07 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is nothing new in those catastrophe scenes. I'm sure you, in your brainwashing, would say, the Lord will save us, the rapture is coming so I don't have to worry about such mundane possible catastrophes.
Can you take this all in?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTi4v3HveqE
He didn't even mention the hell Earth would go through if a medium sized nova went off a hundred light years away.
The Earth has survived such things before. I don't think I will lose any sleep over it.
07 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseNor will I. 😏
There is nothing new in those catastrophe scenes. I'm sure you, in your brainwashing, would say, the Lord will save us, the rapture is coming so I don't have to worry about such mundane possible catastrophes.
He didn't even mention the hell Earth would go through if a medium sized nova went off a hundred light years away.
The Earth has survived such things before. I don't think I will lose any sleep over it.
09 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357It seems to me that since there are an infinite number of positive integers, if your are assuming an infinitely-divisible time line, then you will never reach the 2 seconds end-point; the most that you can say is “in the limit”. If you do not assume infinitely-divisible time—i.e., at some point you actually reach the 2-seconds mark—then you will have counted some finite number of positive integers. (Variation of Zeno's paradox?)
If you start counting at 1 and count from 1 to 2 in one second, then from 2 to 3 in 1/2 second, from 3 to 4 in 1/4 second, and so forth (1/8, 1/16, etc.), you will have counted every positive integer there is, in two seconds.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by vistesdSo are implying that as you count; 1, 1.5, 1.75, ... time is actually slowing down for the counter?
It seems to me that since there are an infinite number of positive integers, if your are assuming an infinitely-divisible time line, then you will never reach the 2 seconds end-point; the most that you can say is “in the limit”. If you do not assume infinitely-divisible time—i.e., at some point you actually reach the 2-seconds mark—then you will have counted some finite number of positive integers. (Variation of Zeno's paradox?)
Your position would also imply that Achilles never catches the tortoise!
10 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn a past-infinite universe the present moment would never arrive since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse for it to do so. An infinite amount of time can never finish elapsing because, by definition, infinity is boundless (it is not confined between a past starting point and the present moment), therefore we would never have arrived at the present moment were the past infinite. Since the universe has arrived at the present moment, we can conclude the universe is not past-infinite.
1. A claim that an infinite past requires 'traversing infinity' which is claimed to be impossible. (though no justification is given).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasComment withdrawn.
In a past-infinite universe the present moment would never arrive since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse for it to do so. An infinite amount of time can never finish elapsing because, by definition, infinity is boundless (it is not confined between a past starting point, or the present moment), therefore we would never have arrived at the ...[text shortened]... e universe has arrived at the present moment, we can conclude the universe is not past-infinite.
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat is a good argument but flawed.
In a past-infinite universe the present moment would never arrive since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse for it to do so. An infinite amount of time can never finish elapsing because, by definition, infinity is boundless (it is not confined between a past starting point and the present moment), therefore we would never have arrived at the ...[text shortened]... rse has arrived at the present moment, we can conclude the universe is not past-infinite.
If the past were infinite it would mean that you could go back [I]any[/I] amount
of years (ie the past is boundless) to [I]any[/I] point - but from that point (and
you can choose any from an infinite number) the time elapsed to the present
would be finite.
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59After giving it some thought, I think vistesd is right in that 2 is not a member of the set. So although you may come infinitely close to 2, you will not include it. I think the solution to Achilles is to realise that he is not restricted to your count. He is allowed to proceed after reaching infinity (which he will do, in finite time(.
So are implying that as you count; 1, 1.5, 1.75, ... time is actually slowing down for the counter?
Your position would also imply that Achilles never catches the tortoise!
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are making the error of assuming a starting point. An infinite universe does not have a starting point.
In a past-infinite universe the present moment would never arrive since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse for it to do so. An infinite amount of time can never finish elapsing because, by definition, infinity is boundless (it is not confined between a past starting point and the present moment), therefore we would never have arrived at the ...[text shortened]... rse has arrived at the present moment, we can conclude the universe is not past-infinite.
There is also a flaw in your logic, in that you are dealing with two infinities and refusing to cancel them off one another.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Apr 13
1 edit
You are making the error of assuming a starting point
You made the same comment to me I think.
Now WHERE is the starting point that epi is assuming ?
The issue is NO STARTNG POINT in an imagined infinite past time universe.
So WHERE are you seeing a starting point which flaws the argument ?
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou are making an analogy similar to the 'arrow can never strike you since it would have to cover half the distance and then half of that, etc.'
In a past-infinite universe the present moment would never arrive since an infinite amount of time would have to elapse for it to do so. An infinite amount of time can never finish elapsing because, by definition, infinity is boundless (it is not confined between a past starting point and the present moment), therefore we would never have arrived at the ...[text shortened]... rse has arrived at the present moment, we can conclude the universe is not past-infinite.
If the universe is organized how some theories propose, an endless universe of bubble universes where ours is just one, there would be also an infinite number of time zones, our universe being just one of many and our local universe clock starting at the big bang and ending however that is destined to play out. So all the other universes would have their own clocks of time and different time rates also so what would be a second in our universe could be a billion years in another or vice versa or our clocks from another universe being extremely close to ours, maybe each universe having undergone the same BB on a time scale of a higher dimension where such tallies can be distinguished.
10 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI suggest you just ignore the idea of other universes, because we don't even know how big our universe is and if there is room for more universes.
You are making an analogy similar to the 'arrow can never strike you since it would have to cover half the distance and then half of that, etc.'
If the universe is organized how some theories propose, an endless universe of bubble universes where ours is just one, there would be also an infinite number of time zones, our universe being just one of many a ...[text shortened]... one the same BB on a time scale of a higher dimension where such tallies can be distinguished.
The apostle Paul wrote, "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."
(Philippians 4:6-8 NKJV)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
10 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipTwhitehead, You were complaining about me failing to answer some of your questions ?You are making the error of assuming a starting point
You made the same comment to me I think.
Now WHERE is the starting point that epi is assuming ?
The issue is NO STARTNG POINT in an imagined infinite past time universe.
So WHERE are you seeing a starting point which flaws the argument ?
You were complaining about me writing without understanding?
What was the word you used concerning a post of mine ? "Poppycock?"
If you cannot explain to me WHERE epi assumed a point of start in his explaining the delimma of a infinite past existing universe, I might be tempted to think your complaint was a bit of "poppycock."
WHERE did epi assume a starting point such that his conclusion was an error ?
10 Apr 13
4 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59I’m suggesting that for JS357’s example to hold, the time function [f(t)] is continuous to infinity, and the counter never reaches t=2, so the most that one can say is that “in the limit t approaches 2”; to actually reach 2 (for 2 to be a member of the set, as tw put it), the function has to become discontinuous. However, if that happens, then you will not count an infinite number of integers.
So are implying that as you count; 1, 1.5, 1.75, ... time is actually slowing down for the counter?
Your position would also imply that Achilles never catches the tortoise!
I am saying nothing about time, actually: f(t) could be f(x), where x is an unending sequence 1, ½, ¼, . . . (in the example, mapped to the infinite sequence of integers 1, 2, 3, . . . ). The numbers in f(x)chosen for the example are arbitrary in the sense that the “line segment” between each count (say, between 1 and ½ ) is infinitely divisible—you could just as well say 1, 99/100, 98/100, . . .; or, 1, 999/1000, 998/1000, . . . ; or, whatever. And eventually the t-intervals in JS357’s example will become incredibly small (infinitesimal).
However, I know nothing about infinite sets, and maybe there’s some other approach that allows one to reach 2 whilst still counting all members of the infinite set of integers. (My math education really is impoverished. :'( )