This is definitely a paradox or is it?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


In a previous post you stated ( I underlined the important part but wanted to keep it in context):


ImaFungi
So, totality of stuff. It changes. That is time.

Stuff. Something. Has always existed.

You've repeated this notion of time on more than a few occasions in this thread. And in this context of time (change), we are speaking directly about transformation of energy. We're adults here I think, so I figured we'd just call it what it is...
Regardless, this is your concept of time. Is that safe to say?


ImaFungi
Even if the stuff didnt change for infinite amount of time, and then decided to start changing, one could use a system of measurement to describe the time working backwards, say a steady beat of a drum, or the atomic second, any consistent rhythmic measurement to measure time (as inches are a consistent measurement to measure distance) starting from the point that the stuff started changing going backwards, you would be doing that sequence of time keeping, infinitely, eternally into the past. I am asking, how is this possible, what does this mean, how is that not paradoxical?

Now, this above statement is your conundrum. However it may be self inflicted. I underlined 2 parts that should be addressed.
But first, it seems to me that this entire last statement of yours is not based off of your original notion of time as highlighted above. One which you've repeated as being equal to the changing of stuff. No, here you seem to be talking about temporal duration based on measurement from a point when energy starts changing. That point, then, is your beginning, is it not?

0 = no change (no time) in energy, 1 = start of change (start of time) in energy, 2 = next change, ad infinitum..... or {0,1,2,3,....infinity} There is no left side of 0. Our current configuration of energy may exist at 1.47 quadrillion on that timeline, towards infinity. So there's no reason to wonder why it's impossible for our configuration to exist.

But I'm curious as to why you are compelled to measure backward from the point at which energy starts changing? What would be the point in doing that? According to your repeated definition of time, the start of change, as underlined above, should be equal to the start of time. Hence, there is most certainly a beginning to trace back to. Problem solved. The unchanging energy that existed before that point is beyond all notions of time. No change, no time. It can't be measured. Thus, that part is infinite where time has no meaning.

I know you'll probably get annoyed with what I just said, but I think you'll need to settle on a notion of time. The transformation of energy is different from the measurement of that transformation.

So I guess my question for you is what notion of time are you using? Time as a concept of duration, measurement? Or time as a concept of change? Or both? Are you more concerned with each separate sequence of energy? Or more with how long they've been sequencing for? I see these as two different aspects of time. But you seem to be flip flopping between the two.
edit on 21-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

PhotonEffect

ImaFungi
"So, totality of stuff. It changes. That is time. "

You've repeated this notion of time on more than a few occasions in this thread. And in this context of time (change), we are speaking directly about transformation of energy. We're adults here I think, so I figured we'd just call it what it is...
Regardless, this is your concept of time. Is that safe to say?


Yes this is my concept of time, I believe it is the only true real concept of what the word time, was invented to describe. As the word apple, was invented to describe that red fruit from a specific tree. I believe without a doubt the word time was invented to describe the fact that energy changes, and you know all the units of measurement are the different ways to compare different changes of energy.

" ImaFungi
Even if the stuff didnt change for infinite amount of time, and then decided to start changing, one could use a system of measurement to describe the time working backwards, say a steady beat of a drum, or the atomic second, any consistent rhythmic measurement to measure time (as inches are a consistent measurement to measure distance) starting from the point that the stuff started changing going backwards, you would be doing that sequence of time keeping, infinitely, eternally into the past. I am asking, how is this possible, what does this mean, how is that not paradoxical?"



Now, this above statement is your conundrum. However it may be self inflicted. I underlined 2 parts that should be addressed.
But first, it seems to me that this entire last statement of yours is not based off of your original notion of time as highlighted above. One which you've repeated as being equal to the changing of stuff. No, here you seem to be talking about temporal duration based on measurement from a point when energy starts changing. That point, then, is your beginning, is it not?


