Philosophy Discussion Forums

arjand wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 10:13 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pmCan 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?

No reply?

arjand wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 5:07 pm

arjand wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 10:13 pm

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

No reply?

I didn't see that post.

You'd have to explain "perceiving time from a totality perspective"

For your argument to be applicable, it implies a perception of time from a totality perspective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pmNow, 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?

Your argument considers the concept infinite amount which is a logical impossibility. 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 you formulate the argument that it would be impossible that an infinite amount of time could have preceded a given moment, by which you seem to imply that time must have had a beginning.

My question therefor is, on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

arjand wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 7:00 pm For your argument to be applicable, it implies a perception of time from a totality perspective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pmNow, 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?

Your argument considers the concept infinite amount which is a logical impossibility. 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 you formulate the argument that it would be impossible that an infinite amount of time could have preceded a given moment, by which you seem to imply that time must have had a beginning.

My question therefor is, on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

The whole point of the argument is that an infinite amount of time cannot pass because of infinity not being an amount we can reach.

In the last line, you use the term "totality perspective" again, without having defined it. Again, I don't know what "totality perspective" means.

The concept amount of time implies that there can be a total of it. In order for time to be perceived as an amount, time is perceived from a totality perspective.

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

arjand wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 5:05 am The concept amount of time implies that there can be a total of it. In order for time to be perceived as an amount, time is perceived from a totality perspective.

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

I still don't quite understand what you mean by "totality perspective," because you don't seem to be defining it (pretend that you've been tasked to write a definition of "totality perspective" for something like a philosophy dictionary. What would you write?)

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinity of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

arjand wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 5:05 am The concept amount of time implies that there can be a total of it. In order for time to be perceived as an amount, time is perceived from a totality perspective.

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

I don't follow this either. I can figure that there is about 2000 cubic feet of space in this room. Yet, I can also theorize that there is infinite space in the universe. Am I not able to accept both of these at the same time? Are they somehow mutually exclusive? Why?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 4:05 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 2:41 pm

No.

"Time" referring to something is "not by itself" then?

(I don't know what "by itself"/"not by itself" really amounts to here)

Oh well.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am

arjand wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 5:05 am The concept amount of time implies that there can be a total of it. In order for time to be perceived as an amount, time is perceived from a totality perspective.

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

I still don't quite understand what you mean by "totality perspective," because you don't seem to be defining it (pretend that you've been tasked to write a definition of "totality perspective" for something like a philosophy dictionary. What would you write?)

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinity of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

Two things here;

1. Just because 'we' human beings cannot reach something, then that in no way infers that that thing is not reachable.

2. You are not understanding how if we want to use the term 'infinity of time' that there can be a NOW which is forever. Do not imagine there is one moment, then another moment, and then another moment, because obviously there is not one moment that jumps to another moment. There is just one continual moment, or one continuing flux of change. The NOW is just an eternal constant flow.

The NOW is the one moment (the constant Tn if you like), prior to the future and the end of the past. Tn is always HERE-NOW. We are always at, and in, Tn.

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:28 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 17th, 2020, 4:05 pm

"Time" referring to something is "not by itself" then?

(I don't know what "by itself"/"not by itself" really amounts to here)

Oh well.

LOL--lost down your own rabbit hole.

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:46 pm 1. Just because 'we' human beings cannot reach something, then that in no way infers that that thing is not reachable.

I wasn't literally saying something about us reaching a particular point in time. lol

2. You are not understanding how if we want to use the term 'infinity of time' that there can be a NOW which is forever. Do not imagine there is one moment, then another moment, and then another moment, because obviously there is not one moment that jumps to another moment. There is just one continual moment, or one continuing flux of change. The NOW is just an eternal constant flow.

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.

So in other words, change state T is the destination. Well, before change state T arrives, change state T-1 has to obtain. But before that can obtain, change state T-2 has to obtain. And before that, change state T-3, etc. If that goes on for infinity, it's not possible for T to arrive, because it's not possible for all of the "T minuses" to pass to get to T.

Your only option would be to propose something like the "B-theory of time," but that theory has serious problems. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time if you're unfamiliar with the "B-theory.")

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:50 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:28 pm

Oh well.

LOL--lost down your own rabbit hole.

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.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:46 pm 1. Just because 'we' human beings cannot reach something, then that in no way infers that that thing is not reachable.

I wasn't literally saying something about us reaching a particular point in time. lol

Well that is what you said. You wrote: if there's an infinity of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn

This might be a good thing to remember. What is written and said might not be literally how it is read and heard.

So, when you read what I write, it might be best if you do not read it from what you assume it literally says, and instead just clarify, from the truly open perspective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm

2. You are not understanding how if we want to use the term 'infinity of time' that there can be a NOW which is forever. Do not imagine there is one moment, then another moment, and then another moment, because obviously there is not one moment that jumps to another moment. There is just one continual moment, or one continuing flux of change. The NOW is just an eternal constant flow.

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

I do not see absolutely any problem at all here.

You will have to provide examples of "this state" and then "it" changes to "that state", for me to grasp and understand what you mean here.

Can you not see that to get from "this state" to "that state" there is just a 'continual flux of change'?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm 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.

This is what you assume or believe is true, correct?

If this is correct, then you will not be able to see anything else.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm So in other words, change state T is the destination. Well, before change state T arrives, change state T-1 has to obtain.

I asked you to not imagine there is a jump, but obviously you cannot or will not do this.

See the adult human brain has be conditioned and then indoctrinated to 'compartmentalize', and/or to look at things separately. This is what you are doing here. The Universe, Itself, does not 'change states'. You are just looking at things from a separatist viewpoint. Instead of using the symbol T how about you if provide actual real examples, then I might be able to explain this so that you can and will understand.

It is all really rather very simple and easy. The Universe, Itself, does not change states. The Universe is in the constant state of change. This state is a flux of change.

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

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm But before that can obtain, change state T-2 has to obtain. And before that, change state T-3, etc. If that goes on for infinity, it's not possible for T to arrive, because it's not possible for all of the "T minuses" to pass to get to T.

Yes I am already aware that this is what you 'try to' use to "justify" your assumption or belief that the Universe began, but this is all this is.

Obviously you are not considering what I have said and prefer to just remain with this line of thinking or believing.

If, for you, it is impossible for T to arrive in an infinite Universe but is very possible for T to arrive in a finite universe, then so be it. A finite universe is what exists for you.

If, to you, a universe that began from nothing is what is possible and real, then that is perfectly fine with me.

I am certainly not here to change yours or anyone else's beliefs. To me the Universe is endless and infinite. If you cannot or do not want to see that and so you see something else being true, then that is great, from my perspective.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:57 pm Your only option would be to propose something like the "B-theory of time," but that theory has serious problems. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time if you're unfamiliar with the "B-theory.")

This is NOT my only option at all. My view of 'time' is different from the outset, so my so called "options" are different from the beginning as well.

I have already explained exactly how an infinite Universe is possible with a constant flux of change in the NOW. Also, I do not follow nor use 'theories' anyway. I just express my views only.

By the way, what are the supposed "serious problems" to you in that theory?

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:01 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 6:50 pm

LOL--lost down your own rabbit hole.

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.

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.

creation wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 pm 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?

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

What is the difference supposed to be there?

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

"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?