Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **February 22nd, 2020, 11:26 pm**

arjand wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:31 pmThe 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.

Nothing finite has the potential or power to become (actually) infinite. So-called potential infinity is nothing but indefinite extensibility of a series or set of things. For example, any finite series or set of natural numbers is indefinitely extensible, because you can add another natural number to any of them.

Posted: **February 25th, 2020, 3:58 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:47 pm
arjand wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:29 pm
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 the pending question is relevant: on what basis is it a valid idea to view time from a totality perspective?

When you mention infinite time, with regard to it being applicable to the mentioned logical impossibility ¹, it implies a perspective of time as being amount-able, thus for time to be perceived from a totality perspective (finitude).

Is it valid to view time in such a way? When time is considered to be a relation perceived by the human mind, that would imply that a perceived finitude of time must originate from the mind. Therefor it would be at question if (and how) the mind is a factor to be considered in a finite perspective of time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:47 pm 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.

The human mind may be the origin of the perceived finitude of time on the basis of which you assume that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable, by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:47 pm
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?

The validity of the concept thing being applicable to time is what is at question. On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time in such a way?

Posted: **February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am**

arjand wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 3:58 am Here the pending question is relevant: on what basis is it a valid idea to view time from a totality perspective?

Unfortunately I can't answer because I still don't have a handle on what "totality perspective" is. Aren't there other terms you could put that in?

Also, I don't use "valid" in a manner that there are "valid" or "invalid" ideas. I only use valid in its logical context--an argument (so it has to be an argument--premises that supposedly imply a conclusion) is valid just in case it's impossible that the premises are true and the conclusion false, where the italicized "and" is actually an inclusive "or." Ideas are not typically arguments, so validity doesn't pertain.

When you mention infinite time, with regard to it being applicable to the mentioned logical impossibility ¹, it implies a perspective of time as being amount-able,

Isn't there any way you could use another word for the same thing than "amount-able"?

thus for time to be perceived from a totality perspective (finitude).

One reason I ask the above is that using "amount-able," where I'm not sure what the heck that's supposed to refer to, doesn't help me understand what the heck "totality perspective" is supposed to refer to. If "totality perspective" is supposed to refer to a "finite amount," then I don't know how to answer you in this context, because I'm definitely not viewing the concept of infinity as being the same as the idea of a finite amount. So I don't know what you'd be misunderstanding there.

I'm also not sure why you keep talking about perception. "Time to be perceived."

It would help us communicate if you tried to put what you're saying into other words. Simply repeating the same idiosyncratic verbiage isn't going to result in me suddenly being able to figure out what you're saying, and rather than having a conversation about the topic at hand, that's all I'm doing in response after response--trying to figure out what you're saying.

Is it valid to view time in such a way? When time is considered to be a relation perceived by the human mind,

We can perceive motion or change, but there's no need to focus on our perception. If we're talking about time, why not just talk about motion/change without bothering with our perception. I get irked by people wanting to focus everything philosophical topic on us.

that would imply that a perceived finitude of time must originate from the mind.

Perceived anything would be a mental phenomenon, because of what perception is. But that's probably not what you're saying.

Therefor it would be at question if (and how) the mind is a factor to be considered in a finite perspective of time.

I suppose that would depend on how you're using the term "perspective." Some people use that term only to refer to something we do mentally, in which case any perspective on anything has mind as a factor, since only minds have perspectives. I don't agree with using "perspective" that way, but as I say, some people do use it that way.

The human mind may be the origin of the perceived finitude of time on the basis of which you assume that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable, by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

Again, perceptions have to be mental, because of what perception is.

But I wasn't talking about perception in my comments about this issue.

The validity of the concept thing being applicable to time is what is at question. On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time in such a way?

Why is it so difficult to communicate with you?

"The validity of the concept thing being applicable to time"?????

I have no idea what that's saying.

Don't you care that I can't understand what you're saying most of the time?

Posted: **February 26th, 2020, 4:40 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am
arjand wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 3:58 am Here the pending question is relevant: on what basis is it a valid idea to view time from a totality perspective?
Unfortunately I can't answer because I still don't have a handle on what "totality perspective" is. Aren't there other terms you could put that in?

Also, I don't use "valid" in a manner that there are "valid" or "invalid" ideas. I only use valid in its logical context--an argument (so it has to be an argument--premises that supposedly imply a conclusion) is valid just in case it's impossible that the premises are true and the conclusion false, where the italicized "and" is actually an inclusive "or." Ideas are not typically arguments, so validity doesn't pertain.

