This is definitely a paradox or is it?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


And then I am also asking if time can be traced infinitely into the past, how is the point/moment we are currently in accessible, if it is impossible to reach a moment that is the furthest in the past, there is further and further and further and further and further and further and further, times a million furthers, times a bigillion, forever, forever, more, further, keep going, forever, more, infinity times infinity, eternal eternities, forever.


This statement proves that there is no time.

The rest of what you posit is dependent on time being a real "something". It is not.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Iamonlyhuman

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


And then I am also asking if time can be traced infinitely into the past, how is the point/moment we are currently in accessible, if it is impossible to reach a moment that is the furthest in the past, there is further and further and further and further and further and further and further, times a million furthers, times a bigillion, forever, forever, more, further, keep going, forever, more, infinity times infinity, eternal eternities, forever.


This statement proves that there is no time.

The rest of what you posit is dependent on time being a real "something". It is not.


The infinite must have a absolute constant time line. That means there is a clock running, but there are no physical changes within its infinite Dimension. Keep in mind that time is relative and a human construct.

The only Dimension to have a clock AND physicall changes; is Our universe.

Time is one of the Things that separate finite from the infinite. One is a absolute constant the other is not.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

ImaFungi
For arguments sake lets refer to 'something' as energy/matter


  1. Something exists
  2. Something cannot come from nothing
  3. Therefore something has always existed
  4. Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
  5. Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite


1) Something exists
1 Comment) Accepted
2) Something cannot come from nothing
2 Comment) An idea (yes a little off subject!) can come from unidentified places. Does that mean that all thought must have a source?
3) Therefore something has always existed
3 Comment) -- Aye here be the rub. Just because something has always existed it doesn't have to exist in it's original form. The form may have changed from matter to energy or perhaps back to matter.
4) Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
4 Comment) Unless nothing has ever happened or can ever happen to something it must be modifiable by other somethings. Have you considered that the something may not be the only something?
5) Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite
5 Comment) This means that going far enough in the past yields a viewpoint that is beyond or outside of our present ability to describe. It doesn't mean that before the something exists it didn't exist. Perhaps the some thing was only a loose thing until the some got attached.

I'm in over my head here so be kind. Fast forward.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'm intrigued by this game of double dutch, but I haven't been able to find the right moment to jump in just yet...

So I shall keep watching in earnest until the right opportunity presents itself...

Keep those ropes goin
edit on 18-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


All energy is finite quantitatively. There is a limited finite 'amount of stuff'. like if all that ever existed was 1 apple, you can cut that apple into 10 pieces, that wouldnt mean there would be more stuff (according to what i am saying), there is still the same amount of stuff, it is just different. There is still the same finite quantity of stuff.

The thing that is infinite, is time. So this example would be; Imagine if all that existed the entire universe was an apple. Then imagine the apple would alternate between being whole, splitting into 10 pieces, then molding back to whole. Splitting into 10 pieces, meshing back to whole 1 apple. over and over. This represents time. Change. This is what I am claiming occurs infinitely to the totality of finite quantity of reality. Of course very crude metaphor and analogy, I am not saying the universe splits into ten pieces.. I am only worried and concerned about the most basic general simple axiomatic principles of logics, what must be fundamentally true about the nature of nature, the existence of existence.
edit on 18-2-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Iamonlyhuman

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


And then I am also asking if time can be traced infinitely into the past, how is the point/moment we are currently in accessible, if it is impossible to reach a moment that is the furthest in the past, there is further and further and further and further and further and further and further, times a million furthers, times a bigillion, forever, forever, more, further, keep going, forever, more, infinity times infinity, eternal eternities, forever.


This statement proves that there is no time.

The rest of what you posit is dependent on time being a real "something". It is not.


Yes it is... you are silly and wrong. The reason your great great great great grandparents arent alive right now? time. Reason the dinosaurs arent alive right now? Time. Reason you cannot give birth to your mom? time. Appears I just proved you wrong. You are wrong. Try to prove me wrong, but you shouldnt, because you cant.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

datasdream


1) Something exists
1 Comment) Accepted
2) Something cannot come from nothing
2 Comment) An idea (yes a little off subject!) can come from unidentified places. Does that mean that all thought must have a source?


This blargh blah dumb blech gnargnaplanstinkystinkystinky idea that is so prevelent with people who say this same thing all the time, id like to trace back its lineage just so I know where i should direct all my face palms and head shakes. DOAJFLIsjhkfshkfjhsfhs DO I really need to say this. Oh my god, im gonna break my computer.... NOTHINGKDSGHNLSKDGNLKSd nOTHINGGslkfgsdkljfnlksdjfklsjf NOTHING is NOTHING is NOTHING... oh its an idea so that means its something.....WHATTTTT?????? ....wait..... WHATTTTTTKJGKDSJFLKSDJFLKSDJFKLSJWHATTT????? WHYYYYY?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y??Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y wait.... NOOOOOOOOO




3) Therefore something has always existed
3 Comment) -- Aye here be the rub. Just because something has always existed it doesn't have to exist in it's original form. The form may have changed from matter to energy or perhaps back to matter.


