A Justification of Time

Ah, you are picking my posts apart in hopes of scoring points, and winning. I thought (or hoped) that we were beyond that. If you take things out of context, and quote individual sentences, as your style is want to do, it is easy to "win" these discussion in front of the other schoolchildren. If this is your desire, I will humbly tell you right now that you are at least 100 time smarter than me, and probably better looking as well. You can win every single time, if you like.

Now, to clarify for anyone reading this thread and hoping to learn something, or to teach me:

The aside to daughter universes was to assure PJ that I am aware of such theories, and that they do not solve the problem of infinite negative states, we can take the entire succession of these universes to stand for the "universe". I do not condone this theory, but wanted it known that such theories do not violate what I say.

Second, the fact that a void or a system of stasis cannot have properties is absurd. A static system could be filled with goldfish and caramel as long as they are not moving in relation to each other, made up of vibrating particles which decay over time, or putting off anything other than perfectly constant radiation and heat. It is a system of no change, not a system devoid of things.

As for the vacuum, one of its properties is that it contains nothing. Another property could be stasis, but not necessarily. Sarkus came up with a neat thought experiment of a box which contains nothing, not even just a vacuum, but something which does not even contain part of our universe in it. His question was then whether or not time transpired within this box.

My initial response was "No", but then I thought about it for a few days and I realized that time was transpiring inside of the box. Even with no spacetime inside of the box, and of course no instruments with which to record anything, we could measure the change in the environment around the box, and record where changes in the gravitational state inside the box would be taking place if there was spacetime inside of it. That is, I could say of the box, that today the box is at the foot of Mt. Everest, and that increased mass on one side of the box is such that if I were to fire a bullet through the box, and the hole let in the spacetime with the bullet, the bullet would be very slightly deflected due to the presence of Mt. Everest. We could record this feature of the box, move the box in relation to gravitational influences, and record the change in state of the "potential" of the box. Even though we are really recording the change in state of the outside world, in relation to the void, we can still say something about the potential of the void, and the changes in that potential. And since any allowance of a measuring tool within that void (despite ruining the void) would also show the exact same change in state, we can say that the changes exist without having to ruin the void by measuring them. I am not of the interpretation of reality that measuring alters reality unless you are speaking of the knocking of particles about due to the impact of "viewing" photons.


Here are the three things that PJ needs to resolve to cling to his views:

1. The construct, .000...1 is a Bounded Infinity. With a decimal on one side, and a One on the other, it is a finite thing which is begging to be infinite with the ellipsis.

2. Using the construct .000...1 to measure anything, even if it was non-fictional, is impossible because it is dynamic in nature. There are always more Zero's to place.

3. Any Non-Zero can not have the properties of Zero. Every Non-Zero has an infinite ratio to Zero, so .000...1 (even if it was non-fictional) has all of the properties of Zero that 10 has. That is, none. Only Zero's have infinite potential in a closed segment. And no Non-Zero is granted this license.


Since any of these three are deal-breakers for all of PJ's waxing on the subject, and all three are difficult to refute, we can be safe in assuming that the next response will be to correct some of my grammar, or to return with a few nonsensical questions, instead of any answers.

With all respect to anyone suffering through this thread,
swivel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Swivel:

No, this was not my desire whatsoever. I was trying to point towards what seemed to be a very blatant contradiction of your views, though.

If you want me to rescind the comment in order to simply affirm something else positively, I'd be glad to. I had not meant to attack you on any grounds but for what was an apparently poorly constructed aspect of your overall thesis.

Okay, so you remain claiming this is a pure stasis system?

Filled with matter and energy that doesn't move or anything at all?

Well then, I'd have to ask: From whence does this come from?

To contain nothing is to not to contain. To contain anything always requires space. Accordingly, I'd have to say that Sarkus' thought experiment unravels.

If we assume a space-time inside the box, even when there is none, is this a valid measurement?

And actually, a true void would be the equivalent of teleportation to pass. That is to say, the bullet would plow through the wood, experience no space, then plow through the other section of wood, as if the wood was pressed together, or even united. For what is two spaces connected but those with "nothing" between them?

