Proving logic can't explain existence

[Polymath257]

I don’t want to flog the dead horse here since this is a dog chasing it’s own tail scenario. We are arguing in circles here for two days now and I don’t think we will reach any verdict if we keep circling around infinitely [pun intended]. Regardless, I’ll just sum up some of my personal opinion with some examples as a [possible] final address of mine to the topic.

Imaginary concepts like infinity don’t qualify as real life cases, reality isn’t necessarily how we imagined it to be. How can we so sure that space/time/etc, are infinite? How are we suppose to measure the immeasurable? What experiment have we perform [if we can] that ever yielded infinite results for space/time/etc.? These are all speculation, and I don’t think it’s wise to use speculation as proofs like you did when you used perceptual infinity of space as an example of infinity existing in real life outside rather than just an abstract, imaginary, mathematical concept.

I want to be clear that I have no proof that either space nor time are infinite. I just find it plausible that both are.

1. And how is rational and irrational nature of the numbers relevant to the point that infinity does not exist non-conceptually, which was THE original point?

Well, one aspect is that many people have notions about infinity that are wrong and those notions can lead them to think that an infinite space or time are impossible. Among those notions is that there must be a first or last.

2. How can irrational answer be considered pin-point accurate? Sounds pretty paradoxical to me. Can unjustified acts be considered righteous justifications? Isn’t that equivalent to saying that we have morally justified the justification of the murder of [say] Junko Furuta, it’s just that the evidence of the justification we know is unjustified? Don’t you think that a paradox? Doesn’t it shows inherent flaws in our logic rather than an unjustified [irrational] act being a true justification [real, true existance]?

Some care is required. To be an 'irrational' number only means it is not a ratio of two whole numbers. So the square root of 2 is a perfectly good number that is not rational. It can be presented as the diagonal of a square of side length 1.

3. Besides, from what I’ve read, there is no human application where irrational numbers are used pretty much like there is no real life example found yet with infinite measurement [unless we believe your argument time is infinite, which are just speculations rather than proofs], doesn’t this make both of this ideas … you know, irrational?

Irrational numbers are used all the time. Then, they are approximated to see if the predictions agree with observations.

How does that answer my question? So far, there is no logical reason that The Holy Qur’an cannot be imitated either linguistically or literarily. Does that mean I should believe that and use it as a counter-example if someone asks me is using subjective, tentative concepts like imaginary criteria of aesthetic beauty as an objective criteria?

I’ll use other examples since that one got a bit complicated. There is no logical reason why God cannot be time either, should I use that as an example if someone asks me if it is wise to use some possibly fictional entity existing in our imagination as a real life example, and say “Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is no God in the real world. I see no reason why time cannot be God itself”. There is no logical reason why the unchanging laws cannot be God Himself and/or features [or components or properties (whatever you deem fit as an example)] of God. There is no logical reason why all the forces in the universe cannot be God either [Pantheism]. There is no logical reason why universe [or maybe even time (as it suit more due to being the point at hand)] cannot be into and/or part of God either. But these are all speculations.

Sure, and if you redefine the notion of 'God' to be the chair in my room, then God exists. The question is whether violence to the language is done if you identify God with time or the laws of physics.

I feel that it is, in fact, an abuse of language.

If there is no beginning and time is infinite, then there are endless moments of time. But how can we get to a certain moment of time [let’s say, the moment of time when Big Bang occurred] when endless moments after moments have to come before it?

How do we get to a given moment *from what*? From any point you select, there is only a finite amount of time to get to the present moment. And to 'get to' means a place where you start. Since there is only a finite time interval between any chosen start point and now, there is no difficulty getting here.

I know it isn’t necessary, it’s just a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of making a hypothetical assessment of speculations about there being no beginning. We are discussing how probable these possibilities are, this is just an analogous reasoning based on what actually does happen in reality [of going indefinitely]. “Traversing an infinite amount of time” = idealized scenario based on real life occurrence to test imaginary belief that doesn’t exist in the real world.

But no traversal of an infinite amount of time is required to get here from any point. When you ask how it is possible to 'get here', I can only ask 'from where'? And if there is no start, the only option 'from where' is some moment of time.

Besides, I don’t know about you, but I’ve read articles which says that time started with Big Bang, and that time is moving forward. So the necessity of hypothetically reversing [or forwarding] is there when evaluating it’s nature based on that behavior [act of moving forward]. But you could very well say that infinite doesn’t act like the finite. Fine, we are arguing in circle.

And yes, it is also an option that time is finite into the past. This is actually what happens in the Big Bang scenario if you only use general relativity. But, we *know* general relativity is incomplete: it doesn't work with the quantum mechanical aspects of our universe. And when *those* are taken into account, the likelihood of an infinite past opens up again.

