12 Jul 07
2 edits
For the theory of infinitely divisible non zero time, I come back to a question raised before.
How can an infinity of time be traversed so as to arrive at the present moment?
By proposing no Zero time point but rather an infinitely divisible amount of sub units you have not removed that problem.
The present moment suggests that the impossible happened - an infinity of non-zero divisible subunits was reached to arrive at now.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillWhy do you claim that it is impossible? You have not provided any argument to back up such a claim.
For the theory of infinitely divisible non zero time, I come back to a question raised before.
How can an infinity of time be traversed so as to arrive at the present moment?
By proposing no Zero time point but rather an infinitely divisible amount of sub units you have not removed that problem.
The present moment suggests that the impossible happened - an infinity of non-zero divisible subunits was reached to arrive at now.
You have stated a well known fact which is that you cannot count to infinity in a finite number of steps but you have not shown that an infinite number of steps cannot be made.
Do you think that you have proved that time cannot be infinitely divisible? Do you also think that you have proved that space is also not infinitely divisible? (as your claim would apply to movement as well)
This means that all objects move around in little jerks. In fact they would not actually move from point to point but disappear at point A and reappear at point B.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnz++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't. At least we actually know time exists, and the things you are talking about currently happen.
At least we actually know time exists, and the things you are talking about currently happen.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up. So the universe is not eternal. So we know that it must have had a beginning.
We know that should nothing intervene it will run down like a battery some day. It has not yet.
Einstien admitted that the greatest blunder of his life was to create an artificial constant as a fudge factor to account for an eternal universe. Astronomy helped him to appreciate that mistake. The universe was expanding and must have had a beginning.
I wonder if the person creating a non-zero infinitely divisible sub units of time to avoid a beginning to the universe is making a similiar blunder.
Once again "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) for many of us, is pretty trustworthy.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillEnergy doesn't get "used up". Haven't you heard of the law of conservation of energy?
And we know that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe and it is not all used up. So the universe is not eternal. So we know that it must have had a beginning.
We know that should nothing intervene it will run down like a battery some day. It has not yet.
You might think that, but you would have a hard time convincing anyone with even a basic understanding of physics so don't say "we".
I wonder if the person creating a non-zero infinitely divisible sub units of time to avoid a beginning to the universe is making a similiar blunder.
Do you have any genuine reason to think that time is not infinitely divisible other than your own inability to comprehend infinity?
Once again "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) for many of us, is pretty trustworthy.
Well if you put your trust in the writings of some unknown author somewhere in the middle east thousands of years ago who did nothing more than state that he thought God made the universe (but does not explain how in the sentence you quote) then thats up to you. But that is hardly what one could call a logical 'first cause' argument now is it?
12 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why do you claim that it is impossible? You have not provided any argument to back up such a claim.
You have stated a well known fact which is that you cannot count to infinity in a finite number of steps but you have not shown that an infinite number of steps cannot be made.
Do you think that you have proved that time cannot be infinitely divisible? Do ...[text shortened]... ey would not actually move from point to point but disappear at point A and reappear at point B.
Do you think that you have proved that time cannot be infinitely divisible? Do you also think that you have proved that space is also not infinitely divisible? (as your claim would apply to movement as well)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As a thought experiment time is infinitely divisible. That is an abstraction in the mind. That is a logical idea that it should be that way.
You are going beyond this to propose that practically, not as an abstract mental idea, but practically physical causes infinitely filled up these units of time.
I care to question that. I care to question the assumption that "This must be so".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This means that all objects move around in little jerks. In fact they would not actually move from point to point but disappear at point A and reappear at point B.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am aware of that, I think.
I am bringing in here the Kalam princible expressed this way:
1.) An infinite number of days has no end.
2.) But today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days).
3.) Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (i.e. time had a beginning).
You may substitute seconds or sub-units of seconds instead of days.
You say that infinite numbers can exist, so why can't infinite units or sub-units of time? The difference is that one concept is an abstract series and the other is a concrete one.
One concept is purely theoretical, the other is actual. You can concieve of an infinite number of mathematical points between two book ends. But you cannot fit an infinite number of books between them.
Numbers are abstract. Units of time are concrete. And I question your concept of the laws of physics being in a infinite regress of more and more minute cause and effects.
Don't you think that that idea should at least be questioned?