Consider it this way: Its value is infinite division that never reaches zero. The 1 implies non-zero, the 000... implies the infinite process. Just as one could say that infinity is infinite multiplication or addition. The value of both is the "metagenie" of this as a whole. Thus there value is held to be "non-finite".

Unless, of course, you can tell us how divising 1 by 2 will ever reach 0?

Because you agree that any finite number can be divided further, yes?

I have never claimed it is a useful measurement. In fact, haven't I -repeatedly- claimed it was not?

However, one can measure anything with it. Any finite value, and the infinitely large, can be defined as "the infinitely small * infinity". Similar to time, all things are ever an infinite distance from the infinitely small.

Zero does not have infinite potential - it has no potential. Zero cannot be added to anything, subtracted to anything, et cetera, et cetera.

I also fail to see how this refutes the infinitely small? That the infinitely small shares a quality with other valued numbers (both infinitely and finitely valued) is not surprising.

In fact, where do I claim that the infinitely small has properties of zero? Why would this even be necessary?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When you claim that the false construct, .000...1, has an infinite number within a closed segment.

And you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, you keep thinking of that construct as a given just because you can keep making smaller numbers. None of these numbers approach zero except in relation to each other. Each one is infinitely larger than Zero, and there is a finite number of each in any measured segment.

Hence the bit of string has finite bits. Hence a moment in time has finite states. Hence the only way to have a present is to have a past with finite negative states. Hence no eternal, universe-creating god.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Swivel:

Actually, there is never a finite amount in any measured segment -if- the measurement is infinitely reduced to its smallest idealized part (the infinitely small). However, you are right that d*shes are always finite.

But yes, you are right - no finite number ever approaches closest to zero. But you are forgetting that the infinitely small has no finite value. To speak of it having a finite value would be absurd.

Why do you claim that the only way to have a present is to have a past with finite negative states?

 

Because you can't process an infinite number of discrete states on your way to any future event. Just as counting backwards from now, you will never reach some hypothetical "early" point which is infinite discrete states away, so too can you never count forward from that same hypothetical "early" point to reach the present.

My analogy is usually God taking a leak. God has to drink an infinite number of cups of coffee before he needs to take a leak. Will he ever take one?

God, to be eternal, needed to exist in an infinite number of discrete states prior to creating the universe. Could he ever have done it?

The problem here is the exact same as your infinitesimal, you can't place the infinite number of Zeros between the decimal and the One. You will never get to place the one, and an infinite number of Zeros makes your construct Exactly Equal to Zero. Which is why you have it behaving like a zero. There is no such thing as your construct, it is a fiction. An infinite set which is Bounded on Both Sides! And only by pretending that it exists can you fool yourself into thinking that an infinite span is traversable.

 

Swivel:

Okay, so basically, Kant's argument?

Okay. Well then let's go back to time, as talking about God pissing is only funny for so long.

Now you will agree with these things if time is eternal, yes?

The present moment is an infinite distance from infinite past and future.
Any other moment which isn't the infinite past and future is infinitely distant from the infinite past and future.
The infinite future is infinitely distant from the infinite past and vice versa.

And you will further agree that there is no problem with the infinite future being infinitely distant from the infinite past? As presumably, that would not be an issue?

Yet you also will admit that the same distance (infinite) separates the infinite future and infinite past, yes? And that one was not illogical to speak of?

If so, why then reject the notion of an infinite past, if all finite points are also infinitely distant from the past? And that the only finite determination of time is between points which are finite?

 

All you are doing is saying that you believe in several nonsensical things, which supports your reason for believing in one of the nonsensical things.

There is no infinite future that can ever be arrived at. There is no infinite past from which all things came. Any moment in time is measurable to any other moment in time. There was a first moment and there will be a last moment. (I am still wrestling with the possibility that there might only be a first moment, with no true last moment, but I am in the first trimester with this idea)

So, when you ask me to agree about the distance between an infinite past and an infinite future, you are making assumptions that I find ludicrous. I disagree with almost everything you think about infinities and infinitesimals. And since none of your arguments seem to have any logical basis, I am inclined to think that my view is more closely aligned with reality.


