Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

And so what?

And so we can't arrive at any arbitrary temporal point, Tn, if time extends infinitely prior to that point.

This has absolutely no bearing on the Universe's ability to be infinite.

It has a bearing on arriving at some arbitrary temporal point for which the time extends infinitely prior to it.

That's not actually something I said.

You did not have to.

In other words, it's not something I think (I'd write it if I thought it). What I'm arguing against is the claim that it's not possible for time to have a starting point/for time to be finite. I'm not arguing that time had a starting point or is finite. Who knows? I'm just arguing against the claim that this is impossible.

I'm just pointing out a logical dilemma with the idea that makes it counterintuitive.

But there is no logical dilemma, nor any counter intuitiveness here to me.[/quote]

So then explain how we arrive at point Tn if there's an infinity of prior time.

As I've stated many times, both "Time/the universe has always existed" and "Time/the universe had a starting point" are counterintuitive. So we're necessarily stuck between a rock and a hard place with that.

But I am not stuck anywhere. That is just an non-equivocal contradiction for a finite universe.
[/quote]

Huh? What is just a non-equivocated contradiction for a finite universe?

[creation]

I do not deny determinism, nor deny free will. I neither believe nor disbelieve determinism, nor free will. I understand fully how and why determinism AND free will equally play a part.

I could say I believe that I am both single and married, that my team both won and lost the game last night, or that my dog is also a goldfish.

You are absolutely free to choose to do whatever you like or want to do. So, if you choose to do that, then go right ahead.

But, if you cannot explain it a logically reasoned way, then so be it.

But, nobody would make any sense of these statements, because they are aware that these things are mutually exclusive, such that they can't both be true at the same time.

So, if you already know that these statements are nonsensical, then to say that you believe them would be a nonsensical thing to do as well.

So it is with free will and determinism, and nobody who knows the meaning of these concepts would understand your belief that they are both true at the same time.

Firstly, I will have to make this absolutely clear to you; I neither believe nor disbelieve anything. So, I do not have a belief that they are both true at the same time.

Secondly, I have never even said anything that would even imply that they are both true, from your meaning of the concepts, at the same time. So, you have misunderstood me completely here.

Thirdly, who do you propose knows the meaning of the concepts of 'free will' and 'determinism'? What you have said here implies that you know what the meaning of the concepts of 'free will' and 'determinism' are. So, tell us what the meaning of these concepts are.

The idea of 'compatibilism' is a unicorn to me until someone can say, even in theory. how the two ideas could both be true at the same time. You've not even tried, so I must assume you can't.

I have already explained how both 'free will' and 'determinism' play an equal part.

Did you miss it?

If so, then I will just repeat it, for you.

Saying you believe something impossible will obviously not sway me to think about joining you, unless or until you can open a window to see how it might be possible.

Just to make it crystal clear:

I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

I do not want to sway you to anything at all.

The more you keep your beliefs and do not change at all, then the better that is for me.

Why would you think I way say I believe something impossible? What are you referring to exactly?

Please do not join me.

[creation]

I could say I believe that I am both single and married, that my team both won and lost the game last night, or that my dog is also a goldfish. But, nobody would make any sense of these statements, because they are aware that these things are mutually exclusive, such that they can't both be true at the same time. So it is with free will and determinism, and nobody who knows the meaning of these concepts would understand your belief that they are both true at the same time. The idea of 'compatibilism' is a unicorn to me until someone can say, even in theory. how the two ideas could both be true at the same time. You've not even tried, so I must assume you can't. Saying you believe something impossible will obviously not sway me to think about joining you, unless or until you can open a window to see how it might be possible.

I can never make sense of compatibilism, either, aside from people seeming to redefine one side or the other so that they're not really talking about either ontological freedom of determinism or both.

You also imply that you know what the meaning of 'free will' and 'determinism' are. So, how about you providing what you believe the meanings to be, and let us see how close they are to others who provide their meanings?

Ontological, like truth and falsehoods, is just a personal thing, which can be very easily proven when two or more people provide the the so called "ontological" 'freedom' or 'determinism' or both.

[creation]

And so what?

And so we can't arrive at any arbitrary temporal point, Tn, if time extends infinitely prior to that point.

This has absolutely no bearing on the Universe's ability to be infinite.

It has a bearing on arriving at some arbitrary temporal point for which the time extends infinitely prior to it.

'Time' would have to be some thing that actual does extend to arrive as some arbitrary temporal point.

Is 'time' some actual thing that could do this?

If yes, then what exactly is that 'thing'?

