Infinity and Present Day

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Infinity and Present Day

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:08 am
This is my first sylogism so I may not have the concept right.


Premise 1: All future dates in time are attainable only through the passing of those before.
Premise 2: You can not arrive at a specific date in time without first starting somewhere in history before that.
Conclusion: The universe had a beginning or present day doesn't exist.

Please help me structure my arguement a little better though I think I am going to explain it more below.

Many seem to say on this forum that the universe had no beginning. I don't see the logic in this. For if the universe had no beginning then we would not be here right now at present day.

Here is my example.

1 billion = present day

If I ask you to count to 1 billion you will start from 1 and begin to count. You will get there after a while but you will eventually get there. So present day can be obtained if there is a start.

But if I ask you to count to 1 billion but you can not start at 1. For this time you have to get to 1 billion while counting all the way from negative infinity. The problem is you will never get to 1 billion for to count to 1 billion you need to acctually start somewhere.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:44 am
@click here,
Well time does not flow, it is always in a state of 'infinity', limited to syntax that is.

If each point in time were intrinsically connected, then ok.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:45 am
@click here,
I disagree with that Holiday.

My advice would be first of all to avoid equating 1 billion with present day where you say

1billion= present day

Because in order to count to 1 billion it would take more than 24 hours, which would take you out of the present day you are equating to.

I do agree that to reach present day there had to be a past day to get there.

Basically what you are saying is that we cannot have a day,24 hours, without the previous accumulation of the other 23 hours ahead of it. Hense that there must have been the first second of the first minute of the first hour, etc. etc.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:50 am
@Pathfinder,
Ahh, so the limited time it takes for information to er... 'move' (lol, I know) causes a perceived beginning and perceived end, but is not actually so. Same dif. And no pathfinder I am not saying much of those things that you claim me to be saying.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:06 am
@click here,
sorry Holiday,

i was quoting what the thread author was saying, I simply disagreed with your premise in your reply.

And I would suggest that there is no perceived end, only a beginning. One cannot know where or what the end will be, ever.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:16 am
@Pathfinder,
Right when we start talking about infinite, we are having a discussion of syntax. Else, I have to kindly disagree with your statement.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 09:53 am
@Holiday20310401,
I shouldn't speak for the thread author, but it seems to me that they were not talking about infinity as much as they were talking about origin. I think they were clearly trying to show that there is really no such thing as infinity.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 04:20 pm
@click here,
click here;48784 wrote:
Premise 1: All future dates in time are attainable only through the passing of those before.

'If'! Only valid/true from a specific linear Perspective.

Quote:
Premise 2: You can not arrive at a specific date in time without first starting somewhere in history before that.

Again, only true from/for that linear Perspective.

Quote:
Conclusion: The universe had a beginning or present day doesn't exist.

Again, only potentially valid from that particular Perspective. Within that parameter, your syllogism can hold true.
It is untrue, for instance, from a wholistic Perspective, and many others, too.
And, "everything exists"!
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 05:06 pm
@click here,
Nameless,

I am wondering why we should even consdier anything other than a linear viewpoint?
 
click here
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 03:51 am
@click here,
I also would like to know what we should have other then a linear viewpoint. Is there any proof at all for other theories? Or are those theories based off of theories...?
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:51 am
@click here,
Everything is conjecture, because as soon as it is proven wrong all the possibility of it being fact vanishes in that one second of what they thought was the truth.

That is what science is all about is it not? Experimenting with theories trying to prove them right by trying their bext to prove them wrong. A scientist will do an experiment a thousand times to come to a degree of positive. But they NEVER conclude that it is fact because it could be that very next experiement that proves it worng. Even if an experiment is positive 99 times out of 100, it is that 1ooth time that it fails that says what it truly is.

Remember the thalydamide disastet in the 60s with the pregnancy pill, that the doctors were handing out like crazy because they were sure it was okay. and all of these other experiemenatl disaters over the years that ended not being truth.

Anyhting othere than linear thinking is simply an experimenatl theory wiaitng to be proven wrong, no mattewr how much they experiement with it.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 07:58 am
@click here,
Smile
If our concept of time is a local thing as astronomers have told us, how then could we imagine that the exciteability of temporal forms and their passsing away indicate that time is anything but our perception of the changing relations of our own limited context/local, while the eons drone on trying to define eturnity.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:45 am
@click here,
Gezzus Boag this is crazy man,

I just finished typin a reply to you saying how you were mssin out on all the fun in another thread, lol and here you are gettin all excited all of a sudden,

Just because time is relative to our perception as we observe its passing doesnt mean that it isn't still passing by.
 
boagie
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 11:33 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
Gezzus Boag this is crazy man,

I just finished typin a reply to you saying how you were mssin out on all the fun in another thread, lol and here you are gettin all excited all of a sudden,

Just because time is relative to our perception as we observe its passing doesnt mean that it isn't still passing by.


Pathfinder,Smile

It woud seem your enlightening influence did not take. Do you deny that the concept of time is a local event? You then have to ask yourself just what is it that is passing, is not time the perception of the changing relations of things/temporal things. We all experience the same situtation, is not time an emergent quality, not a physically tangiable quality. Time is matter, motion, space and perception, take away one variable and you have nothing. Please, try not to be devasted at my ignorance, it is not all that rare.
 
nameless
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:36 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder;48900 wrote:
Nameless,

I am wondering why we should even consdier anything other than a linear viewpoint?