"totality perspective" is a denotation of a perception of aspects in the context of finitude. It is specifically denoted as such to indicate that the perspective itself may be a factor to consider.

With regard validity being applicable to ideas. To reach an argument, one must have ideas. It is therefor applicable to question the validity of ideas that precede an argument.

An argument is merely a formulation of reasons to support an idea.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am
When you mention infinite time, with regard to it being applicable to the mentioned logical impossibility ¹, it implies a perspective of time as being amount-able,
Isn't there any way you could use another word for the same thing than "amount-able"?

thus for time to be perceived from a totality perspective (finitude).
One reason I ask the above is that using "amount-able," where I'm not sure what the heck that's supposed to refer to, doesn't help me understand what the heck "totality perspective" is supposed to refer to. If "totality perspective" is supposed to refer to a "finite amount," then I don't know how to answer you in this context, because I'm definitely not viewing the concept of infinity as being the same as the idea of a finite amount. So I don't know what you'd be misunderstanding there.

I'm also not sure why you keep talking about perception. "Time to be perceived."

It would help us communicate if you tried to put what you're saying into other words. Simply repeating the same idiosyncratic verbiage isn't going to result in me suddenly being able to figure out what you're saying, and rather than having a conversation about the topic at hand, that's all I'm doing in response after response--trying to figure out what you're saying.

Amount-able essentially means that something is finite and that one can perceive it as an amount which logically must have a total. (Amount-able = able to perceive something as an amount). Here again the intention is to highlight the perspective as an aspect to consider.

With regard to the relevance of questioning a perception of time. When you argue that time can have an amount, by which you state that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable, that indicates that there is an idea involved that provides you with the conviction that time can be perceived as an amount (i.e. that time can be amount-able).

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am
Is it valid to view time in such a way? When time is considered to be a relation perceived by the human mind,
We can perceive motion or change, but there's no need to focus on our perception. If we're talking about time, why not just talk about motion/change without bothering with our perception. I get irked by people wanting to focus everything philosophical topic on us.

In this case the aspect perception is relevant because it is used as a basis for the implication that time must have had a beginning.

Motion/change cannot be decoupled from perception when it is to be perceived as amount-able (= able to be perceived as an amount). The origin of such an idea is simply the perception itself.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am
that would imply that a perceived finitude of time must originate from the mind.
Perceived anything would be a mental phenomenon, because of what perception is. But that's probably not what you're saying.

Therefor it would be at question if (and how) the mind is a factor to be considered in a finite perspective of time.
I suppose that would depend on how you're using the term "perspective." Some people use that term only to refer to something we do mentally, in which case any perspective on anything has mind as a factor, since only minds have perspectives. I don't agree with using "perspective" that way, but as I say, some people do use it that way.

The human mind may be the origin of the perceived finitude of time on the basis of which you assume that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable, by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.
Again, perceptions have to be mental, because of what perception is.

But I wasn't talking about perception in my comments about this issue.

In this case the perception itself is the origin of the introduced finitude of time. For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived. Without perception there is nothing to count while nature could still be a reality.

As it appears, you have factored out perception from your idea that time is amount-able. The implication that time must have had a beginning is dependent on that potentially ignored factor.

The question is bascially: can time have a total amount? If yes, what is the basis to consider such an idea valid?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 25th, 2020, 9:07 am
The validity of the concept thing being applicable to time is what is at question. On what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time in such a way?
Why is it so difficult to communicate with you?

"The validity of the concept thing being applicable to time"?????

I have no idea what that's saying.

Don't you care that I can't understand what you're saying most of the time?

You mentioned the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:47 pmT1/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?

Here it is indicated that things that can be counted change by which time is denoted as something tangible of which there can be an amount.

My argument is that it is the perception that gives rise to the idea that time is amount-able.

To repeat the pending question: can time have a total amount? If yes, what is the basis to consider such an idea valid?

Posted: **February 26th, 2020, 10:50 am**

arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:40 am "totality perspective" is a denotation of a perception of aspects in the context of finitude.

lol. C'mon, man. You have got to be joking.

In this case the aspect perception is relevant because it is used as a basis for the implication that time must have had a beginning.

My comments about this had nothing whatsoever to do with perception.

Motion/change cannot be decoupled from perception when it is to be perceived as amount-able (= able to be perceived as an amount).

Motion/change in no way depend on perception. If we have a simple oscillating system, the number of oscillations in no way depends on anyone's perception.