You did not have to.

In other words, it's not something I think (I'd write it if I thought it).

So are you saying that if you thought you already believed an infinity of duration cannot occur, then you would write it?

What I'm arguing against is the claim that it's not possible for time to have a starting point/for time to be finite. I'm not arguing that time had a starting point or is finite. Who knows? I'm just arguing against the claim that this is impossible.

And, if you have provided an argument against the claim that it is not possible for time to have a starting point/for time to be finite, then what was the actual argument that you have provided so far?

To me, 'time' had a starting point anyway. But, again, we do see things very differently.

And, are you also arguing against the claim that it is not possible for time to be infinite as well?

But there is no logical dilemma, nor any counter intuitiveness here to me.

So then explain how we arrive at point Tn if there's an infinity of prior time.

Tn is the constant NOW.

We do not arrive at Tn NOW. We have always 'arrived' Tn NOW, or more accurately we are always at Tn NOW.

But I am not stuck anywhere. That is just an non-equivocal contradiction for a finite universe.

Huh? What is just a non-equivocated contradiction for a finite universe?

The contradiction that there is a finite universe, and, for every action there is a reaction.

[Terrapin Station]

Talk about not answering what you're asked:

We do not arrive at Tn NOW. We have always 'arrived' Tn NOW, or more accurately we are always at Tn NOW.

I'm not asking anything about us. You said that time is duration that exists whether we do or not, and you said that time extends infinitely "backwards."

So the question is this: take some arbitrary time in the past. I said we could use the time of the creation of the Earth for an example. So that's obviously not about us.

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

[psyreporter]

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

[creation]

Talk about not answering what you're asked:

To fully understand what I am saying, then you will need to use my definition for the word 'time' and not use your definition.

We do not arrive at Tn NOW. We have always 'arrived' Tn NOW, or more accurately we are always at Tn NOW.

I'm not asking anything about us. You said that time is duration that exists whether we do or not, and you said that time extends infinitely "backwards."

You are looking at this from, and thinking about this in, more or less your definition of the word 'time', or from your perception of the way I am defining the word 'time'.

So the question is this: take some arbitrary time in the past. I said we could use the time of the creation of the Earth for an example. So that's obviously not about us.

To better understand what I am saying and meaning you will really need to take this back to the beginning again, and grasp what my definition for the word 'time' is, and then we could start moving forward again.

To me, 'time' is not something that actually exists, other than in concept, or thought, only. Is this understood?

If this is understood, then the word 'time' is used only in reference to the measurements we, human beings, take in relation to 'change', or in relation to a duration of 'change'.

So, 'time' in concept or thought only extends "backwards" infinitely IF we are looking at the 'duration of change' "backwards".

If we want to look at the creation of earth moment, or any other arbitrary moment, then, because you think or believe that if there is an infinite Universe, then the Universe could never get to the creation of earth because if there is an infinite amount of 'time', from your perspective, prior to the creation of the earth, then the 'moment' (or 'time') of the creation of the earth could not arrive.

I have a totally different perspective of things here, which, if anyone was truly interested in understanding, then they would have to let go completely of this perception or idea that you have here.

As I have said previously:
I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence.

Change happens constantly in the NOW. Whatever moment that is happening then that is NOW. From this perspective, there is no other "before" or "after". There is only an infinite constant NOW.

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive.

The exact same way every other moment arrived. That is through an evolutionary change, which is happening infinitely in the constant of NOW.

For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right?

I did use the durations word (with s) once. But that was because of the way you asked the question. See, there is really only one duration occurring. Durations (with s) is like events (with s). There is no actual events happening. There is really only one event occurring, which is just in a state of constant-change. This is why I sometimes say that the word 'time' is in reference to duration of change in the perceived agreed upon events (with s). There are no actual events (with s) happening. They are just perceived to be different events (with s). But I am a long way from being able to explain all of the nuances here and have them fully understood yet.

(Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.)

To me, time is not duration, itself. 'Time' is just a word used in relation to, or referencing, the duration of change.

Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

To me, change occurs. This happens infinitely in the NOW. There is a constant-change happening always-NOW.

Since you are asking the question, Can 'time' pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later 'time', then you will have to clearly explain how you are defining the word 'time' here.

This question makes no sense at all in regards to my definition for the word 'time'.

[Terrapin Station]

To me, 'time' is not something that actually exists, other than in concept, or thought, only. Is this understood?

This is what I'm talking about re you trolling and just trying to prolong conversations as long as you can.

We already went through all of this.