Also, I am unaware of Kant's argument in this case. If we want to be more current, we can call it Swivel's argument. Especially since I am here to defend my point of view, and presumably, Kant has said all he had to on the matter.

Finally, I do not bring up God Pissing for humor. It is a very serious thought experiment. It is not meant to be disrespectful, it just happened because I was in a coffee shop when we settled on the brewing of Joe as a standard unit for the measurement of time. I then needed something in the infinite future, and was taking a coffee-induced leak myself when I came up with the analogy that you mock. Honestly, no offense is meant, and by attacking the form of my argument, instead of the content of the argument, you give LG a nice example of what a true Ad Hominem fallacy looks like.

Cheers,
swivel

 

Swivel:

I'd have you show me the logic behind a first and last moment? That is, which demonstrates how such a system could come into being and such?

You are aware of theoretical arguments, are you not? Such as "if all bloops are bleeps, and all bleeps are bonks, than all bloops are bonks". Accordingly, as a matter of a "theoretical argument", do you agree that -given- an eternity (which clearly you disagree with - and which is fine to do) that the progression of the argument is proper?

I was not attacking. I was simply going back to the root of the argument.

 

Again, you answer my questions with questions. I have shown you how the infinitesimal and infinite negative states are illogical. All you can say of finite time is that it could never get started. By saying "never", you ascribe to a timeless state the properties of a state which has time. Again, you are taking the properties which exist within a Set, and attributing those properties to the Set itself.

(All of the following is speculation to show logical means for Time to begin, it is not my own cosmology, nor do I lend it any weight as such):

Before the first change in state of a system you seem to think there must have been a causal agent. Let's ignore the fact that an infinite past and an infinite creator have even worse logical failings, and just look at the need for a first cause. A state in stasis simply means a state which is not recognizable from one "moment" to another. In fact, there are no "moments" at all. This can mean that there is a void, or that the state is completely uniform. It could mean that all matter is packed into a singularity, with the breakdown of all forces and matter into a single state. Don't think of this as a marble existing in a void, there is nothing outside of the marble. The marble was here in my library, and there in your basement. It has not expanded into a surrounding space, it was all of space and everything. Why did it start expanding? Because that is what happens to systems in the state that it was in. Why didn't it happen earlier? Such a question is meaningless. There was no earlier. It was instantaneous. The marble didn't sit around in stasis for a few years, or a week, or a second... that is taking the features within the set and applying them to the Set itself. There was no time in the marble. Asking what kick-started it is taking the limitations of the way we interact within the marble and positing them to the thing itself.

Imagine, instead of a marble, a complete void. What if the power of a void is such that it creates a universe? What would get the universe started? A void. Does this mean that the void isn't a void? No, it just means that one of the properties of the void (it's lack of anything) has effects on the properties of something else (all the matter in the universe). Why did this happen "when" it did? Meaningless question. No time transpired Before it happened. It was the first thing that happened. The natural state of Everything was for there to be Nothing, but there is a latent power in Nothingness that sucks every existing bit of matter from non-being into being. It happened instantaneously, because there was no time transpiring before it did so.

To repeat, before this post is ripped apart and taken out of context, I don't have a clue what happened before the first second of the Big Bang. But I do know that there are no logical inconsistencies with either of the above scenarios. Why? Because they obey the properties that I give them, and they lead to the properties that I see around myself. What is the problem with your scenarios? They supposedly exist within the system of which we are a part, yet they violate the rules of that system. You have time transpiring for an infinite number of states leading up to this one, and going on for an infinite number more. You have infinites bounded on both sides. You have non-Zeros acting like Zeros. You have finite segments of infinite size. These do not obey the very system you are trying to find a causal agent for.