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillI made no such assumption. You simply don't read my posts it seems. What I did was that until you have shown that it is not the case (which you haven't), the 'first cause' argument is invalid.
I care to question that. I care to question the assumption that "This must be so".
I am aware of that, I think.
I am bringing in here the Kalam princible expressed this way:
1.) An infinite number of days has no end.
2.) But today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days).
3.) Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (i.e. time had a beginning).
Whoever came up with that did not have even a basic understanding of mathematics.
Premise 1. is either false or based on prior arguments not stated in the argument.
Note also that days are countable. I am proposing that time is not countable.
Don't you think that that idea should at least be questioned?
I have no problem with my ideas being questioned. I do have a problem with you claiming that they are wrong simply based on your inability to understand them. I am also claiming that until they are proved wrong, the 'first cause' argument remains false because it makes an unproven premise which it claims is 'fact'.
12 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
I made no such assumption. You simply don't read my posts it seems. What I did was that until you have shown that it is not the case (which you haven't), the 'first cause' argument is invalid.
[b]I am aware of that, I think.
I am bringing in here the Kalam princible expressed this way:
1.) An infinite number of days has no end.
2.) But today is the argument remains false because it makes an unproven premise which it claims is 'fact'.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I made no such assumption. You simply don't read my posts it seems. What I did was that until you have shown that it is not the case (which you haven't), the 'first cause' argument is invalid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may get you mixed up with someone else. That is true.
And some of your posts I probably don't read.
First off, I haven't yet put up the version of the First Cause argument that I subscribe to.
1.) Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2.) The universe had a beginning.
3.) Therefore the universe had a cause
That's the version I prefer. A bit different from Aquinas's version which epiphaneous first posted.
I'm not going to write a thesis on this forum defending that. I would only say that the Law of Causality is the basis of all science. Francis Bacon, the father of modern science, said "True knowledge is by causes."
Without premise #1 you could not practice science.
But your last complaint is about the first premise from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
1.) An infinite number of days has no end.
To which I think you said this:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whoever came up with that did not have even a basic understanding of mathematics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Prove then that an infinite number of days DOES have an end.
What's this?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note also that days are countable. I am proposing that time is not countable.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you don't know how many years you went to school?
Did you use the word "units". My apology if it was someone else and not you. But if you did use the phrase something like "units of time" or "sub-units" then I think you are admitting that for practical purposes time can be counted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don't you think that that idea should at least be questioned?
I have no problem with my ideas being questioned. I do have a problem with you claiming that they are wrong simply based on your inability to understand them. I am also claiming that until they are proved wrong, the 'first cause' argument remains false because it makes an unproven premise which it claims is 'fact'.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I await your proof that an infinite number of days does have an end.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillPremise one is correct for everything within the universe, but we have no reason to suspect that it applies to the universe itself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I made no such assumption. You simply don't read my posts it seems. What I did was that until you have shown that it is not the case (which you haven't), the 'first cause' argument is invalid.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may get you mixed up with someone else. That is true.
And some of your post ...[text shortened]...
I await your proof that an infinite number of days does have an end.[/b]
I seems logical, but logic tends not to work at the very small, the very fast or the beginning of the universe.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillI disagree.
Without premise #1 you could not practice science.
I await your proof that an infinite number of days does have an end.
I do not need to prove that it does, but merely that it could. Suppose that the universe is currently infinite in age, then today would be the end day of an infinite number of days. Do you see how circular your argument was?
To help you understand, the set of negative integers is infinite but -1 could be considered its end. Your argument trys to claim that anything that is countable (integers for example) must also be finite, which is stupid in the extreme.
12 Jul 07
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]
Energy doesn't get "used up". Haven't you heard of the law of conservation of energy?
[b]We know that should nothing intervene it will run down like a battery some day. It has not yet.
You might think that, but you would have a hard time convincing anyone with even a basic understanding of physics so don't say "we".
I wonder if the person cr u. But that is hardly what one could call a logical 'first cause' argument now is it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Energy doesn't get "used up". Haven't you heard of the law of conservation of energy?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scientists expect that the universe will one day fizzle out.
If so, it will be cold and dark and the energy is dissipated.
That's my layman's understanding. Do you challenge that?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
You might think that, but you would have a hard time convincing anyone with even a basic understanding of physics so don't say "we".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Huh? I'll review my Thermodynamics Theorems.
