Slick Argument

[Peter L]

The following argument confuses me to no end. I'm not sure how to think about it, so I'd appreciate some thoughts on the matter.

Matthew Slick on The Reasoning Show:

See we cannot transverse an infinite amount of time, because if we transversed an infinite amount of time, by definition it isn't infinite, because you can't transverse that which is infinite. We exist in this universe in the present. If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time to get to the present. But that's impossible. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

It's sort of the same problem I had when I first realized that it is irrational to believe in a "beginning of time" (as I somewhat understand it, the universe cannot have a beginning of time, because without time, there's no change, so how could something come from nothing? It simply cannot). The solution to this is that there was no beginning of time. Instead, time just runs in both directions, infinitely. This made more sense, but there was another problem which arose and that's something that Mr Slick has addressed in the above quote. The only solution I can think of is that time loops and repeats itself. So, in a way, it's one large loop of causal linkages, perpetually repeating. This change happens within the Totality and more accurately the loop itself is the Totality. Consciousness is created within this totality, along with these concepts.

Anyways, the above seems like a sufficient solution and appears logical (to me), and helps me understand time/causation and Infinity, in an abstract way.

Furthermore, the past created the present or "now" and it was all determined and is interconnected through causation. This "now" is the future now of the previous "now" (that I types at the top sentence of this poorly written paragraph). The two "now" were inevitable and wouldn't appear without each other. The causal linkage between the present and the present (or the now and the now) is Infinite and is interconnected in both directions or in other words it's linked causally in both directions, interconnected from the past infinity to the future infinity. The concept of time as a linear line runs from the past to now, interconnected, to a determined future. For ex...

Time (runs only forward): Infinity --> past --> present --> future --> infinity. Hence, time is infinite.

Without the present being as it is, the past wouldn't be as it was. Nothing would be, actually.

Reverse engineered time: Infinity <--> past <--> present <--> future <--> infinity.

That's why it made sense to think of it as an abstract loop. It somewhat makes the concept of an infinite amount of time without a beginning easier to understand.

Btw, the above is just a mental experiment. All I have to go by is present consciousness + past memory.

[Carl G]

Slick Arguement

God, I love misspelled topic titles by newbies.



Couple more from Genius, page 1:

Practial steps to enlightment

Two misspellings in four words, by spell-checkless truth_justice.

Aesthethic experience as a 'mini-me' of enlightenement?

Two misspellings by brainy bill. Lol. Enlightenement: a condo in Nirvana.

[Steven Coyle]

The notion of non-locality adds another interesting spin. Non-locality states that once a particle makes contact with another particle, the two particles remain in communication. A good notion for humanity, as well.

Karma and energy. +/- spin states + 1+1 >>

But, the idea that kinda blows my mind, is the one that, with a little logic, concludes: if two particles remain in contact after coming in contact, then this opens the door to the possibility of events within the present, altering events throughout the infinite past, and future. also explains "spooky communication at a distance" (to chop stick Einstein a bit). quantum telepathy, precognition... and various other clairvoyant anomalies.

Would also open up the possibility of our past selves, living in alternate universes, and influencing our present and future.

Down inside that other Universe...

[Peter L]

Carl, what makes you think it wasn't an intentional misspelling? (Hint: take a look at the first sentence of my intro:)). Get it?

Steven,

if two particles remain in contact after coming in contact, then this opens the door to the possibility of events within the present, altering events throughout the infinite past, and future.

Whatever takes place in the past, influences the future, so on and so forth. How about this: The past can't be influenced, without the past having already been influenced by the future in the first place. So, if we traveled back in time and met our younger self, we'd have the memory of the meeting with our older self as a young child (reverse). However, the same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time or it can't come into contact with itself (~depending on which science fiction book you read). Resulting in catastrophic consequences (such as, spontaneous combustion!), but that's why it couldn't happen in the first place. It's similar to the end of the world, because of time traveling (it gets canceled out and never happens!).

By this...

Reverse engineered time: Infinity <--> past <--> present <--> future <--> infinity.

I meant, time goes forward while supported by the past. 1+1=2, 2 is the sum product and equal to 1+1. Similarly, the first word of this sentence ("similarly") could not have existed (or been what it is) without the last word of the sentence being predetermined and inevitable. Everything is like this. It's almost like one of those large puzzles I used to enjoy putting together as a kid. Each piece had its own set place, even before it was bought of the shelf.

