# is time infinite?

Get Email Updates

manored

Sat 20 Dec, 2008 08:57 am
@No0ne,
Proving... : Everthing exists because for something to not exist its impossible, therefore the 5th dimension exists too. I dont really know how to explain better

No0ne wrote:
I edited my post, after you made this post, you might find it much more helpful.

Things that are infinite, have no ends.

Therefore if a thing has a end it is finite and not infinite.

Problem is that you are observing a teoric universe from outside it... if you try observing it from inside it, you will notice that no changes in time can be perceived from inside, and therefore time never changes or ends from and internal observer, only to a external observer... universe is everthing that exists, so if you are outside observing the inside it means that outside there is still time (you cannot observe winhout time) and therefore time has not ended in the universe, only in a piece... and even thought time has stoped inside the piece, the piece is still under the influence of time of the universe around it

So we have to assume both space and time are infinite, because we can never prove there is not something else around whatever is the bigger form of existence we know. We also need a word to differentiate universe as in everthing that exists from universe as the piece of existence we exist into

Fido

Sat 20 Dec, 2008 09:10 am
@Petrovich phil,
Petrovich wrote:
time is the 4th dimension, and we see cross sections of it since we are in the 3rd dimension. if we lived in the 4th dimension we would see the beginning and the end of something, at the same time. you could draw a line from 2 minutes ago, to now.

so when time passes through our dimension we should see cross sections, and we do, we consider these different cross sections to be different 'ages'. a good example is looking at a person's face. you see them as a baby, and it is a cross section of time, and since time progresses, you will later see him as a young boy, then a man, then an old fart.

i do not know the nature of time. but before we can know whether time is infinite or finite, we need to know exactly what it is. and although time seems straight and predictable, this is because we are in the 3rd dimension, and we don't notice that time is actually looping and twisting in the 5th dimension. so yeah like no0ne said, we can't know if it is infinite because of missing variables. i think to find these variables we'd have to simply exist in a higher dimension, but hey we have technology. it'd be nice to somehow find these variables and transcend.

hope that helps :a-ok:

EDIT:
btw this idea of dimension on dimension comes from the book 'imagining the tenth dimension'

Are you trying to say we do not live now,, in the now... Time is continous because we are in it... Time is- only because we are in it... It is a reference point of our consciousness, only, and no more real than space with out our being able to recognize it and give it meaning....

Ibn Sina

Sat 20 Dec, 2008 09:49 pm
@meridius,
Interesting posts. I just wanted to add that the human mind is limited. Mario (living in a 2 dimensional world) would never imagine a world with other dimensions, just like we can never imagine a world with other dimensions. Can mario pop out of the screen and walk around our universe? :listening:

l0ck

Sun 21 Dec, 2008 03:21 am
@meridius,
Yes time is infinite.
We are 'within' a closed system here.. it only appears to be separated..
Formal, syllogistic logic applies only to the finite magnitude, oneness or implicativity thinking is also necessary if we are to access the 'whole' truth.
As the mathematician cantor said: just finding one aspect of existence that is infinite, proves the entire thing is infinite..

Basically existence expresses itself eternally and in infinite variety.
The quality of energy gets expressed through time-space but essentially all aspects of existence are whole.. are apart of a closed system.. a infinite whole that only appears to be separated.. its a paradox of sorts.. its the 'absolute'.. and it expresses itself eternally.. Thats what we are.. Thats what mass is.. Expression.. or Paradox.. Expression implies paradox.. Many qualities are opposites ... such as cohesion and randomicity ... such as love and hate. Yet all qualities are integrally related: Herein lies the paradox.

xris

Sun 21 Dec, 2008 04:19 am
@l0ck,
Ive said it before but ill say it again if time had begining it can have an end...Infinity there is no such thing..we only have now..not the past or the future..we only have now..

