- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwPerhaps less 'simplicity' and more complication might improve clarity.
I didn't say time doesn't exist. I said eternity cannot be measured in terms of a number that represents time because eternity has no beginning and no end.
"No beginning and no end" isn't a measure of time. In fact it's the exact opposite. Eternity isn't about the duration of time, but is instead a place, a location, where time doesn't exist.
I can's say it any simpler than that.
What you are saying is mutually contradictory.
You can see the problem if I do this...
I didn't say time doesn't exist. ..... SNIP ...... where time doesn't exist.
I think what you are trying to say is that an infinity is not a number, there is no end to it,
but that is entirely not the same as saying that it isn't countable or non-existent.
Originally posted by googlefudgeSaying time doesn't exist in eternity isn't saying time doesn't exist.
Perhaps less 'simplicity' and more complication might improve clarity.
What you are saying is mutually contradictory.
You can see the problem if I do this...
I didn't say time doesn't exist. ..... SNIP ...... where time doesn't exist.
I think what you are trying to say is that an infinity is not a number, there is no end to it,
but that is entirely not the same as saying that it isn't countable or non-existent.
Just as eternity is a place, a location, so is this place. We exist in the material universe which is the place where time exists. We count time here, but in the place of eternity there is no counting of time because eternity has "no beginning and no end".
Creation is where time "began". Time is the measure of the finite from beginning to end, but time does not exist where there is no beginning or end. Time requires a point of reference such as "in the beginning", but eternity has no origin with which to measure it by in the sense of time.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by josephwNo.
Saying time doesn't exist in eternity isn't saying time doesn't exist.
Just as eternity is a place, a location, so is this place. We exist in the material universe which is the place where time exists. We count time here, but in the place of eternity there is no counting of time because eternity has "no beginning and no end".
Creation is where time "b ...[text shortened]... "in the beginning", but eternity has no origin with which to measure it by in the sense of time.
It's possible that the universe we live in will exist forever, that there will be an infinity
of time stretching out into the future, even though there is only a finite amount of
time stretching back into the past.
It's also possible that space is infinite in all directions.
Yet we can still measure distance in that infinite space.
Time still flows, and can be measured, even when infinite.
Infinity can be countable.
So what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOf course it's possible the universe will exist infinitely, and as long as it does it appears that time will too.
No.
It's possible that the universe we live in will exist forever, that there will be an infinity
of time stretching out into the future, even though there is only a finite amount of
time stretching back into the past.
It's also possible that space is infinite in all directions.
Yet we can still measure distance in that infinite space.
Ti ...[text shortened]... when infinite.
Infinity can be countable.
So what you are saying just doesn't make sense.
And we'll never see the end of time in that case, that is as long as the universe exists in it's current form. But that's another matter.
If you can measure infinity, by what quantity or value do you place on it in terms of a number?
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?"
w) It isn't [at least not in math or maths conceived within and/or apprehended by the finite human mind].
x) "eternity"... past) ---------------------------- [time/human history] ------------------------- (eternity future... [far too linear]
y) "eternity" = o or the infinity symbol or the contextual "alpha and omega"
z) ?
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour imagination is rather limited.
I can see no possible existence that would not be torture if extended to 3^^^^3 years
in duration...
I cannot remember most of what I did a mere ten years ago. I could quite happily repeat activities I did ten years ago without boredom setting in.
Your argument only makes sense if you have perfect memory - which would have complications all of its own, and would change our lives so significantly that any guesses as to what it would be like would be almost certainly wrong.
I can say conclusively that I have not yet got so bored of life that I would choose death as an alternative and I think that unless my psychology or circumstances change significantly, I would never get so bored of life as to commit suicide.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMmm... this may be true for you, but I wonder if you can say this must necessarily true for everyone.
Indeed.
Of course my argument is to turn the whole thing on its head.
Take a ludicrously long period of time... Say 3^^^^3 years [^ standing in for "up-arrow"]
and then try to imagine ANY POSSIBLE activity that anything resembling a human
could do for that long that WOULDN'T drive you insane and end up being torture.
I can see no possible exi ...[text shortened]... ven' and 'instant death' as Suzianne likes to argue for...
I pick the instant death every time.
It seems to me that the claim you are making is that a person's 'interest' in performing any activity must decline over a period of time and to such an extent that life itself must become torture.
Assuming this is not just a personal view (i.e. it would be torture for me) do you have any evidence to support this? Take two rather mundane examples:
I know a number of people with an all-consuming passion for music. They pretty much have spent their entire lives performing a relatively narrow range of music. Yet they continue to do so and I have seen no evidence that their enthusiasm for this has waned at all.
Now, 3^^^^3 years is a very long time, but if someone does not show a diminution in enthusiasm for something over 60 years (and then dies), how can you say this would not continue for another 60 years, and another, and another?
My Dad has spent the last 65 years of his life playing golf at the same golf club. He has no obvious objective in playing today (he is well past his best). He just enjoys it for its own sake. How can you state conclusively that this could not continue to form part of his life for another 65 years, and so on?
And that is just two activities. If, say, I have strong passions for music, books and sport, I could indulge one of them for 100 years, then another for 100 years, then another for 100 years. Even if I personally find one of them begins to pall over 100 years, then I am sure that a 200 year absence would rekindle it. By which time, of course, there will potentially be a vast array of new music and literature to explore (and notwithstanding TW's point that you will probably have forgotten a lot of this completely and could explore it afresh).
Of course, you can state that 3^^^^3 years is so vastly greater than 60-65 years that the result would be different. This may well be true, but other than just claiming it, what is your evidence that it would be true for everyone?
Finally, I think you would have to justify your claim that it would be torture, and that it would drive anyone mad.
