Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever we can claim that at any intersection of all dimensions there is actually nothing as any point in space time has zero width/hight/time etc etc.WHITEY
I think it is possible for time to be finite. I think that it is possible for time to be finite and have a beggining. I also think that it is possible for time to be finite and be circular or spherical and have a minimum.
[b]What does the word finite actually mean to you?
In this case we are saying that if we assign labels to observed measurement ...[text shortened]... nsions there is actually nothing as any point in space time has zero width/hight/time etc etc.[/b]
In some abstract mathematical model maybe but in the real world?.......what does this claim really mean?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow does existence having a beginning not logically lead to the conclusion that there is nothing at the point of it's beginning? KM
I think it is possible for time to be finite. I think that it is possible for time to be finite and have a beggining. I also think that it is possible for time to be finite and be circular or spherical and have a minimum.
[b]What does the word finite actually mean to you?
In this case we are saying that if we assign labels to observed measurement ...[text shortened]... nsions there is actually nothing as any point in space time has zero width/hight/time etc etc.[/b]
It simply doesn't. It is the job of the claimer (you) to prove that it does WHITEY
Well , if existence has a beginning and it is finite with defined boundaries then that implies that if said existence has a beginning and end and is limited in its spatial dimensions and mass etc Then its boundary is defined by the limits of existence itself . If existence were infinite , boundary-less , indefinite and beginningless/endless no such boundary would exist. So there must be an essential difference between infinite existence and finite existence otherwise using the term finite time /existence is completely meaningless. The whole point of saying existence is finite is to distinguish it from what you think it isn't ...namely infinite.
I am saying what I think that difference is you are not . I am saying that at the boundary of finite existence is non-existence , you are saying...well not much. This seems entirely logical since if there is anything else than non-existence then we have to push back the boundary of existence.
It's just as much your job to say how you might distinguish between finite and infinite existence as it is mine. Otherwise saying "it simply doesn't" seems unconvincing in the absence of any reasoning to back it up. What is your distinction between infinite and finite existence?
The problem you have is that you don't like the idea of non-existence because you feel (like me) that non-existence would be unlikely to give rise to existence , but you also don't like the idea of infinite existence because of where that might lead you. You want a nice neat solution that doesn't take you to either of these places. This leads you to start doing things like trying to place infinite existence within finite existence , but you have to really bash those square pegs in to try and make them try and fit into round holes.
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy claim is that there can never be a point at which nothing 'exists'. Therefore your nothing-o-tron is an illogical and impossible concept so any conclusions you may be reading from the thought experiment are null and void.(excuse the pun) WHITEY
Please stop trying to claim that I have chosen A when I have repeatedly stated that A cannot be chosen.
My claim is that there can never be a point at which nothing 'exists'. Therefore your nothing-o-tron is an illogical and impossible concept so any conclusions you may be reading from the thought experiment are null and void.(excuse the pun)
You ca ...[text shortened]... self have specified that there is no time in the nothing you are talking about.
But I have never ever claimed that nothing "exists" other than linguistically or descriptively. I have talked about non-existence "non-existing". You KNOW that I do not mean that nothingness is a kind of entity or a a "state" that somehow "exists" . It (if one can call it an it)doesn't exist. My argument is far beyond how you interpret it.
So are you saying absolute non-existence is just not possible under any circumstances ? If you are I would agree with you.
Originally posted by knightmeisterPlease go and read up on the basics of logic. You cant seem to distinguish between logical deductions, definitions etc.
It's just as much your job to say how you might distinguish between finite and infinite existence as it is mine. Otherwise saying "it simply doesn't" seems unconvincing in the absence of any reasoning to back it up. What is your distinction between infinite and finite existence?
I have already defined finite and infinite. You have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. The ball is definitely in your court.
The problem you have is that you don't like the idea of non-existence because you feel (like me) that non-existence would be unlikely to give rise to existence,
No, actually I think that non-existence is a non-nonsensical meaningless concept.
but you also don't like the idea of infinite existence because of where that might lead you.
Wrong again. I have no problem with infinite existence. I just don't think that it is a requirement. It is you that wants to be lead somewhere but cant seem to find the path.
You want a nice neat solution that doesn't take you to either of these places. This leads you to start doing things like trying to place infinite existence within finite existence, but you have to really bash those square pegs in to try and make them try and fit into round holes.
I have done no such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe are just going round in circles. So lets get back to basics.
We are just going round in circles. So lets get back to basics.
Do you believe that the known spacial dimensions are infinite in extent?
Do you believe that the known spacial dimensions are infinite in extent?WHITEY
No I do not. But I do believe existence IS without boundary and infinite and thus non-existence is not a possibility.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, actually I think that non-existence is a non-nonsensical meaningless concept. WHITEY
Please go and read up on the basics of logic. You cant seem to distinguish between logical deductions, definitions etc.
I have already defined finite and infinite. You have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. The ball is definitely in your court.
...[text shortened]... o such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.
..and so I must then ask why? This must imply that you feel non-existence to be an impossibility , because if it was possible then it couldn't be a meaningless concept. A concept that is possible cannot be meaningless.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong again. I have no problem with infinite existence WHITEY
Please go and read up on the basics of logic. You cant seem to distinguish between logical deductions, definitions etc.
I have already defined finite and infinite. You have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. The ball is definitely in your court.
...[text shortened]... o such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.
Of course not...
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have done no such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.WHITEY
Please go and read up on the basics of logic. You cant seem to distinguish between logical deductions, definitions etc.
I have already defined finite and infinite. You have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. The ball is definitely in your court.
...[text shortened]... o such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.
So what was all that about containing eternity within a finite universe then? Your circle of time with no beginning was refuted because it had to be a repeating circle of time . You tried to hide time's beginning by turning it in on itself into a circle , but I showed you how it wouldn't work and you had zilch to say!