Petrovich phil

Sun 21 Dec, 2008 06:08 am
@Fido,
Fido;38881 wrote:
Are you trying to say we do not live now,, in the now... Time is continous because we are in it... Time is- only because we are in it... It is a reference point of our consciousness, only, and no more real than space with out our being able to recognize it and give it meaning....

of course and i understand that it is a reference point of conciousness. if you can imagine the 0 dimension, it's just an infinitely small point of reference. to reach the next dimension we would need another infinitely small point. we then draw a line from each point to the other to reach the next dimension. of course we live in the now, we can not point it out easily because it is a higher dimension, and thus harder for us to understand, but i getcha :flowers: i think, i may just be off on some tangent :Not-Impressed: but i think to say it doesn't exist without us being is wrong. can you explain why without our being nothing is real? are you trying to bring quantum physics into this? do you mean that particles rely on our observation?

Poseidon

Sun 21 Dec, 2008 09:37 am
@meridius,
Read Flatland by Edwin Abbot Abbot, to understand extra dimensions.

But this topic calls for a thought experiment :

Imagine that next week (or next decade), a supercomputer is built which uses nanotechnology to repair each and every cell in your body. There is nothing illogical in this, its just a matter of complexity.

So people become immortal. But then what? After several zillion years, and with advances in mind-science, our ability to understand becomes exponentially greater with each passying year. As computers double their capacity every 18 months or so, we should be able to calculate the exact position of every atom in a person's body within a mere 1000 years. Thats : 'Atom' : not just cell.

As the millenia pass, our 20th century lives seem amazingly primitive. We snigger at those 21st century pre-conscious animals chatting away on 'philosophy forums'. Eventually, each individual person has the logical capacity to organise and sustain an entire planet's ecosystem. After some time, an entire galaxy, and indeed, the entire universe.

At this point humanity gets terribly bored.

However, given our ability to craft extra-dimensional space, we can actually manufacture an entire new universe, by slicing off a piece of this one, and forming it into a 4-dimensional sphere. We then inflate the universe using something like a 'big bang', and after several billion years, we are all Gods of our own univereses, toying with the mortals below, with megalomaniacal hubris.

How many times can we keep doing this?
Well the universe we live in is expanding, so given immortality, we can keep chopping off bits and creating new universes, until all the potential universes that could exist, do exist.

To conclude : yes, time is infinite.

Fido

Sun 21 Dec, 2008 10:13 am
@Petrovich phil,
Petrovich wrote:
of course and i understand that it is a reference point of conciousness. if you can imagine the 0 dimension, it's just an infinitely small point of reference. to reach the next dimension we would need another infinitely small point. we then draw a line from each point to the other to reach the next dimension. of course we live in the now, we can not point it out easily because it is a higher dimension, and thus harder for us to understand, but i getcha :flowers: i think, i may just be off on some tangent :Not-Impressed: but i think to say it doesn't exist without us being is wrong. can you explain why without our being nothing is real? are you trying to bring quantum physics into this? do you mean that particles rely on our observation?

Well; to better answer your question I should refer you to Schopenhaur... He said such stuff as: the world is my idea, and when I die the world dies with me... In any event, what we have with life is meaning... When we die, all that we find meaning in now will have no meaning...What is more essential from our point of view??? Is it being which we can seldom perceive, or is it meaning; which we perceive, often where no being can be shown??? All I know is that life is essential to meaning... Hard as I might try, I can find no meaning in the time before my life...I have what I have second hand, and I know the people of the past by evidence and accounts... Clearly they don't mind what has become of them... The dead smile the smile of death, and do not mind even when crows and worms eat their eyes. They never cry... So what if existence carries on without me??? It will be being without meaning, and what is that besides nothing???

