Infinite Past

[bilby]

Entropy is universal. It's not specific to consciousness. The 'arrow of time' doesn't require anything specific to consciousness, as it can be seen to apply to non-conscious matter (unless you are an adherent of panpsychism).

Yes, that's the point. We already know the properties of entropy; it increases in one direction in time. But what explains the observation of time? That is a different property.

Are you sure?

 

[ryan]

Yes, that's the point. We already know the properties of entropy; it increases in one direction in time. But what explains the observation of time? That is a different property.

Are you sure?

Physics has properties that are observable directly or indirectly. But observing these properties is another property. This property that is the consciousness is not like physical properties. It's something else entirely.

 

[Bronzeage]

I can find many arguments, much worse than that. Some in this thread. False equivocation does not make an argument.

No you can't.

There is no possible worse argument.

It isn't an argument.

It is somebody frustrated that they do not have one.

Are you still claiming that gravity isn't real?

It was you that mentioned gravity, not me. If we could keep time in a bottle, it would be real. As the great Physicist Jim Croce, determined, this cannot be done.

 

[DBT]

Awww. That's so cute, that you think people are still interested in making good arguments against your unsupported bald assertions.

We all gave up some time ago, when it became apparent that you have no actual argument to make, and that absolutely nothing will change your mind one iota.

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.

No, bilby is right and you are wrong. Practically everything everyone has said is right and you are wrong, sorry to say. You really need to consider what is being said without the blinkers of your own convictions.

 

[DBT]

As I said, we experience and measure change and call the rate of change being experienced and/or measured ''time'' - sun and moon and stars in different positions, tides, seasons, animals and people coming and going, etc....all being rates of change, not in the past, not in the future, but here and now. always here and now.

But I am wondering how change could even exist with nothing in the past to compare it to.

You are comparing different conditions right now, here and now is where you live, perceive, measure and think. Now there are clouds building up where there was clear skies, then was now as now is now and when it starts raining, it will be now. It is always here and now, first clear skies, here and now. Then cloudy skies, here and now. Then rain, here and now. Here and now is an ever changing here and now, what we call the past is gone and what we call the future does not exist until our predictions of 'future' conditions form here and now (often wrongly predicted). So everything happens here and now in this instance.

That's if presentism is the way of the Universe. Block time is altogether another kind of beast.

 

[untermensche]

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.

No, bilby is right and you are wrong. Practically everything everyone has said is right and you are wrong, sorry to say. You really need to consider what is being said without the blinkers of your own convictions.

What you are seeing is my tendency to attack bad ideas.

That is all.

You repeatedly put forth unsupported ideas and I attack them because of that.

What you neglect to see is all the things you say I make no comments on.

You are biased.

 

[DBT]

Mind blowing irony there. Mr Untermensche, hard to believe you mean that seriously, that you aren't pulling my leg.

 

[untermensche]

Mind blowing irony there. Mr Untermensche, hard to believe you mean that seriously, that you aren't pulling my leg.

That is not an argument of any kind.

The fact that you think what you are saying has some truth in it is not in question.

Your ability to support any of it with argument is.

 

[DBT]

Mind blowing irony there. Mr Untermensche, hard to believe you mean that seriously, that you aren't pulling my leg.

That is not an argument of any kind.

I wasn't responding to an argument. You made assertions based on what you believe, not valid argument based on evidence.

The fact that you think what you are saying has some truth in it is not in question.

That's a prime example of what you are saying right now.

Your ability to support any of it with argument is.

Where is the evidence for your assertions in this thread and others like it?

 

[untermensche]

Where is the evidence for your assertions in this thread and others like it?

There is no evidence to be found to support either a finite or infinite universe.

But infinity is a made-up concept, like god.

To apply it to the universe is an act of faith, not reason.

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a start, I don't apply what I say to real time. The premise of your question is therefore false.

I don't apply what I say to real time because I understand that what I perceive of time is most likely but a minor aspect of it and likely misleading as to the reality of time.
EB

All you are doing is desperately trying to apply this imaginary made-up concept (infinity) to time.

All you are doing is trying to apply something imaginary to something real.

Can you support your claim here?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The idea of an infinite past is that of time without beginning, that is, no starting point in the distant past.

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.

Can you justify that what you say here is at all relevant to what I say about the idea of an infinite past?
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.

Can you justify that what you say here is at all relevant to what I say about the idea of an infinite past?
EB

If anyone here is a fan of Dan Dennett, I recommend reading his article Real Patterns, in which he responds to his various tedious detractors that his ideas about intentionality are not "realist."

"Real" is a toy word. Really? Truly? For real?

 

[untermensche]

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.

Can you justify that what you say here is at all relevant to what I say about the idea of an infinite past?
EB

To apply the concept of "infinite" to real things is irrational.

Infinity is a mathematical concept that is used to solve problems.

How anybody thinks you can apply such a thing to the universe is amazing.

 

[DBT]

Where is the evidence for your assertions in this thread and others like it?

There is no evidence to be found to support either a finite or infinite universe.

But infinity is a made-up concept, like god.

To apply it to the universe is an act of faith, not reason.

It has yet to be determined whether time had a beginning or not. It may have or may be that our 'universe' is a part of greater system which is eternal, nobody knows.

As it stands, we have the concept of eternity and there is nothing to exclude the possibility of the reality of eternity even if we currently lack the means to prove it. There's nothing that intrinsically eliminates the possibility of eternal time.

 

[bilby]

There is no evidence to be found to support either a finite or infinite universe.

But infinity is a made-up concept, like god.

To apply it to the universe is an act of faith, not reason.

It has yet to be determined whether time had a beginning or not. It may have or may be that our 'universe' is a part of greater system which is eternal, nobody knows.

As it stands, we have the concept of eternity and there is nothing to exclude the possibility of the reality of eternity even if we currently lack the means to prove it. There's nothing that intrinsically eliminates the possibility of eternal time.

Except untermensche's extreme dislike of the idea, which is evidently more than enough for him.

 

[DBT]

Yes, the irrational power of faith.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Can you justify that what you say here is at all relevant to what I say about the idea of an infinite past?
EB

To apply the concept of "infinite" to real things is irrational.

Infinity is a mathematical concept that is used to solve problems.

How anybody thinks you can apply such a thing to the universe is amazing.

So you can't.

No big news here.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

For a start, I don't apply what I say to real time. The premise of your question is therefore false.

I don't apply what I say to real time because I understand that what I perceive of time is most likely but a minor aspect of it and likely misleading as to the reality of time.
EB

All you are doing is desperately trying to apply this imaginary made-up concept (infinity) to time.

All you are doing is trying to apply something imaginary to something real.

For the second time, can you support your claim here?
EB

 

[untermensche]

All you are doing is desperately trying to apply this imaginary made-up concept (infinity) to time.

All you are doing is trying to apply something imaginary to something real.

For the second time, can you support your claim here?
EB

All you have to do is demonstrate that infinity is something real to show it is wrong.

If you can't demonstrate in any way that infinity is real, yet you believe it is, that is called religion.

And if infinity can't be shown to be real in any way thinking it is not is called reason.

No different from thinking the gods are not real.

Does the atheist have to prove the concept of god is not real to disbelieve it?

Or is the burden always on the person claiming something is real to prove it?