It is not the beginning of stuff existing. It would be a specific marquee of vast difference (as imagined when mentions of a singularity is mentioned). I am suggesting because eventually something did change, the universe was created, time would have always have been existing, that is to say the potential for change. Cause and affect. Everything (in a non new agey way) does happen for a reason, that is to say all things are products of cause and affect. So if you are suggesting energy existed in a changeless state, was not created, had always existed, and then for no reason changed, I do not think that is possible, there must have been something that caused it to change, which means it was changeable, maybe even changing but thats some deeper speculation.

To give a crude and simple and helpful analogy, imagine for this thought experiment all of reality equals a sphere. No details, just a finite sphere of one substance, and its just perfect like a perfect stone. And nothing about it is moving or changing, it is just there. To express the meaning of time, imagine that this sphere is blinking blue and red alternatively. This is time, change. When you are saying time did not exist, and then it began, you are saying an eternal sphere existed, and then at some point in... at some point for some reason... it began blinking (I am not mocking this notion or ruling it out, I just dont have the answers to fill in), I am saying, a sphere has always existed, and for some reason and in some sense and way it has always been blinking. red blue red blue, it will never stop blinking and if it does stop blinking for the largest numbers times the largest number to the power of itself light years, there is still the chance it will start again, because the sphere will always exist, so between the point at which it stopped, and the point at which it started again, even though it may be unmeasurable, and inconsequential as a quantitative value, it is still time, in the sense of being a necessary step or stage in the sequence of total events in the history of history.



0 = no change (no time) in energy, 1 = start of change (start of time) in energy, 2 = next change, ad infinitum..... or {0,1,2,3,....infinity} There is no left side of 0. Our current configuration of energy may exist at 1.47 quadrillion on that timeline, towards infinity. So there's no reason to wonder why it's impossible for our configuration to exist.

But I'm curious as to why you are compelled to measure backward from the point at which energy starts changing? What would be the point in doing that? According to your repeated definition of time, the start of change, as underlined above, should be equal to the start of time. Hence, there is most certainly a beginning to trace back to. Problem solved. The unchanging energy that existed before that point is beyond all notions of time. No change, no time. It can't be measured. Thus, that part is infinite where time has no meaning.


My number analogy may have been clumsy. oh I see, I did not meant 0 meant no time, I meant if we were to stop time, we could say we are at point 0, the past being into the negative the future being into positive. I suppose my reason for doing so is my belief that the current universe may very well not be the first time anything has ever happened. Of course i could be wrong. but then that would still be extremely bizarre to me. please dont waste your typing breath telling me how its not not suppose to be bizarre, I shouldnt expect it not to be etc, I know, but thanks. So I suppose it could be that something, for simplicity lets call it a sphere, has always existed, and at some point, had absolutely no change/time associated with it. It was just solid and motionless, always existing, never having been created, forever. And then it started to turn into a universe. maybe, maybe.



I know you'll probably get annoyed with what I just said, but I think you'll need to settle on a notion of time. The transformation of energy is different from the measurement of that transformation.

So I guess my question for you is what notion of time are you using? Time as a concept of duration, measurement? Or time as a concept of change? Or both? Are you more concerned with each separate sequence of energy? Or more with how long they've been sequencing for? I see these as two different aspects of time. But you seem to be flip flopping between the two.
edit on 21-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


Not at all, you have taken my op most seriously and put in honest effort to have discussion, so thanks.

Yes the transformation of energy is different from the measurement of the transformation. But the later always includes the prior, the prior is the statement of something that occurs, while the later is an organizational and comparative interactive way of trying to make sense of it.

They are really the same thing. Whether we measure the details of transformations or not, they occur, as, the transformation of energy. While stating; time is the transformation of energy, is declaring what time is. It is the difference between saying Distance exists. And saying, there are means in which to measure distance.

I only believe I brought up the measurement of time or duration, when trying to prove that time itself existed. But I see what you are applying this too and you may be correct. It comes down to if we go back far enough into the past, if there was just a timeless eternal manifestation of the something. Which it seems you are suggesting as the solution to making my query false.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Think of time as the view of the concept of pi given to someone else to view.