Petrovich phil

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 09:21 am
@Fido,
Fido;39028 wrote:
Well; to better answer your question I should refer you to Schopenhaur... He said such stuff as: the world is my idea, and when I die the world dies with me... In any event, what we have with life is meaning... When we die, all that we find meaning in now will have no meaning...What is more essential from our point of view??? Is it being which we can seldom perceive, or is it meaning; which we perceive, often where no being can be shown??? All I know is that life is essential to meaning... Hard as I might try, I can find no meaning in the time before my life...I have what I have second hand, and I know the people of the past by evidence and accounts... Clearly they don't mind what has become of them... The dead smile the smile of death, and do not mind even when crows and worms eat their eyes. They never cry... So what if existence carries on without me??? It will be being without meaning, and what is that besides nothing???

thinking about it briefly i guess that would be a happy way to go through life, just make sure not to be selfish :bigsmile: but saying that there is no meaning without life gives me energy. just to say to yourself, 'god damn it i'm alive!' makes me want to go do something. thinking about the end makes me want to do so many things now because our lives are so short. life's too short to be upset or sad in. there's a nice quote by george shaw that i like though, it goes something like, a reasonable man will change for his world, an unreasonable man will try to change the world to benefit him, therefore progress depends on the unreasonable man. it can be taken many different ways so i like it.

Fido

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 10:42 am
@Petrovich phil,
Petrovich wrote:
thinking about it briefly i guess that would be a happy way to go through life, just make sure not to be selfish :bigsmile: but saying that there is no meaning without life gives me energy. just to say to yourself, 'god damn it i'm alive!' makes me want to go do something. thinking about the end makes me want to do so many things now because our lives are so short. life's too short to be upset or sad in. there's a nice quote by george shaw that i like though, it goes something like, a reasonable man will change for his world, an unreasonable man will try to change the world to benefit him, therefore progress depends on the unreasonable man. it can be taken many different ways so i like it.

I like what the Muslims say that if you would change the world, first change yourself... That will let you know what you are up against... The fact is that we are beyond change, true change... So much of what we are or become is based upon our basic needs, or our cultures; but rather than change we change our forms like we change our crusty grundles... If we make use of our lives we can all discover the limits of reason and of reasonableness... We can only push people so far, but they will follow their own needs, and only when great numbers are miserable will the accept great change, and forward progress is nearly impossible unless people are lead to believe they recapturing the past... This was true of the Roundhead revolution in England, or the American revolution, and the French revolution..

l0ck

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 12:18 pm
@meridius,
Physical reality is a four-dimensional space-time continuum, in which events are already determined, the passage of time applies only to the human consciousness, as it becomes aware of different events.

Time is an integral: What happens to a part of it, happens to the whole of it. To start time is to end time: To end time is to start time. When we explode the universe, we end the universe and create the big-bang which starts the universe. We are the destroyers and the creators.

All monads, collectively and transfinitely, create their reality. They do this finitely, instant by instant: But, transfinitely, it is one timeless and spaceless event. The time-space things, which we create of singularity, are what are essential to our being as a species. These time-space things are constructs and they are conditional upon perception and interpretation: They are non-substantive.

Every created thing was, is now, and always will be: It is so because it is absolute. Our senses are like a pair of binoculars, moving with changing focus in timespace perception ... but what we are sensing is absolute. Just because we move our focus away from things and call them past or history, does not reduce their absolute status. We tend to be confused by the time-space aspect of perception. We tend to grant reality to what we perceive and not to grant reality to what we do not perceive. When we perceive in terms of time-space, we restrict our reality: But reality is unrestricted ... it is absolute.

From an absolute perspective all is inclusive, all is integrally related, and time is not perceived. From a absolute viewpoint, physical-mode is an evolutionary phase which monads experience in their progress to self-realisation, and the optimal qualities neccissary for that transcendance are expressed finitely, within ones environment. Time is inversely related to perception. As our awareness increases, the self-awareness of this time-space system increases, and the system's time collapses. Time is simply voided awareness. As awareness increases, its voiding decreases ... and time decreases. Psychologically, we impute space-time differentiation (Cantor's Aleph zero phenomena) to existence for pragmatic reasons.

All qualities are transfinite and one: All qualities are integrally related and each quality is both part and whole of the Absolute integer. As everything is in each moment, nothing is lost with each passing moment. Time has value only if one believes that one's time is limited in duration. Time and space only become constraints to a person in the degree of the person's unawareness. As time-space is a subset of the infinite mainset, all time-space experience must pertain to the mainset as well as to the subset. Our consciousness and individuality is of subset and mainset. Should our subset consciousness and individuality cease, our mainset consciousness and individuality would still exist. Likewise, all events and experiences are of subset and mainset. Should our subset events and experiences cease, our mainset events and experiences would still exist.