You miss these contradictions, and yet you are quick to create false contradictions in my solution. A First Moment cannot be judged with the concept of Time already running. A universe can not be held to the same standards as the things within that universe. That is equivocating a set with one of its components, and this is always a fatal (if common) mistake.

I'm not pretending to know how universes behave as individuals, I am only telling you how things cannot work within the universe that you and I inhabit. And infinitesimals and infinite pasts are two of the things that don't work.

I have still not seen decent answers to the three problems that I listed with your philosophy. I have looked your reply over several time to try and extrapolate a decent set of answers, but I can not find a logical refutation of my simple set of problems. I think you need to begin by convincing me that there is a non-Zero number by which a finite segment may contain an infinite number of them. After that, I will ask to be taught how an object may pass from A to B through an infinite number of these non-Zeros... or how you propose to traverse the Zeros from the decimal to the One. If you can get from the Decimal to the One, then I will concede that perhaps we could have gotten here from an infinity ago.


Please come around soon, I do not know what limits my hope has, but I fear the strain... All of this seems too airtight and logical for such a strenuous struggle, I fear you may be resisting for the pure sport of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-swivel

 

Swivel:

Actually, we quite disagree that you've shown anything illogical. In fact, I am more than ever convinced of the rightness of my position.

Of course, let us disregard that for a moment.

You do realize that you're basically employing a "magic did it" argument here?

"Because it happens" is not an answer, or at least, not a satisfactory one. You shall have to present something better to demonstrate the truth of your statement.

One objection, one Socratic line of dialogue:

Objection: A "set" which comprises a "set" which does not exist on our level of comprehensibility, cannot be known. Accordingly, your argument gives us, at best, eternal mystery.

It's also suspiciously like God.

Socratic dialogue: You agree that things are either necessary or contingent, yes?

You'd have to prove a void could do this in order for it to be an argument.

For one, I would object to a void causing anything, including "just having that power", on accoutn of this: If it is a void, to have any property whatsoever is to no longer be void like. That is to say, a void must be propertyless - it must be the very absence of properties. To be able to "suck out of matter" or any other process, would be to no longer be void-like.

Also, since when would there be matter in the universe, if there'd be a marble of void and nothing else?

This would be utterly and completely unprovable.

As I have noted again and again: My infinities are not bound. One can never reach either. Accordingly, their value is -infinite-. To have an infinite value is to be unbound.

If I gave them an arbitrary value, such as 12310102310 and .0010230127999179, then you could claim this.

I also never claimed any finite segment has infinite size. I claimed that it has an infinite amount of infinitely small pieces. That is, that it is infinitely divisible.

Moreover, speaking of a discrepancy. You postulate impossible to prove things, contradictions (nothingness still having properties), and basically resort to magic and/or God.

If one cannot judge the standards of the beginning by the middle, as it were, one cannot discuss the start whatsoever. In essence, you give us nothing but an enigma (at best).

Your answer was, remember: "Because that is what happens to systems in the state that it was in."

All right. Let's begin with this:

When does a number become indivisible?

And is there any rule to not divise further?

I can understand confidence.

 

Again, you are poking holes in a cosmology that I do not subscribe to instead of answering the clear questions that I have set out regarding your impossible infinitesimal.

And yes, your construct .000...1 is a bounded infinity. How many Zeros are there? An infinite number. And where is the decimal? On one closed end. And where is the non-Zero number? On the other closed end.

You keep thinking that an Eternity of divisibility is the same thing as an infinity. Once again, every division is a non-zero with a certain amount constituting the finite segment. You will never approach Zero, so you will never reach a division that has infinite segments. There is a very clear rule about when you can NOT continue to keep sub-dividing, and that boundary is Zero. Which is why any non-Zero is EXACTLY THE SAME when it comes to measuring divisions, or finite segments. Every D*sh works the exact same way, and they can be set equal to each other with powerful scientific notation, so which one you want for your standard is arbitrary. What NONE of them are is Zero, so none of them will ever have infinite number in a finite segment. Keep in mind that every non-Zero is an infinitely larger number than Zero, making your divisions smaller give those divisions NO NEW POWERS.

