Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

[chikoka]

Quote
--------
Also this does not mean something from nothing because (by there merefact of saying time_0 is time_0) there never was a *time* when there was nothing.
If there was a time when there was nothing then there would be no *time* (which is something) for there to be nothing.
-------

Is anyone going to mention anything on this.
I'm not 100% sure of its logical validity.

[guest_of_logic]

Is anyone going to mention anything on this.

I intend to reply to your posts, but I can't promise when.

[chikoka]

Quote
-----
You'd have to prove that time exists outside of consciousness.
----

How can consciousness exist without time.
If it can then you are in fact saying it doesnt exist *now*, never existed in the *past* and will not exist anytime in the *future* since all these ** words are a function of time.

[chikoka]

chikoka:

How can consciousness exist without time.

Who said it could?

So time causes consciousness to exist just as much as consciousness causes time to exist and are therefore both objectively real, a paradox.

[Tomas]

Quote
--------
Also this does not mean something from nothing because (by there merefact of saying time_0 is time_0) there never was a *time* when there was nothing.
If there was a time when there was nothing then there would be no *time* (which is something) for there to be nothing.
-------

Is anyone going to mention anything on this.
I'm not 100% sure of its logical validity.

Whatever it "is" .. enjoy it while it's here.

When we're in the grave, time [motion, events] will stand still.

The dead know nothing. Never have, never will.

PS - Pushing up daisies - what a beautiful choice!

[Jamesh]

Again are you saying "nothing" *can* exist , as long as there are no minds?

To me David's logic is quite twisted in this regard. He views the act of naming things, identifying things as being the only manner in which existence can be. If there is no A=A then to him there is no existence. Like you say, he ignores the underlying existence from which any naming can take place.

To me though, the names or the form of identification is irrelevant. He’ll just say the underlying existence is The Tao which is a non-dual existence, ignoring the actual differentiation that enables the identification of anything by anything.

Although it is true we can only see various forms of existence to the capabilities of our sensory and mental tools, that doesn’t actually matter, as recognition can exist in the form of “physical awareness of differentiation”. It does not have to be conceptual recognition.

What our mental tools can tell us is that all “things” - things as in spatial areas that differ in some regard to another spatial area - “recognise” the existence of all that surrounds that thing, and they are caused to alter form based on both the causal activity patterns of the thing itself, and the affect of everything that is not that thing on those patterns. It does not matter that all “things” are interconnected, and thus there are no "intrinsic things". With regard existence there is still differentiation, and that is what existence ultimately is.

The QRS philosophy relies on only going so far conceptually and then stopping. This is actually the same as any religious person. Indeed anyone who calls themselves “enlightened” is simply being religious. Enlightenment is the act of reaching a structured mindset that satisfies the Ego/Memory/Present Circumstances trinity, then ceasing to question further – at core it’s the same thing a religious person does. Don’t be fooled by the fact that most religious people stop investigating “what it is possible to know” at level 1, whereas the QRS didn’t stop analysing until level 9.8 of 10 – it is clear you can forget them ever reviewing what they believe. It is their dismissal of duality as being of equal importance/existence to non-duality that is their main problem – it makes them continuously say things about the nature of reality that are only half right, due to a lack of acknowledgement of the other side of the story.

[David Quinn]

David:

Is my understanding of your views right?
I take it you say without minds nothing can exist ,which would mean that time did not exist before humans did.
But when they did exist the past appeared to them through logical infferences ,so these appearences *now* cause the past to exist.

Again are you saying "nothing" *can* exist , as long as there are no minds?

taken from an insight from this sentence:

"nothing can exist without minds"

If it can then how do minds come into being ie how "something from nothing" can happen.

These questions are essentially the same as the one you asked about concerning the kitchen, and so I refer you back to my answer there.

-

[Pincho Paxton]

David:

Is my understanding of your views right?
I take it you say without minds nothing can exist ,which would mean that time did not exist before humans did.
But when they did exist the past appeared to them through logical infferences ,so these appearences *now* cause the past to exist.

Again are you saying "nothing" *can* exist , as long as there are no minds?

taken from an insight from this sentence:

"nothing can exist without minds"

If it can then how do minds come into being ie how "something from nothing" can happen.

These questions are essentially the same as the one you asked about concerning the kitchen, and so I refer you back to my answer there.

-

It's a mental illusion, or a brain fuck as some people say. You are correct in a way that our minds are receiving information, and then giving everything a name, and a reason, and a life. The only flaw in your theory is that you use the word 'IF'. If is a dodgy word to use in a theory that is based on 'IF'. If there were no minds is just like saying.. "If the sun was black." You can't really work with a substitute.

[chikoka]

These questions are essentially the same as the one you asked about concerning the kitchen, and so I refer you back to my answer there

Right you are that you answered , forgive me for my innatention.
I still have doubts about your explanation but will get back to you when my ideas are more concrete.

Does this do anything to you theories?:

Also this does not mean something from nothing because (by there merefact of saying time_0 is time_0) there never was a *time* when there was nothing.
If there was a time when there was nothing then there would be no *time* (which is something) for there to be nothing.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi chikoka,

Thanks for your very thoughtful posts. I've very much enjoyed composing responses to them. Here are those responses.

When talking of situationa apart from time we have to make sure we use *tenseless* words.

Fully agreed.

This would mean that if the univerese had another dimension not made of time it would have its own "verbs" that aply to it and are sort of analogous to real (time implying) verbs as we understand them.

Yes, that makes sense.

A translation in space would be a space_verb .I beleive spave_verbs can mean something even without the context of time because of the tenseless way i am using the word translation.
(Height would be a space_verb though that is not obviouse.)

Would an example of a space_verb be something like "adjuts", as in: "The guttering adjuts the roof tiling"?

If we were to say "create" that is a time_verb and so requires duration, but an x_verb for a x dimension would not require duration ,it would require a translation along its "lenght" (again this does not imply space just as "translation" as i use it does not imply time).

Since (they say) god can exist outside time, and since i beleive that existance can only make sense within a dimensional context, he must exist in other non spacial and non temporal dimensions.

Now each of these dimensions would have a word that is to them what the word duration is to the time dimension and so would have a word that is to them what the word create would be to the time dimension.

So far, so good.

Using these ideas we could see how god could "create" time simply by translating (an x_verb) along an X dimension , removing all temporal connotations from the word create and translation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Does God create the X dimension first? And doesn't the X dimension have to be that of time? Else what does translating achieve?

Existance only requires translation over a dimension and so does "action" in its broadest meaning.

I don't think that existence even requires translation - existence can be "momentary" (removing temporal connotations from that word) - but I fully agree that action requires translation over a dimension.

I beleive in a time_0 from which it is impossible to speak of a before.
I also beleive time has always existed.

Yes, I understand what you say here and agree with most of the elaboration that you followed it up with. I'll respond to the most contentious part of your elaboration, which you requested comment on:

Quote
--------
Also this does not mean something from nothing because (by there merefact of saying time_0 is time_0) there never was a *time* when there was nothing.
If there was a time when there was nothing then there would be no *time* (which is something) for there to be nothing.
-------

Is anyone going to mention anything on this.
I'm not 100% sure of its logical validity.