Then how did, say, universe reached a moment in time where the formation of intelligence took place when there was no start [another moment in time] but rather endless, infinite time occurring before it?

Because it went through the time just before the time when the intelligence arose.

I’ll just “chase the carrot” saying as an example since there’s always a previous/upcoming event in this example as well. If a carrot is tied to a stick in front of mule or a stubborn horse to make them step forward and walk ahead to reach it. The carrot is here always have an upcoming event. What would happen if a mule continue to reach out for THIS particular event [so through it can get to it’s true goal of reaching the carrot]? The mule will keep going infinitely, never reaching the event of achieving the carrot [which is it’s main objective, using stepping forward as a secondary objective to reach near to his true goal of receiving the carrot]. The same would happen if there was no beginning. But the same didn’t happened in our real life. Not only did we reach a moment in time where Big Bang, formation of Earth and Intelligence happened, but time is still moving forward and REACHING certain time-periods. With no beginning and start, there would be just infinite going forward like the horse.

Once again, you are assuming the claim in the scenario is that there is some event, then an infinite amount of time, and then now. And that is not the case. The mule would reach the carrot because the stick keeps getting shorter.

I know, which is why I don’t believe in infinity. Poor choice of words, again, but I can assure you, I didn’t meant that. By infinite duration, I mean infinite moments in time. The only reason I use the term duration because I was paraphrasing your vocabulary: “Just because time is infinite into the future, it need not be the case that there is some time an actual infinite duration into the future.” [Note: I never said that there is a need to be the case there is some time an actual infinite duration in the original post to which you gave that reply]


The laws are needed to support the existence of an intelligence, not the other way around. The laws are automatic. The intelligence is dependent. At least, that seems like the most plausible scenario to me.

Well, it seems to me that you are assuming that there is no laws needed to support the existence of an intelligence in [a hypothetical] Godly/Spiritual realm. I see no reason why spiritual laws [like law of karma] cannot be present in other realms to allow for the complexities of intelligence [in God and/or whatever is suited to the hypothesis].

And then what keeps *those* orderly laws working? Another layer of intelligence?

Pretty much like how at any point in time, an infinite time interval had already passed with no beginning. Irrational, right?

I don't see the irrationality of it. The number -3 has infinitely many numbers before it and infinitely many after. And three steps later, you get to 0.

Well, I can just turn around and say that you are expecting outworldly intelligence to act like real life intelligence. Just like unfounded expectation that infinite acts like the finite, the unfounded expectation here seems to be the spiritual/Godly/[add any other that suits the hypothesis] acts like the material. It doesn’t, just like the real life material world doesn’t act like video games realm where movement requires controllers and mechanical/operational/software programming [and other prerequisites].

And why there be movements in real life without the controllers and mechanical/operational/software programming [and other prerequisites] for the function of movement possible in video game realm? Because much like infinite doesn’t act like finite, real life doesn’t act like video game realm. Similarly, spiritual realm don’t act like real life.

… Can’t you see the pile of speculation in this case as well?

Absolutely. But the point is that some possibilities are discarded for bad reasons. The possibilities are much more that simply a finite amount of time or space and an intelligence governing things.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

The mule would reach the carrot because the stick keeps getting shorter.

Hmmm … I feel like you’re onto something here [with the reaching to the carrot because the stick keeps getting shorter]. Yes, I agree with you here. Like I said in my original posts, we don’t know much how pre-big bang universe. This might very well be the case. Some other factor might have caused the start point [Big Bang] while the infinite time was doing it course, and this might have created the finite timeline we know in this real life. So, the ever-present infinite timeline has passed and is still going on, while a finite timeline [starting from Big Bang till now] was created [due to some other factor] within the original infinite timeline [pretty much like how pointed this out in my similar post]. That can explain away my [and other’s] complains, just like out the analogy of timeless God did.

Anyway, l’ll just give some of my views on some of the points [not enough time to think through and answer them all, my apologies for that]. [forgive my typos and mistakes as my head is spinning while I am writing this due to exhaustion].

Well, one aspect is that many people have notions about infinity that are wrong and those notions can lead them to think that an infinite space or time are impossible. Among those notions is that there must be a first or last.

Well, still it doesn’t matter since I was never talking about the nature of infinite in the post he quoted in the first place [just questioning it’s existence as a reality rather than merely an concept], and I don’t think I got anything wrong about infinity even after I began discussing it with you. I don’t think there must be a first or last, I just think that the claim having to pass an infinite time interval sounded counterintuitive and paradoxical to me. Just as the claim reaching the unreachable sounds paradoxical.

Once again, you are assuming the claim in the scenario is that there is some event, then an infinite amount of time, and then now. And that is not the case. The mule would reach the carrot because the stick keeps getting shorter.