Cantor's Aleph zero category is comprehended by the transfinite Aleph categories. It follows that the enumerate members of the Aleph zero category are, transfinitely, in one-to-one correspondence with each other ... that is to say, they are not separable from each other transfinitely. Transfinitely, all enumerates pertain to an integrated whole. All members of Cantor's Aleph zero series are not only in one-to-one correspondence with each other but, also, they are each in one-to-one correspondence with the whole. Cantor said: Just one infinite aspect of a system proves that the system is essentially infinite.

Transfinity is a no-time, no-space zone. Transfinitely, there is no time-space; transfinitely, singularity is omnipresent; transfinitely, past/present/future are one. The mind is in essence, transfinite, and is a transformer. When we think we release energy from mass, which randmizes the physical world, but it is absorbed into the mental, transfinite world. Hints the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that when within a closed system, energy naturally has a tendancy to randomize. Mass deteriorates and the physical universe decayes because it is our food, it is our unawarenss, and the entire focus of the monad is to become self-aware by absorbing those qualities from its self-generated environment which is expressed in forms of energy, and energy in forms of mass, and mass being nothing more than quality expressed over time.

William

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 01:09 pm
@l0ck,
l0ck wrote:
Physical reality is a four-dimensional space-time continuum, in which events are already determined,

10ck, would you please as simply as you can tell me how you arrive at that statement? (The Pre-determined part)

Thank you,
william

LWSleeth

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 02:41 pm
@meridius,
meridius;38525 wrote:
I am trying to prove that, for actions to repeat themselves, time would have to repeat itself aswell. I am finding this actually very difficult.

I see this type of question a lot . . . often people try to answer it without carefully defining time first. How can anything conclusive be decided about something that's undefined? I realize your question isn't about time being infinite, but rather if time, once it runs its course, repeats itself. I'll take a shot at answering that after defining time.

IMO, time is best understood through physics; therefore, I will attempt a working definition from the physics perspective.

First a couple of things time is not.

1) Time is not an actual dimension; a metaphorical dimension maybe.
2) Time cannot be traveled within; that's a science fiction idea that derives from the fact that the rate of time can be affected within a given frame of reference.
3)Time is NOT anything actual, it is a concept we invented to measure a specific type of RATE of change (more on that below). It is similar to the energy concept in physics which measures the rate of movement produced (i.e., called work) when mass de-amasses in some way (like radiating). People think energy is a substance when in physics it is merely concept for measuring, and it is assigned absolutely no substance qualities; similarly the time concept has acquired substance in our minds even though it is merely a perspective.

To explain . . . time began for our universe with the Big Bang. What has been happening since the Big Bang? The universe has been flying apart, and it has been, overall, de-amassing. Yes galaxies form (amass), but the OVERALL direction of the universe is entropic. It is becoming less organized, less amassed as it expands and radiates.

Now, we can ask, how many entropic events are there before the universe loses all its organization (as mass)? Let's say there are a zillion entropic events. Much of this disorganization is happening incrementally, as Planck's constant tells us; also, much of the universe's organization is tied up in cycles, such as atomic oscillation or planets orbiting their sun. That gives a constancy we can use as a measure (i.e., something completely chaotic won't provide any kind of useful scale).

What we do, then, is keep track of the universe's march toward disorder by tracking cycles. We say so much "time" has gone by, but really so many entropic events have occurred. For us, the number of entropic events left in our bodies is particularly important since it determines how much "time" we have; I think partly why we say time as passing when really it is our bodies passing (along with the rest of the universe) is because it pushes death away a bit in our minds.

So, where does idea of time as a "dimension" come from? It stems from the fact that the rate of entropy can be altered, as predicted by the theory of relativity. An increase in gravity or acceleration for a given frame of reference will slow the rate of entropy (relative to its rate before the increase).