Ok I now see I shouldnt have started with you. You are not following my logic. My OP is perfectly stated. I did not make any mistakes. Read it again slowly and understand each word and sequence. Word by word number by number. Your comments are wrong. You are not getting it. I get the feeling you just wanted to play and that is all fine and dandy, just dont bother me like this for ..something,, idk petes sake?




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   

PhotonEffect
I'm intrigued by this game of double dutch, but I haven't been able to find the right moment to jump in just yet...

So I shall keep watching in earnest until the right opportunity presents itself...

Keep those ropes goin
edit on 18-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


Read the OP and throw your 2 cents in, I just hope its worth a lot more then 2 cents. Noone has come close to grasping the significance of what I am saying. They instead were compelled to detour into their usually mystical program malfunctions which they must lie to themselves to make them feel better about death and its only moment is now bro no such thing as time radical, now what were we talking about...oh I have no clue, I just thought this would be a good place to make a statement like a bird makes a bird call, that I will say these words which were programmed into me 'time doesnt exist'. It must be true because I said it without thinking or knowing what im talking about and i believe it so it must be true.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


How can you prove the splitting of the apple, thereby resulting in segmentation, was due to time?

What if there was no change? Then, time does not exist.

That is why it must be will, where will creates time by making something occur.

The apple does not have to be split or it can be split into infinity.

Sure, time can be the splitting of the apple, but what we really need to be looking for is what caused the splitting.

Within your mind, what causes change? What happens if there was no change? What if it were instantaneous? This is what I am trying to get you to think about... what if time is instant? Is it still "time"? What if there is no splitting of the apple? Is it still "time"?

You are making time be existence, the changing of existence, and the cause of the changing of existence... you need to pick something but not all 3.



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It dosent matter how many time you split the apple. The apple could be splitt a infinite amount of times and you wouldnt even notice that it was split once.

There are at least two different sets of time. A Absolute constant time line where there is no motion or momentum, and expansion where there is motion and momentum.

I dont know how much People have read up about the "Ether". But it could be a good thing to do.
Even the brightest of scientists addmit that it exists. Its just that the Scientific cummunity have desmissed it "The Ether".



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


You are wrong in thinking that the word 'time' points to anything other then the changing stuff.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

spy66

It dosent matter how many time you split the apple. The apple could be splitt a infinite amount of times and you wouldnt even notice that it was split once.

There are at least two different sets of time. A Absolute constant time line where there is no motion or momentum, and expansion where there is motion and momentum.



I dont know what this is in response to. Have you tried to read my OP, how is what you are saying relating to the question I pose in my OP?

Stuff exists. Stuff changes. The fact that stuff changes is time. If stuff never changed, EVERRRRRRRR, if it never changed, EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, If stuff did not ever change, once, or half a time, if it existed, if stuff existed, and it never changed. Then time would not exist. But.. BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, Stuff exists.... ANDNDNDNDNDNDND STUFF CHANGESSSSS, SOO TIME EXISTSSSSSSS.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


You are wrong in thinking that the word 'time' points to anything other then the changing stuff.



It's "the changing stuff"?

or

the changing [of] stuff?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   
If "stuff" always "changes", than it must by default always stay the "same".

When dealing with a paradox we need to be willing to entertain direct contradictions.
Contradictions probably have to exist for the Universe to be in Balance.

Something like that.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Bleeeeep

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


You are wrong in thinking that the word 'time' points to anything other then the changing stuff.



It's "the changing stuff"?

or

the changing [of] stuff?


It is the fact stuff changes.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

muzzleflash
If "stuff" always "changes", than it must by default always stay the "same".

When dealing with a paradox we need to be willing to entertain direct contradictions.
Contradictions probably have to exist for the Universe to be in Balance.

Something like that.


It is a contradiction that you think your logic is logical when in fact it is the exact opposite.


"If "stuff" always "changes", than it must by default always stay the "same"


I do not think a child could burp up a more false scramble of noises.

Are you trying to piss me off, is this what a troll is and does?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Stuff comes from nothing all the time.

Think of an empty box. Empty, right? Now think of a red apple in that box. Where did that thought come from? That image -- which requires energy to exist and be sustained -- didn't exist, and now it does.

The logical paradox is a problem of semantics, not "reality." Every system you use to try and define reality -- words, numbers, symbols, etc. -- is going to be inaccurate and incomplete and lead to paradoxes.

You exist in reality. It is what it is. It's not a representation.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


ImaFungi
For arguments sake lets refer to 'something' as energy/matter


  1. Something exists
  2. Something cannot come from nothing
  3. Therefore something has always existed
  4. Therefore there is no 'beginning' to the existence of something
  5. Therefore in duration, in temporality, the past is eternal/infinite


I agree with all 5 of those points. The idea that we create something from nothing, or that anything is created by something is false. One thing changes into something else. Or, multiple things come together to change into something else. That's the way it is and has always been, I think.