[Kevin Solway]

but there was another problem which arose and that's something that Mr Slick has addressed in the above quote.

When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points. That's the major fault of his argument. That is, the idea of "traversing" simply can't be applied to infinite time. It has no place.

[hsandman]

When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points. That's the major fault of his argument. That is, the idea of "traversing" simply can't be applied to infinite time. It has no place.

That is what Mr.Slick is saying as well. If there is a "major fault", then it is with both of your "arguments". o_O

See we cannot transverse an infinite amount of time, because if we transversed an infinite amount of time, by definition it isn't infinite, because you can't transverse that which is infinite.

To Peter, Yup, sounds about right. :-P Time is a motion through fractal universe -> Infinite movement. (Fractal being a loop repeating itself infinitely. Time being that motion. ;-) )

It's kind of like this (click <-Here picture. :-P.

[Kevin Solway]

That is what Mr.Slick is saying as well.

No. Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time". But that is entirely wrong, so right there his argument falls apart.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Slick Arguement

God, I love misspelled topic titles by newbies.

Then I guess you'll also appreciate this entry from the Urban Dictionary made more than two years ago. Note the Mr. Slick reference.

Arguement is argument spelt by a wannabe who thinks he's Mr.Slick when he's actually a slimy skank who skipped his school to sell kuchi ice.

when people think about masturbation, whatever the kind, their mind gets clouded and they spell argument as arguement.

by maapi2 Madras Oct 5, 2006

[hsandman]

See we cannot transverse an infinite amount of time, because if we transversed an infinite amount of time, by definition it isn't infinite, because you can't transverse that which is infinite. We exist in this universe in the present. If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time to get to the present. But that's impossible. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

:
That is what Mr.Slick is saying as well.

No. Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time". But that is entirely wrong, so right there his argument falls apart.
Kevin Solway

Golly-gosh! impossibly impossible! Simply entirely wrong!
Can you be more specific?

Can Non-Existence Exist? Indicate one. Yes, No, Maybe?

Is universe infinetely old (tick here)
or is it not? (tick here)
Alternatively circle : Yes, No, Maybe?

[hsandman]

Slick Argument

God, I love misspelled topic titles by newbies.

Then I guess you'll also appreciate this entry from the Urban Dictionary made more than two years ago. Note the Mr. Slick reference.

Arguement is argument spelt by a wannabe who thinks he's Mr.Slick when he's actually a slimy skank who skipped his school to sell kuchi ice.

when people think about masturbation, whatever the kind, their mind gets clouded and they spell argument as arguement.

by maapi2 Madras Oct 5, 2006

Interesting argument... the plot thickens. :-O hmm... nope, not true.
In Monty I trust! In slick I doubt.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7195969915

[Kevin Solway]

Can you be more specific?

Let me explain it again, slowly:

Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time".

But since we already know that the concept, "traversed", with regard to the infinite, is mistaken, for the reason I explained earlier, this makes Slick's statement immediately false.

And since Slick's argument rests on this statement, it means that Slick's argument is false.

Since there is nothing the Universe excludes, it cannot be finite. Since it is not finite, it is called "infinite", which means "not finite".

[hsandman]

Can you be more specific?

Let me explain it again, slowly:

Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time".

But since we already know that the concept, "traversed", with regard to the infinite, is mistaken, for the reason I explained earlier, this makes Slick's statement immediately false.

And since Slick's argument rests on this statement, it means that Slick's argument is false.

Since there is nothing the Universe excludes, it cannot be finite. Since it is not finite, it is called "infinite", which means "not finite".

Existence of Non-Existence is impossible hence existence has always existed. Was just checking.

That is, the idea of "traversing" simply can't be applied to infinite time. It has no place.

http://www.answers.com/topic/traverse
To traverse:
To travel or pass across, over, or through.
To move to and fro over; cross and recross.
To go up, down, or across (a slope) diagonally, as in skiing.
To cause to move laterally on a pivot; swivel: traverse an artillery piece.
To extend across; cross: a bridge that traverses a river.
To look over carefully; examine.

[divine focus]

To Peter, Yup, sounds about right. :-P Time is a motion through fractal universe -> Infinite movement. (Fractal being a loop repeating itself infinitely. Time being that motion. ;-) )

It's kind of like this (click <-Here picture. :-P.

