Philosophy Discussion Forums

A Little Puzzle - the Counting god

Imagine time has no start. Then imagine this immortal god. This god has been immortally counting the natural numbers. What number is he on at the present moment?

The answer is a the bottom of the post.

The Length of the Past Must Be Finite

I’ve demonstrated here that actual infinity is impossible:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16795

What this implies is that all numbers are finite. That makes prefect sense: all natural numbers are finite by mathematical induction: 1 is finite, if n is finite, n+1 is finite so all naturals are finite.

So now when we consider the length of the past, it is either a finite or non-finite number of days long, and the second is impossible.

Again, this should make perfect sense, time passing is just adding 1 to the count of days elapsed - there is no way addition of 1 can ever produce a non-finite number, so time must have a start.

Past Time Requires A Start

All systems require an initial state, else there are no subsequent states. The universe is a system, it requires an initial state… the start of time. That sounds self-evidently true, but I’ll prove it too:

1. Assume a system has no initial state (state 0)
2. Then it has no state 1 because state 1 is determined by the initial state (state 0)
3. If it has no nth state, it has no nth+1 state
4. So the system cannot exist at all
5. But we said it did - contradiction - All systems require an initial state

Physical Evidence

All we have to go on is the Big Bang, but that is consistent with a start of time. For example BGV Theorem shows that all expanding universes/multiverses require an initial spacetime boundary - IE a start of time.

Puzzle Answer - the Counting god

- He cannot be on a finite number, as then he would not be immortal
- He cannot be on a infinite number, as its impossible to count an reach a non-finite number
- So by process of exclusion, he must be on UNDEFINED

Why? Because he never started counting - there is no start of time to start counting from. All systems require an initial state, else there are no subsequent states - there was no initial state - The god never even started existing and in fact nor did the universe - the universe requires a start of time else it can’t exist.

Time is man made there For it had a start.
The bigbang is a theory and a fallaciously ridiculous one at that ( in my opinion)

And you assume that this all creator is kinda like a human and a man at that which also doesn't make since because we were not the 1st mammals to exist there were many before us so why would the thing that's before all things happy attributes of the most recent things

devans99 wrote:The answer is a the bottom of the post.

Good marketing technique.

I’ve demonstrated here that actual infinity is impossible:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16795

What this implies is that all numbers are finite

There were 15 pages of answers to that OP. The first 2 or 3 pages contained the posts which pointed out the most obvious things that were wrong with it.

You're this close to going full time cube.

Time is a measurement and all measurements have a zero point to measure from. The zero point for time to measure from is “now” because one may not measure anything sooner then now. One may measure time in either direction from now and as far back or forward to no end, for one may always add one more minute, hour, day or year to one’s measurement. The zero point is infinite, for it is always “now”.

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pmThe zero point is infinite, for it is always “now”.

Is that your now or my now ?

Bluemist wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 5:09 am

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pmThe zero point is infinite, for it is always “now”.

Is that your now or my now ?

Since it’s now everywhere in the universe, it could be daytime for me and night time for you on the other side of the world, but it would still be now for both of us.

I once crossed the international date line and moved forward In time 25 hours, skipping an entire day. It’s a good example how time is just an arbitrary concept. Now that I’m retired, everyday is a Saturday, no more living for the weekend!

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pm Time is a measurement

Wouldn't what we're measuring rather be time?

In other words, if we say "time is a measurement," we could ask, "a measurement of what?" Would it be any arbitrary measurement of anything? If not, we need to say what we're measuring. And what we're measuring in this case should be time. So time isn't the measurement, it's what we're measuring when we measure time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pm Time is a measurement

Wouldn't what we're measuring rather be time?

In other words, if we say "time is a measurement," we could ask, "a measurement of what?" Would it be any arbitrary measurement of anything? If not, we need to say what we're measuring. And what we're measuring in this case should be time. So time isn't the measurement, it's what we're measuring when we measure time.

Time is a measurement of change. The second hand on the clock is in constant motion, not unlike the Earth itself, which is in constant motion around the Sun. The concept of time is a way of measuring change In terms of seconds, minutes, hours days etc.

What has changed between now and a minute ago, a day ago or a year ago? Measuring time with a clock is a wonderful way to make sense of change in comparison to that which does not change, which is the present moment. Without the zero point of now, to measure from, the measurement would make no sense at all. It would be like a tape measure without an end to hook on to what one measures. When watching the second hand on a clock, although the hand is moving, we are always observing from the zero point of now.

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:47 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am
Wouldn't what we're measuring rather be time?

In other words, if we say "time is a measurement," we could ask, "a measurement of what?" Would it be any arbitrary measurement of anything? If not, we need to say what we're measuring. And what we're measuring in this case should be time. So time isn't the measurement, it's what we're measuring when we measure time.

Time is a measurement of change. The second hand on the clock is in constant motion, not unlike the Earth itself, which is in constant motion around the Sun. The concept of time is a way of measuring change In terms of seconds, minutes, hours days etc.

What has changed between now and a minute ago, a day ago or a year ago? Measuring time with a clock is a wonderful way to make sense of change in comparison to that which does not change, which is the present moment. Without the zero point of now, to measure from, the measurement would make no sense at all. It would be like a tape measure without an end to hook on to what one measures. When watching the second hand on a clock, although the hand is moving, we are always observing from the zero point of now.

Right, so time isn't the measurement, time is change or motion. That's what we measure when we measure time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pm Time is a measurement

Wouldn't what we're measuring rather be time?

No, because 'what you are measuring' is what they are, and 'time' is NOT what 'they' are. 'Time' is just the word used to reference the taking of a measurement, in relation to the duration between agreed upon "events"

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am In other words, if we say "time is a measurement," we could ask, "a measurement of what?"