It wound up with me asking you: "So if 'time' is referring to duration [I had already confirmed with you that terms pick out referents on your view, and you suggested "duration" as the referent in question here], it's not referring to something that's exclusively a human activity, right?"

To which you responded: "I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence."

That is not compatible with "'Time' is used only in reference to the measurements we, human beings, take," unless you weren't actually answering the question I asked you, that you quoted, and that you typed out stuff as if it was an answer to the question you quoted. (And of course, a much more direct answer would have been to simply say "Right" or "No, that's not right."

[creation]

To me, 'time' is not something that actually exists, other than in concept, or thought, only. Is this understood?

This is what I'm talking about re you trolling and just trying to prolong conversations as long as you can.

So, I tell you what my views are, and you see this as being "trolling", correct?

If no, then why do you see me as "trolling" and "just trying to prolong conversations as long as I can"?

Remember it is you that does not have a view here other than it is not logically impossible for the Universe to be finite.

You say you have no belief either way, you do not propose anything either way, you are just trying for as long as you can defend the finite universe view or belief, and attack those who say the Universe is infinite.

But because you do not have any actual thing to support the finite universe view or belief all you can do is prolong this for as long as you can.

We already went through all of this.

Yes we did and I have already explicitly explained the non-equivocal contradiction that is being proposed by those who claim 'the universe is finite' but also claim that 'for every action there is a reaction'.

It wound up with me asking you: "So if 'time' is referring to duration [I had already confirmed with you that terms pick out referents on your view, and you suggested "duration" as the referent in question here], it's not referring to something that's exclusively a human activity, right?"

YES. And, this "human exclusive activity" has NEVER been an issue with me at all. Only you use this as some issue here.

To which you responded: "I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence."

That is not compatible with "'Time' is used only in reference to the measurements we, human beings, take," unless you weren't actually answering the question I asked you, that you quoted, and that you typed out stuff as if it was an answer to the question you quoted.

Is it possible that you could be seeing things in what I am writing that I am NOT saying NOR meaning?

Or is this just not possible from your perspective.

Are you capable of understanding that when human beings discuss 'time' they can conceive of measurements we take in relation to periods before human beings existed, like for example; the creation of the earth or "earlier" "backwards" towards the big bang if you like.

So, explain how what I have said is not "compatible" as you claim here.

(And of course, a much more direct answer would have been to simply say "Right" or "No, that's not right."

Just out of curiosity, could you be misunderstanding me or misinterpreting me at all?

[Terrapin Station]

Are you capable of understanding that when human beings discuss 'time' they can conceive of measurements we take in relation to periods before human beings existed, like for example; the creation of the earth or "earlier" "backwards" towards the big bang if you like.

Yes, of course.

Now, if that's what we're talking about, how are we talking about something that's not exclusively a human activity?

[creation]

I misquoted in previous post.

You wrote this;

To which you responded: "I use the word 'time' in relation to the duration of motion or change, which has been happening constantly before and after human beings came into existence."

See, when human beings are thinking of 'time' they are thinking in relation of the duration of motion or change and the measurements in relation to that duration of motion or change.

[creation]

Are you capable of understanding that when human beings discuss 'time' they can conceive of measurements we take in relation to periods before human beings existed, like for example; the creation of the earth or "earlier" "backwards" towards the big bang if you like.

Yes, of course.

Now, if that's what we're talking about, how are we talking about something that's not exclusively a human activity?

'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

'Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

So, that is exactly how we are (or I am anyway) talking about "something" that is not exclusively a human activity. To make it absolutely clear, it is 'duration', itself, that is not exclusively a human activity.

[Terrapin Station]

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

These don't seem to go together. Is "duration of change" not the same as "duration" for one?

[creation]

What the word 'time' refers to is an exclusive human activity.

Time', by itself, is an exclusive human activity. 'Time' exists in concept or thought only.

The word 'time' refers to duration of change and/or the measurements of this duration.

'Duration' is not exclusively a human activity.

These don't seem to go together. Is "duration of change" not the same as "duration" for one?

Could be, but again, it all depends on how one is looking at this. Do you see it as not the same?

If yes, then why?

Also, what are the words "for one" at the end of your question in relation to exactly?

[Terrapin Station]

These don't seem to go together. Is "duration of change" not the same as "duration" for one?

Could be, but again, it all depends on how one is looking at this. Do you see it as not the same?

If yes, then why?

Also, what are the words "for one" at the end of your question in relation to exactly?

So, the first question, again, is whether you're using "duration or change" and "duration" so that they're synonyms. Yes or no?