My apologies, I am not assuming that there is some event and then an infinite amount of time and then now. No. In this [hypothetical] speculation, the ever-present infinite time moment [of mule moving towards to get to the carrot] IS the beginning/start point that I am assuming to be [after which some certain point in time (for example to the point where we are now)]. Just ever-present, infinite timeline devoid of any start. I was just educating others how the chasing the carrot idiom worked so they can understand how the process involved to set the wheels in motion.

Because it went through the time just before the time when the intelligence arose.

And that time was an infinite time-point, it would never-ending and as such, not crossable all the way since there was no end for it. Going through the never-ending is like reaching the unreachable and beating the unbeatable, sounds like a paradox to me. Pretty much like irresistible force paradox, there are two incompatible premises, there can simultaneously exists an infinite time interval and it has been passed at the same time. If it’s passed, then it was not infinite, and it is infinite, it is unpassable.

But no traversal of an infinite amount of time is required to get here from any point. When you ask how it is possible to 'get here', I can only ask 'from where'? And if there is no start, the only option 'from where' is some moment of time.

Well, to me it would seem the most sensible answer to ‘from where?’ would be --- From being nowhere in the [singular, infinite] point of time. Nowhere is a good substitute here if there was no start to it. The ever-present infinite timeline has to be taken as a start point [as that was all there was at that moment of time].

If there is no start, then that there is always a previous/upcoming point in time, And I think the most appropriate answer in that case [for me, at least] is “nowhere.” How did we got here from any point in time when time was going nowhere with always an upcoming point in it that make sure it stays that way. Getting to any point in time with an infinite time interval had already passed with is no 'start' [replace ‘start’ with ‘where’ (getting nowhere)] sounds absurd to me [not to mention also paradoxical].

Some care is required. To be an 'irrational' number only means it is not a ratio of two whole numbers. So the square root of 2 is a perfectly good number that is not rational. It can be presented as the diagonal of a square of side length 1.

Not sure how this has any bearing to the original point I was making. I am aware of the fact that I don’t know two hoots about these subjects, but I just googled some of these and it seems that the square root of 2 is an irrational proof, isn’t that a paradox just like unjustified justification of Junko Furuta example I gave in the original point, hence not applicable in physical operations pretty much like unjustified justifications are not acceptable in moral reasoning and ethics [moral policy-making]?

Irrational numbers are used all the time. Then, they are approximated to see if the predictions agree with observations.

Approximations are used all the time, not the irrational numbers in and out of themselves. At least to my limited knowledge, there is no human application where irrational number can be used in their purest form, in and out of themselves.

Sure, and if you redefine the notion of 'God' to be the chair in my room, then God exists. The question is whether violence to the language is done if you identify God with time or the laws of physics.

I feel that it is, in fact, an abuse of language.

I don’t think violence of language and/or distortion was done in any of my point, my brother. For me to think of the possibility that two entities are one and the same, they must share all or most of their vital attributes and their quantity. You can check out that all the examples I have, all the entities equated were very similar to each other in terms of their qualities and quantity. And this is how I feel we can check out whether abuse of language to the language is done or not, checking out the qualities and quantity of the comparison made. We have to check out how much the two things we compare are alike in terms of their qualities and their quantity.

Chair share no god-like quality [it’s not ever-existing, self-sustaining, ever-lasting, all-knowing, all-wise, all-encompassing etc. etc. etc.] while time does [given it shares sentient, conscious as well]. Chair is nowhere near god-like stats in it’s stats, it is FAR from being infinite, above all else [like in magnitude of it’s power etc.). It will be an abuse of language is there’s no equivalence between two in terms of their qualities and their quantity, yet we are comparing them and jumping to conclusions they might be one and the same.

And then what keeps *those* orderly laws working? Another layer of intelligence?

As someone who hold Panentheistic belief about God, those orderly laws and another outside intelligence are a part and/or features of God. But then again, that’s just my tentative belief [with nothing but my own personal experience and intuition solidifying the belief (not some object proofs, definitely)]. But it at least doesn’t defies we can see occurring in our everyday life and it requires taking less conjectures on granted.

I don't see the irrationality of it. The number -3 has infinitely many numbers before it and infinitely many after. And three steps later, you get to 0.

1. The number -3, and many infinite numbers before it, and infinitely many after it, and occurrence of 0 three steps later are all just in our heads, the point in time we are currently in isn’t. I am fairly sure I can recall a dream where I was Spider-Man, I don’t see the irrationality in that either if [and only if] it was just in my head and wasn’t real. I would see the irrationality of it if someone says it happens for real since that defies all the physiology, physics, [arguably] logic, biology etc. that we know are present in the real world outside of our dream realm. I would see the statement that [if we were to except was there no beginning and] at any point time, infinite time interval happened as irrational because it seems to defies how [finite] time acts is our real world among other factors and it would require making baseless assumptions [like infinite acting different from finite, and infinite regress is possible, and that it has also actually already occurred (none of which we have sufficient good reasons to assume to be true)]

2. Except if you use that as an analogy for not seeing irrationality in the claim that an infinite time interval has passed with no beginning, it would be false equivalence since in this example, there is a beginning/start point [-3] unlike the other claim.