Also, I am offended that the preamble and warnings about my cosmological postulates went unheeded, and you came at me with vile slanders of theistic thought. I keep thinking you are above petty forum tactics, and you keep letting me down. If you are stuck on needing an infinite number of causes to make sure that every state had its own, I fear you will never see the problems with this logic. That entire chain can be seen as an uncaused event, giving your cosmology the exact problem that you are attempting to avoid. My examples were just that, examples. There is no reason to suppose that universes can't be uncaused events, because we don't know how Non-universes work. The difference between us is that I am comfortable with this ignorance, but you seem to think that ignorance is an opportunity to plug a gap with any fanciful reasonings which might be handy. This never works very well.

Everything wrong with your viewpoint has been said multiple times in this thread, so I will leave my arguments as they are. I had hoped to help stop you from spreading misinformation in other threads, but perhaps this discussion with serve a function anyway. Perhaps a handful of people will stumble on our circular debate and come away with an understanding of infinitesimals and Time that will help to counter your negative influences with some positive ones of their own.

Dismayed, but without malice,
-swivel

 

Swivel:

How am I poking holes in a cosmology you aren't subscribing to when you are presenting it as the alternative?

Considering your arguing the sensibility of finite time, presumably you know how finite time works out, do you not? If not, we can suspend this conversation, I'll give you about a month or whatever you need, and we'll come back to this once you have a working theory. Then we can set our theories head to head.

As I noted beforehand: The number itself has an infinite value. The 1 represents the fact that it is not divisible to zero. That is to say, it is result of infinite division. The metagenie of perpetual division.

I have -affirmed- this time after time. What is your point? I have told you there is no finite value. Accordingly, one can -never reach it- through any finite process.

The only way one can reach any infinite point, either big or small, is to discuss the process as taken over infinity.

Evidently, you are not reading my posts at all. Otherwise you'd be aware that I noted this repeatedly.

Once again, you are attempting to disprove an -explicitly noted non-finite value-, by affirming a process which is -admitted- in its conception.

If this was not so, if there was a finite indivisble number, my argument would collapse.

Actually, this came as a shock to me. Did you edit your post after you initially posted? Because when I originally replied, this was not noted. I copied your post into my notepad and it had nothing in brackets signifying this was not your own cosmological system.

For this, then, I certainly apologize.

Truly: My mistake on this part. But once again, did you add this after you initially posted?

Actually, systems which admit of ignorance are fundamentally flawed, according to any reasonable rule for the discussing of well-formed arguments? If you cannot explain a crucial way things work, you have essentially postulated nonsense.

But as here is a proper critique of my system, I shall respond to it:

For something to be necessary, its existence must be mandated at all times. That is to say, it must be illogical for it not to be. As it cannot not be, it must be eternal. However, it remains caused, as the reason for its necessity is what causes it to be necessary, not simply "because it is so".

 

No, I only edit if I make serious typos, like leaving off a letter, which might make reading jarring to others. If I add content, it is always at the bottom, and I always say "Edit: (insert boring philosophical drivel here)"

I appreciate your points. This thread has been a ton of fun for me, something that I have looked forward to each day as I get home from work, or as I get out of bed. Thank you very much.

-swivel

 

The concept of 'time', is no more than a 'cognitive' trick of 'memory', static memory.
Nothing more.
Like the concept of 'motion'.

 

Pj,
Regarding:

and

Can you offer an explanation for the existance of vacant space and filled space?

That is to say the existance of the "room" for the universe to exist within?

For surely the void and volume of nothingness [ vacuum ] has to be expained to entertain a complete postulation of anything else?

How did nothingness come into existance?

By the way, congradulations on an excellent thread. A lot of work and time has gone into it for sure.


edit:
The reason I mention this is that for something to move it must have vacant space to move into. And also must leave vacant space behind it. Thus time is when thinking in linea terms vacant or non-existant. and movement can only be achieved if this non-existance is available to become existant.

Thus the universe is in a constant state of "ex-nhillo creating" as movement could be seen as an act of creating something from nothing.