Pi is not the view of the concept of pi, but that is the only way to express it to someone else. (That is, pi is the concept -- not the view of the concept.)

The concept of pi has a beginning, and no end, but having no end does not mean it is changing.

The view of our lives, within eternity, like the view of the concept of pi, is not us, it is the view of us called time.

Time does not have to be infinite to express infinity. As a matter of fact, we should know time is not infinite because it is relative - some views express instantaneousness and some express infinity, but none of the views, themselves, are infinite.
edit on 2/22/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Bleeeeep
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Think of time as the view of the concept of pi given to someone else to view.

Pi is not the view of the concept of pi, but that is the only way to express it to someone else. (That is, pi is the concept -- not the view of the concept.)

The concept of pi has a beginning, and no end, but having no end does not mean it is changing.

The view of our lives, within eternity, like the view of the concept of pi, is not us, it is the view of us called time.

Time does not have to be infinite to express infinity. As a matter of fact, we should know time is not infinite because it is relative - some views express instantaneousness and some express infinity, but none of the views, themselves, are infinite.
edit on 2/22/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


Pi is not the view of the concept of pi.....what does this mean? What is the concept of pi? Having no end does not mean it is changing.... I will take it you mean by this the digits of pi do not end, but just because they dont end does not mean it cant be infinitely long.

You are mistaking the difference between small mathematical infinities and the ONE total infinity I am talking about, which contains all possible infinities, like irrational math ones.

I am not talking about peoples view of time... I am talking about the totality of stuff that exists, in relation to that stuff changing as a totality.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 12:53 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



It isn't a paradox. It's a false assumption. Scientists have already proven that "nothing" does not exist. There is no such thing that exists which is called "non-existence". Non-existence does not exist and therefore everything is something.

Empty space itself, is it's own energy, and scientists have shown that you can create light from it [Link].

This shows that Emptiness (Space) has 'something' within it as Something has 'emptiness' within it and it changes giving the illusion and appearance of 'things' coming and going.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

ImaFungi
Yes this is my concept of time, I believe it is the only true real concept of what the word time, was invented to describe. As the word apple, was invented to describe that red fruit from a specific tree. I believe without a doubt the word time was invented to describe the fact that energy changes, and you know all the units of measurement are the different ways to compare different changes of energy.

Yes, I understand. But duration is also a very important aspect of time, as a measure of that change.



So if you are suggesting energy existed in a changeless state, was not created, had always existed, and then for no reason changed, I do not think that is possible, there must have been something that caused it to change, which means it was changeable, maybe even changing but thats some deeper speculation.

I don't think I was suggesting that, at least not intentionally. I was just quoting what you wrote about there being an unchanging energy that had existed for an infinite amount of time that suddenly changed into something. But I understand now that you were saying there has always been change (as long as energy has existed), even if the energy was unchangeable for a long period of time.


To give a crude and simple and helpful analogy, imagine for this thought experiment all of reality equals a sphere. No details, just a finite sphere of one substance, and its just perfect like a perfect stone. And nothing about it is moving or changing, it is just there. To express the meaning of time, imagine that this sphere is blinking blue and red alternatively. This is time, change. When you are saying time did not exist, and then it began, you are saying an eternal sphere existed, and then at some point in... at some point for some reason... it began blinking (I am not mocking this notion or ruling it out, I just dont have the answers to fill in), I am saying, a sphere has always existed, and for some reason and in some sense and way it has always been blinking. red blue red blue, it will never stop blinking and if it does stop blinking for the largest numbers times the largest number to the power of itself light years, there is still the chance it will start again, because the sphere will always exist, so between the point at which it stopped, and the point at which it started again, even though it may be unmeasurable, and inconsequential as a quantitative value, it is still time, in the sense of being a necessary step or stage in the sequence of total events in the history of history.


Yes, so you are associating time as intrinsic to the sphere having existed forever. No beginning, no end. Thus time (like the sphere) has existed and will exist forever. I get this and am actually okay with it.