The subtlety is in the meaning of the word "nothing". Sometimes it's used in an absolute sense, and sometimes in a relative sense: in the context of a coordinate system. In the absolute sense, what you write is true: absolute nothing cannot include time, so a time concommitant with absolute nothing is an oxymoron. In the relative sense, though, where "nothing" occurs in the context of a spatio-temporal coordinate system, in which it essentially means "devoid of matter and energy over the indicated duration of time (which could be an instant) and within the indicated spatial coordinates (which could be infinite)", your final statement doesn't hold water. It's possible for there to be a time in which this type of "nothingness" occurs - essentially it refers to a time when there is only a (spatial) "void".

Stepping back, I think that the main problem with your line reasoning, though, is that, whilst it accounts for later moments on the basis of prior moments which lead on to them, it doesn't account for the first moment, which has no prior moment to "cause" it. This is one of the purposes of the quantum principle that I proposed: it "causes" (we need a tenseless verb here) time to begin from an atemporal realm.

In a later post you wrote:

guest_of_logic: Let's now answer this question: would this particle have decayed by now?

Because an infinite amount of time has passed prior to the present moment, and because the particle decays within an infinite amount of time, the answer must be "Yes".

chikoka: That does not have to hold true.
If you throw a coin an infinite number of times that does not garauntee a heads.
You could have an infinite number of tails.

Oh, but it was specified in the conditions of the hypothetical: "it decays at some completely random moment within an infinity of time". In other words, this is analogous to saying: "at some random point in an infinite number of coin tosses, there will be a heads toss".

guest_of_logic: Infinity is preceded by infinity, which is nonsensical.

chikoka: There are also different "sizes" of infinity. I'm not sure if you are aware of this.

Are you referring to cardinality? If so, then yes, I am aware of this.

I'm open to the possibility that this type of paradox is intrinsic to the nature of infinity itself, rather than to specifically an infinity of past time, but I did try without success to discover a similar paradox for a future infinity of time. If you can present one then I'd be interested to see it. In any case, even if it is non-specific, such a paradox speaks only to the implausibility of the existence of any "actual infinity", regardless of what that actual infinity applies to.

guest_of_logic: In other words, we have no way of distinguishing one value from another. At any given moment, any and all values should be displayed on the counter, because the same amount of time precedes them: an infinite amount. Given an infinite past, this counter's display is indeterminate. This is a paradox that the proponents of the possibility of an infinite past need to find a way to resolve.

chikoka: If we appeal to the principle of "the identity of indescernables" you have proved that every moment should be the same moment , but there is the rest of the universe (matter) which is arranged differently for each moment so the moments really are not identical because they are associated with different events.

The problem with that rebuttal is that it references "moments", whose existence is more fundamental to the issue than matter - so before you can even bring up anything to do with matter, you are hit with indiscernability: indiscernability occurs prior to considerations of matter.

This does not prove that time cannot be infinite in extent as much as it proves that time cannot exist without motion (events) and matter.

I don't see that, neither as being proved by my argument nor as true in itself. A room might remain motionless for ten minutes. So might a mind, whether or not it was aware of its motionlessness, and if not, then that speaks merely to its lack of awareness, rather than to the suspension of time.

I'm aware that Ataraxia will probably fault me for my conception of time here, but he hasn't responded to my satisfaction to my points regarding the implications of the shared nature of our experience of time.

David,

Again, you're not listening..

I'm listening, David, I'm just ignoring irrelevancies, such as your introduction of an "absolute" perspective. You've acknowledged that the relative perspective exists alongside the absolute, and that's enough for my argument to stick. See, you acknowledge it in this very post of yours:

It [the flow of time] only exists in a relative manner, not in an absolute manner.

Forget the "only" - that it exists at all in any perspective is enough to falsify the beginninglessness of time.

dejavu

dejavu: When is a particular 'duration' of time ever equal to the nature of infinity?! Try never!

Laird: And there you have my argument in a nutshell.

dejavu: What argument?

That's pretty weak of you, considering that on top of expressing my argument in the OP, I later expressed it more explicitly to Ataraxia, and then quoted that expression to David. If you're still not clear on it, then my guess is that either you don't care enough to pay attention to what I'm writing in this thread, or that your comprehension skills are lacking. Here, in good faith, is a reference to the post in which I quoted my explicit version of the argument to David (scroll down to "Here my argument is in its essence"): http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 00#p108005.

That because time exists infinity cannot?

No, that's not it, and I know that you have the intelligence to paraphrase better than that.

You'd have to prove that time exists outside of consciousness.

Again, you don't seem to have been paying attention, because I've been attempting to argue exactly that to Ataraxia. Here's the most recent post in which I did so, which is the one at the very top of this page: http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 50#p108359.

dejavu:Finite existence is only ever differentiated from infinity consciously.

Laird: That's an assumption of infinity, not an inference of it.

dejavu: I assume infinity as it is inferred by the finite.

That's an incredibly skeletal argument. It's not fleshed out enough for me to even be able to respond to it. Suffice it to say that you have far from proved your point.

dejavu: The universe exists inherently. It never began, there is nothing else from which it could begin.

Laird: My essay proposed a way in which it is possible for the universe (or at least the temporal universe) to begin: what in particular do you reject about that proposal?

dejavu: Your ‘temporal’ universe is not the universe. I reject the proposal because it isn’t possible that the universe began, there being nothing besides from which it could have done so.

Well then you're not engaging fully with my proposal, which is that there is a principle outside of time on which the start of time (and the following flow of it) depends. We can separate the universe then into the atemporal and the temporal: the temporal part of the universe ("temporal universe") is the part of the universe in which time has meaning; the atemporal part of the universe ("atemporal universe") is that in which time has no meaning. In other words, the temporal universe depends on the atemporal universe.

Now that I've framed it like that, please explain whether you still reject it, and if so, why.

dejavu:It goes without saying that it will never end.

Laird: On what basis do you make that claim? It seems like merely a second assumption.

dejavu: On the basis that there is nothing but itself in which to end.

Try out the temporal/atemporal duality and see how it works for you: the temporal universe could have not only a beginning, but also an end "within" the atemporal universe.

Laird: As Ataraxia agreed, the experience of time is shared and inter-subjectively correlated. To me that implies that it has some sort of existence independent of our experience of it, so that experience is really irrelevant to the issue.

dejavu: Unlike space, time belongs only to consciousness. The question is asked-- then how is motion to be accounted for? The answer is infinity.

Laird: There's no point in stating an opposing position without either refuting my arguments or providing arguments of your own.

I like your allusory writing style a lot, but this is too vague for me to understand.

dejavu: I had a more elaborate post in reply which was lost, so this will have to do

You still haven't either refuted my arguments or provided arguments of your own, so it really doesn't do.

though I’m not sure there is really much more for either of us to put to one another on this topic.

If you want to call it quits then so be it. I'm willing to continue though (on the understanding that I submit to no deadlines and that my responses might be indefinitely delayed - no offence but I have to summon up the inspiration before I'm capable of writing anything, and that's not an on-demand occurrence).