Yes! If time is a circle, there would be little circles on the inner edge of it, and we'd be going around the larger circle through the inner circles. These inner circles would also have their own inner circles. Now, the larger circle, which itself is an inner circle of an even larger circle, has to be made up of these inner circles so that there is no actual circle outline that the inner circles are attached to. The larger circle is only a chain of these inner cirlces. If that's the case, to get from one circle to the next, they cannot actually be side-by-side, but would have to be on top of each other. This way, you could pass from one circle to the next with only one full loop of each. Time begins to look more like an infinite mulitdimensional spiral structure than a simple line.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

hsandman, when the word "traverse" is used, the assumption is being made that time has motion. An alternative way of looking at time is to consider it as change (for instance, metres per second -- a common measurement for a moving object -- is the rate of change of distance). Infinite time, in this alternative mode, simply expresses the fact that the universe is perpetually changing.

[hsandman]

To Divine circle.
Yes, I believe concept of time is a logarithmic spiral, A fractal based on 1,1,2,3,5 Fibonacci numbers, where movement is only a illusion. Search words 'feedback loop' vids on youtube, and notice how similar the effect is to the yin/yang representation in eastern religions.

To Trevor,
Yes, I was just trying to clear it up if Kevin knew why slick was wrong. The problem was that Mr.slick and Mr.Kevin were using the same definition of the word "Traverse" (IE. Traverse: to cross something from end to end) to back up the theory that universe is infinitely old or the opposite of that. I believe, Kevin is right, but his explanation of why slick was wrong, was confusing.

Kevin

When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points. That's the major fault of his argument.(Yes, he used that as counter-argument!) That is, the idea of "traversing" simply can't be applied to infinite time. It has no place. (Arguing from conclusion)

Kevin

No. Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time". But that is entirely wrong,(It is entirely wrong to say "entirely wrong"...it just is :-/) so right there his argument falls apart.
(Impossibly Impossible)

Kevin

Let me explain it again, slowly:

Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time".

But since we already know that the concept, "traversed", with regard to the infinite, is mistaken, for the reason I explained earlier, this makes Slicks statement immediately false. (<- O_o Go read his explanations again)

And since Slicks argument rests on this statement, it means that Slicks argument is false.

Since there is nothing the Universe excludes, it cannot be finite. Since it is not finite, it is called "infinite", which means "not finite".

(That is more like what I was after...logical explanation, but he still did not pick up where slick pulled the fast one.

Existence of non-Existence can not Exist.

[Nick]

The important thing to remember is that time is just another concept within the totality, it's essentially an illusion. The Totality on the other hand is infinite and unchanging, no begining and no end. Every moment is infinite.

[Peter L]

I thought this was neat:

Preacher:

Eternity is infinitely long, indeed much longer then that. Just think of it, dear friends, that when millions and millions of years have passed and you look at your watches, breakfast will still be another hundred thousand years off.

Albert Engstrom

Kevin,

When we're talking about infinite time, it doesn't actually mean anything to "traverse" it. You can only "traverse" something when you have beginning and end points. That's the major fault of his argument. That is, the idea of "traversing" simply can't be applied to infinite time. It has no place.

I've traveled a finite distance before, so I understand what it means to walk, say, a mile or whatever. I've experienced it. The infinite is different, because I'm constantly experiencing it, hence I don't understand it.

Can you think of a valid argument that carries on Slicks main idea? (Kevin, you've pointed out that Slicks argument is worded incorrectly, but I don't see how you solved the original "idea" that he presented.).

No. Mr. Slick says, "If the universe were infinitely old it would mean we've transversed an infinite amount of time". But that is entirely wrong, so right there his argument falls apart.

Maybe it's wrong to say that the universe is infinitely old?

[bill]

Slick Arguement

God, I love misspelled topic titles by newbies.



Couple more from Genius, page 1:

Practial steps to enlightment

Two misspellings in four words, by spell-checkless truth_justice.

Aesthethic experience as a 'mini-me' of enlightenement?

Two misspellings by brainy bill. Lol. Enlightenement: a condo in Nirvana.

Well spotted. I type fast and rarely spell check when I'm on an 'informal' place on the internet. Now, do you know how to spell pedantic?

[Peter L]

...