Absolutely. But the point is that some possibilities are discarded for bad reasons. The possibilities are much more that simply a finite amount of time or space and an intelligence governing things.

I think we can agree to disagree that the likelihood of finite time/space [to very small extent, as I mostly agree with you] and/or intelligence governing things [to much extent, since I am most likely polar opposite to you it seems]. While I agree with the possibilities you brought to light, I am very, Very, VERY slightly more leaning towards the finite amount of time [since we have to take relativity less speculations (infinity exists in real life and acts differently than finite and possibility to infinite time getting passed etc) on granted based on what exists and happens in our real world] to be far likelier to be true, and intelligent operation on, in and of the orderly universe and it’s working [again, requires less assumptions] to be far likelier to be the case.

It’s like I am willing to bet 49.99999 and 50.00001, with a bit of more trust towards the opposite speculation due to my own personal intuition and experiences. I might be wrong, perhaps when I do study these concepts in detail when I have free time I’d become more inclined towards your line of thinking about the issues.

 

[rational experiences]

What is learnt.

Human thinking ability.

Always comes back to the planet upon which we live and exist as natural laws natural presence.

Thinking.

What science says is logic is when his invention functions by his rationale.

Which is only machines and not anything else.

Status science used coercive storytelling whilst logic was direct only to his invention.

What coercion my means.

If a human thinks about what is not known. Space oblivion emptiness is not known. Never will be known quotes mystery by defined descriptive reasoning.

Therefore what is gone missing is origin. For then mind would say rationally. I can state no beginning rational as there no longer exists beginning. Reactive science thinking only.

Says energy has no end as energy exists by one worded theme. Energy presence is complete hence end form is energy.

Energy can convert change yet become other than an origin. Magic says the scientist.

Energy however can become changed to a place where it barely exists.

Hence as it cannot become origin. Energy in its highest presence reaction origin. It also cannot become oblivion either.

Magic says the scientist.

When I was taught words I was taught descriptive analogy also. Just human taught.

I quote in awareness if separation occurs first to own place for reaction then it was space.

If I say eternal removed a portion spiritually. Then I claim a spirit being did it to what it pre owned. No change.

The word eternal stated always existed.

Space proves it becomes in reactive changes.

I know spirit consciousness quotes I know all by stories. As you cannot own what you never were. Removal statements. Change.

If we claim we own creative awareness in living. And eternal when we die. Then a human does not own the eternal. The eternal spirit owns itself.

If you claim you only own it when you die. Then we claim that consciousness never dies. As the eternal is our origin. Life is just a physical dream.

Science in consciousness knows talking is not owning.

 

[Brian2]

Does it? Pray tell how you figure that one out.

There are several hypothesis, those that consider multiverse have a very different opinion if time to those that consider a universe, in the true sense of the word. One thing is for sure, what were conditions, if any, prior to the BB are unknown.[/QUOTE]

I figure it out by saying that we cannot have had and infinity of time in the past or we would not be here yet.
It would mean we are adding to infinity.
A similar thing can be done using cause and effect and saying that we cannot have had an infinity number of cause and effect events or we would be adding to infinity again.
But this is just working with time as we see it as extending into the past and into the future.
I hear that there are other hypotheses about time. I guess when it comes to considering hypotheses we could say that science in this area is not finding out more at this time but is adding to the confusion with human imagination at times.

Correct, our universe will die long after life dies. Will time continue?

If it existed before life on earth then it will probably exist after life on earth. But if you mean will it exist after the universe dies, I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

Wrong, here is one possibility
Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

That looks like a possibility for a true vacuum being created in a false vacuum with the false vacuum still existing outside the true vacuum I guess. The expansion of a true vacuum is seen as how this universe began however isn't it. It is just not known about what is supposed to be outside this universe.
It is all in the realm of mathematics and human imagination I guess.
I wonder where anything else comes from out of a true vacuum.

 

[Brian2]

Why not?

This is an argument I have seen a lot and, frankly, it just seems like an expectation that the infinite acts like the finite. But, it doesn't.

At any point in time, an infinite time interval had already passed. There is no 'start'.

I can understand that but have trouble understanding how it is possible to keep adding to infinity. It means that infinity is not really infinity.
This also can be seen if we use an infinity number of cause/effect events having already happened at any point in time. Can we just keep adding to infinity?

OK, so?

So nothing. Just a statement that infinite time in the future means we will never reach the end. BUT it relates to the infinite time in the past in which we can never reach this point in time because that means that infinity is finite.