[chikoka]

Quote
--------
chikoka wrote:Using these ideas we could see how god could "create" time simply by translating (an x_verb) along an X dimension , removing all temporal connotations from the word create and translation.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Does God create the X dimension first? And doesn't the X dimension have to be that of time? Else what does translating achieve?
--------

Creating the X dimension in not a problem since it happens instantly.
All the translations that "occured" on this dimension happened at the same instant.
It might seem as if i'm introducing time when i say instant, but mathematical practice already does not consider the number line to be made of points but of *intervals*,so time is not made of instants but intervals simmilarly.
You are still veiwing these translations as taking time.

Time_0 by definition cannot precede Time_1 ,that is where the padradox of finding what preceeded Time_0 comes from, but X_0 can form a ("causal") loop (correlations) with X_1 without violating any logic.
This could be seen as implying that the X dimension is not ordered according to the natural order (the same order as that of the natural numbers).

I dont know if this will make it more complicated to uderstand , but we could consider the universe to consist of one large partialy orderd (not every pair of points are comparable(ie. in front or behind each other)) set of otherwise indefferentiable points.

Any subset of these points could be considered a "dimension" ,but the ones we have come to accept are the totaly orderd subsets we call space and time. other points not part of these total orders could exist as well as other perhaps less arbitrary (apart from the point of view of our consciousness) groupings of these points could be constructed.

There could be a total order that could be made of some of the points included in the set of points we call "time" particularly Time_0 as well as other points not included in time.

In this new grouping of points X_0 could precede Time_0, and logical causality would not be violated if "associations" in X_0 lead to(correlate with) "associations" in Time_0.
X_0 would be preceded by Time_0 in other groupings that might acheive other functions relevant to something else.

Since the universe would be a partial order ,loops could occur with only some (e.g. time) not being permissable.
Physics would then be the study of what loops are and arent allowed as well as other properties of this partialy ordered set we call the univerese.

[chikoka]

Quote
-------
Oh, but it was specified in the conditions of the hypothetical: "it decays at some completely random moment within an infinity of time". In other words, this is analogous to saying: "at some random point in an infinite number of coin tosses, there will be a heads toss".
------

Arent you creating arbitrary conditions to get what you want?
Couldnt you have just "specified" that time stops as you go backwards in it and so use this specification as you did yours to "prove" that time has to be finite , backwards i mean?

Quote
-----
I don't think that existence even requires translation - existence can be "momentary" (removing temporal connotations from that word) - but I fully agree that action requires translation over a dimension.
-----

What connotations would you give to the word momentary as you have used it?

Here is where i first tried to explain my ideas on existance:

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... nd#p105080

Quote
-----
Anything that exists is defined in terms of its relationship with its continuum.
In our continuum to say something exists is to define it in terms of space (here or over there) and time (then or now).

To put it strictly ; there must be a translation of points on each dimension in its continuum.
This means it must have height , length and breadth as well as duration.
Without one of these it does not exist.

For how the continuum itself exists, it would have to be recursive over itself.

How other things such as thoughts or "songs" exist gets somewhat tricky though i admit that this theory is in its infancy so maybe you guys could help out.

I think the way out is to be rigid and define different classes of existence and finding what they require to exist in their own class.
-----

[chikoka]

Quote
------

The subtlety is in the meaning of the word "nothing". Sometimes it's used in an absolute sense, and sometimes in a relative sense: in the context of a coordinate system. In the absolute sense, what you write is true: absolute nothing cannot include time, so a time concommitant with absolute nothing is an oxymoron. In the relative sense, though, where "nothing" occurs in the context of a spatio-temporal coordinate system, in which it essentially means "devoid of matter and energy over the indicated duration of time (which could be an instant) and within the indicated spatial coordinates (which could be infinite)", your final statement doesn't hold water. It's possible for there to be a time in which this type of "nothingness" occurs - essentially it refers to a time when there is only a (spatial) "void".
----

My previous reasoning can do here.
If t_0 is no different from t_1 then they are the same time since they generate the same univerese when "functioned", this is from set theory.
before there was matter there could have been only one instance of time therefore and an instant of time is not time since the only times there are are intervals of time.

Quote
---

Stepping back, I think that the main problem with your line reasoning, though, is that, whilst it accounts for later moments on the basis of prior moments which lead on to them, it doesn't account for the first moment, which has no prior moment to "cause" it. This is one of the purposes of the quantum principle that I proposed: it "causes" (we need a tenseless verb here) time to begin from an atemporal realm.
---
Try using the words "correlates with" instead of cause.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi chikoka,

I know it's taken me months to get back to you on this, so I hope you're still around to read my response.

chikoka: Using these ideas we could see how god could "create" time simply by translating (an x_verb) along an X dimension , removing all temporal connotations from the word create and translation.

Laird: I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Does God create the X dimension first? And doesn't the X dimension have to be that of time? Else what does translating achieve?

chikoka: Creating the X dimension in not a problem since it happens instantly.
All the translations that "occured" on this dimension happened at the same instant.
It might seem as if i'm introducing time when i say instant, but mathematical practice already does not consider the number line to be made of points but of *intervals*,so time is not made of instants but intervals simmilarly.
You are still veiwing these translations as taking time.

Hmm, you didn't quite answer my questions but after trying to work out what your original quote means, I've come up with a possible interpretation. I think you mean that, in a timeless dimension, X, God performs (timelessly - i.e. this performance has no duration) some "translation" which introduced/introduces/will introduce (we need a tenseless verb here) the dimension of time. This seems to be something similar to what my essay canvassed with respect to the atemporal quantum principle, only you've substituted God for that principle. Is my interpretation on the right track?

Time_0 by definition cannot precede Time_1

You mean the other way around, surely.

that is where the padradox of finding what preceeded Time_0 comes from, but X_0 can form a ("causal") loop (correlations) with X_1 without violating any logic.

I don't understand what you mean by a causal loop between X_0 and X_1 - it seems to me like you're performing an arbitrary mental exercise. I understand the words you've used, but I don't know what they mean in practice. What is this "causal" or "correlation" loop in effect? What does it mean for X_0 and X_1 to be in such a loop? Does it mean there is or could be a "wormhole" from one to the other?

This could be seen as implying that the X dimension is not ordered according to the natural order (the same order as that of the natural numbers).

Again, I'm not sure what this means in practice, and again what you say seems like some arbitrary mental exercise. Isn't the assignment of numbers to a dimension based on its ordering, rather than the other way around? If so, then, no matter how the X dimension is ordered, one can (and ought to, for convenience's sake) assign natural numbers to that ordering?

I dont know if this will make it more complicated to uderstand , but we could consider the universe to consist of one large partialy orderd (not every pair of points are comparable(ie. in front or behind each other)) set of otherwise indefferentiable points.

I don't see how this applies to space though, because even there, points are differentiable - the shortest line from "here" to "there" differentiates those two points, as well as each point in the line.

Any subset of these points could be considered a "dimension" ,but the ones we have come to accept are the totaly orderd subsets we call space and time. other points not part of these total orders could exist as well as other perhaps less arbitrary (apart from the point of view of our consciousness) groupings of these points could be constructed.

