Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[psyreporter]

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

A state relative to an amount of time is a totality perspective. It clearly implies a perception of a 'total' amount of time that can be counted.

It is relevant to question whether the perspective can be correct, or whether the perspective itself may be of influence with regard to how a presumed truth is considered.

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

[Terrapin Station]

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

A state relative to an amount of time is a totality perspective. It clearly implies a perception of a 'total' amount of time that can be counted.

It is relevant to question whether the perspective can be correct, or whether the perspective itself may be of influence with regard to how a presumed truth is considered.

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

It's like you're really speaking another language than English.

[creation]

Not at all. You did not ask any clarifying questions, so you appear to not have any further interest in learning more so that is it.

I wrote "'Time' referring to something is not 'by itself' then?" <-- note the question mark.

Just adding a question mark at the end of a statement does not mean that you are asking an actual question? (As evidenced here just now?)

Then I said that I don't know what "by itself" versus "not by itself" is supposed to amount to in a case like this, which would usually be taken as an invitation to explain the supposed distinction.

And so, by you very own words, this will not always be taken as an invitation to explain. Therefore, not always will the apparent "invitation" be taken up.

Also, if I want to know something specifically or want something specifically clarified, then I ask a clarifying question very specifically, which is showing that I have a very specific interest in what is being sought, that is; an understanding of what the other is actually saying and meaning.

From what I can see you believe that the universe is finite and all you are looking for is absolutely anything that supports this belief of yours.

Now, if you want to gain a specific understanding of what I am actually saying and meaning, then I suggest just asking a very specific clarifying question.

[creation]

The Universe, Itself, does not 'change states'.

??

For example, say that it's not raining on Mt. Baldy, and then it is raining on Mt. Baldy. That's a change (of states (of affairs)).

You're saying that on your view that doesn't happen?

Are you purposely misconstruing and distorting things in a truly ridiculous way, or do you really not yet see and understand what I am actually meaning?

What is happening on Mount Baldy is obviously NOT the Universe, Itself.

The Universe is in a constant state of change. This 'state of affairs' does not change.

The weather on earth is also in a constant state of change. This 'state of affairs' does not change.

So, it all depends on how you want to look at and see things.

If you want to specifically concentrate on and look at Mount Baldy, in relation to weather, and more specifically to 'rain' in that vicinity, then you will notice and see a change (of states (of affairs)) in relation to that very specific case.

Therefore, whatever you are looking for then this will influence what you see. If you want to see a change (of states (of affairs)), then you can and will see this just about everywhere.

The Universe changes in form but It does not change in state.

What is the difference supposed to be there?

The form (or shape) of anything is always constantly changing.

The 'form' of the Universe is always constantly changing, but the fact that the Universe is in a constant 'state' (of change) does not change.

I have already explained exactly how an infinite Universe is possible with a constant flux of change in the NOW.

Whatever we call it, we have

What is the 'it' exactly that you are referring to here? The 'Universe'?

"X was happening but is no longer happening," (for example, "It wasn't raining on Mt. Baldy, but it's no longer the case that it's not raining on Mt. Baldy")

"X is happening," (for example, "It's raining on Mt. Baldy")

and

"X isn't happening yet but will happen" (for example, "it hasn't stopped raining on Mt. Baldy, but it will")

right?

Are you asking me if this is right?

If yes, then "yes this could be right".

But, your X is in relation to something that actually changes from one state to another state. Are you assuming because this one thing changes in state, then absolutely everything else must also change in state?

[psyreporter]

It's like you're really speaking another language than English.

What is it exactly that you do not understand from my text?

You mentioned that you view time as a state relative to an amount.

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

What exactly does that state of time amount to? Would it not imply a totality? If so, would it not be your perspective that provides that totality with a beginning?

Therefor my question is relevant:

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

[Terrapin Station]

It's like you're really speaking another language than English.

What is it exactly that you do not understand from my text?

You mentioned that you view time as a state relative to an amount.

I do in the sense that we start the drive at T1 (11:30 a.m., say) and then finish the drive at T2 (12:04 p.m., say). Is that what you're referring to by "an amount"?

The problem is the "continuing flux of change." There's this state, and then it changes to that state, etc.

To get to any particular state, T, if there's an infinity of previous change states, it's not possible to arrive at T, because an infinity can't be completed to get to T.

What exactly does that state of time amount to? Would it not imply a totality?[/quote]

"Change state." So in other words, "End of the drive" is different than "beginning of the drive"--something has changed. We could call each change a "change state." And we can assign numbers to those states, like T1 and T2 or 11:30 a.m. and 12:04 p.m.

"Totality" makes zero sense to me here. What are we totaling?

[Terrapin Station]

I just realized that "the drive" might not be clear. I just meant, as an example, say that we're driving somewhere in an automobile. We start our drive to whatever destination at T1 and arrive at our destination at T2 . . .

[psyreporter]

You mentioned that you view time as a state relative to an amount.

