|
Callum
|
 |
« Reply #150 on: November 19, 2007, 05:05:08 AM » |
|
Time flows just like numbers do and they can be unitized just like numbers. I guess what I'm getting at is why can't this moment in time be 4?
It can if it began four units ago. But if it began an infinite duration past then this moment is not 4, it is infinity, and so was yesterday and so is tomorrow and the day after. Oh how can it be? I don't hold with an infinite past, so won't comment. However, the same difficulties for those who can't see occur for the infinite future. Tomorrow we will be one day more added to the past, one day fewer taken from the future, but the future will still be infinite. Thats what infinite is all about, and why it has no other 'name'. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #151 on: November 19, 2007, 05:47:12 AM » |
|
Time flows just like numbers do and they can be unitized just like numbers. I guess what I'm getting at is why can't this moment in time be 4?
It can if it began four units ago. But if it began an infinite duration past then this moment is not 4, it is infinity, and so was yesterday and so is tomorrow and the day after. Oh how can it be? I don't hold with an infinite past, so won't comment. However, the same difficulties for those who can't see occur for the infinite future. Tomorrow we will be one day more added to the past, one day fewer taken from the future, but the future will still be infinite. Thats what infinite is all about, and why it has no other 'name'. It applies to the future if the future already exists. If the future is undefined untill it becomes present, your statement is false. Once again this is why cosmologist refrain from describing time the way Callum does. This is why time future is considered eternal but not spoken of as having an infinite quality or quantity. The boundary conditions prevent consideration that time future is currently an existing condition. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #152 on: November 19, 2007, 06:43:22 AM » |
|
Time flows just like numbers do and they can be unitized just like numbers. I guess what I'm getting at is why can't this moment in time be 4?
It can if it began four units ago. But if it began an infinite duration past then this moment is not 4, it is infinity, and so was yesterday and so is tomorrow and the day after. Oh how can it be? I don't hold with an infinite past, so won't comment. However, the same difficulties for those who can't see occur for the infinite future. Tomorrow we will be one day more added to the past, one day fewer taken from the future, but the future will still be infinite. Thats what infinite is all about, and why it has no other 'name'. It applies to the future if the future already exists. If the future is undefined untill it becomes present, your statement is false. Once again this is why cosmologist refrain from describing time the way Callum does. This is why time future is considered eternal but not spoken of as having an infinite quality or quantity. The boundary conditions prevent consideration that time future is currently an existing condition. Nope. I don't want to be as dogmatic as you, but although some cosmologists may adopt an expanding block model of time, there are others who take other views -most can accomodate experimental findings, more or less easily. But, strangely enough, people with a scientific type of mind do tend to (a) keep otions open and (b) ditch options when the evidence is undeniably against. For example, the past-reversal experiments in the Aspect series pose some awkward questions for the exp-block view. However, the first thing is to ensure a proper evaluation of the experimental results, and that the theory isn't merely deficient. Errm... time future/currently?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #153 on: November 19, 2007, 12:51:23 PM » |
|
It can if it began four units ago. But if it began an infinite duration past then this moment is not 4, it is infinity, and so was yesterday and so is tomorrow and the day after. Oh how can it be?
Imagine time as like a number line stretching infinitely in both directions. The big bang is where zero is and we are at 13 billion or somewhere like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #154 on: November 23, 2007, 08:00:50 AM » |
|
The key to your fallacy is that you once again must refer to your imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #155 on: November 23, 2007, 01:56:19 PM » |
|
The key to your fallacy is that you once again must refer to your imagination.
Which is totally different from "if you honestly try to believe in god, you will believe in god". The old, "you have to make yourself believe in order to believe" Fallacy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2007, 12:06:57 PM » |
|
The key to your fallacy is that you once again must refer to your imagination.
OK, so how do propose we have any discussions on metaphysics without using imagination? Could you please post a photo of God? If you don't have a picture (or some other physical evidence) does that make God imaginary? Does that therefore mean he does not exist? I was simply using the number line as an image to illustrate my point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #157 on: November 24, 2007, 02:53:12 PM » |
|
The key to your fallacy is that you once again must refer to your imagination.