Let's see. No matter, no energy, no space, no time. We do assume the laws of physics. Is that nothing or something?

If anything, it is a LOT less than assuming an eternal deity to get things going. That isn't nothing either.

If the laws of physics in something then it is not really a part of the physical universe unless data is a part of said universe.
I'm sure I have heard ideas about data being intrinsic in the universe. I'm not sure how that could be, and whether it is any less of a problem, using occam's razor, than a God who knows stuff or a law maker, or a life giver.

 

[Brian2]

While I do agree with this argument to some extent, I feel like it contains a groundless assumptions that the laws, physics, working of our world was present in the world before big bang. How can we be so sure?

I usually have a problem with explaining this point clearly due to my lack of vocabulary and background knowledge [and scientific ignorance], but here's a simplest way I can get the message across. Think about it this way --- In video game world, you can save and load your progress, and do all sorts of things that completely defies logic, physics, logic, time, space etc. present in our real world. Is it absurd? Of course. But video game world is different from our world, they have their own unique workings. I don't think it's a wise move to apply the logic and working of our real life world to the video game world for they don't necessarily behave the same way.

I also have a problem with my lack of knowledge and vocabulary but some people would say that this makes the ones with the knowledge and vocabulary the priests whom we look up to and believe even if they really don't know the answers either.
I would say that we cannot be sure about what was present before the big bang. I have heard that time began at the big bang however along with space and etc from a singularity and that this is the accepted scenario There are hypotheses about time going on into infinity in the past and how it might have done that. And of course there are other ideas which seem to be part of mathematics and human imagination more that what evidence tells us. But as you say we just do not know.
The time going infinitely into the past is working what time looks like now as being linear, but of course my brain is too small to accommodate much else. I guess by brain is in this area, like the brains of people in the past who may not have been able to cope with a round earth or the earth rotating.
Then again, that cause effect events could have been infinite in number seems also to be logically wrong unless we can just keep adding to infinity. All this points to a first cause also for me.

Well, I don't know about others, but I sure as hell am extremely ignorant about quantum mechanics [and science in general]. But from what I've heard, many others also are. The truth is, we don't know much about quantum realms to apply the same mathematical constructs we have created to deal with our realm.

"Nothing" and "somethings" are just our self-constructed concepts [based on the model of "reality" we perceive, and to work efficiently in this reality]. These [and other] concepts are our own imaginary concepts to conform with the model of reality we perceive. This model of reality that we perceive isn't necessary the same as quantum realm.

I think we need to keep the same vocabulary at least in our talking about stuff, even if it is quantum stuff. So "nothing" here should still be "nothing" there at least in vocabulary and it is just confusing for us non scientists when "nothing" means a place where there are things, as in the so called vacuum of outer space. (and of course quantum reality is what the universe is made of even if the Newtonian Physics is easier to understand and seems more organised to our minds.

 

[Brian2]

I'm suggesting time might exist by definition. Time existed before the beginning because time is the only constant. Time itself is eternal.

Time will always exist and has always existed. There is no reality without time.

Time is just as real as energy and matter and is related to energy just as energy is related to matter T = E x C ^ 2.

What isn't real is "space". This is a construct caused by the way we think and perceive. Since "space" isn't real neither are the constants and neither is the "speed of light". Not even light can move at the speed of light because mass approaches infinity. "Speed" has a different meaning anyway where space doesn't exist. For most practical purposes "space" becomes the rate of change in the time (C) between two objects.

I'm sure I don't know but I know we are hung up on something very fundamental. It appears our metaphysics has failed and we need new metaphysics. I believe the concept that Time is the only reality is somewhat similar to the metaphysics of ancient science since their premises mostly involved Time.

I wish I could say I knew what you were on about or that I think you might be onto something, keep up the good work.
I do find it hard to imagine that space isn't real however.

 

[ChristineM]

I figure it out by saying that we cannot have had and infinity of time in the past or we would not be here yet.

Just a guess then! Time for us is time within our universe which is not infinite. If time exists outside our universe, i.e. in a multiverse scenario it may or may not be infinite, yet we are here.

A similar thing can be done using cause and effect and saying that we cannot have had an infinity number of cause and effect events or we would be adding to infinity again

You cannot use cause and effect in a multiverse. As we know it, it is associated with the second law of thermodynamics which may or may not exist outside our universe. Thinking is that the laws that govern our universe were created after the bb, some time towards the end of the grand unification epoch

I hear that there are other hypotheses about time. I guess when it comes to considering hypotheses we could say that science in this area is not finding out more at this time but is adding to the confusion with human imagination at times

I don't think science is adding to the confusion but lay persons who cannot live with "we dont know" are making whatever ideas fit their own belief.

If it existed before life on earth then it will probably exist after life on earth.