I do in the sense that we start the drive at T1 (11:30 a.m., say) and then finish the drive at T2 (12:04 p.m., say). Is that what you're referring to by "an amount"?

That would be an imply-able amount-ability from a precursor factor that makes such presumed states of time, T1, T2 etc., amount-able. It is by that amount-ability of states that one has to imply an ultimate totality.

The perspective is the beginning of such a totality. What is at question is therefor on what basis that you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective.

What is a totality perspective?

It is very simple: something that is considered amount-able is perceived from a totality perspective. One will always look for the ultimate amount of that which is indicated. While one may not know or directly perceive a total, the perspective by itself implies that the factor totality, or finitude, is applicable to that which is indicated.

What exactly does that state of time amount to? Would it not imply a totality?

"Change state." So in other words, "End of the drive" is different than "beginning of the drive"--something has changed. We could call each change a "change state." And we can assign numbers to those states, like T1 and T2 or 11:30 a.m. and 12:04 p.m.

"Totality" makes zero sense to me here. What are we totaling?

It is the idea of an amount-able state, a state that can be counted, by which you make implications about reality, in this case that time must have had a beginning.

It is therefor important to look at the origin of such an idea. It is relevant because you use it as ground for the statement that an infinite amount of the indicated state cannot have preceded any given state.

The question: one what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider time an amount-able state (i.e. to view time from a totality perspective)?

[Terrapin Station]

That would be an imply-able amount-ability from a precursor factor

English please.

that makes such presumed states of time, T1, T2 etc., amount-able.

I can't address this if I can't understand what you're saying. I don't know if you're intentionally inscrutable or if there's some other problem, but it needs to be fixed if you want me to make any sense out of your gibberish.

[Wossname]

by arjand » Today, 9:55 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Yesterday, 12:56 pm
arjand wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:08 am
You mentioned that you view time as a state relative to an amount.
I do in the sense that we start the drive at T1 (11:30 a.m., say) and then finish the drive at T2 (12:04 p.m., say). Is that what you're referring to by "an amount"?
That would be an imply-able amount-ability from a precursor factor that makes such presumed states of time, T1, T2 etc., amount-able. It is by that amount-ability of states that one has to imply an ultimate totality.

The perspective is the beginning of such a totality. What is at question is therefor on what basis that you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective.

What is a totality perspective?

It is very simple: something that is considered amount-able is perceived from a totality perspective. One will always look for the ultimate amount of that which is indicated. While one may not know or directly perceive a total, the perspective by itself implies that the factor totality, or finitude, is applicable to that which is indicated.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Yesterday, 12:56 pm
arjand wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:08 am
What exactly does that state of time amount to? Would it not imply a totality?
"Change state." So in other words, "End of the drive" is different than "beginning of the drive"--something has changed. We could call each change a "change state." And we can assign numbers to those states, like T1 and T2 or 11:30 a.m. and 12:04 p.m.

"Totality" makes zero sense to me here. What are we totaling?
It is the idea of an amount-able state, a state that can be counted, by which you make implications about reality, in this case that time must have had a beginning.

It is therefor important to look at the origin of such an idea. It is relevant because you use it as ground for the statement that an infinite amount of the indicated state cannot have preceded any given state.

The question: one what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to consider time an amount-able state (i.e. to view time from a totality perspective)?

I am wrestling with the “totality-perspective” too, but you mean something definite by it arjand I have no doubt.

Can I try the following and see if I am anything like close understanding you? I am considering two possibilities that might work:

One possibility is that if we take Gater’s view of space, as an infinite void (I think that’s it but if not let’s run with it anyway), then it makes no sense to try and understand the total amount of space. There is no total. It can’t be totalled. You can look at a finite region of it, or say that, starting from here it goes on forever, but the starting point was arbitrary. Space has no starting point, it is “everywhere”.
In the same way, then, are you suggesting that time has no starting point. It is “everywhen”. You can’t total infinite time any more than you can total infinite space. You can’t ask where infinite space begins and you can’t ask where infinite time begins.

Alternatively you could be alluding to presentism, an infinite now, so there is nothing to add up really, there is just now, always.

These are both honest attempts to understand your position and they may both be wrong. It might help me if you say how they are wrong.

[Wossname]

by arjand » Today, 9:55 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Yesterday, 12:56 pm
arjand wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:08 am
You mentioned that you view time as a state relative to an amount.
I do in the sense that we start the drive at T1 (11:30 a.m., say) and then finish the drive at T2 (12:04 p.m., say). Is that what you're referring to by "an amount"?
That would be an imply-able amount-ability from a precursor factor that makes such presumed states of time, T1, T2 etc., amount-able. It is by that amount-ability of states that one has to imply an ultimate totality.

The perspective is the beginning of such a totality. What is at question is therefor on what basis that you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective.

What is a totality perspective?

