Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

How could time that had no beginning and has always been passing not have a present moment?

Who said that time wouldn't have a present moment? Where did you get that from?

Are you not arguing that we could not have reached the present moment if there was no beginning to time? If not, please clarify.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing about relativity applies to the conception of a frozen universe observed in the imagination.

Relativity applies to a moving universe.

A frozen moment isn't a relative observation in a moving universe. It is a conception.

But it is a conception of something real.

If a universe can be frozen and be only one thing then that would represent a universal now.

Your trying to shove relativity into a situation where it doesn't apply is only evidence you don't understand the conception.

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.

Your claim as usual is ridiculous.

An imaginary conception of a frozen universe would include all things that can make observations. It can't be a relative observation. It could only be an imaginary conception.

It would be an imaginary conception where all motion ended. Without motion there are no relative observations.

Relative observations only occur in the presence of motion.

You are only demonstrating the many ways you can hide your head in the sand.

 

[ryan]

I was asking.

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

It is what time exists in.

Try again. If it is what time exists in then "units of time can not completely pass it" to use your word salad phrase. Just as I can not "pass" my house while I am sitting in it.

Yeah, I should have been more specific and said, "present time". A frame of reference has an intrinsic time whether there is anything in it or not. There may be a clock in it that measures 5 seconds. Of course all 5 seconds do not exist in this frame of reference, but all 5 seconds did exist in it. Eventually all 5 seconds pass, as we all know.

That is just more word salad and I'm not about to try to make sense of it.

Or you don't want to make sense of it.

If you didn't have a specific idea in mind when you used your "reference frame" then why the hell did you use it?

[Ah ha, ryan made a mistake; now I can weasel my way out.]

Your struggling to justify using it is damned funny.

You are easily amused.

 

[Mageth]

That's my argument.

If an amount of time that never finishes must pass before any present moment then that present moment cannot occur.

I know. But the post that Mageth was replying to had nothing to do with there being no present.

I'm confused. You do agree that the present could have been reached if the past was infinite, if there was no beginning to time? If so, what's your problem?

If not, what are you asserting with your shouted "How can all of something completely pass without ever starting?!" Which implies that the present could not have been reached if the past was infinite, if there was no beginning to time.

- - - Updated - - -

It would represent your now from your perspective. I would not represent a "universal now". Relativity doesn't bend to your wishes even if you really, really want it to.

If I'm conceptually looking at a frozen universe from beyond it then relativity doesn't apply. Relativity only applies within a moving universe.

This frozen universe would represent a universal "now".

I thought it was a Disney Movie.

 

[ryan]

Who said that time wouldn't have a present moment? Where did you get that from?

Are you not arguing that we could not have reached the present moment if there was no beginning to time? If not, please clarify.

I wasn't in the post that you replied to.

I believe it was bilby who reminded me of something in mathematics that allows an increasing infinite sequence to be bounded above. Although, I am still unsure whether I can or can't use it as an argument, so I haven't in a long time.

 

[Mageth]

Reiterating your claim, no matter how vehemently, is not the same as supporting it.

Saying empty words that don't address the argument quoted only brings the argument forward again. It doesn't dispense with the argument.

Your claim that the past is something real is ridiculous. You can't provide a shred of evidence to support that nonsense.

Deal with it.

If the past is not real then where the fuck did the OP to this thread come from????

 

[untermensche]

If the past is not real then where the fuck did the OP to this thread come from????

I can't go back to the time the first post was written.

I am stuck in the present and can never leave the present and have never been in anything but the present.

Real things can be observed. If the past is real where do we look to see it? Not something recorded in the past but the past itself.

 

[Mageth]

If the past is not real then where the fuck did the OP to this thread come from????

I can't go back to the time the first post was written.

I am stuck in the present and can never leave the present and have never been in anything but the present.

That's funny, I just left the present. I am a time traveler, traveling forward in time continually to the next present.

Real things can be observed. If the past is real where do we look to see it? Not something recorded in the past but the past itself.

Language is difficult. How could something be recorded in the past if the past is not real?

Methinks you're confusing physical with real. I can't whack the past with a hammer, but if I whack my desk with a hammer today the dent will still be there tomorrow. There's boatloads of evidence that the past exists (in the sense of "is real"). In fact, pretty much everything could be posited as such evidence. E.g., as I type this, the "Methinks" that I typed in the past is still there. How could that be if the past is not real? Is not "Methinks" a message or signal from the past, of sorts, evidence that the past does indeed exist, in the sense of being real?

 

[bilby]

If the past is not real then where the fuck did the OP to this thread come from????

I can't go back to the time the first post was written.

I am stuck in the present and can never leave the present and have never been in anything but the present.

Real things can be observed. If the past is real where do we look to see it? Not something recorded in the past but the past itself.

You are being fooled by your own experience into extrapolating a local condition to an assumed universal truth.

It is no more logical to say that the past does not exist than it is to say that nature abhors a vacuum. It is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

 

[untermensche]

That's funny, I just left the present. I am a time traveler, traveling forward in time continually to the next present.

You are not traveling, you are changing. But you are always in your present state. You are never in your future or past state.

Language is difficult. How could something be recorded in the past if the past is not real?

I suppose language is.

The past was the present. It used to be real. It is possible to record things in the present.

Looking at that recorded thing is not traveling in time.

Only a fool would think it is.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.