There could be a total order that could be made of some of the points included in the set of points we call "time" particularly Time_0 as well as other points not included in time.

I'm not sure how legitimate it is to mix points from different dimensions as though they were in the same dimension, but maybe Einstein is the go-to man, here, seeing as how he considered space and time to be inseparable.

In this new grouping of points X_0 could precede Time_0, and logical causality would not be violated if "associations" in X_0 lead to(correlate with) "associations" in Time_0.
X_0 would be preceded by Time_0 in other groupings that might acheive other functions relevant to something else.

Since the universe would be a partial order ,loops could occur with only some (e.g. time) not being permissable.
Physics would then be the study of what loops are and arent allowed as well as other properties of this partialy ordered set we call the univerese.

What I'm getting from what you're saying is that we might be able to correlate points that don't "naturally" seem to have a correlation, not only within a dimension, but also between dimensions. It seems that you're saying that the "causes" of any point are not necessarily those of the points immediately "adjacent" to that point, but could be also other non-adjacent points, perhaps even in separate dimensions. Is that a fair summary of what you're trying to say?

Laird: Oh, but it was specified in the conditions of the hypothetical: "it decays at some completely random moment within an infinity of time". In other words, this is analogous to saying: "at some random point in an infinite number of coin tosses, there will be a heads toss".

chikoka: Arent you creating arbitrary conditions to get what you want?

I don't think so, no. I see a paradox with an infinite past (that of an infinity preceding an infinity), and this was simply a tool to demonstrate that paradox. The paradox, as far as I can tell, isn't arbitrary, and nor is the tool, insofar as I chose it to demonstrate the paradox.

Laird: I don't think that existence even requires translation - existence can be "momentary" (removing temporal connotations from that word) - but I fully agree that action requires translation over a dimension.

chikoka: What connotations would you give to the word momentary as you have used it?

Momentary connotes the existence of time, since it is an instant out of the flow of time.

Here is where i first tried to explain my ideas on existance:

I read that and it made sense to me.

If t_0 is no different from t_1 then they are the same time since they generate the same univerese when "functioned", this is from set theory.
before there was matter there could have been only one instance of time therefore and an instant of time is not time since the only times there are are intervals of time.

To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the universe is again in that same configuration, C. Now, according to you, given that the universe is in the same state in both instants, these two instants are the same, and yet, plainly, given their separation by a duration, they are not the same. Therefore, it's not true that the mere state of the universe is sufficient to identify an instant of time.

[chikoka]

Hi laird;

QUOTE
-----------
I know it's taken me months to get back to you on this, so I hope you're still around to
read my response.

-----------


I'm not sure if i'll be able to have consistent dialogue with you but here are my responses
to your questions and i'll try my best to follow up on your questions.


QUOTE
----------
This seems to be something similar to what my essay canvassed with respect to the atemporal quantum principle, only you've substituted God for that principle. Is my interpretation on

the right track?

---------

Yes it is simillar.


QUOTE
-------
chikoka wrote:
Time_0 by definition cannot precede Time_1

You mean the other way around, surely
-------

Ofcourse , sorry about that.


QUOTE
------
I don't understand what you mean by a causal loop between X_0 and X_1 - it seems to me like
you're performing an arbitrary mental exercise. I understand the words you've used, but I
don't know what they mean in practice. What is this "causal" or "correlation" loop in
effect? What does it mean for X_0 and X_1 to be in such a loop? Does it mean there is or
could be a "wormhole" from one to the other?

-----



In space you can form a loop by moving from space_0 to space_1 and then going back to

space_1 from space_0.
This is a loop that is permissable.
Time apparently does not allow such loops.


QUOTE
------
Again, I'm not sure what this means in practice, and again what you say seems like some
arbitrary mental exercise. Isn't the assignment of numbers to a dimension based on its
ordering, rather than the other way around? If so, then, no matter how the X dimension is
ordered, one can (and ought to, for convenience's sake) assign natural numbers to that
ordering?

-----



The natural numbers have an order (total one) that means that any two unique numbers are
related by the greater than or the lesser than sign.
If we were to graphic this order we would get a pole with 0 at the bottom adding numbers by
going higher up the pole.
There are other orders around whose graphic would be more like that of a tree with
branches.
Elements on different branches would not be comparable (> or <) than each other.
Each branch however will be a totally ordered subset of the partialy orderd "tree".
Space would be one such branch *from an angle" , that of our conscioness.



QUOTE
----------
I'm not sure how legitimate it is to mix points from different dimensions as though they
were in the same dimension, but maybe Einstein is the go-to man, here, seeing as how he
considered space and time to be inseparable.

----------

The points would not be mixed when veiwed from other angles other than that of our
consciosness (which needs to relate with space for obviouse reasons).
Other veiwpoints would have their own reasons for having time_0 and X_0 in the same set.
Basicaly any configuration of points would be arbitrary from an absolute point of view.




QUOTE
-------
What I'm getting from what you're saying is that we might be able to correlate points that
don't "naturally" seem to have a correlation, not only within a dimension, but also between
dimensions. It seems that you're saying that the "causes" of any point are not necessarily
those of the points immediately "adjacent" to that point, but could be also other non-
adjacent points, perhaps even in separate dimensions. Is that a fair summary of what you're
trying to say?

-----


Some of spaces points could have more (things associated with them) in common with points

from other subsets than they have with other space points.
Eg The complex no (3i + 2) could be more simmilar to other numbers with the same imaginary
part than it has with other numbers.

If you were only aware of the real no's you would not be aware of the 3i part of the number
and would not beleive that there is more to the number than the 2 you are aware of.
(3i + 5) would be perceived as being 5, only when you step back from the number line and
start to see the rest of the complex no's other than seeing only the real subset ,do you
realise this.



QUOTE
------
Laird: Oh, but it was specified in the conditions of the hypothetical: "it decays at some
completely random moment within an infinity of time". In other words, this is analogous to
saying: "at some random point in an infinite number of coin tosses, there will be a heads
toss".

chikoka: Arent you creating arbitrary conditions to get what you want?


I don't think so, no. I see a paradox with an infinite past (that of an infinity preceding
an infinity), and this was simply a tool to demonstrate that paradox. The paradox, as far
as I can tell, isn't arbitrary, and nor is the tool, insofar as I chose it to demonstrate
the paradox.

-----



Examine this hypothetical;
Imagine an object that can go back in time. After each negative second it passes it passes
on to the next negative second and so on going further and further into the past without
stopping.
Since the object goes to the past without stopping as per the hypothesis this proves that
time has an infinite past.
My point is that some of the specifications you specify are as arbitrary as that i used in
this hypothesis.

I could create a hyp[othetical that could prove anything if i include the answer in the
hypothesis.
stating that the atom "decays in some random moment in an infinity of time" is eqauly
arbitray.


QUOTE
-------
Laird: I don't think that existence even requires translation - existence can be
"momentary" (removing temporal connotations from that word) - but I fully agree that action
requires translation over a dimension.

chikoka: What connotations would you give to the word momentary as you have used it?

Momentary connotes the existence of time, since it is an instant out of the flow of time.

----



Points (moments) are *dimensionless* by definition and time is a dimension.



