no proof can be found?

Yes, you are right that an infinite regress cannot exist, the fact that something has to break this chain is proof that a "supernatural being" exists. Known as the first cause argument.

On the subject of a fine tuned universe, no explanation is needed as it cannot be shown that this universe is fine tuned.

You do not understand the meaning of fine tuned, I use the term with no religious implications, as I said above. Here is a comphrehensive wiki article that should clear things up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_tuned_universe

In the case of this universe, looking for a 'why' may even be redundant. Who knows?

Oh yeah, you, apparently.

The sarcasm is noted

So because there's no concrete scientific theory, you're just happy to accept that something wanted this and made it so?
Because that's a pretty bad move, on its part.

Not because there is no scientific theory. As I said, if a natural explanation is provided and it is determined to be more plausible than an intelligent by the majority of scientists, I will change my position. As of now, the best current explanation is design based on what we observe.

I'd like to think it more explanatory than the alternative you're offering.

If you could offer a hypothesis of a designed universe, outlining how to detect design(Don't try things like nature or the solar system, because not only are they examples of poor design, but have pretty solid naturalistic explanations), and subsequently what this means for Big Bang cosmology, I really would take your hypothesis seriously.

Well, first of all its not my hypothesis. Secondly, the goal of the Fine tuning argument is to establish the premise that the universe is designed, not using plantetary rotation and axis, or the nature of solar systems, but the numerical value of the physical constants of the universe.

[LiamOS]

I use the word "fine tuned" with no religious implications. One can know the universe is fine tuned (the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range-wikipedia) based off of observations. Simple as that. One does not need to prove a "goal" exists, a "goal" is a completly off the topic non-sequitor which has nothing to do with this.

The goal has everything to do with it.
Allow to phrase it this way:
We have two universes, and both are completely identical, despite all the odds.
One day, when the Gods had drank a few too many, they decided to make some universes.
One God decided that he'd select the constants in such a manner as to allow conscious life to emerge on a little blue dot; he was quite drunk.
Another God was impatient and didn't really feel like selecting constants, so he just hooked them up to random number generators.
Both universes turned out exactly the same, despite the odds, and two sets carbon-based life forms were left to ponder their existence.

The first universe in this scenario is obviously fine tuned, but is the second?
If yes, then every universe would be fine tuned, and the concept of 'fine tuning' becomes inane. If no, then it is perfectly conceivable that this universe is in fact not fine tuned.

Yes, and an explanation must be provided to explain why this universe "is the right kind for this sort of thing to happen.

Why?
What if there is no explanation?
I do concede that an explanation would be dandy, but I don't expect one; it's too much to ask and one mightn't exist anyway.

No, I assume complexity requires design, not existence.

And would a designer not entail complexity?
Why do necessitate an immeasurable God to break the chain on cause?

Yes, you are right that an infinite regress cannot exist, the fact that something has to break this chain is proof that a "supernatural being" exists. Known as the first cause argument.

That's not exactly evidence. It's evidence of a first cause, not a God.
In fact, as Hawking evidently demonstrated, the first cause could well be the universe itself.

The sarcasm is noted Wink

That's good, but you do see my point, yes?

As I said, if a natural explanation is provided and it is determined to be more plausible than an intelligent by the majority of scientists, I will change my position. As of now, the best current explanation is design based on what we observe.

Hehehe...
So, when the majority of the scientific community accepts a natural explanation, you will to?
Because the overwhelmingly majority already accept that it was a natural phenomenon.

And if the current best guess was supernatural, don't you think that more of the world's leading scientists would be asserting this?

[WinePusher]

Intelligent design is an independent topic. What was under discussion was the accuracy and methodology of science and scientists. You concluded their methods are wrong because you think the world appears to be designed.[/quotes]

Their methods, appear to me, to be wrong because the most plausible explanation for seen complexity would be design, as it would be if it were any other thing. But as I listed (Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, Peter Atkins) go to extreme lengths to avoid this explanation because of its theistic implications. It is their beliefs influencing their scientific worldview, as fundamentalist christianity does to creationist scientists. That was what was meant behind my quote.

Further, what does any of this have to do with imaginary time? Why is imaginary time "great lengths"?

Nothing, I did not realize you wanted to discuss imaginary time, I thought you were challenging the merit of my quote.

I'm not talking about intelligent design, I'm talking about imaginary time. On that, imaginary time does not preclude a designer to begin with. Additionally, imaginary time is an accepted part of quantum mechanics, it is necessary to combine quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics.

I do not have a position on imaginary time, nor do I think I stated one in the O.P . I will say it again, the inference I am drawing from Hawkings theory is that it is an attempt to avoid a theistic explanation. My opinion, which is niether falsifiable nor truthful, is simply an opinion, which I have already retracted as some regard it is slander.

I was again specifically refering to your objections to imaginary time, which would indeed put you in disagreement with the leading minds in physics. Honestly, if we look at who supports what in the scientific community, so too would your stance on intelligent design.

I have no objections to imaginary time, except for what I list above. My objection has nothing to do with the theory itself, but with the methodology surrounding it.

I don't believe he stated it was uncaused. He simply indicated that imaginary time provided an explanation for how a singularity could be disrupted. Nowever, nothing about that indicates the cause of the singularity or the the cause of the intersection.

He indicates that the big bang would only be considered a singualrity in actual time

So, as I consider myself wholly unqualified to even attempt to run the mathematical models and applied knowledge necessary to offer an opinion and I daresay I have greater understanding in the field than yourself (though by no means would I claim to be the best here), on what basis do you have an opinion on the topic?

Firstly, most of your responses were not addressed to the topic I was speaking to, granted I was sufficiently vague in my post to cause that. Secondly, which opinions of mine run counter to professional scientists?

Well, as you said, your weren't very specific in presenting your topic.......Do you not have any opinions about speculation concerning the big bang, or any other scientific problems? I believe you said in a post concerning the cosmological argument, that the Cyclic model would be sufficient to account for the big bang (did you not?) If you take this position, are you not going aganist a part of the scientific community by doing so? Thus, are the questions are you asked not applied to you also?

Statements like "time, in the same way, exists only to describe the changes in sequence between events"

I may have overstated by using the word "only exists."

Time: an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.

Please tell me how my definition is a profound misunderstanding?