Why should you ever consider anything other than the way that you see things? Why are you 'here' on a philosophy site based on considering other perspectives, other possibilities leading to, perhaps, a 'greater truth'/understanding. That is philosophy. What rock would you leave unturned in pursuit of 'truth'?
If all you are interested in is the collection and use of 'fertilizer', all Perspectives of the elephant are rather irrelevent other than the one under which you stand with your bucket! You may get to know that end of the elephant quite intimately (the 'size' of your reality), but you will never get to know the whole elephant any better. Understanding of 'elephant' is rather limited, thus. Some of us are trying to better understand 'elephant' beyond our own limited views and perceptions; closer to the 'complete picture/reality'.

"The complete definition/description of the universe, at the moment of observation, is the sum-total of all Perspectives."
The more Perspective, the greater the 'included angle', the better one understands existence (for those interested).
All Perspectives are necessarily limited (to one extent or another).
Our world is as 'large' as 'our' Perspective (hence the 'sum total' of Perspectives being the entire universe).
Some are quite happy in 'tiny' worlds, some in 'larger'.
It's all part of the complete whole of Now!

Thats why.

(And sometimes my experience/reality is non-linear (exists). Does your lack of similar experience in your reality invalidate my reality?)
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:16 pm
@boagie,
ahahahhaha boag if you want me to post something you better stop ticklin my funny bone. what a riot.

I would have to say you are defintiely a rarity.

My enlightenment might be akin to a candlepower compared to yours, time will tell.

Let me try to get thios straight,

IMHO time does not exist and more thyan an inch or a pound exists, it is a measurement. And unless someone comes along and attempts to use the measuring instrument, the measurement remains obscure and unnecessary.

But when one wanst to calculate the passage of life, then they must define a starting point and and end point to measure. Whatever the distance bewteen those two points is in seconds days minutes years, is akin to inches feet yards and so on.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 08:22 pm
@nameless,
I have to agree with you Namless, however I will never be able to look at an elephant the same way again thanks to you.

I am certainly open to other points of view in search of knowledge and learning more than I think I already know. But with regard to measurment, I just see no reason to change a pound to something else, or an inch to something else, or seconds ,minutes, etc. etc. Time is measurement plain and simple. Maybe this is some subconscious hatred that I have developed after having the metric system forced down my throat back in the 70s. lol
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 03:20 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Why should you ever consider anything other than the way that you see things? Why are you 'here' on a philosophy site based on considering other perspectives, other possibilities leading to, perhaps, a 'greater truth'/understanding. That is philosophy. What rock would you leave unturned in pursuit of 'truth'?
If all you are interested in is the collection and use of 'fertilizer', all Perspectives of the elephant are rather irrelevent other than the one under which you stand with your bucket! You may get to know that end of the elephant quite intimately (the 'size' of your reality), but you will never get to know the whole elephant any better. Understanding of 'elephant' is rather limited, thus. Some of us are trying to better understand 'elephant' beyond our own limited views and perceptions; closer to the 'complete picture/reality'.

"The complete definition/description of the universe, at the moment of observation, is the sum-total of all Perspectives."
The more Perspective, the greater the 'included angle', the better one understands existence (for those interested).
All Perspectives are necessarily limited (to one extent or another).
Our world is as 'large' as 'our' Perspective (hence the 'sum total' of Perspectives being the entire universe).
Some are quite happy in 'tiny' worlds, some in 'larger'.
It's all part of the complete whole of Now!

Thats why.

(And sometimes my experience/reality is non-linear (exists). Does your lack of similar experience in your reality invalidate my reality?)


Its not that we aren't open to hearing other theories. It is just that I myself atleast am curious as to what those theories are and whether or not they have any justification at all.

You can always make a counterarguement in any debate the question is whether or not that counterarguement has any ground or is completely unfounded.

I'm still interested in how the universe can have no beginning to itself.
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 04:00 am
@click here,
click here;49220 wrote:
I'm still interested in how the universe can have no beginning to itself.

There is no 'beginning' (or ending) to a timeless (Planck) momentary event, such as existence.
There can only be a beginning (and end) to a 'temporal linnear sequential series of events'.
Instead of the usual boring "is there life after death", I think that the more telling and vital question is whether there is 'life' in the first place, and if not, 'death' becomes, also, meaningless.
'Life' as we know it is Perspective.
There is no 'linearity' in a simultaneity (wholism).
All the frames from a movie cut apart and piled on the table. You see then all at once; a wholism. One Perspective is to view them sequentially, in a very specific order, and we see the movie of 'life', of 'action', of 'time', of 'beginning', of 'ending'... It is the result of one Perspective of that pile of those static moments of film frames. Each frame, each moment, is a complete tapestry of perceived universe; all synchronously existent, Now!

Quote:
You can always make a counterarguement in any debate the question is whether or not that counterarguement has any ground or is completely unfounded.

'The First Law of Soul Dynamics'; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd (1:2)
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 04:29 am
@click here,
And the only way that the actual truth of that movie can be constructed the way it was originally designed, is to put it together peice by piece the way it is supposed to be, Geez you biologists have to dissect everything dont ya, Boagie I would think you of all people would take great offense to having a film clip destroyed. lol'

Nameless you just said an oxymoron,

"timeless momentary event"

How the hell can a timeless event be momentary?

Thats like having an lengthless inch.

Just because you find something personally boring doesn't make it a non priority, it simply means that you don't want to go there for some reason. I know guys that dont like to go to the ballet too, but the leotards are still there.

You also said

"There is no 'linearity' in a simultaneity (wholism)."

Well there are no straight lines in a circle either, does that now mean the moon doesn't exist?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Infinity and Present Day
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/17/2021 at 01:21:29