International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Religion and Philosophy (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   No one can grasp 'time'; Not even a scientist (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354560)

arthwollipot 14th October 2021 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13629758)
I think Roborama is probably referring to the heading "The very early universe" near the top of your link.

Indeed, but it divides "the very early universe" (<10-12) into distinct phases, going back to the Planck time (<10-43), before which we're not even sure that the laws of physics as we know them apply. Although it is not currently possible to experimentally model these phases, we can "know" via other means.

So again, it depends on the precise definition of "know" and how exact the models need to be before you classify them as "known".

Regardless, the number is very, very, very small so quibbling further about details probably isn't necessary.

arthwollipot 14th October 2021 07:20 PM

And I still don't have an answer to my question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13626491)
What's the difference between understanding something and understanding it fundamentally?


RecoveringYuppy 14th October 2021 07:27 PM

Honestly, quibbling about the details that happened at about a picosecond is probably the interesting part of the discussion. The Planck era is definitely unknown at this point IMO. But that picosecond point has the exact amount of doubt and uncertainty that Magikthise was demanding.

Roboramma 14th October 2021 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 13629771)
And I still don't have an answer to my question.

I think my attempt was pretty decent: we can understand something in a way that works very well empirically, even to the point that no observation or experiment that we're currently capable of can contradict it, yet that understanding can be unclear or even contradictory at a fundamental level.

An example is gravity. GR works great on it's own, and it's also completely consistent with experiment. But we know the universe is quantum mechanical in nature, yet when we try to apply the principles of quantum mechanics to gravity, we get results that don't work (infinities that can't be got rid of through the normal methods of renormalization, for instance).

So we understand gravity very well, but on a fundamental level there's something we're missing.

Or to take it a step back, Newton also understood gravity pretty well, but not on a fundamental level. Einstein came much closer to a fundamental level, and if my above paragraphs were wrong we could say that Einstein understood it fundamentally, but that doesn't mean that Newton didn't understand it at all.

Anyway, that seems like a meaningful distinction to me.

But maybe you were complaining not that no one answered your question but that the person you asked didn't answer it... :boxedin:

arthwollipot 14th October 2021 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 13629849)
But maybe you were complaining not that no one answered your question but that the person you asked didn't answer it... :boxedin:

:D Yes, your answer was decent but I have the feeling MaartenVergu might have had something else in mind.

Roboramma 14th October 2021 10:51 PM

Fair enough and good point :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.