In this case the perception itself is the origin of the introduced finitude of time.

I'm not saying anything like that.

For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived.

This is false, as I just explained above re a simple oscillating system.

Posted: **February 26th, 2020, 5:40 pm**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 10:50 am
arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:40 am "totality perspective" is a denotation of a perception of aspects in the context of finitude.
lol. C'mon, man. You have got to be joking.

The word is chosen because it is unknown to man what a total amount of time could be while you denote time as Tn which implies that time must have a total. The perspective is all that remains that could give time a total and it is therefor potentially a perspective that provides the basis for the denotion Tn, which I intended to question.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 10:50 am
In this case the aspect perception is relevant because it is used as a basis for the implication that time must have had a beginning.
My comments about this had nothing whatsoever to do with perception.

Motion/change cannot be decoupled from perception when it is to be perceived as amount-able (= able to be perceived as an amount).
Motion/change in no way depend on perception. If we have a simple oscillating system, the number of oscillations in no way depends on anyone's perception.

The counting that occurs is mathematics which is a mental construct and thus a perception.

As can be seen in the topic about the Infinite monkey theorem, the factoring out of the observer (perception) results in the idea that mathematical infinity can be applicable to reality, for example as a ground for the claim that there is no need for a God or intelligent design.

A similar problem is addressed in your denotion of time as Tn by which you argue that an infinite amount of time cannot precede a given Tn. The perception on time that provides the foundation for the ability to denote time as Tn is left out of consideration.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 10:50 am
In this case the perception itself is the origin of the introduced finitude of time.
I'm not saying anything like that.

For a change/state of time to be considered countable, it must have been perceived.
This is false, as I just explained above re a simple oscillating system.

A pattern recognized in nature doesn't imply that an amount is applicable to that which has been observed. It is the pattern recognition by itself that provides validity to the concept amount. The source of oscillation is a energy transfer. The energy source depletes. What has been observed is a pattern. Any counting that is involved is a mental construct.

When you would argue that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable to time, by which an infinite amount of time would be impossible, it means that you use a mental construct - counting - as a foundation for a claim about reality by itself, unless you could explain why it is to be considered a valid idea to view time from a totality perspective.

Posted: **February 26th, 2020, 7:39 pm**

arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 5:40 pm The word is chosen because it is unknown to man what a total amount of time could be while you denote time as Tn which implies that time must have a total.

"Tn" isn't anything about a total.

"T" stands for "time." "n" is a number variable." Conventionally we just say "T1," "T2," etc.

T1 might be 6:38 p.m. That's not "totaling" anything, it's simply assigning a number to a change state (in this case, of a clock for example). Of course, clocks assign their own numbers to their change-states, such as "6:38 p.m."

Posted: **February 26th, 2020, 9:37 pm**

arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:40 am To repeat the pending question: can time have a total amount? If yes, what is the basis to consider such an idea valid?

arjand - I have been following this and trying to understand. I cannot fault your patience in trying to explain. Can I try this and see if it helps me?
If you are asking if time can have a total amount, the answer is no, not if it is infinite.
But we must not beg the question.
Can you give a reason why time cannot have a total amount without assuming what is in question?
It might be infinite, but I am not sure it will do just to assert it is infinite.
How do you know?
If I understand you, then in some versions of BB theory it is “amount-able”.
I am not saying you are wrong, but how do you know you are right?
Or are we just agreeing we don’t know?

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 4:54 am**

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 7:39 pm
arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 5:40 pm The word is chosen because it is unknown to man what a total amount of time could be while you denote time as Tn which implies that time must have a total.
"Tn" isn't anything about a total.

"T" stands for "time." "n" is a number variable." Conventionally we just say "T1," "T2," etc.

T1 might be 6:38 p.m. That's not "totaling" anything, it's simply assigning a number to a change state (in this case, of a clock for example). Of course, clocks assign their own numbers to their change-states, such as "6:38 p.m."

Tn relative to the concept infinite amount implies that Tn must represent a total amount. Only then the logical impossibility ¹ could be applicable. What is it otherwise that legitimizes to consider time to be an amount-able state?

It appears that can be stated that what you denote with Tn is a mental construct (perception), like mathemathics, while you use it to make claims about reality, in this case that time must have had a beginning.