I am reminded of a conversation I sometimes have when I tell people that I would like to retire early. They say something like 'But you would be so bored'. To which I reply 'Yes, but that would still be better than working.'
So even if you could show a decline in interest over time, can you demonstrate that this decline must be terminal (i.e. it cannot be rekindled) and that it must reach a point, not just where we are bored, but would eventually go insane.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
I don't think either of you have comprehended how ludicrously vast 3^^^^3 is.
It's so vast a number that I could replace the unit with 'plank times' or 'multiples of the age of
the universe' instead of years and functionally the period of time would be ~3^^^^3 years.
Now I am a transhumanist, and I would quite happily take biological immortality [ie won't die
from old age or disease] if available in a heartbeat. I fully intend on still being around in 10,000
years and still going strong. [And I anticipate changing radically over that period of time].
However, I am not prepared to wager that at some point in the vast expanse of future time that
I would never come to the point where I no longer want to exist. It might be in 10,000 years,
it might be 100,000 years, it might be in 100,000,000,000 years... But the likelihood is that at
some point I will no longer wish to continue existing.
Signing up for an INFINITE existence is to gamble that there is no chance at all over ANY period
of time that you would come to cease existing. Because if the probability of wanting to cease
existing is non-zero, after some finite period of time you will want to die, and you will have an
infinite amount of time stretching before you that you cannot bear.
I find the likelihood of making it anywhere close to 3^^^^3 years to be absurd, but the idea of
lasting an infinite amount of time...
Are you prepared to risk an infinity of torture on the hope that the probability of you ever wanting
to cease existing is and will always remain exactly zero.
That seems to me to be a very foolish bet to make.
24 Mar 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeIncorrect. It is irrelevant how large it is for what we are saying.
I don't think either of you have comprehended how ludicrously vast 3^^^^3 is.
However, I am not prepared to wager that at some point in the vast expanse of future time that
I would never come to the point where I no longer want to exist.
I wouldn't make that wager either.
It might be in 10,000 years, it might be 100,000 years, it might be in 100,000,000,000 years... But the likelihood is that at some point I will no longer wish to continue existing.
I would just say that the likelihood is unknown and highly dependant on the actual circumstances.
But you originally said:
I can see no possible existence that would not be torture if extended to 3^^^^3 years
in duration.
I on the other hand can think of many possible existences in which living for that length of time might be entirely pleasurable.
Are you prepared to risk an infinity of torture on the hope that the probability of you ever wanting
to cease existing is and will always remain exactly zero.
That seems to me to be a very foolish bet to make.
But none of us are actually faced with the choice. If we will live for eternity in some kind of heaven, nobody is going to stand at the gate and say 'do you want to come in, or cease to exist now instead?'.
If there really is an eternal heaven that some all knowing creator god has prepared for our enjoyment, then presumably he has built it in such a way that it will not be torture, and there is simply no denying that such a heaven is theoretically possible.(ignoring physics of course).
Originally posted by googlefudgeActually, you have used this numerical example before and we discussed Knuths up -arrow notation (hope I have got that right!) in the context of Graham's number.
I don't think either of you have comprehended how ludicrously vast 3^^^^3 is.
It's so vast a number that I could replace the unit with 'plank times' or 'multiples of the age of
the universe' instead of years and functionally the period of time would be ~3^^^^3 years.
Now I am a transhumanist, and I would quite happily take biological immortality ...[text shortened]... ng is and will always remain exactly zero.
That seems to me to be a very foolish bet to make.
However I don't think you have addressed any of the issues I raised.
It may well be a bad bet to make. That is not what you contended. You said it was certain that all us would go mad and suffer akin to torture.
But I don't think you have offered any evidence that, given a sufficient length of time, all of us would find life unbearable.
However, on the wager issue, I might wager that, before I go mad, we will have developed technology that will eliminate mental illness and also allow me to choose to eliminate some of my memories so that I can live some of my experiences over and over again afresh. I doubt this is an unrealistic prospect given sufficient time and you are stating that you will be able to live for 10,000 years.
I imagine you would find this a distasteful prospect. But again what you might find unacceptable may not be to others.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOne thing I wanted to add.
Actually, you have used this numerical example before and we discussed Knuths up -arrow notation (hope I have got that right!) in the context of Graham's number.
However I don't think you have addressed any of the issues I raised.
It may well be a bad bet to make. That is not what you contended. You said it was certain that all us would go mad ...[text shortened]... d this a distasteful prospect. But again what you might find unacceptable may not be to others.
In your hypothesis you have assumed that the 'decline' we enter is acute and permanent.
You have also stipulated that we must remain recognisably human.
Now some humans experience this in real life. Others don't. Some:
1 Get depressed but not suicidal.
2. Get depressed and/or suicidal, but then are able to recover.
As our knowledge advances we are able to improve how we treat these conditions. And our ability to deal with these issues is improving as life spans increase (I also assume you are not planning to live 10,000 years as a mindless vegetable).
So actual human experience does not seem to support your claim.
Imagine if the reality was that, if I took the bet, I would spend 1,000 years suicidally depressed and then recover for 1,000 years of happiness.
You might not want to take this option. Others might think this a price worth paying against the certainty of non-existence.
But either way you have failed, it seems to me, to substantiate the claim that spending time in eternity must inevitably mean an eternity of torture without respite.
And bear in mind that the post I responded to was not even discussing eternity, though in this case I don't think anything significant hangs on it.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyQuestion 2: Were it not for Sovereign God, how in the wide world could the "googolplexian"
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?" Thread 158620 (30 Mar '14 23:48)
"Here are the largest numbers I could find as a layman's point of reference:
Googol: A large number. A "1" followed by one hundred zeros.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,0 ...[text shortened]... te quantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?"
____________________
and/or the symbol for infinity: ∞
ever possibly be explained
? or ¿