I think that that's why Steady State and Cosmic Rebound ideas of the Big Bang have been largely rejected. There is not enough energy to cause the Bang to reverse itself and come back together as a Big Crunch. It will expand forever.
I think it is as simple as a flashlight being left on all night. The battery runs down and the light gets dimmer and dimmer. Eventually it goes OUT.
Just like a bouncing ball fizzles out and returns to a still state. All things in the universe are tending towards eventual dissipation.
++++++++++++++++
Once again "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) for many of us, is pretty trustworthy.
Well if you put your trust in the writings of some unknown author somewhere in the middle east thousands of years ago who did nothing more than state that he thought God made the universe (but does not explain how in the sentence you quote) then thats up to you. But that is hardly what one could call a logical 'first cause' argument now is it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There's a lot more to Genesis and the Bible besides Genesis 1:1. That is only the highlighted statement about the cause of the universes existence.
The "unknown author" argument means little to me because what is AUTHORED is what is very important.
You couldn't name me another book that covers so many vital and basic truths about human life and creation with so few words as the first few chapters of Genesis.
The origin of space and time.
The origin of animals.
The origin of human beings.
The purpose for which man was created.
The first man and woman.
The origin of the institution of marriage.
The origin of the problem between God and man.
The origin of the first man-made religion.
The first murder.
The first human city.
The origin of agriculture.
The origin of industry.
The origin of musical performance.
The origin of human government.
The origin of capital punishment.
The origin of the spread of nations over the globe.
You couldn't name me another writing which covers so many vital issues as these in such an economical and accessible way, which has also stood the test of thousands of years of time.
Other sacred books like it do not exactly compare in scope and economy to the Holy Bible, especially early Genesis.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillNo. Units of time can be counted, time itself cannot. If time is infinitely divisible then it is what is known in mathematics as an uncountable infinity just like the real numbers where as the infinite set of integers is a countable infinity.
Did you use the word [b]"units". My apology if it was someone else and not you. But if you did use the phrase something like "units of time" or "sub-units" then I think you are admitting that for practical purposes time can be counted. [/b]
Do you believe that space is not infinitely divisible ie there is a very small distance which cannot be divided in two?
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhitehead+++++++++++++++++++++
No. Units of time can be counted, time itself cannot. If time is infinitely divisible then it is what is known in mathematics as an uncountable infinity just like the real numbers where as the infinite set of integers is a countable infinity.
Do you believe that space is not infinitely divisible ie there is a very small distance which cannot be divided in two?
No. Units of time can be counted, time itself cannot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That will do for our purposes.
Ages of people can't really be counted either. But we do alright with counting units of years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If time is infinitely divisible then it is what is known in mathematics as an uncountable infinity just like the real numbers where as the infinite set of integers is a countable infinity.
Do you believe that space is not infinitely divisible ie there is a very small distance which cannot be divided in two?
+++++++++++++++++++
Conceptually time is infinitely divisible.
That doesn't mean something has to be going on down there in .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999th of a nano second.
You don't know that.
In the theoretical imagination, sure, we can subdivide on and on.
Fascinating it is. But is there anything going on down at that level? How about a trillion billion times smaller than that?
How would we measure it? The electron microscope that could tell us that would probably have to be as big as the whole galaxy.
12 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWell then your claim would then only show that there was a first day but not a beginning to time.(actually it didn't even show there was a first day)
That will do for our purposes.
Ages of people can't really be counted either. But we do alright with counting units of years.
You don't know that.
And I never claimed I did. But you don't know otherwise but are claiming you do. It is up to you to proof you stance, I don't have to.
How would we measure it? The electron microscope that could tell us that would probably have to be as big as the whole galaxy.
And yet you claim to know that there is nothing going on there. Which microscope were you using?
Conceptually time is infinitely divisible.
Either it is or it isn't infinitely divisible. Unless you can show that it isn't then you are wasting your time.(an infinite number of bits of it) 🙂
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by jaywillThat doesn't make it right.
You couldn't name me another writing which covers [b]so many vital issues as these in such an economical and accessible way, which has also stood the test of thousands of years of time.
Other sacred books like it do not exactly compare in scope and economy to the Holy Bible, especially early Genesis.[/b]
I do reject the notion that it has "stood the test of time". Its interpretation has been changed so many times, when it's been found wanting.