Times arrow will continue to go forward until the universe dies.

But if you mean will it exist after the universe dies, I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

Whether it continues after that?

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm suggesting time might exist by definition. Time existed before the beginning because time is the only constant. Time itself is eternal.

Time will always exist and has always existed. There is no reality without time.

Time is just as real as energy and matter and is related to energy just as energy is related to matter T = E x C ^ 2.

What isn't real is "space". This is a construct caused by the way we think and perceive. Since "space" isn't real neither are the constants and neither is the "speed of light". Not even light can move at the speed of light because mass approaches infinity. "Speed" has a different meaning anyway where space doesn't exist. For most practical purposes "space" becomes the rate of change in the time (C) between two objects.

I'm sure I don't know but I know we are hung up on something very fundamental. It appears our metaphysics has failed and we need new metaphysics. I believe the concept that Time is the only reality is somewhat similar to the metaphysics of ancient science since their premises mostly involved Time.

cladking wrote," Time existed before the beginning because time is the only constant. Time itself is eternal.
Time will always exist and has always existed. There is no reality without time."

Is it from Science that time is eternal, please? When did Science take it up, please? Please mention the discipline of Natural Science that took it up. Right, please?

My understanding from religious method is that time is created by G-d and it is therefore not eternal. G-d the Creator is only Eternal, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

I can understand that but have trouble understanding how it is possible to keep adding to infinity. It means that infinity is not really infinity.
This also can be seen if we use an infinity number of cause/effect events having already happened at any point in time. Can we just keep adding to infinity?

What do you mean by 'really infinity'? if it simply means 'not finite', then it is easy to 'add to infinity'.

For example, the collection of natural numbers is infinite: 1,2,3,4,5,6,....

You can add 0 to this and get another infinite set: 0,1,2,3,4,5,...

You can add -1 to this and get another.

Alternatively, the set of even natural numbers is infinite: 2,4,6,8,10,...

And the set of odd natural numbers is infinite: 1,3,5,7,9,...

You can 'add' the two infinite sets together and get another infinite set: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...

So nothing. Just a statement that infinite time in the future means we will never reach the end. BUT it relates to the infinite time in the past in which we can never reach this point in time because that means that infinity is finite.

No, an infinite time into the past simply means that if you start now and go backwards, you never get to a starting point.

Why would being able to get to this point mean you have a finite past? Remember, there is no *start*: time is just always going.

If the laws of physics in something then it is not really a part of the physical universe unless data is a part of said universe.
I'm sure I have heard ideas about data being intrinsic in the universe. I'm not sure how that could be, and whether it is any less of a problem, using occam's razor, than a God who knows stuff or a law maker, or a life giver.

Well, every causal interaction produces new information: that the causes were there to interact. So, yes, information in part of the universe. It is even described as negative entropy.

 

[cladking]

Is it from Science that time is eternal, please? When did Science take it up, please? Please mention the discipline of Natural Science that took it up. Right, please?

No, this is a theory I started developing many years ago. I had believed it was unique but a physics professor told me there was an obscure physicist or student who worked on something very similar back in the mid-1920's but never got anywhere. My version has evolved since then but it still lacks mathematical justification or experimental support. Essentially I'm just looking for how we can come so far and not know the basics. It seems apparent that the problem is chiefly metaphysical; one or more of our premises is faulty in some way. Frankly, though I've always suspected that the problem is mathematical. The logic of math is sound but it can't be applied to real world because the real world is digital rather than analog. No two identical objects or things can exist. Mathematics forces us to "count rabbits" and think that 765,928.1674 rabbits has some meaning rather than being a solution to some frankensteinian equation. The very language in which we think forces us to make inductions that have no reality and no referent. It's very difficult to identify metaphysical errors.

I'm merely guessing reality is logical and time is a constant. I believe these assumptions lie at the heart of all life which is individual. In other words this is how the human and all other brains operate without analog language and analog thought. The basis of consciousness itself is digital and based in logic. We can't see this because we have to unlearn the operational system with which we ae born in order to learn language.

There is no "right" or "wrong" but rather a metaphysics and our metaphysics may be flawed sufficiently or overly cumbersome to prevent progress beyond Einstein at this time. Whatever the reality is it will agree with experiment but I wager it will agree with deductive logic as well.

 

[Miken]

If we look at the various physical constants – lightspeed in a vacuum, the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, the fine structure constant, the ratio of the mass of a proton and an electron and so on – we see no inherent reason why each should be what it is. There are also mysteries. Why does mass never come with a negative sign? We know antimatter is possible. We make it all the time in particle accelerators. Why is it so rare? And so on.

Why are the laws of physics structured the way they are? Not the values of the constants but why are those the laws at all as opposed to some other assortment of laws?

Why is there anything at all?