I only believe I brought up the measurement of time or duration, when trying to prove that time itself existed. But I see what you are applying this too and you may be correct. It comes down to if we go back far enough into the past, if there was just a timeless eternal manifestation of the something. Which it seems you are suggesting as the solution to making my query false.


Well the good news is I think there is hope in solving your conundrum without sacrificing anything you've asked or said. Using your analogy, time is represented by the changing of the sphere/energy between red and blue, for an infinite duration of cycles back and forth between these two forms. There was no starting point, nor is there an ending point to these oscillations. So you wonder then how it can be that we've ever reached our current state, let's say it's blue, in an infinitely long pattern of states.

If I've understood what you are asking to this point, which I think I do, then I see 2 possible ways:
1) The transformation of energy exists as an infinite time(change) loop. So let's say there are 5 different states [1,2,3,4,5} of existence for the sphere. And the sphere cycle's through each state (1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 1, then 2, etc ad infinitum), perhaps remaining in a particular state for the same duration of time (1000 billion years each), or not (state #1 lasts for 1 googol years, #2 for 1 microsecond, #3 for infinity -1 years, #4 for 14.5 billion years, you get the idea). Let's say our existence, our current state of energy transformation, is represented by #4. Which means, that our state has come and gone in and out of existence an infinite number of times over an infinite number of years. Since time(change) is a cycle, then our state, #4, will be guaranteed to come around each time for infinity. There is no "negative time" since it's a loop. The implication here is that the configuration that includes our universe has come and gone (existing in the same state) for an infinite number of times. So our conversation has occurred an infinite number of times and will continue to do so forever. Cool!

2) The transformation of energy is not represented as a cycle between a set number of states, but instead linearly across an infinite number of states. We can't represent each state of existence with a number because there are an infinite number of them (and then are heads will explode), but if there can exist an infinite number of colors for the sphere, with each one being unique, then each one will be realized, so long as time (change) moves in one direction. Our existence of a particular shade of blue will come and go never to exist again. But even across an infinite color palette, our state will exist as long as time moves in a a certain direction.

Now I concede that neither of these options for time may explain what you are asking or even come close to representing what the reality is. Never the less it's fun to think about. And if I were to choose one, I think I might go with option #2.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


A mathematical expression of pi could be:

pi = 3.14...

But when we look at this mathematical expression / view of pi, or the geometrical shapes / views of pi, we are not actually seeing pi itself. The way we see pi, itself, is by becoming aware of what the expression means - by seeing the concept within our awareness.

Think of how you create a concept of something. You have the concept, and then you put it into an expression / word / image / embodiment within "physicality" -- some form or symbol or image or sensation etc.

Now, how is time not apart of some of these expressions? Do all known concepts express themselves with the expression of time? NAY, infinite or instant expressions do not. So, time is just as much an expression, which is apart of the view of physicality, as is something like length or color or joy or sound.

You see the expression of time as the concept of change, where I see the expression as an expression of God's will / Holy Spirit, or something being manifest by will / spirit.

The concept, not the expression, is not that things change infinitely, because we have infinite things like pi, or instantaneous things like the motion of entangled particles, and we have other things which are relative or last moments to eons.

The concept which time expresses is will / spirit - the expression of manifestation - Holy Spirit / God's will creating the expression / word / image / embodiment / physicality of the concepts, just as we create images of our concepts with will - it is that manifestation or becoming which is what time expresses.

You at least recognize that "3.14..." is not the concept of pi, itself? I think this should be a good starting point for understanding time -- find the concept that the expression represents by seeing all attributes of time. (All things do not change.)
edit on 2/23/2014 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

arpgme

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



It isn't a paradox. It's a false assumption. Scientists have already proven that "nothing" does not exist. There is no such thing that exists which is called "non-existence". Non-existence does not exist and therefore everything is something.

Empty space itself, is it's own energy, and scientists have shown that you can create light from it [Link].

This shows that Emptiness (Space) has 'something' within it as Something has 'emptiness' within it and it changes giving the illusion and appearance of 'things' coming and going.