You could ask 'that', and if you did, then what would your answer be?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am Would it be any arbitrary measurement of anything? If not, we need to say what we're measuring.

Okay. So, what are you/we measuring?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am And what we're measuring in this case should be time.

LOL Well that is one FULL circle.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:11 am So time isn't the measurement, it's what we're measuring when we measure time.

So, to you, what we are measuring when we measure time, is time. Am I correct?

Also, and by the way, this is what you say 'time' is. This is NOT necessarily what "others" say 'time' is.

By the way, what is 'time', exactly, which we can, supposedly, measure?

Only AFTER you elaborate on this, then you are closer to actually informing "others" of what 'time' actually IS. Until then all you have really said here is; " 'Time' is what we measure ", which OBVIOUSLY does not say much at all about what 'time' actually IS.

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 1st, 2020, 10:05 pm Time is a measurement and all measurements have a zero point to measure from. The zero point for time to measure from is “now” because one may not measure anything sooner then now. One may measure time in either direction from now and as far back or forward to no end, for one may always add one more minute, hour, day or year to one’s measurement. The zero point is infinite, for it is always “now”.

To me, you appear to be contradicting yourself when you say that "Time is a measurement", but yet go on to say that "One may measure time".

If 'time', itself, is a measurement, (which it obviously is), then it is illogical or absurd to then say "One may measure time". This would be identical to saying, "One may measure measurement."

By the way, what you are 'trying to' argue for is True, Right AND Correct, from My perspective. Unfortunately though, you, along with EVERY other adult human being, have been so ingrained to think and speak in certain ways, and in certain terms, from what you have been taught, which was and is actually a wrong and confused way of thinking and speaking. This, taught and learned, confused way of thinking/speaking gets entangled and intertwined with what thee actual Truth IS, which is actually just what you are wanting to and trying to express, and share, here now.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:51 am

Present awareness wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:47 am

Time is a measurement of change. The second hand on the clock is in constant motion, not unlike the Earth itself, which is in constant motion around the Sun. The concept of time is a way of measuring change In terms of seconds, minutes, hours days etc.

What has changed between now and a minute ago, a day ago or a year ago? Measuring time with a clock is a wonderful way to make sense of change in comparison to that which does not change, which is the present moment. Without the zero point of now, to measure from, the measurement would make no sense at all. It would be like a tape measure without an end to hook on to what one measures. When watching the second hand on a clock, although the hand is moving, we are always observing from the zero point of now.

Right, so time isn't the measurement, time is change or motion.

This is just your view, and NOT necessarily what 'time', itself, IS.

And, in your view, if 'time', itself, is NOT the measurement and is just 'change' or 'motion', themselves, then HOW exactly do you measure 'change' or 'motion'? Is it even possible to measure 'change' or 'motion', themselves?

If yes, then HOW?

Would it not be more correct that what is measured is the length, or duration, between a 'change', which has occurred?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:51 am That's what we measure when we measure time.

What do 'you' measure when you measure 'time'?

evolution wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 12:52 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:51 am
Right, so time isn't the measurement, time is change or motion.

This is just your view, and NOT necessarily what 'time', itself, IS.

And, in your view, if 'time', itself, is NOT the measurement and is just 'change' or 'motion', themselves, then HOW exactly do you measure 'change' or 'motion'? Is it even possible to measure 'change' or 'motion', themselves?

If yes, then HOW?

Would it not be more correct that what is measured is the length, or duration, between a 'change', which has occurred?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 2nd, 2020, 9:51 am That's what we measure when we measure time.

What do 'you' measure when you measure 'time'?

An example of a way that we measure changes or motion is by taking note of the motion of a clock--the numbers have changed from 01 to 02 then to 03, etc. Or the "hand" has moved from that location to this location and then that location in a motion that plots out a circle. Or the sun has moved from that location to this location, and so on. We use those changes or motions as definitional time measurements, and then sure, we can also measure other changes or motions relative to those changes or motions, so that we say things like "Object x has moved from position A to position B as the numbers changed from 01 to 04" or whatever (and sure, we can call that a "duration" of four seconds, or whatever unit the 01 to 04 is).

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 3:23 am

evolution wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 12:52 am

This is just your view, and NOT necessarily what 'time', itself, IS.

And, in your view, if 'time', itself, is NOT the measurement and is just 'change' or 'motion', themselves, then HOW exactly do you measure 'change' or 'motion'? Is it even possible to measure 'change' or 'motion', themselves?

If yes, then HOW?

Would it not be more correct that what is measured is the length, or duration, between a 'change', which has occurred?



What do 'you' measure when you measure 'time'?

An example of a way that we measure changes or motion is by taking note of the motion of a clock--the numbers have changed from 01 to 02 then to 03, etc.

Again, you are NOT measuring 'change', itself. You are just looking at numbers 'changing'.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 3:23 am Or the "hand" has moved from that location to this location and then that location in a motion that plots out a circle.

Yes, that is; what is observed.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 3:23 am Or the sun has moved from that location to this location, and so on.

Yes, again, an observation has been made.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 3:23 am We use those changes or motions as definitional time measurements,

If you use those 'things' as, so called, "time measurements", then this STILL does NOT explain what is 'it', which you are actually measuring, when you make the claim that you are "measuring time".

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑September 5th, 2020, 3:23 am and then sure, we can also measure other changes or motions relative to those changes or motions, so that we say things like "Object x has moved from position A to position B as the numbers changed from 01 to 04" or whatever (and sure, we can call that a "duration" of four seconds, or whatever unit the 01 to 04 is).

Again, but measuring 'changes' or 'motions' is NOT the same as the purported measuring 'change' or 'motion', themselves.