OK, so how do propose we have any discussions on metaphysics without using imagination? Could you please post a photo of God? If you don't have a picture (or some other physical evidence) does that make God imaginary? Does that therefore mean he does not exist? I was simply using the number line as an image to illustrate my point. Are you proposing that evidence is extraneous to the discussion? The idea is you can't count time that hasn't happened yet. Seeing no end is different than having infinity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2007, 03:04:08 PM » |
|
The key to your fallacy is that you once again must refer to your imagination.
OK, so how do propose we have any discussions on metaphysics without using imagination? Could you please post a photo of God? If you don't have a picture (or some other physical evidence) does that make God imaginary? Does that therefore mean he does not exist? I was simply using the number line as an image to illustrate my point. Are you proposing that evidence is extraneous to the discussion? Of course not. The idea is you can't count time that hasn't happened yet. Seeing no end is different than having infinity.
Agreed. I just don't see how this helps. If you could view all time at once would you be viewing and infinite thing? That's what we're talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #159 on: November 25, 2007, 06:08:41 AM » |
|
It helps because your original response to my claim that infinity is not actualized in this physical world was to say that it is and then proceed to produce examples from your imagination. You continue to produce examples from your mind and ask us to imagine they have a physical component. They don't and my claim remains unfalsified.
We have truth as an absolute and universal actuality in this world and infinity as a construct of our minds with no example from this world.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #160 on: November 25, 2007, 07:48:48 AM » |
|
We have truth as an absolute and universal actuality in this world.... We are still awaiting your definition/explanation of WHAT truth is. The best and simplest answer to the OP was given on page 1 by technocrat... Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.
I offered a scholarly and accesssible review of ways this could be interpreted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which you commented on, but didn't appear to read). So, shorn of the high-sounding phrases - what is truth? Give us an example of one. (Here's a couple from me: "A=A"; "I think, therefore thinking exists";......can you do better?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #161 on: November 25, 2007, 07:52:59 AM » |
|
We have truth as an absolute and universal actuality in this world.... We are still awaiting your definition/explanation of WHAT truth is. The best and simplest answer to the OP was given on page 1 by technocrat... Truth is the state corresponding with reality. Factual "truth" is a correspondence of a statement with reality. Logical truths are tautologies. Truths are sound, valid statements.
I offered a scholarly and accesssible review of ways this could be interpreted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which you commented on, but didn't appear to read). So, shorn of the high-sounding phrases - what is truth? Give us an example of one. (Here's a couple from me: "A=A"; "I think, therefore thinking exists";......can you do better?) Callum, it has all been covered in the first several pages of this thread. I am satisfied with your examples. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Callum
|
|
« Reply #162 on: November 25, 2007, 08:01:39 AM » |
|
We have truth as an absolute and universal actuality in this world.... Callum, it has all been covered in the first several pages of this thread. I am satisfied with your examples. But I am not satisfied with your use of phrases like "an absolute and universal actuality...", when what has been established is that truth is a relationship between a statement and the world. Statements are the product of a linguistically capable mind: how do statements differ then from "a construct of our minds"? On the first page I asked "Is the statement 'Harry Potter attends Hogwaerts' true?". Is it? If not, why not? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #163 on: November 25, 2007, 08:22:50 AM » |
|
I am confused as to why you are not satisfied with the thread. Your examples are satisfactory, you seem to understand. I cannot asses the truth of your statement since I do not know who you mean by Harry Potter and I do not know this place Hogwarts except from a fictional book.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #164 on: November 25, 2007, 01:44:39 PM » |
|
It helps because your original response to my claim that infinity is not actualized in this physical world was to say that it is and then proceed to produce examples from your imagination. You continue to produce examples from your mind and ask us to imagine they have a physical component. They don't and my claim remains unfalsified.
We have truth as an absolute and universal actuality in this world and infinity as a construct of our minds with no example from this world.
I was simply using things from my imagination as a way of illustrating how time could be infinite in both directions but yet we can still be at a certain point in it. Infinity is a difficult concept to visualise. I think my example helped. It was an analogy nothing more. I think the original claim was that if time had no beginning we could not be at a now. Do you agree/disagree? Do you have any way to back it up? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