QUOTE
------
To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the
universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some
duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the
Universe is again in that same configuration, C. Now, according to you, given that the
universe is in the same state in both instants, these two instants are the same, and yet,
plainly, given their separation by a duration, they are not the same. Therefore, it's not
true that the mere state of the universe is sufficient to identify an instant of time.

-----



I have no problem beleiving that t1 and t2 are the same moment.
What you have described is (because of causality) a cyclic universe. Because of causality

t1 + 2 seconds will also be identical to t2 + 2 seconds.

Since we are talkin of the whole universe and not just a part of it, it cannot have

anything to "keep track" of the differences in configuration since whatever marker we use

must also be a part of the univerese and so would also cycle with everything else.
It also implies that the start of this cyclical universe could be chosen arbitralily and

would mean the univerese would end just before it starts.



I also have a problem with this;

QUOTE
------------
You don't seem to be acknowledging the implication of the fact that we experience time
similarly (I prefer the phrase "share our experience of time") - perhaps it will help to
observe that the same implication applies to space, which again we share our experience of:
relating to one another from apparently three dimensional locations in a three dimensional
landscape that we all have corresponding mental representations of. Space might be the
objective three dimensional world that it seems on the surface to be, or it might be some
kind of virtual reality simulation, but whatever it is, the fact that we share our
experience of it in this way (i.e. can build mental representational structures that
correlate with one another) implies that it has some kind of reality independent of the mind, or at least is based in such an independent reality, even if it's to the minimal
extent of a message-passing system in that external reality through which our mental
representations are synchronised. Likewise for time. We relate to one another by sharing
dates, keeping appointments, celebrating anniversaries, etc: that we have shared
conceptions of these temporal markers indicates that, whatever time's ontology turns out to
actually be, it has some kind of reality independent of the mind, or it at least is based
in such an independent reality.
----------


If my red appeared to you as my blue there is no way we could ever know this.
Whenever i see red colour you see what i would call blue , but since we apply the same name
say "red" to what appears differently you will never realise this.
We would both agree that it is red even if your apearance of red is my blue because you
were raised calling that blue colour(to you) red.

Our observations would seem to correlate but in actual reality they shouldnt.
This analogy could be extended to time as well.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi chikoka,

In space you can form a loop by moving from space_0 to space_1 and then going back to

space_1 from space_0.
This is a loop that is permissable.
Time apparently does not allow such loops.

Oh, I see what you mean now. I'm glad you qualified what you wrote with "apparently" there.

The natural numbers have an order (total one) that means that any two unique numbers are
related by the greater than or the lesser than sign.
If we were to graphic this order we would get a pole with 0 at the bottom adding numbers by
going higher up the pole.
There are other orders around whose graphic would be more like that of a tree with
branches.
Elements on different branches would not be comparable (> or <) than each other.
Each branch however will be a totally ordered subset of the partialy orderd "tree".
Space would be one such branch *from an angle" , that of our conscioness.

And this tree is what exactly - the full set of points across all dimensions?

Laird: I'm not sure how legitimate it is to mix points from different dimensions as though they
were in the same dimension, but maybe Einstein is the go-to man, here, seeing as how he
considered space and time to be inseparable.

chikoka: The points would not be mixed when veiwed from other angles other than that of our
consciosness (which needs to relate with space for obviouse reasons).
Other veiwpoints would have their own reasons for having time_0 and X_0 in the same set.
Basicaly any configuration of points would be arbitrary from an absolute point of view.

Hmm, that doesn't seem to answer my query - you are still proposing that, in some cases, or from some "angles", points from different dimensions can be mixed. I'm not exactly sure what this means in practice. A dimension is linear, across which an observer can move - by mixing points from different dimensions you seem to be implying that an observer can be traversing, say, space in a line that for some of its points also includes the X dimension... this doesn't make sense to me - how can you traverse two dimensions linearly at once? I might have misunderstood you, though, because my other possible interpretation of what you're trying to say is below.

Some of spaces points could have more (things associated with them) in common with points

from other subsets than they have with other space points.
Eg The complex no (3i + 2) could be more simmilar to other numbers with the same imaginary
part than it has with other numbers.

If you were only aware of the real no's you would not be aware of the 3i part of the number
and would not beleive that there is more to the number than the 2 you are aware of.
(3i + 5) would be perceived as being 5, only when you step back from the number line and
start to see the rest of the complex no's other than seeing only the real subset ,do you
realise this.

So when you mix points from different dimensions, it's really a grouping in the sense that we would provide, say, x-y coordinates on a map? If that's what you mean, then it makes more sense to me.

Examine this hypothetical;
Imagine an object that can go back in time. After each negative second it passes it passes
on to the next negative second and so on going further and further into the past without
stopping.
Since the object goes to the past without stopping as per the hypothesis this proves that
time has an infinite past.

I dealt with this line of thought in my essay, though: time moves forwards, not backwards, and this line of reasoning only works because it treats the flow of time in the wrong way. You can think of it like this: regressing into an infinite past, one will never reach infinity; how then can one have come from that which can't be reached?

My point is that some of the specifications you specify are as arbitrary as that i used in
this hypothesis.

I don't see how the so-called arbitrariness of the specifications is an issue in a thought experiment, so long as those specifications are logically consistent and logically possible. Is there anything illogical about mine? If so, then I can't see what.

Laird: I don't think that existence even requires translation - existence can be
"momentary" (removing temporal connotations from that word) - but I fully agree that action
requires translation over a dimension.

chikoka: What connotations would you give to the word momentary as you have used it?

Laird: Momentary connotes the existence of time, since it is an instant out of the flow of time.

chikoka: Points (moments) are *dimensionless* by definition and time is a dimension.

By saying that "time is a dimension" you acknowledge that moments are related to time - that's all I'm saying.

Laird: To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the
universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some
duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the
Universe is again in that same configuration, C. Now, according to you, given that the
universe is in the same state in both instants, these two instants are the same, and yet,
plainly, given their separation by a duration, they are not the same. Therefore, it's not
true that the mere state of the universe is sufficient to identify an instant of time.

chikoka: I have no problem beleiving that t1 and t2 are the same moment.
What you have described is (because of causality) a cyclic universe. Because of causality

t1 + 2 seconds will also be identical to t2 + 2 seconds.

Not necessarily - you're assuming determinism.

Laird: You don't seem to be acknowledging the implication of the fact that we experience time
similarly (I prefer the phrase "share our experience of time") - perhaps it will help to
observe that the same implication applies to space, which again we share our experience of:
relating to one another from apparently three dimensional locations in a three dimensional
landscape that we all have corresponding mental representations of. Space might be the
objective three dimensional world that it seems on the surface to be, or it might be some
kind of virtual reality simulation, but whatever it is, the fact that we share our
experience of it in this way (i.e. can build mental representational structures that
correlate with one another) implies that it has some kind of reality independent of the mind, or at least is based in such an independent reality, even if it's to the minimal
extent of a message-passing system in that external reality through which our mental
representations are synchronised. Likewise for time. We relate to one another by sharing
dates, keeping appointments, celebrating anniversaries, etc: that we have shared
conceptions of these temporal markers indicates that, whatever time's ontology turns out to
actually be, it has some kind of reality independent of the mind, or it at least is based
in such an independent reality.

chikoka: If my red appeared to you as my blue there is no way we could ever know this.
Whenever i see red colour you see what i would call blue , but since we apply the same name
say "red" to what appears differently you will never realise this.
We would both agree that it is red even if your apearance of red is my blue because you
were raised calling that blue colour(to you) red.