To understand this better we might say there are two types of time: universal time and unique time. If a person traveled from point A to point B, rather than saying so much time had passed while traveling, one could more accurately say some quantity of matter in the universe had surrendered its order, and so much expansion had taken place-that is, so many universal entropic events had happened. This would be referring to universal time.

The weirdness of unique time is often explained by the twin "paradox" where a man in a space ship accelerates to take off from a planet and then travels along at, say, half the speed of light, and time progresses slower for him than for his twin brother he left behind on the planet. The compaction of atoms brought on by acceleration actually contracts the traveling twin's entire frame of reference. On board the ship, if the twin measures his space vehicle, he will find it measures exactly the same as always because his ruler has shortened too! Physically, there is no way for him to tell his atoms are cycling slower or that he and everything which is moving/accelerating with him have been altered (compared to his previous Earth frame of reference). Only when he returns home and finds Earth time different than his own and his twin brother older will he have a clue about what has gone on.

So universal time is the overall rate of entropy for the entire universe, but because the rate of entropy can change in a particular circumstance, various situations within the universe exist at relative rates of time (like what happens to a neutron star, whose gravity is so intense it subdues the rate of entropy).

Okay, now to answer (sort of) your question of if time recurs. Based on the information we have now, we only know that at least once a universe began and ever since has relentlessly streamed toward disorder. Once it reaches total entropy, we don't know if it will repeat. We can merely say that it's happened before, and it may happen again. The only hope for knowing I can imagine would be if we were able to observe other universes beginning and ending, that might at least give us a basis for extrapolation.

l0ck

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:03 pm
@William,
Existence is an Absolute. The absolute is an all-inclusive, coherent, integrated whole, of infinite and finite magnitudes. A set. In finite magnitude, the whole appears to be separated into parts, each of which appears to be less than the whole. In infinite magnitude, the whole is equal to each part and each part is equal to the whole and to every other part.

Time-space expressions are sub-sets of the all-inclusive set ... that is, of the Absolute.

If time-space expressions are apart of an infinite set, then from that perspective, there really is no separation. Separation is a expression of unawareness in our minds. All time and space are expressions of unawareness. Mass is of time and space, mass is nothing more than quality that we are unaware of. This is why mass decays over time: because we are constantly absorbing those qualities into our minds, thus rendering the mass useless, and transcending closer to singularity with the absolute. We are constantly becoming aware of ourselves as apart of this integrated whole and therefore entropy is constantly increasing. As we become more aware of ourselves, as we become aware that the absolute is apart of us all and that the Absolute participates absolutely, in each and all of its expressions, the physical universe gets randomized(entropy). This occurs at an exponential rate. We are absorbing the environment faster, and faster, and faster, making new discoveries with our newly absorbed qualities until there is no environment left to absorb. We absorb the environment to become fully aware of ourselves as the absolute. At that moment everything will return to singularity and complete awareness is achieved and a new universe is created.

Cantor is the philosopher/mathematician who studied infinite and finite sets. His approach to unraveling existence included a mindset of multi-paradigms, this is why most science considers cantors work unorthodox and few dare to jump on-board and participate in his work.. Science is a single-paradigmic approach and bases its entire logic off of of itself and its previous theories. Its rationale prevents other rationales from forming. Science is only a single 'branch' of the entire 'tree' of knowledge, and thus cannot fully claim to explain the entire 'tree'(Natures essence exists outside of finite expressions though it is expressed through finite expressions like a tree or plant, quality is all around us, but we are not ready to absorb it). Cantor was a true thinker and did not concern himself with relating his discoveries back to previous ones. He thought his ideas were given to him from God and he approached the 'tree' from multiple 'branches'.
Georg Cantor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LWSleeth

Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:52 pm
@l0ck,
l0ck;39211 wrote:
Science is a single-paradigmic approach and bases its entire logic off of of itself and its previous theories. Its rationale prevents other rationales from forming. Science is only a single 'branch' of the entire 'tree' of knowledge, and thus cannot fully claim to explain the entire 'tree'(Natures essence exists outside of finite expressions though it is expressed through finite expressions like a tree or plant, quality is all around us, but we are not ready to absorb it).