It is very simple: something that is considered amount-able is perceived from a totality perspective. One will always look for the ultimate amount of that which is indicated. While one may not know or directly perceive a total, the perspective by itself implies that the factor totality, or finitude, is applicable to that which is indicated.

It is logically possible, I think, for some infinities to have a beginning but no end, (e.g. start counting, 1, 2, 3, etc.), some to have no beginning and no end (Gater space), and some to have an end but no beginning (e.g. the series of negative number, -3, -2, -1 etc.).

Wittgenstein once invited people to imagine hearing someone saying “5, 1, 4, 1, 3, - finished!” When asked the man replies he has just finished reciting the complete expansion of pi backwards. When people object and say this is impossible, and ask when he started this task, he replies there was no point at which he started, but he has been counting down for all eternity. Physically impossible of course, but not logically impossible.

Is this, perhaps, what you mean arjand? In other words, time has a current end point, i.e. now, whenever now is, but it is an ever moving point, and it has no beginning and so can’t be totalled to any amount?

I am trying here arjand!

[Terrapin Station]

The problem is that if the issue is an infinity of x versus a finite amount of x, I'm not disagreeing with arjand, but despite explaining this, he thinks I'm talking about something he does disagree with.

[psyreporter]

I didn't intend to imply anything about reality. I simply intended to question the validity of a totality perspective on reality as apparently applicable in the arguments of Terrapin Station.

TP argues that time is to be perceived as a state (T1, T2 etc.) and that it is logically impossible that an infinite amount of such states could have preceded any given state.

TP's argument considers the concept infinite amount which is a logical impossibility ¹. Because infinity does not have a beginning, it cannot be counted and the idea of an infinite amount is invalid.

From the idea of an amount of time he formulated the argument that it would be impossible that an infinite amount of time could have preceded a given state, by which he appeared to imply that time must have had a beginning.

The logical impossibility ¹ is to be considered valid. The question then remains: what causes TP to believe that time must have had a beginning?

The perspective that time is to be considered an amount-able state, thus of which an infinite amount is impossible, originates from a totality perspective. The begin that is introduced by the observing mind is ignored as a factor. The resulting perspective is that of a totality. One starts from the observing mind into infinity and thereby introduces finitude because the perspective is a search for foundation — a search that can never stop until it reaches the one and absolute Principle or Ground of all ground.

Evidence for the above is that time is indicated with the name Tn on the basis of which is then implied that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

The question therefore is: on what basis can it be considered a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

[psyreporter]

It is logically possible, I think, for some infinities to have a beginning but no end, (e.g. start counting, 1, 2, 3, etc.), some to have no beginning and no end (Gater space), and some to have an end but no beginning (e.g. the series of negative number, -3, -2, -1 etc.).

Wittgenstein once invited people to imagine hearing someone saying “5, 1, 4, 1, 3, - finished!” When asked the man replies he has just finished reciting the complete expansion of pi backwards. When people object and say this is impossible, and ask when he started this task, he replies there was no point at which he started, but he has been counting down for all eternity. Physically impossible of course, but not logically impossible.

Is this, perhaps, what you mean arjand? In other words, time has a current end point, i.e. now, whenever now is, but it is an ever moving point, and it has no beginning and so can’t be totalled to any amount?

I am trying here arjand!

The mathematical infinity that you mention is different from true infinity. Mathematical infinite is a perceived potential for infinity. In the context of conscious being humans have learned to recognize patterns which has resulted in logic and mathematics. Humans learned to count "1, 2, 3 ..." and their imagination does not know a reason why the counting should ever end, thus, it results in a perceived potential for infinity. The observer (human) can count into infinity.

True infinity does not have a beginning. It knows no distance or amount.

In the paper by philosopher Alex Malpass (cited in the OT) it is named actual infinity in comparison with potential infinity.

[Terrapin Station]

The logical impossibility ¹ is to be considered valid. The question then remains: what causes TP to believe that time must have had a beginning?

I can follow everything through the point I'm quoting above. There I just want to point out that I'm not actually arguing one way or the other. I'm rather pointing out that infinite time is just as counterintuitive, and has just as many "logical" problems as the notion of finite time. Given my view of what logic is--languages we construct to talk about ways to think about implicational relations--I don't think that whether time is infinite or finite has anything to do with logic, really.

Here is where you lose me, though:

The begin that is introduced by the observing mind is ignored as a factor. The resulting perspective is that of a totality. One starts from the observing mind into infinity and thereby introduces finitude because the perspective is a search for foundation — a search that can never stop until it reaches the one and absolute Principle or Ground of all ground.

I haven't the faintest idea what the above is saying, really.

Evidence for the above is that time is indicated with the name Tn on the basis of which is then implied that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, don't you think it's the case that some state of affairs obtains--such as me typing the letter "A" at the beginning of this sentence, and then some other state of affairs obtains, such as the "?" I'll type at the end of this sentence, because phenomena aren't static?

T1/T2 are simply names we can use for those different states of affairs.

If you don't think it's the case that things change, what do you think is going on instead?