Can you point out specifically, by quoting, the exact statements I made that are false assumptions please?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:56 PM
link   

PhotonEffect

Well the good news is I think there is hope in solving your conundrum without sacrificing anything you've asked or said. Using your analogy, time is represented by the changing of the sphere/energy between red and blue, for an infinite duration of cycles back and forth between these two forms. There was no starting point, nor is there an ending point to these oscillations. So you wonder then how it can be that we've ever reached our current state, let's say it's blue, in an infinitely long pattern of states.

If I've understood what you are asking to this point, which I think I do, then I see 2 possible ways:
1) The transformation of energy exists as an infinite time(change) loop. So let's say there are 5 different states [1,2,3,4,5} of existence for the sphere. And the sphere cycle's through each state (1, then 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 1, then 2, etc ad infinitum), perhaps remaining in a particular state for the same duration of time (1000 billion years each), or not (state #1 lasts for 1 googol years, #2 for 1 microsecond, #3 for infinity -1 years, #4 for 14.5 billion years, you get the idea). Let's say our existence, our current state of energy transformation, is represented by #4. Which means, that our state has come and gone in and out of existence an infinite number of times over an infinite number of years. Since time(change) is a cycle, then our state, #4, will be guaranteed to come around each time for infinity. There is no "negative time" since it's a loop. The implication here is that the configuration that includes our universe has come and gone (existing in the same state) for an infinite number of times. So our conversation has occurred an infinite number of times and will continue to do so forever. Cool!

2) The transformation of energy is not represented as a cycle between a set number of states, but instead linearly across an infinite number of states. We can't represent each state of existence with a number because there are an infinite number of them (and then are heads will explode), but if there can exist an infinite number of colors for the sphere, with each one being unique, then each one will be realized, so long as time (change) moves in one direction. Our existence of a particular shade of blue will come and go never to exist again. But even across an infinite color palette, our state will exist as long as time moves in a a certain direction.

Now I concede that neither of these options for time may explain what you are asking or even come close to representing what the reality is. Never the less it's fun to think about. And if I were to choose one, I think I might go with option #2.



Yes you seem to be grasping.

But now the crux of my conundrum is that; Comprehending a never ending future, (as numbers never end) how can the past be never ending? This is the main crux of my paradox question. Think about how you can think about the future being never ending in terms of duration, next number next number next number forever, there is no end point. And now flip that concept to the past. If we could travel infinitely back into the past from any point in time (not possibly, hypothetically as in, that time happened) to explore the previous states of reality, and never reach a point, a beginning point, (obviously I know we exist at some point in time...so I admit there must be something wrong with my logic, but I wonder what it is, and what that would mean for the realistic truth of reality) how could we ever get here? Its the same as asking, try to get to this point of time we are in now, if you could time travel but only sequentially linearly, only after you travel to the farthest point in the future first then you may start your way back to this point. Thats the clearest way to express it, you would never be able to start your trip back, because you would never reach the end, as I am suggesting you would never reach the beginning.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The thing that is wrong with Your Logic is you lack of understanding Logic.

There is a physical reason why you can't travel indefinitely back in time.

It is because finite is not infinite. Therefore you can not travel infinite amount of time anywhere.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You might be interested in This thread.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Eternity is not an infinite regression of time. Eternity is ALL time simultaneously. The infinity of integers is not 'counting' for infinity, it is a set; the set of all integers. This set is known as Aleph Null - see Cantorian set theory.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



There is a physical reason why you can't travel indefinitely back in time.

It is because finite is not infinite. Therefore you can not travel infinite amount of time anywhere.