I might agree with most of what you say except that science's rationale "prevents other rationales from forming." Science is a mental discipline, and nothing prevents a person from making use of the discipline when one finds it useful, and employing other ways of knowing under different circumstances. I do that all the time.

l0ck;39211 wrote:
Cantor was a true thinker and did not concern himself with relating his discoveries back to previous ones. He thought his ideas were given to him from God and he approached the 'tree' from multiple 'branches'.

In terms of answering this thread's author, what I looked for was a language that can be understood, especially if it concerns a student having to submit a paper (I assumed his paper was for school). In that case, students are actually expected to build on other's ideas to demonstrate a breadth of understanding. I can imagine a professor's reaction to student who relies on insights claimed to have been "given...from God."

Science at least relies on observation, whereas grand philosophical speculation is usually little more than that. I agree that science cannot describe all of reality, but at least it is a discipline where much of what has been discovered can be rediscovered by others (unlike personal statements on the nature of reality). Besides all that, science seems the appropriate format for discussing the subject of this thread since time is a physical concept, and exploring physicalness is precisely what science is entirely about.

l0ck

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 03:09 pm
@meridius,
Quote:
In terms of answering this thread's author, what I looked for was a language that can be understood, especially if it concerns a student having to submit a paper (I assumed his paper was for school). In that case, students are actually expected to build on other's ideas to demonstrate a breadth of understanding. I can imagine a professor's reaction to student who relies on insights claimed to have been "given...from God."

Philosophy knows no boundaries and doesn't limit itself to any one area of existence. It doesnt matter if the paper is for a professor or if its being created to hang on the refridgerator. If you assume that this paper is for school, then I am assuming that this paper, being posted in the philosophy forum, is for philosophical purposes.

Quote:
Science is a mental discipline, and nothing prevents a person from making use of the discipline when one finds it useful, and employing other ways of knowing under different circumstances. I do that all the time.

To limit yourself to a purely scientific view point limits the aspirant from becoming fully aware of the environment around it. Science will never be able to measure love.

Quote:
Science at least relies on observation, whereas grand philosophical speculation is usually little more than that. I agree that science cannot describe all of reality, but at least it is a discipline where much of what has been discovered can be rediscovered by others (unlike personal statements on the nature of reality). Besides all that, science seems the appropriate format for discussing the subject of this thread since time is a physical concept, and exploring physicalness is precisely what science is entirely about.

There is nothing but personal statements. There is nothing but speculation. And again, philosophy knows no boundaries. Last time I checked, I was surrounded by both finite and infinite qualities of existance. Both Georg Cantor and Albert Einstein considered themselves philosophers and both studied finite observations.

In my opinion my post relates to the authors topic perfectly.. but then again, the author, like us all, is a sovereign being, and can make that decision for himself. We all have the ability to doubt the continuity of time, and to doubt the decaye of mass.

LWSleeth

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 03:48 pm
@l0ck,
l0ck;39328 wrote:
Philosophy knows no boundaries and doesn't limit itself to any one area of existence. It doesnt matter if the paper is for a professor or if its being created to hang on the refridgerator. If you assume that this paper is for school, then I am assuming that this paper, being posted in the philosophy forum, is for philosophical purposes.

I'd say some philosophers know no boundaries, not because there aren't or shouldn't be boundaries, but because they want to be left free to speculate in any and every way possible, plus usually they don't want to master any serious discipline nor be tied down by pesky facts.

l0ck;39328 wrote:
To limit yourself to a purely scientific view point limits the aspirant from becoming fully aware of the environment around it. Science will never be able to measure love.