What does it mean to be?

If we imagine that all possible universes existed with every possible set of laws, even those totally unlike any set of laws we would easily recognize as such, then the question of why this universe in all its idiosyncratic glory should exist goes away. All possible universes exist. This is a possible universe. It exists.

Why should all possible universes exist?

Maybe the answer is that simple. Maybe existence is nothing more than being possible as long as it is definite and not self-contradictory. A is A, Aristotle tells us. And A is not not-A.

To clarify a point, consider flying pigs. There might be planets in this universe where conditions are such - thick atmosphere, exotic musculature or whatever - that animals who look very much like pigs with wings really can fly. There may be universes with planets that look very much like Earth but have different underlying physics that also allows winged pigs to fly. But to have a universe exactly like ours with an Earth exactly like ours and pigs exactly like ours but that can fly, that is not possible. Being possible does not mean that anything you can draw in a Loony Toons cartoon is possible. The above scenario is self-contradictory. It assumes the existence of a something in an environment where we know that this something cannot be. That is self-contradiction.


Every possible universe exists because that is what existence is – being possible.


So … food for thought. Is it digestible? Tasty even?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Is it from Science that time is eternal, please? When did Science take it up, please? Please mention the discipline of Natural Science that took it up. Right, please?

No, this is a theory I started developing many years ago. I had believed it was unique but a physics professor told me there was an obscure physicist or student who worked on something very similar back in the mid-1920's but never got anywhere. My version has evolved since then but it still lacks mathematical justification or experimental support. Essentially I'm just looking for how we can come so far and not know the basics. It seems apparent that the problem is chiefly metaphysical; one or more of our premises is faulty in some way. Frankly, though I've always suspected that the problem is mathematical. The logic of math is sound but it can't be applied to real world because the real world is digital rather than analog. No two identical objects or things can exist. Mathematics forces us to "count rabbits" and think that 765,928.1674 rabbits has some meaning rather than being a solution to some frankensteinian equation. The very language in which we think forces us to make inductions that have no reality and no referent. It's very difficult to identify metaphysical errors.

I'm merely guessing reality is logical and time is a constant. I believe these assumptions lie at the heart of all life which is individual. In other words this is how the human and all other brains operate without analog language and analog thought. The basis of consciousness itself is digital and based in logic. We can't see this because we have to unlearn the operational system with which we ae born in order to learn language.

There is no "right" or "wrong" but rather a metaphysics and our metaphysics may be flawed sufficiently or overly cumbersome to prevent progress beyond Einstein at this time. Whatever the reality is it will agree with experiment but I wager it will agree with deductive logic as well.

cladking wrote," No"

Thanks for acknowledging that it is not from Science that "time is eternal".
I understand that science, mathematics and logic
together can only discern a limited aspects of life , not the whole of life. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, this is a theory I started developing many years ago. I had believed it was unique but a physics professor told me there was an obscure physicist or student who worked on something very similar back in the mid-1920's but never got anywhere. My version has evolved since then but it still lacks mathematical justification or experimental support. Essentially I'm just looking for how we can come so far and not know the basics. It seems apparent that the problem is chiefly metaphysical; one or more of our premises is faulty in some way. Frankly, though I've always suspected that the problem is mathematical. The logic of math is sound but it can't be applied to real world because the real world is digital rather than analog. No two identical objects or things can exist. Mathematics forces us to "count rabbits" and think that 765,928.1674 rabbits has some meaning rather than being a solution to some frankensteinian equation. The very language in which we think forces us to make inductions that have no reality and no referent. It's very difficult to identify metaphysical errors.

I'm merely guessing reality is logical and time is a constant. I believe these assumptions lie at the heart of all life which is individual. In other words this is how the human and all other brains operate without analog language and analog thought. The basis of consciousness itself is digital and based in logic. We can't see this because we have to unlearn the operational system with which we ae born in order to learn language.

There is no "right" or "wrong" but rather a metaphysics and our metaphysics may be flawed sufficiently or overly cumbersome to prevent progress beyond Einstein at this time. Whatever the reality is it will agree with experiment but I wager it will agree with deductive logic as well.

One has raised so many points in one's above post. It makes me curious to know something personal about one, but only reply if one likes to, please. Right, please?
What is one's academic background, please?
One has written " Religion: not applicable " but has mentioned in one's signatures " The Holy Trinity: Knowledge > Understanding > Creation". What is its significance, please?
What method/technique does one use to know right from wrong and or good from evil, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

I understand that science, mathematics and logic
together can only discern a limited aspects of life , not the whole of life. Right, please?

I doubt our math and science as it exists now can ever answer the big questions or make predictions. It's more possible, though hardly a certainty, that science can some day become virtually omniscient. Keep in mind though that we will never have the computational ability to make long range predictions OR be able to predict the very small scale. "Virtual omniscient" will simply mean we are aware of all the gross logic that underlies reality, not that we can necessarily be able utilize it to any of our purposes nor predict every result of our actions.