Please do not tell me I am wrong so assuredly with so little to back up your claims. I respect a lot of things you say and discuss, and your ability to think deeply, but there are often holes in the things you say. I actually think me and you might be your two different spies, where as I am always more focused on the something, you are focused on the nothing.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not asking anyone to physically travel back in time, I am merely positing that...time existed back in time. Did time exist before you were born??? Can you know this without traveling back to it physically??? I am not asking you to physically travel infinite amount of time, or any amount of time!!! I am asking you to comprehend, that the future will exist, and the past existed, and you dont need to physically travel to them to know that. Because it is logical.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Erm... this is taken from the first page:

ImaFungi
reply to post by EnPassant
 


Existence and property are 2 words describing the same things, properties/property exists, that which exists is properties. Existence is the fact that there is something rather then nothing, that which is something is someway, the way that the something is, is known as properties, or that information which can describe and detail that which exists. Because that which exists is a certain way, and the certain way that that which exists is, is known as that which exists properties.

Its 2 sides of the same coin, literally like asking is a quarter heads or tails? A quarter exists, it is the sum of its properties.
edit on 23-12-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The properties in order to get a general pizza to exist are dough, sauce, cheese. Take away dough, sauce and cheese, and your pizza does not exist.
edit on 23-12-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


And on the second page I have more discussion. Thanks though.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



ImaFungi
But now the crux of my conundrum is that; Comprehending a never ending future, (as numbers never end) how can the past be never ending? This is the main crux of my paradox question. Think about how you can think about the future being never ending in terms of duration, next number next number next number forever, there is no end point. And now flip that concept to the past. If we could travel infinitely back into the past from any point in time (not possibly, hypothetically as in, that time happened) to explore the previous states of reality, and never reach a point, a beginning point, (obviously I know we exist at some point in time...so I admit there must be something wrong with my logic, but I wonder what it is, and what that would mean for the realistic truth of reality) how could we ever get here? Its the same as asking, try to get to this point of time we are in now, if you could time travel but only sequentially linearly, only after you travel to the farthest point in the future first then you may start your way back to this point. Thats the clearest way to express it, you would never be able to start your trip back, because you would never reach the end, as I am suggesting you would never reach the beginning.


Yes I understand the problem you pose- but why must there be a beginning to move through time? There is no such thing as a furthest point in an infinite time line unless we create a point of reference. OK- so lets use our time- now go back as far as you want to the past or to the future.. (there's no end point as you mentioned) But you can still get [back] to our time (the beginning?) if you have a reference point. Why not?
If time (change) is a repeating cycle, then no beginning or end is needed. Imagine it as a circle or perhaps similar to this, except with no starting point. It's like one infinitely long piece of fusilli pasta. You can then conceive how it might still be possible to reach any particular state without a beginning. It's not necessary to have a beginning. Maybe that's what's throwing you off?

If your totality of stuff has always just been, then time (change) as an intrinsic property is eternal with it. But you'll first have to decide on one of a few possible time structures if you want to get closer to solving your problem- For instance, has this sphere been in a state of constant change forever so that time itself is eternal and therefore no beginning or end is required (maybe cyclical or maybe not)? OR did this sphere (energy) exist in a dormant state of no change (time) THEN due to some unknown cause, started to change states (time begins). In this scenario we have a beginning of time that is traceable but not necessarily an end time.. Which one of these do you want to go with? OR perhaps it's another structure of your choosing based off of the 5 principles you stated in your OP

Energy in some state has always existed. So that has to be a fundamental principle of the construct. Now if this energy has always been changing, so then, time has always existed. There's no beginning because it was never required in the first place. That much you know. How we ever got to our time in an infinite time line regardless of time structure may not be the right question to ask. Maybe it's because I don't see the paradox if we can conceive of a particular construct of time.
edit on 24-2-2014 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

EnPassant
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Eternity is not an infinite regression of time. Eternity is ALL time simultaneously. The infinity of integers is not 'counting' for infinity, it is a set; the set of all integers. This set is known as Aleph Null - see Cantorian set theory.


The set is symbolic, for its actuality is impossible, because the definition is self containing of the impossibility which it is invented to describe.