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 5:00 am**

Wossname wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 9:37 pm
arjand wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:40 am To repeat the pending question: can time have a total amount? If yes, what is the basis to consider such an idea valid?
arjand - I have been following this and trying to understand. I cannot fault your patience in trying to explain. Can I try this and see if it helps me?
If you are asking if time can have a total amount, the answer is no, not if it is infinite.
But we must not beg the question.
Can you give a reason why time cannot have a total amount without assuming what is in question?
It might be infinite, but I am not sure it will do just to assert it is infinite.
How do you know?
If I understand you, then in some versions of BB theory it is “amount-able”.
I am not saying you are wrong, but how do you know you are right?
Or are we just agreeing we don’t know?

The question wasn't intended to pose anything about reality, i.e. to claim that time must be infinite. It was merely intended to discover the validity of the idea that time should be perceived as totality by which the mentioned logical impossibility ¹ is applicable on the basis of which can be claimed that time must have had a beginning.

The paper by philosophers Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston (cited in the OT) specifically addresses the proposition posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning so it is interesting to discover whether the reasoning of TP is to be considered valid, and thus, whether it would challenge the paper.

The paper ends with the following:

Alex Malpass / Wes Morriston / Endless and infinite wrote:There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

At question is whether TP's argument regarding traversing the infinite can be considered valid.

What would be traversed when one considers the traversing to be applicable to infinite? As it appears, it is a mental construct like mathematics that is used to make claims about reality while the observer is erroneously factored out.

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 6:10 am**

arjand wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 5:00 am
Wossname wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 9:37 pm

arjand - I have been following this and trying to understand. I cannot fault your patience in trying to explain. Can I try this and see if it helps me?
If you are asking if time can have a total amount, the answer is no, not if it is infinite.
But we must not beg the question.
Can you give a reason why time cannot have a total amount without assuming what is in question?
It might be infinite, but I am not sure it will do just to assert it is infinite.
How do you know?
If I understand you, then in some versions of BB theory it is “amount-able”.
I am not saying you are wrong, but how do you know you are right?
Or are we just agreeing we don’t know?

The paper by philosophers Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston (cited in the OT) specifically addresses the proposition posed by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning so it is interesting to discover whether the reasoning of TP is to be considered valid, and thus, whether it would challenge the paper.

Thanks for your reply.
I am clear you are not making any statement about reality, just a matter of the validity of a logical argument.
I did read the article. It was clearly written but not clearly received (my bad). I will need to re-read a few times I think.
I am not convinced by the Kalam cosmological argument in the first place (at least as presented by Craig on You Tube). It does seem a matter of explaining the unexplained by the inexplicable.
I appreciate your patience.

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 10:48 am**

arjand wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 4:54 am
Tn relative to the concept infinite amount implies that Tn must represent a total amount.

Like always, I can't decipher most of your comment. Why you continue to not care about that I don't know. At any rate, re "representing a total amount" what are we supposed to be totaling?

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 11:54 am**

It is the perspective that is at question. When one views an amount per se, does that not imply a total? If not, what would be the basis for such an idea?

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 2:59 pm**

Wossname wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 6:10 am Thanks for your reply.
I am clear you are not making any statement about reality, just a matter of the validity of a logical argument.
I did read the article. It was clearly written but not clearly received (my bad). I will need to re-read a few times I think.
I am not convinced by the Kalam cosmological argument in the first place (at least as presented by Craig on You Tube). It does seem a matter of explaining the unexplained by the inexplicable.
I appreciate your patience.

It is an academic paper to be published in Philosophical Quarterly.

The Philosophical Quarterly is one of the most highly regarded and established academic journals in philosophy. On average, it accepts just 4% of the over 850 articles submitted per year.

A visitor on the blog of the author Alex Malpass wrote the following:

I’ve recently discovered your many discussions on youtube and I have been listening to them religiously. You have an incredible talent for communicating the intricacies of philosophy in such a way that anyone could understand them. I think you should try and get in touch with Sean Carroll if possible and see if you could join him on one of his podcast episodes. You both top the charts for being great communicators and intellectuals, I think that would be one of the most substantive episodes of any podcast ever.

Maybe there are YouTube videos available about the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNQ8-4 ... C21TENHCrw

Posted: **February 27th, 2020, 3:53 pm**

arjand wrote: ↑February 27th, 2020, 11:54 am It is the perspective that is at question. When one views an amount per se, does that not imply a total? If not, what would be the basis for such an idea?

If you're going to claim that it's a total, you need to be able to specify what we're totaling.

So what are we totaling when we refer to, say, 6:38 p.m.?

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite

Re: Endless and infinite