ResearchGate Discussion Link www.researchgate.net/post/Do_events_invoke_time_in_space
Dear Dr. Leonardo Cannizzaro,
I appreciate your engagement in the ongoing discussion titled, "Do events invoke time in space?" and for circling back to the initial question.
A-1). Your statement, "we have known very well, since time immemorial, to measure time but we do not know what time is in its essence,"
This brings up the notion of measuring time throughout history. This part of your statement suggests measuring clock time, whereas "clock time" is a standardized representation of the broader idea of "cosmic" time, as I previously defined in response to your inquiry, "What is time?". The definition of "cosmic" time, as articulated in my earlier reply, asserts, "Time, as commonly understood, represents the indefinite progression of existence and events across past, present, and future. It emerges from the occurrence of existential events, highlighting its intrinsic connection to the unfolding of reality."
The latter part of your statement, "But we do not know what time is in its essence," refers to the ambiguity surrounding the essence of time. Indeed, "time" is abstract, stemming from physical events, thus rendering it meaningless in their absence. Abstraction involves stripping or removing properties to distil something to its essential qualities. Therefore, considering only "time" would overlook the role of events, reducing time to its fundamental properties. To better grasp the abstract nature of time, it's helpful to consider the concept of abstraction in mathematics. Mathematical abstraction involves extracting the underlying structure, patterns, or properties of a mathematical concept, divorcing it from its original connection to real-world objects and generalizing it for broader application. Given that time is a mathematical abstraction, it isn't empirically verifiable. Time arises from existential events, underscoring its inherent connection to reality. Events necessitate time, shaping our perception of it through thoughts involving events. Although time isn't empirically verifiable, our perception of events necessitates its existence.
A-2). Your second statement, "We know very well how to measure space, thanks to Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry, but we don't know what space is," addresses the issue of understanding the nature of space. Your statement highlights the ambiguity surrounding the extension of space. Similar to the abstract nature of time, the properties of space are also abstract. For instance, apart from complex numbers, any number we conceive is a real number. However, these "real numbers" aren't tangible but rather abstract entities. Operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, although seemingly physical, exist in abstract form. Similarly, extensions of space are mathematical abstractions devoid of physical presence, while physical events occur within these abstract dimensions of space.
We gauge changes in physical objects or events within an abstract dimension of space, much like how we measure time. However, in reality, we measure physical changes using a standardized scale of abstract space. Indeed, a standard length scale serves as a representation of the extension of abstract space, akin to a clock representing abstract cosmic time.
A-3). Your third statement, "We know that the universe exists, i.e., space-time, but we don't know that it began or always existed in the sense that the Big Bang theory doesn't define what came before, something needs to exist,"
This raises questions about the origin and nature of the universe. Firstly, you assert that we understand the universe as existing in the form of space-time. However, this interpretation overlooks the primordial existence prior to the Big Bang event, which existed outside of conventional space and time as pure energy.
Describing the universe as 'space-time' doesn't fully encapsulate its existence; rather, the Big Bang event marked the emergence of space and time from an abstract origin.
Furthermore, your statement about uncertainty regarding the beginning or perpetual existence of the universe, due to the Big Bang theory's lack of explanation regarding what preceded it, warrants scrutiny. The concept of a universal singularity prior to the Big Bang event suggests a pre-existing state, albeit without a clear definition.
Addressing the query of where and when the universe began, while there may be mathematical hypotheses, empirical verification is hindered by our physical limitations.
Lastly, your acknowledgment that we do not know if or where the universe ends aligns with logical reasoning.
A-4 and 5). The validity of your fourth and fifth statements hinges on the accurate interpretation of the preceding assertions in 1-3.
Sincerely,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