Eternity is not ALL TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY. That is one of the things that is possible to say that can be called stupid. That is stupid. I dont even know what else to say. Blue dog 46 ketchup container balloon ostrich oatmeal. If we are just making things up I can see why you may find that fun.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   

PhotonEffect


There is no such thing as a furthest point in an infinite time line unless we create a point of reference. OK- so lets use our time- now go back as far as you want to the past or to the future.. (there's no end point as you mentioned) But you can still get [back] to our time (the beginning?) if you have a reference point. Why not?


You are doing some gymnastics to ignore my point. I specifically said, You may only begin traveling back to the now point (reference point) AFTER AND ONLY AFTER you have reached the end or beginning. This is my point in the nutshell.




If time (change) is a repeating cycle, then no beginning or end is needed. Imagine it as a circle or perhaps similar to this, except with no starting point. It's like one infinitely long piece of fusilli pasta. You can then conceive how it might still be possible to reach any particular state without a beginning. It's not necessary to have a beginning. Maybe that's what's throwing you off?


Here I think you are failing to comprehend what time implies. Time doesnt imply similar states or scenery equals similar time. What you seem to imply is if a runner on a running track starts running at the start line (which is also the finish line) and runs 1 lap around the track and reaches the finish line, no total time has passed and it is the same exact absolute time as when he started. I am saying the very thing that time is, is the unavoidable sequence of sequencing involved with events and the sequence in which they occur, the fact events event, and do so in sequential order, is what time is. The future time is, the events that occur after the ones that occurring now, after those events occur other events will occur and that will be the future, and after those events occur other events occur and that would be a future. You seem to be trying to imply by heading towards the future we will end up at the past.








If your totality of stuff has always just been, then time (change) as an intrinsic property is eternal with it. But you'll first have to decide on one of a few possible time structures if you want to get closer to solving your problem- For instance, has this sphere been in a state of constant change forever so that time itself is eternal and therefore no beginning or end is required (maybe cyclical or maybe not)? OR did this sphere (energy) exist in a dormant state of no change (time) THEN due to some unknown cause, started to change states (time begins). In this scenario we have a beginning of time that is traceable but not necessarily an end time.. Which one of these do you want to go with? OR perhaps it's another structure of your choosing based off of the 5 principles you stated in your OP


I do not know the truth, but according to my original principles, those 2 options do seem to be competing possibilities so they both must be considered until one is proven or seen to be absolutely impossible. Even if it always existed unchanging the problems still exist.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

ImaFungi

EnPassant
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Eternity is not an infinite regression of time. Eternity is ALL time simultaneously. The infinity of integers is not 'counting' for infinity, it is a set; the set of all integers. This set is known as Aleph Null - see Cantorian set theory.


The set is symbolic, for its actuality is impossible, because the definition is self containing of the impossibility which it is invented to describe.

Eternity is not ALL TIME SIMULTANEOUSLY. That is one of the things that is possible to say that can be called stupid. That is stupid. I dont even know what else to say. Blue dog 46 ketchup container balloon ostrich oatmeal. If we are just making things up I can see why you may find that fun.


Time is an aspect of matter, that arises out of matter. Matter is a construct. Physical time is an extension of this construct. In reality all is in eternity - where else could it be? All of time is in eternity. "Time is a moving image of eternity" - Timeaus [see my next post]
edit on 25-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Change is evidence of time but it is not a sufficient definition of time. Time, as defined by general relativity, is concerned with the way change happens. This is a mathematical order known as spacetime. It is the geometry of change. The pedestrian experience of change is concerned with limitations on consciousness - we perceive change incrementally, but what we perceive is not the way things really are outside physical consciousness. What is really there is the order that determines HOW change happens - the geometry of spacetime. That is a more complete definition of time: the geometry of change.

This order must be independent of change since it determines how change happens. In other words, time as defined merely as change - the pedestrian stream of changes - must be WITHIN a higher order of things. This higher order, the geometry described by general relativity, is above and independent of, the stream of events it describes. That is, there is an order above time as a simple stream of events. Ultimately these higher orders of things are timeless, eternal. Ultimately, change is happening IN eternity. That is why I say eternity is, or contains, all of time.
edit on 25-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join