So, what we have is the totality of a system that could contain 5 googol universes, lets say. Whatever, it's one immense thing with all these little things inside of it that has existed forever. Why? Who the hell knows, and it really doesn't matter. The fact is, it's there and has been forever. We don't make the rules...

Ok great, I'm fine with all of that. One big petri dish of ever changing organisms.
On to the next one,


Then the potential paradox (perhaps one of them) is wondering how this moment, this arrangement is possible to exist. Now I believe the logic of those bullets above are quite sound, but this argument I have began with this new paragraph right here is more inquisitive speculation and wonderment.


This is where I might have to question your question. Why would it not be possible for this current configuration of time to exist? So what that the changes have been occurring over an infinite time line (or loop). At some point (in time) the system is going to reach a certain configuration from the previous one, before it changes into the next one. So in this sense time is either linear, OR perhaps it could even be cyclical. We could be in the 1 millionth billionth trillionth cycle of this configuration. And there could be just as many configurations, that will each get their turn to exist (again and again, over and over) when the time comes. Like a spinning wheel of fortune...


If we imagine the history of something as the number line: Negative infinity...-1...0...1... Positive infinity

And we imagine ourselves (lets say we pause time) to exists at 0; I am asking if there is an infinite series of events towards the negative, the past, how did we ever get to this sequence. Just as we can never approach a moment of positive infinity, only ever approach, how did we ever escape or leave the eternal past, there are infinite digits to the left, the past, it cannot be arrived at or grasped, no beginning.

Again, my thoughts are that if there is a time line of specific configurations, and change (time) is moving in one direction along this line of sequences, then at some point, even in infinity, each one of those sequences/configurations/states will be realized. And maybe never again, OR, again when the cycle repeats itself.

Not sure if this addresses your post in the manner you want. But I feel I may need a better understanding of what your notion of time is/isn't as I try to grasp the rationale of a finite amount of matter, but an infinite duration of it.

How do you feel about these:

1) Time is change (of energy/matter/stuff) (as you've stated)
2) Time is the duration of change (represented by some unit of measure, of energy/matter/stuff)

(for the record, I believe there are two notions of time, although I get the sense you want there only to be one)

Anyway, just my 2c
edit on 20-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Blue Shift
Stuff comes from nothing all the time.

Think of an empty box. Empty, right? Now think of a red apple in that box. Where did that thought come from? That image -- which requires energy to exist and be sustained -- didn't exist, and now it does.

The logical paradox is a problem of semantics, not "reality." Every system you use to try and define reality -- words, numbers, symbols, etc. -- is going to be inaccurate and incomplete and lead to paradoxes.

You exist in reality. It is what it is. It's not a representation.


You are wrong. Stuff does not come from nothing ever.

Everything you described from thoughts to boxes to apples came from something, are composed of something, caused by something. I would say nice try, but it wasnt.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   

PhotonEffect




This is where I might have to question your question. Why would it not be possible for this current configuration of time to exist? So what that the changes have been occurring over an infinite time line (or loop). At some point (in time) the system is going to reach a certain configuration from the previous one, before it changes into the next one. So in this sense time is either linear, OR perhaps it could even be cyclical. We could be in the 1 millionth billionth trillionth cycle of this configuration. And there could be just as many configurations, that will each get their turn to exist (again and again, over and over) when the time comes. Like a spinning wheel of fortune...



For the most part you follow, but you have failed to grasp why I even was provoked to ask the question I did in the first place. I tried explaining why I was provoked to asking the question and I will do so again. Its very difficult to grasp, but it doesnt have to be, its abstract, and might not even be true, but try and follow my thinking.

You know that if the future is infinite/eternal in temporal duration (it will exist forever, meaning NO END), or if numbers are infinite, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (never ending...no end, there is no last number, as there is no, last time)

Now, the main thing I attempted to prove with my statements, were that the past is like this. The past is infinite and eternal, NO END, but in the past we think of beginnings, so NO BEGINNING. Infinite, eternal. Backwards in time, the previous arrangements of stuff/something of reality, there are an infinite number of them.

So now, knowing that the future will never end, an end point can never be arrived at. And the same could be said for the past, there was no beginning, a beginning point could never be arrived at. We would have to travel an infinite amount of time to the infinite power of infinite infinities times infinite power to the infinite infinities of time in the past, and would still never reach a beginning, times that amount of time by itself an infinite number of times to the power of that amount of time, and you would still be no closer to the beginning of the past, there would still be more and more configurations.

considering that, I then wonder, if we cannot reach the furthest past, how did we ever get to the state we are in now. We are obviously in a state now, something obviously happened. Its more a puzzling notion of logic. Do you see my conundrum?
edit on 21-2-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join