Read what I said again . . . who said anything about limiting oneself to science? In fact, I specifically said one can rely on science when contemplating certain things (I meant, physical situations), and rely on another epistemology when contemplating other situations (e.g., God).

l0ck;39328 wrote:
There is nothing but personal statements. There is nothing but speculation. And again, philosophy knows no boundaries. Last time I checked, I was surrounded by both finite and infinite qualities of existance. Both Georg Cantor and Albert Einstein considered themselves philosophers and both studied finite observations.

Nonsense. You might as well say nothing is true, or nothing is false. Sure there are ways to argue such perspectives, but it renders discussions meaningless.

One of those "boundaries" you want to deny to philosophy is the commitment to objectivity in discussions, and leaving personal beliefs/speculations out of it if one can't make an objective case with evidence and logic. Just spouting grandiose metaphysics isn't philosophy.

If you appreciate Cantor and Einstein then you should know they both worked hard to demonstrate how their theories conformed to reality. That is wholly different than merely throwing out ideas. All good philosophers attempt to work from what we know is true, and then show how a new idea is consistent with what we know.

So if you are going to talk about time, how can you possibly leave out that which we've discovered about its role as a physical concept? If there is more to time than what we know, it must at the very least not contradict what we already know, and that alone is good reason for someone philosophizing about time to start with the facts.

l0ck;39328 wrote:
In my opinion my post relates to the authors topic perfectly.. but then again, the author, like us all, is a sovereign being, and can make that decision for himself. We all have the ability to doubt the continuity of time, and to doubt the decaye of mass.

Well, the problem is you are talking out of nowhere. You didn't bother to start with what is actually known about time, and then proceed from there so we can follow your reasoning from fact to theory. And since there is no reason to accept you as an authority on time, you have to make your case.

l0ck

Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:51 pm
@meridius,
Quote:
You didn't bother to start with what is actually known about time, and then proceed from there so we can follow your reasoning from fact to theory.

"Physical reality is a four-dimensional space-time continuum"
This is what is 'commonly known' about time.. Though proceeding from what is commonly viewed about time was never my intention. Im sorry my post didn't meet your requirements. As finity is subset to the transfinite mainset, there can be no thing finite which is not also transfinite as to its mainset. This goes for time as well. So since time can be related to infinity, I decided not to go with physics to explain time. It was my intention to post from a perspective that includes a transfite rationale. When I posted the part about science being a branch of its own, which includes itself in all its explanations and relates those explanations back to itself at all times, it was my intentions to make the reader understand that I wasn't. Science tends to focus on the regurgitation of itself. This is what I meant by how science limits rationale, because it creates its own.

Quote:
Well, the problem is you are talking out of nowhere.

and
Quote:
And since there is no reason to accept you as an authority on time, you have to make your case.

It has been said that people of different paradigms speak different languages and there is no way to understand each other without a switch. The intention of my post was simply to provide other view-points on Time. Is anyone an authority over time? Yes. Everyone is their own author. All knowledge and all science must be built upon principles that are self-evident, and of such principles every man who has common sense is a competent judge when he conceives them distinctly.. Again, the post doesn't meet your requirements, because you have not made a paradigmatic switch, and you will never under-stand until you switch view-points, which was my whole intention - to provide another view point. The multi-paradigmatic approach to truth is far more comprehensive and effective than the uni-paradigmatic approach. The many-view approach gives us a better appreciation and understanding of the action than a one-view approach. Let us use the analogy of a televised football match. If we take only one camera to the match, we will get inadequate television but, if we take 500 cameras, all shooting from different angles, we will get very good television ... and viewers will have a much better idea of the action. In the past, we have tended to use the one-camera approach to truth far too heavily and this has restricted our understanding. My intention was to provide a multi-paradigmatic or multi-camera approach to Time.