Of course without nothingness the universe would cease to be able to move....yes? It would be static and gridlocked with no-where to go.

 

The other question I have at present [ more to come ] is the problem of using time in terms of picture frames or points [ both imaginary and abstract] and to clarify I ask if you hold the notion that the universe somehow "flickers" and that a point in time can be anything but imaginary?

If the universe does not flicker then a point in time is purely imaginary or zero dimensional. If a flicker is proved then a point could have dimensionality to it and be real rather than a pure fiction of convenience.

[ yep I know I am again discussing the fundamental paradox that exists when discussing dimensions]

 

I believe that the answer to "time" is a philosophical one.

Time is a creation of your awareness, if you were dead, so time would be, but not for those of us still alive. My car, for example, has no cognition, it may rust, it may fall apart, but since it has no cognition, time doesn't exist for it, since it isn't a "it," its a thing and when you die since there is no god, you'll find that the matter you are created of will become a "thing" and thus phases out of cognition. I would equivilate time-less-death to a dreamless sleep, your head hits the pillow and suddenly the sun is rising and "its time" to get up. Except with death it wont be "you" waking up, it will be whatever form of life the atomic matter has formed.

I'm going to conclude that time=cognition.

*going more philosophical*: Perhaps the moment a life form dies in that same moment the matter of the universe finds itself becoming aware again, since the time between cognition non-cognition and cognition again equals zero. I die, the atomic matter making "me" becomes unaware of anything for 10 billion years until it comes back to life as a zebra, 10 billion equals zero to non-cognitive atomic matter.


To say that time does indeed exist without cognition would be like saying the food tastes good, even if nothing eats it. The fact is, the food doesn't have a taste if there is nothing to taste it. Even further I would argue that the food doesn't exist until there is awareness to interact with it. (and of course, make it)

 

So time doesn't affect your car because it's not conscious?
But your changes with time: time affects it.
If there were no time your car would remain in the same state "forever".

 

No, we are not!
Kant simply makes a false argument about the "infinity of time".
The concept of infinite time just means that wherever you go on the timeline, you will not reach a begin or end of the line.
But place two points on the timeline, wherever you want, and they will always be within finite distance of each other!
The infinity of the timeline can just be illustrated by the fact that wherever you placed those two points, you will always succeed in placing them farther away. That is the difference with a finite time line, as in that case, you will ultimately reach a limit. On the infinite timeline however, there is no such limit. Yet, all points on the timeline are in finite distance of each other!

If Kant claims that the point "now" can not be reached, he just again states that a begin point on this time line does not exist. Although he makes the argument tricky by claiming that the point "now" can not be reached.
Reached from where, one might ask? From the begin point.
But as we already concluded, the begin point of the infinite time line simply does not exist, and that fact just defines this time line to be infinite to begin with!

How then can Kant later assume it's existence, and raise this pseudo contradiction that starting from the begin point, the point "now" never can be reached? An infinite time line WITH a begin point is a contradiction in terms.
If Kant can show us how at all he could have started to measure time, since the point he wants to measure from, is unreachable, so in fact he could never have started measuring at all.
So this only raises a pseudo or false contradiction, since he already assumes that this infinite time line has a begin point from where he could start measuring. The infinite time line however does not have a begin point, so the argument of Kant makes no sense.

 

Oli:

Sure the metals corrode, the rubber cracks, the paint falls off.

Time is a figment of your imagination, what is effecting this car is sunlight, gravity, rain, forces which are measured and real. Time didn't exist until the cavemen decided to build a sundial, but thats not time either, merely the measurement of the movement of heavenly bodies.

WRONG:If there were no time your car would remain in the same state "forever"

CORRECT: If there was no sunlight, gravity, universal forces, then and only then would my car just sit there "forever"


Think about it, you die, there is no god, a million million years goes by in an "instant" because you're not aware of anything since you're dead, your atomic matter comes back together but its not you anymore, its just some other form of life which may or may not understand the CONCEPT of time.