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes, your description of nothingness is an impossibility as it is dimensionless and therefore either 'exists' everywhere or nowhere without a place in time or space and as such the very fact of our existence negates it the possibility of nothingness as we would be a part of said nothingness.
..and so I must then ask why? This must imply that you feel non-existence to be an impossibility , because if it was possible then it couldn't be a meaningless concept. A concept that is possible cannot be meaningless.
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhen did you show that it wouldn't work. I must have missed that. Please re-explain.
So what was all that about containing eternity within a finite universe then? Your circle of time with no beginning was refuted because it had to be a repeating circle of time . You tried to hide time's beginning by turning it in on itself into a circle , but I showed you how it wouldn't work and you had zilch to say!
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. WHITEY
Please go and read up on the basics of logic. You cant seem to distinguish between logical deductions, definitions etc.
I have already defined finite and infinite. You have made a claim that finite existence has certain properties. You claim that it 'logically leads to the conclusion' but do not provide the logic. The ball is definitely in your court.
o such thing. It is you that claims the pegs are square but cant seem to find the corners.
But I have provided a logical argument. If existence is temporary and has a beginning and an end then non-existence has to be a certainty. Finite existence implies that existence is around for a certain amount of time.
This does NOT mean that you need an external timeline to measure it , it can be measured by it's own time .
We know that the finite universe is roughly 12-14 billion years old so it hasn't been around infinitely. If the universe is temporary and limited and is all that there is then apart from those 12-14 billion years????? >>> absolute non-existence!!!! Not even time exists!
The only way non-existence can be avoided is by having non-temporary permanent existence into infinity. Is this logic basic enough for you?
Maybe your problem is that you can't bring yourself to actually contemplate non-existence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow this makes more sense what you are saying here. I will come back to this later . I'm going for some time limited exercise now! There may be a way forward from here.
Yes, your description of nothingness is an impossibility as it is dimensionless and therefore either 'exists' everywhere or nowhere without a place in time or space and as such the very fact of our existence negates it the possibility of nothingness as we would be a part of said nothingness.
Originally posted by twhiteheadREAD IT THIS TIME!
When did you show that it wouldn't work. I must have missed that. Please re-explain.
So at which point in the circle did it 'appear'? WHITEY
So I ask you how your circle could just appear without causation and......your response is "at which point in the circle did the circle appear?" This implies that your circle is contained within itself . Not only the things that exist in time within your circle but the circle itself exists within the circle . This would be 2 circles not one. Your circle of time + your circle of time that appears within your circle of time!!!
A case of circular reasoning? LOL
It took me while but I finally came up with a refutation of your finite circle of time with no beginning. I was going for a walk and it came to me....
If you are positing a circle of time with no beginning for said time then there are a few logical implications here...
1) Time has to be in motion moving from one event to another in sequence. So if you put time in a circle then it has to be flowing around the circle , otherwise time has stopped. We know this because Einstein proved that time is related to motion and speed of movement and predicted that we cannot travel backwards in time.
2) Now if your time is moving around the circle in a direction (which in your mind has no beginning) then time and the series of events that are causally connected which happen in time must either repeat itself or not repeat itself.
3) For your circle of time idea to work you need time to repeat itself over and over again because you need the future to come round the circle and join up with the past in order to create your circle.(For what circle can have gaps in it? )
4) If the future does not come round and move back into it's own past and repeat your circle of time is gone. BUT if this happens there must be a point where the future joins up with it's own past.
5) This turns out to be very interesting because if you imagine your circle as a race track or a looping repeating piece of music ( a good analogy because there is a flow of movement in one direction) then a race track or a loop of music DOES have a point where the loop joins up with itself and repeats . On a race track its call the starting line , but of course it is also the finish line as well. But it CAN be located at a point in the circuit.
6) It turns out with circular repeating time that one must logically have a point on it where the end meets the start again and that's where the beginning would be. (Remember Groundhog Day when the alarm clock rings) Your repeating circle would HAVE to be more like a time LINE that has been looped round to make a circle. And a timeline either has a beginning or not . But if this time line has no beginning how are you going to get it to loop round in a finite circle and join up with the end of the line?(if there was one) . You timeline has to be finite not infinite in order to be able to join it up and if you join it up there is a clear point on it that could be identified as the beginning of the line.
7) Now , You could go for the other alternative and say that time doesn't repeat in your circle. This would avoid this problem. But how could time move around in a circle and not meet up with itself and repeat? In order to avoid the repetition your movement in time would have to break out of the circle and become something more like a corkscrew spiral that doesn't really meet up with itself . But if you take a spiral like and stretch it it would be in effect a spirally LINE which would have to either have a beginning or eternally stretch out into infinite beginninglessness.
8) You see even in Ground Hog day time wasn't circular because it didn't repeat exactly each time , it corkscrewed instead and he found his way out of it. The fact that time moves continuously and is destined to repeat exactly in a circle with no gaps is your oversight. If time didn't move in a direction you would be fine but moving through time in your circle one would inevitably reach a point where one would say "Ah , this is it , we've reached the end and we are back to the beginning again".
You can try and hide the beginning of your finite time line by stitching it up into a finite circle and pretend that it's eternal but the repetition is going to catch you out , the stitch marks will be there.
This is not eternity . Eternity is a beginningless line (and endless) with an infinite length with no need for repetitons. It is mathematically impossible to make a circle out of beginningless infinte time because you need two ends in order to join it up. Eternity won't fit into a circle of time mathematically and as such it is in a different catagory. The only way you can hide the beginning is to make your circle stationary , but if you do that it can't be a circle of time.
PS- I think the same would apply to a sphere as well because a sphere has to join up as well and is really just a 3d circle.