Quote:
Nonsense. You might as well say nothing is true, or nothing is false. Sure there are ways to argue such perspectives, but it renders discussions meaningless.
Again. I feel as though you dont understand my view-point because you are settling with 'meaningless' as a explination.
Nothing is meaningless. Not only is it that an infinity of interpretive meanings may be ascribed to any collection of data, but an infinity of interpretations may be ascribed to every single item of data: Every aspect of existence is subject to an infinity of possible perceptions and interpretations. All is interpretation: All is meaning. One should wring every drop of knowledge from all concepts: Often it is the last drop which yields the richest returns as there are as many truths as there are seekers of truth. Science doesn't claim anymore to truth than Art. A truth is a perception which we believe to be valid, reliable or useful. Intuition leads to truth. What leads you to intuition? A person's truth is that which is believed and acted upon as the human mind creates its own reality and no line cannot be drawn between the empirical and the conceptual. Theories cannot be derived from facts. The demand to admit only those theories which follow from facts, leaves us without any theory. All theories have zero probability, whatever the evidence: All theories are equally improbable and equally unprovable. No factual proposition can ever be proved from an experiment. Propositions can only be derived from other propositions: They cannot be derived from facts. All propositions of science are theoretical and, incurably fallible. The direction of science is determined primarily by human creative imagination, and not by the universe of facts that surrounds us, which is, existence is absolute, or whole.

Many people now realize that a scientific viewpoint is not the only admissible viewpoint ... and, further, that it is not possible to prove the truth of the observations and laws of science. As all is absolute, all may be said to be tautological ... but exploration of phenomena and exploration of meaning and interpretation, assists the development of realization of the absolute. It is not my intention to prove anything by proceeding from some scientific viewpoint and relate my ideas back to that view-point and again im sorry you have a 'problem' with that, Nor am I insulting science. I have faith in science. Because all is real my intention is to provide realization. Realization that: As existence is an infinite category, it follows that all its qualities, including finity, are essentially infinite. One infinite aspect of existence is evidence that the whole is infinite. Take love for example, try to measure it. Is this proof enough to you now that A) Infinite quality exists, and B) We are apart of that same infinite whole?

Its easy for me to personally under stand your position LWSleeth and by no means am I trying to insult you nor claim you have 'stuck to science to explain your world'. I was simply stating that, sticking to science, wont explain everything, and I understand you agree with that. My intentions in the post were not to take the path of physics as you did to explain, but a different view-point over time because we often try to use science to explain everything, and to lots of people if it cant be explaind by science, then it cannot be explained. Its hard to switch views because as we devote more attention and time to alternative viewpoints, we have our gene-bias to overcome. Multiparadigmatic thinking does not come naturally and easily to us. Because of our one-view propensity, the development of our sciences is greatly hampered. Any one scientific proposition is an over-simplified, one-view model, and further knowledge developments based upon it inherit the one-view bias of their prior.

manored

Wed 24 Dec, 2008 01:18 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Ive said it before but ill say it again if time had begining it can have an end...Infinity there is no such thing..we only have now..not the past or the future..we only have now..
The great question is where the hell existence came from... infinite time, including time that has always existed, is possible because if we have one thing that happened but we can absolutely never hope to explain, then we can have more

Petrovich wrote:
thinking about it briefly i guess that would be a happy way to go through life, just make sure not to be selfish :bigsmile: but saying that there is no meaning without life gives me energy. just to say to yourself, 'god damn it i'm alive!' makes me want to go do something. thinking about the end makes me want to do so many things now because our lives are so short. life's too short to be upset or sad in. there's a nice quote by george shaw that i like though, it goes something like, a reasonable man will change for his world, an unreasonable man will try to change the world to benefit him, therefore progress depends on the unreasonable man. it can be taken many different ways so i like it.

Dont worry, you wont miss your life after you die, because you will either be experiencing afterlife or too dead to miss life, so you shouldnt miss it before dying either

Lock I think you are complicating things too much, and its a nearly useless complication because people either already know that or will not agree with that And for those who dont agree you will probally want to present something simpler.

xris

Wed 24 Dec, 2008 01:47 pm
@manored,
we only have now everything else is history or expectation...infinity is less than a second away...the notion of infinity is only expectation nothing more..we can only live for the second and expect it too last just a bit longer..When we look at others moments or ours it is only a marker to this moment..infinity is an illusion to make us feel relative..

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.24 seconds on 08/12/2024 at 01:55:17