Our observations would seem to correlate but in actual reality they shouldnt.
This analogy could be extended to time as well.

Your point falls down though the moment you use the phrase "to what appears". The word "what" references an objective reality independent of the mind, regardless that that objective reality might "appear" differently within the mind.

[AlyOshA]

Hi Guest Of Logic,

Are you referring to an arrow of time - in which time appears to have a direction – the past lies behind, fixed and immutable, while the future lies ahead and is not necessarily fixed? In that case what you are saying doesn't apply to physics, mathematics, or logic - which allow the direction to proceed forward and in reverse infinitely. Mathematics and time are both used to measure causal events in space. The concept of infinity is an absolute necessity for the framework of mathematics. So to equate the two, you are saying that because of negative infinity measuring the units between + 1 and +4 would have to equal infinity (as opposed to +3)? That is illogical. Please let me know if I am oversimplifying what you are saying.

If you are interested in the equivalent in physics here is the final chapter of Peter Rowland's Zero to Infinity Foundations in Physics (if you don't want to read the whole thing then skip to the last sentence - if you want to read more let me know I have the book in PDF):

The Concept of Creation
Both physics and mathematics require a concept of ‘creation’. In the universal alphabet proposed in chapter 2, it is the mechanism by which ‘something’ is generated, or appears to be generated, from ‘nothing’. Of course, nothing still remains and so the idea of ‘conservation’ is generated simultaneously. We can describe the duality which results in many different ways, for example using iterative and recursive processes in a rewrite alphabet, or variable and conserved quantities in physics. In general, an alphabet can only be described either in iterative or in recursive terms, but a universal alphabet would contain both concepts simultaneously. This is exactly what is provided by the Dirac nilpotent, which, by being a nilpotent structure within an infinite Hilbert space, becomes specified uniquely, and allows us to look at a finite part of what we know must be an infinite whole. At the same time, the Dirac nilpotent packages the whole information needed to paramaterize nature in the way we recognize is physics, and, by being self-dual, it does it in such a way that the variable / conserved, iterative / recursive, or even process / object dualities disappear at the point where they reunite to produce the zero totality.
We can imagine the production of a fermionic state as a creation event, which has within itself – i.e. by its self-duality – the concept of immediate return to the zero state, and which we realise when we write down the Dirac equation. It is both iterative and recursive, process and object, variable and conserved. It is also both object and environment, in the sense of fermion and vacuum image, and each of these dual systems can be thought of as components in an infinite fractal hierarchy, organized at each stage according to the same fundamental principles. Marcer et al have suggested the application of Kenneth Wilson’s renormalization group methodology for the determination of critical phenomena to the Dirac nilpotent package proposed by the author and colleagues, based on their earlier ideas of a self-referential cosmology, phase conjugate adaptive resonance and quantum holographic measurement with reference to the cosmological reference frame.18 (See also chapter 20.) In the terms used in this book, and in earlier publications by the present author, the process of change – which we may describe as ‘cosmology’ – is driven by the variability which comes packaged within the idea of a Dirac object incorporating the symmetrical concepts of space, time, mass and charge. The ‘symmetry’ is a set of constraints which determine what is physically and conceptually possible in a universal system which structures itself according to the dynamic which the packaging necessarily contains.
Of course, many people believe it convenient to describe cosmology in terms of a single creation event projected backwards into the past using the Hubble time as a measure of the point of origin. Despite universal confidence at the certainty of such an event, no precise theoretical description of it has held without drastic modification for more than a few years. Beliefs that the universe is curved, enclosed, finite, non-Euclidean, or of subcritical or supercritical density, are now no longer considered to be compatible with experimental evidence, though they were quite firmly held only a relatively few years ago. The apparently neat idea that the creation event was effectively the reverse of the formation of a black hole-type singularity, which could then have been used as the process for the ultimate ‘big crunch’ in a supercritical universe, has also been abandoned has having the wrong singularity characteristics, and the probable infiniteness of space and the idea that our observed ‘universe’ is very likely only a local structure has made it increasingly difficult to accept the once widely promoted notion that the ‘big bang’ event saw the creation of time and space as well as matter. The inflationary universe, introduced in the early 1980s, to explain the relative closeness of the observed density to ρcrit, destroyed the pleasing simplicity of the earlier theory, and made it seem less compelling. In addition, the values of the fundamental constants appear to be finely tuned to produce the structure of the observed universe as it is now, not as it would have been under hypothetically different conditions in the past.
Cosmology can solve none of the fundamental problems of physics, because the laws of physics seem to be structured, on fundamental grounds, to be true in any era, despite hypotheses that they have somehow evolved along with the structure of the universe. They cannot depend on the accidents of cosmology unless some extreme form of the anthropic principle is used to argue that the universe and the laws of physics have evolved specifically to allow our conscious observation of it at a particular epoch. On the other hand, the laws of physics, if fundamental in the way suggested, must certainly constrain the cosmological models that are possible. An inertial velocity and acceleration would seem to be Infinity required by the Machian argument of 20.1. The cosmology we adopt might seem to depend on how ‘real’ we take these to be. They are certainly real phenomena and produce real effects, but the forces involved are ‘fictitious’, in a somewhat novel way, and we could imagine that the physical effects do not manifest themselves directly as effects of motion. The way that physics constrains the cosmological models can be seen directly in the alternative approaches to the flatness of space, which both theory and experiment requires. An evolutionary (‘big bang’) model, based on real inertial motion and real inertial acceleration develops a ‘flatness’ problem, which is solved by an inflationary expansion; a non-evolutionary model, based on apparent inertial motion and apparent inertial acceleration, has a built-in flatness, and there is no problem to be solved. In addition, the evolutionary model has a further problem explaining acceleration if the universe is flat, and therefore at the critical density; the non-evolutionary model, however, predicts acceleration.
It would certainly be possible to describe the currently-favoured evolutionary cosmology in terms of the kind of Dirac critical phenomenon described above, and the very idea of a nilpotent packaging is suggestive in terms of a big bang event, as creation of a fermionic state also requires a simultaneous recreation of the entire universe. (Such a cosmology has, in fact, been hinted at in parts of chapter 20.) However, the ‘creation’ concept, which the Dirac nilpotent incorporates, need not necessarily be seen in terms of a singular event in a measurement context. The suggestion here is that the nilpotent carries with it all the information relating to inertial properties, including cosmological redshift and microwave background radiation, which is usually interpreted as time-sequenced cosmology but is considered here in a purely physical context. It is also suggested that the phenomena of particle physics, which are clearly of a fundamental nature, such as the matter-antimatter asymmetry, are also universal, rather than time-evolved, features. Only the large-scale structures of the universe, such as stars, galaxies, and galactic clusters appear to require time-evolution, though it would appear that the Hubble time component in their lifetimes is a characteristic of any inertial process. The origin and evolution of galaxies and clusters is not fully understood at present, and there is a great deal yet to be learned about their distribution, and that of other matter, within the observable universe, but nothing so far known compels us to accept that their present state and distribution must necessarily be the result of a single evolutionary process, rather than of a series of arbitrarily observed stages in a perpetual cycle, with structures ranging in age from 0 to ∼ tH. Even if we decide, on the evidence of galaxies and clusters, on a single overall process as an evolutionary driving mechanism for their formation, this would still only demonstrate that a large- scale local event had taken place, and, even then, there would have to be events which preceded it in time.19 Most important of all, a single creation event would have to be seen as a consequence of processes ultimately necessary in physics, and not as their inexplicable cause. Redshift, background radiation, and all the fundamental constants associated with the world as we know it, must be consequences of the unchangeable laws of physics (and, ultimately, of the universal rewrite system) and not accidents of the particular circumstances of creation.
Certain aspects of the whole concept of deriving ‘something’ from ‘nothing’ suggest that there are absolutes which must be built into any physical and mathematical description of ‘nature’ which claims to be complete. Admit any element of compromise and the system ceases to be universal. So, the universe must be infinite in extent and duration because absolute continuity is an essential property of both mass and time. The same property ensures that there must be an absolute rest frame, which is that provided by mass – the one we describe as vacuum. This rest frame must also provide the universal time required by quantum mechanics for nonlocality, and equally by Newtonian physics, and by special and general relativity to preserve causality. Its existence implies that no ‘communication’ or ‘horizon’ problem exists with regard to events in parts of the universe at large distances from each other. But the rest frame cannot be the frame used for measurement, which is specifically local, and which the Dirac nilpotent proclaims as Lorentzian. An infinite universe also provides the infinite range of Dirac nilpotent values needed to develop that concept of uniqueness which is necessary to defining a universal alphabet; and it is, ultimately, this concept of uniqueness, deriving from an infinite which must exist, which is needed to preserve the zero totality with which we began.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi AlyOshA,