I am not "religious" in that I have no recognized association with any religion. It is not applicable.

I strive to have no beliefs at all but it is my opinion based on logic and evidence that modern religions sprang from a confusion of ancient science. Ancient science was essentially just animal science and was tied to reality through the logic of the wiring of the animal/ human brain. This science is different than modern science and necessarily resonated with every consciousness and was a species wide manifestation of human knowledge and its metaphysics was a universal language. This is why the concepts of religion still resonate with people and its teaching are still followed. The Holy Trinity: "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation" is the most direct tie to ancient applied science and the least "confused" of all ancient concepts. The point of life is to enjoy it and leave the world a better place while individuals (and species) can accomplish this only through knowledge and what that entails and ensues. I'm somewhat "spiritual" so often find more common ground with religious people than any scientist who lacks understanding of metaphysics. Without metaphysics nobody can really know what he knows.

This probably doesn't answer your questions but it was a sincere attempt. I have no degrees nor much formal education and am self taught from a very young age. I am a generalist and tend to think of myself as a second rate nexialist.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

Science, maths and logic are all based on quantification, and we can only properly quantify the physical, not the metaphysical. It's is beyond quantification. So yes, science, maths, logic are all limited [as I said in my initial posts].

 

[cladking]

Science, maths and logic are all based on quantification, and we can only properly quantify the physical, not the metaphysical. It's is beyond quantification. So yes, science, maths, logic are all limited [as I said in my initial posts].

I disagree.

Logic, real logic, is inherently digital. When we try to force it into our analog language it necessarily fails despite sometimes appearing sound.

Math is logic quantified but look at the distortions that give us concepts with no referent such as "infinity". The logic of math is sound but the quantification is not because no two identical thing can exist and once something ceases to exist it can never exist again.

The real problem with science is simply the complexity of reality. Even if we ever figure out all the variables and quantify them by the time we start the computation it will become too complex to continue.

Reality is a complex series of events and is logical and digital in nature.

 

[cladking]

Reality is a complex series of events and is logical and digital in nature.

Consciousness is the basis of life and is also logical and digital and based on the wiring of the brain. Modern man uses analog language and thinks using this analog device. We are separated from our natures by analog language.

 

[Brian2]

Just a guess then! Time for us is time within our universe which is not infinite. If time exists outside our universe, i.e. in a multiverse scenario it may or may not be infinite, yet we are here.

It's logic based on what we can see of time from where we are. It does not bring in any hypotheses of things we know nothing about.

You cannot use cause and effect in a multiverse. As we know it, it is associated with the second law of thermodynamics which may or may not exist outside our universe. Thinking is that the laws that govern our universe were created after the bb, some time towards the end of the grand unification epoch

That sounds like the laws of physics weren't in existence as part of a possible way the universe could have come into existence from nothing. But I guess there are different hypotheses about how the universe could have come into existence.

I don't think science is adding to the confusion but lay persons who cannot live with "we dont know" are making whatever ideas fit their own belief.

Yes I do that sort of thing sometimes when I look at scienctific ideas. Maybe there are so many hypotheses about origins of the universe etc in part because some people cannot live with the data pointing to a creator.

Whether it continues after that?

Yes.

 

[Brian2]

What do you mean by 'really infinity'? if it simply means 'not finite', then it is easy to 'add to infinity'.

For example, the collection of natural numbers is infinite: 1,2,3,4,5,6,....

You can add 0 to this and get another infinite set: 0,1,2,3,4,5,...

You can add -1 to this and get another.

Alternatively, the set of even natural numbers is infinite: 2,4,6,8,10,...

And the set of odd natural numbers is infinite: 1,3,5,7,9,...

You can 'add' the two infinite sets together and get another infinite set: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...

Yes you can have infinity stretching in one direction from a point. But "infinity" is not a real number and so we are not adding to it really by starting in a different place or wanting to theoretically divide it in 2 by taking every second number (even numbers).

No, an infinite time into the past simply means that if you start now and go backwards, you never get to a starting point.

Why would being able to get to this point mean you have a finite past? Remember, there is no *start*: time is just always going.

If we could go backwards in time to the start of time it would mean that we would be going back a finite amount of time. If we could go forward in time from the past to this point in time then we would need to be moving through a finite amount of time to be able to do that.
Not being able to get to a starting point when going backwards in time means that we could not be able to get to this point going forward from infinity.

Well, every causal interaction produces new information: that the causes were there to interact. So, yes, information in part of the universe. It is even described as negative entropy.

That's interesting, but it would not have any effect on entropy I guess without a mechanism for that to happen. There would have to be something to remember and use the information.