Please feel free to call me by my given name.

Are you referring to an arrow of time - in which time appears to have a direction – the past lies behind, fixed and immutable, while the future lies ahead and is not necessarily fixed?

Yes, except that I'm not certain that the past is immutable (some sort of time travel might be possible, weird as it seems), and for all I know (but I doubt it) the future is fixed.

In that case what you are saying doesn't apply to physics, mathematics, or logic - which allow the direction to proceed forward and in reverse infinitely.

I'm not well versed on physics anymore, but from what little I do know, many of the equations are time-reversible, functioning equally well in the reverse direction - is that what you're referring to? If so, how does this establish that the past is infinite?

Mathematics and time are both used to measure causal events in space. The concept of infinity is an absolute necessity for the framework of mathematics. So to equate the two, you are saying that because of negative infinity measuring the units between + 1 and +4 would have to equal infinity (as opposed to +3)?

Hmm? I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

If you are interested in the equivalent in physics here is the final chapter of Peter Rowland's Zero to Infinity Foundations in Physics (if you don't want to read the whole thing then skip to the last sentence - if you want to read more let me know I have the book in PDF)

Thanks for the reference - I don't do a lot of reading these days except on forums, so I'll graciously decline your offer. I have read a couple of Paul Davies books in the past, which I very much enjoyed.

I read all of what you quoted, and whilst it did seem to imply an infinite past, it didn't come out and state it directly. I'll assume that that's what was intended though: I'm open to scientific models, and I'm open to flaws in my thinking. I'd just like to see how scientists who advocate for an infinite past justify it logically, though, because it doesn't seem logical to me.

[AlyOshA]

Hi Liard - my name's Adam.

Hmm? I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

This was a simplified reference to this:

because the timer has existed for an eternity - is "an infinite amount". Let's, then, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a different number - a number from the past - say, 433,620,000,000,000,100 seconds ago, which puts the counter's display at -100. How much time had elapsed up until that point? The answer is the same: "an infinite amount". Let's also, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a number from the future, say ten years into the future, which puts the counter's display at 433,620,000,315,000,000. How much time would have elapsed up until that point? The answer is still the same: "an infinite amount".

Are you saying that because the timer goes in reverse infinitely - that we can not measure how much time has elapsed between two points in history and/or future? Essentially you are saying that because of negative infinity you cannot measure a distance between 1 and 4? Am I wrong in equating the two or am I oversimplifying what you are saying? I guess I still don't understand what you feel to be illogical about assuming an infinite regression of time. If you are calculating time to have started at the supposed "big bang" then you are arbitrarily starting time at the furthest prior known occurrence in our universe. But, just as time is an arbitrary unit of division used for measurement, so is it arbitrary to start time at any point in history (like the big bang). Does this make sense?

[AlyOshA]

Maybe what is ultimately baffling you is not the concept of infinity but rather to concept of zero???

[guest_of_logic]

Hi Adam,

This was a simplified reference to this:

because the timer has existed for an eternity - is "an infinite amount". Let's, then, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a different number - a number from the past - say, 433,620,000,000,000,100 seconds ago, which puts the counter's display at -100. How much time had elapsed up until that point? The answer is the same: "an infinite amount". Let's also, for the thought experiment's sake, pick a number from the future, say ten years into the future, which puts the counter's display at 433,620,000,315,000,000. How much time would have elapsed up until that point? The answer is still the same: "an infinite amount".

Are you saying that because the timer goes in reverse infinitely - that we can not measure how much time has elapsed between two points in history and/or future? Essentially you are saying that because of negative infinity you cannot measure a distance between 1 and 4? Am I wrong in equating the two or am I oversimplifying what you are saying?

Oh, I see what you're getting at now. What I'm saying is that you can't distinguish the amount of time that has elapsed in total to any moment from that which has elapsed in total to any other moment, whereas total prior elapsed time is a defining characteristic of a moment, so you could rephrase what I'm saying as that, given an infinite past, in a very important sense, all moments are defined as equal, which is clearly absurd. I think you're saying that the implication of this then is that subtracting the total duration up to one moment (infinity) from the total duration up to another moment (also infinity) should therefore yield an interval of zero, which we observe not to be the case.

This is actually mathematically unsound, however, because infinities are unintuitive beasts, and subtracting an infinity from an infinity does not necessarily result in zero, as you are implying that it does. I haven't studied the mathematics of infinity in depth, but that's my understanding from what little I do know: that what you propose (subtracting an infinity from an infinity to arrive at zero) is mathematically unsound.

I guess I still don't understand what you feel to be illogical about assuming an infinite regression of time. If you are calculating time to have started at the supposed "big bang" then you are arbitrarily starting time at the furthest prior known occurrence in our universe. But, just as time is an arbitrary unit of division used for measurement, so is it arbitrary to start time at any point in history (like the big bang). Does this make sense?

It makes sense if you assume an infinite past to start with! But an infinite past is not the only possibility: time could also have been "created" by some atemporal principle/"force".

Maybe what is ultimately baffling you is not the concept of infinity but rather to concept of zero???

Why would you suggest that?

[chikoka]

Quote
---------

chikoka wrote:The natural numbers have an order (total one) that means that any two

unique numbers are
related by the greater than or the lesser than sign.
If we were to graphic this order we would get a pole with 0 at the bottom adding

numbers by
going higher up the pole.
There are other orders around whose graphic would be more like that of a tree with
branches.
Elements on different branches would not be comparable (> or <) than each other.
Each branch however will be a totally ordered subset of the partialy orderd "tree".
Space would be one such branch *from an angle" , that of our conscioness.



And this tree is what exactly - the full set of points across all dimensions?
-----------



yes.



Quote
----------

So when you mix points from different dimensions, it's really a grouping in the sense that we would provide, say, x-y coordinates on a map? If that's what you mean, then it makes more sense to me.
----------

Yes. From an absolute view there are no dimensions.When you assume a view point ,you of necessity order points relatively usefull for that view point.

Its not that i realy beleive all this talk, i was just pointing out a possible way out.
These theorys may or may not meet the same fate as platos "forms"


Quote
--------

chikoka wrote:Examine this hypothetical;
Imagine an object that can go back in time. After each negative second it passes it passes
on to the next negative second and so on going further and further into the past without
stopping.
Since the object goes to the past without stopping as per the hypothesis this proves that
time has an infinite past.



I dealt with this line of thought in my essay, though: time moves forwards, not backwards, and this line of reasoning only works because it treats the flow of time in the wrong way. You can think of it like this: regressing into an infinite past, one will never reach infinity; how then can one have come from that which can't be reached
--------


I'm not sure if you grasped the ridiculousness of the hypothetical i gave to you so here it is again in an extreme form:



Examine this hypothetical;

Imagine an object that can go back in time.After each negative second it passes , it passes onto the next negative second and so on going further and further into the past until it hits a monkey.
Since the object goes to the past untill it hits a monkey as per the hypothesis this proves that time started as a monkey:)

There is nothing stopping me from coming up with a ridiculous hypothetical and then using it as a means to prove something ridiculous.

In your hypothesis you said the atom decays at some point in an infinity of time.
I could modify that hypothesis by saying "the atom only exists if there is an infinity of past time else the universe dissapears and the universe has to have that atom to exist.

I could use this to "prove" that since the universe is appearing then that means that that atom exists and therefore as per the hypothesis there must be an infinity of past time.

A bit elaborate but harder to spot falacious proofs can be created.



Quote
--------

By saying that "time is a dimension" you acknowledge that moments are related to time - that's all I'm saying.
-------

I dont see how you get that.points are conceptual objects humans use to deal with reality.
They are defined in such a way that they cannot exist.But we still get rewards (up to now at least) by using them as if they do.


Quote
--------
Laird: To the extent that I understand it, I disagree with your assertion, and I'll explain why very simply: it's possible that at some instant of time, t1, all of the matter in the
universe is in a certain configuration, C; it's also in principle possible that after some
duration of time (t2 - t1), at some later instant of time, t2, all of the matter in the
Universe is again in that same configuration, C. Now, according to you, given that the
universe is in the same state in both instants, these two instants are the same, and yet,
plainly, given their separation by a duration, they are not the same. Therefore, it's not
true that the mere state of the universe is sufficient to identify an instant of time.

chikoka: I have no problem beleiving that t1 and t2 are the same moment.
What you have described is (because of causality) a cyclic universe. Because of causality

t1 + 2 seconds will also be identical to t2 + 2 seconds.



Not necessarily - you're assuming determinism.
-------


I have no proof yet but to save my theory:) i'd have to say that perhaps time isnt linear and that it is possible to go from one moment then move onto another further off point meaning thatwhen the universe is in the configuration c it is always at the same point in time.

What i am saying would be like saying if someone was made up of the *exact* same stuff as you then they would be you.
Still have to think about it further though.



Quote
---------

Your point falls down though the moment you use the phrase "to what appears". The word "what" references an objective reality independent of the mind, regardless that that objective reality might "appear" differently within the mind.
---------


Im just saying that theres no way to tell if there is a "what" becuase in a more general view , the debate between realist and idealists is as yet inconclusive.

[jufa]

Just want to comment on the following:

Quote
---------

chikoka wrote:The natural numbers have an order (total one) that means that any two If this is so, then the nature of all natural numbers must always be one, not two

unique numbers are
related by the greater than or the lesser than sign.
If we were to graphic this order we would get a pole with 0 at the bottom adding What it means is in order to get two, one has to be added twice which means the unique numbers are not unique of themselves but emanations of the natural number one. Therefore to graphic the order of numbers would always mean the pole position cannot be zero, for there is nothing of zero to introduce the natural number one. This means zeor can't even be a place holder in the order of the pole because the pole represents an object and the object is one. Zero can represent nothing for there is nothing of zero to objectify

numbers by
going higher up the pole. Numbers, even by going up the pole is still the object of one pole
There are other orders around whose graphic would be more like that of a tree with
branches. And these orders are always the extension of one expanded
Elements on different branches would not be comparable This can't be being all branches are the extension of the tree (> or <) than each other.
Each branch however will be a totally ordered subset of the partialy orderd "tree".
Space would be one such branch *from an angle" , that of our conscioness. What space can be found being the tree is the space which has filled itself with subset that are not partial because each subset is whole, perfect, complete, and pure according to their originality source of one

And this tree is what exactly - the full set of points across all dimensions? This is evident that one is omnipresent and is the only point irrespective of the add ons
-----------

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[guest_of_logic]

I'm not sure if you grasped the ridiculousness of the hypothetical i gave to you so here it is again in an extreme form:



Examine this hypothetical;

Imagine an object that can go back in time.After each negative second it passes , it passes onto the next negative second and so on going further and further into the past until it hits a monkey.
Since the object goes to the past untill it hits a monkey as per the hypothesis this proves that time started as a monkey:)

There is nothing stopping me from coming up with a ridiculous hypothetical and then using it as a means to prove something ridiculous.

In your hypothesis you said the atom decays at some point in an infinity of time.
I could modify that hypothesis by saying "the atom only exists if there is an infinity of past time else the universe dissapears and the universe has to have that atom to exist.

I could use this to "prove" that since the universe is appearing then that means that that atom exists and therefore as per the hypothesis there must be an infinity of past time.

A bit elaborate but harder to spot falacious proofs can be created.

Are you then arguing that all thought experiments are invalid? If not, then on what basis do you grant validity to a thought experiment, and why does mine meet or not meet your requirements?

[chikoka]

Laird:

A thought experiment is the same as an ordinary experiment that cant be done for *technical* reasons and not just logical ones.

It should be a puzzle with only one peice missing whose profile will be inffered as a consequence of all the other (already confirmed) peices.
If more than one peice is missing it will be almost fruitless (less can be concluded about it(them)).
If one of the peices you use are not confirmed it is also fruitless.

One of the peices that you used was unconfirmed.

in particular:

"it decays at some random time x in an infinity of time"

It was as arbitrary as you hitting a monkey as you go back in time.
Therefore your conclusions from the experiment were also arbitrary (derived from arbitrary premises).