Your claim as usual is ridiculous.

An imaginary conception of a frozen universe would include all things that can make observations. It can't be a relative observation. It could only be an imaginary conception.

It would be an imaginary conception where all motion ended. Without motion there are no relative observations.

Relative observations only occur in the presence of motion.

You are only demonstrating the many ways you can hide your head in the sand.

You really should stop making statements about relativity since you know nothing about it. Relativity also defines space (even if it is "frozen") and the effects of gravity (even if the gravitating matter is frozen). The only thing "freezing" the universe would effect is time. What the "frozen" universe is depends on where you are when you look at it.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are not traveling, you are changing. But you are always in your present state. You are never in your future or past state.

Language is difficult. How could something be recorded in the past if the past is not real?

I suppose language is.

The past was the present. It used to be real. It is possible to record things in the present.

Looking at that recorded thing is not traveling in time.

Only a fool would think it is.

So since you now say that time doesn't exist, what happens to your claim that time started with the BB that you maintained for a couple hundred pages? Your new position would seem to mean that there was no such thing a past time so, obviously, no BB.

You seem to be trying to turn this mini-forum into a place to practice a little mental masturbation like most of our philosophy forum.

 

[untermensche]

You are being fooled by your own experience into extrapolating a local condition to an assumed universal truth.

Translation: I don't believe things that have no evidence to support their existence exist.

It is no more logical to say that the past does not exist than it is to say that nature abhors a vacuum. It is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.

These two statements can either be supported by evidence or they can't. No amount of hand waving can replace evidence.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

Having no evidence to support the existence of the past makes thinking it exists illogical. It is illogical to think that things with no evidence to support their existence exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

If there is evidence to support the fact that most of the universe is a hard vacuum then thinking it is would be a logical belief.

 

[untermensche]

So since you now say that time doesn't exist, what happens to your claim that time started with the BB that you maintained for a couple hundred pages? Your new position would seem to mean that there was no such thing a past time so, obviously, no BB.

You seem to be trying to turn this mini-forum into a place to practice a little mental masturbation like most of our philosophy forum.

To say the past does not exist is not saying time doesn't exist.

Time and the past are not the same thing. The past is the conception of time that previously passed.

If time passed previously then that means time DOES exist.

Why is everything you write the exact opposite of the way things are?

 

[skepticalbip]

Translation: I don't believe things that have no evidence to support their existence exist.

It is no more logical to say that the past does not exist than it is to say that nature abhors a vacuum. It is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.

These two statements can either be supported by evidence or they can't. No amount of hand waving can replace evidence.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

Having no evidence to support the existence of the past makes thinking it exists illogical. It is illogical to think that things with no evidence to support their existence exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

If there is evidence to support the fact that most of the universe is a hard vacuum then thinking it is would be a logical belief.

Oh shit, a whole post that is nothing but a string of arguments from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy in case you have forgotten.

 

[skepticalbip]

So since you now say that time doesn't exist, what happens to your claim that time started with the BB that you maintained for a couple hundred pages? Your new position would seem to mean that there was no such thing a past time so, obviously, no BB.

You seem to be trying to turn this mini-forum into a place to practice a little mental masturbation like most of our philosophy forum.

To say the past does not exist is not saying time doesn't exist.

Time and the past are not the same thing. The past is the conception of time that previously passed.

If time passed previously then that means time DOES exist.

Why is everything you write the exact opposite of the way things are?

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[untermensche]

You really should stop making statements about relativity since you know nothing about it. Relativity also defines space (even if it is "frozen") and the effects of gravity (even if the gravitating matter is frozen). The only thing "freezing" the universe would effect is time. What the "frozen" universe is depends on where you are when you look at it.

Relativity says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a frozen stationary unmoving universe.

There is nothing to say. Nothing is going on.

It is merely an arrangement of unmoving entities.

And the frozen universe can't be looked at. It can only be imagined.

The concept appears to be beyond you.

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: I don't believe things that have no evidence to support their existence exist.



These two statements can either be supported by evidence or they can't. No amount of hand waving can replace evidence.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

Having no evidence to support the existence of the past makes thinking it exists illogical. It is illogical to think that things with no evidence to support their existence exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

If there is evidence to support the fact that most of the universe is a hard vacuum then thinking it is would be a logical belief.

Oh shit, a whole post that is nothing but a string of arguments from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy in case you have forgotten.

It's called the foundation of science. Evidence.

Now you rail against the scientific method. There is no limit to your madness.

 

[skepticalbip]

Relativity says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a frozen stationary unmoving universe.

There is nothing to say. Nothing is going on.

It is merely an arrangement of unmoving entities.

And the frozen universe can't be looked at. It can only be imagined.

The concept appears to be beyond you.

As I said, you should quit talking about relativity. If you understood just a little more you would be damned embarassed if you are capable of embarassment.

Gravitating matter would still effect what you should imagine in your thought experiment. It would affect space and so the reality of what was there. "Freezing" time does not affect either gravity or space. If your thought experiment does not take this into account then you are only dreaming a fantasy world, not trying to understand the universe.

Translation: I don't believe things that have no evidence to support their existence exist.



These two statements can either be supported by evidence or they can't. No amount of hand waving can replace evidence.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

Having no evidence to support the existence of the past makes thinking it exists illogical. It is illogical to think that things with no evidence to support their existence exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

If there is evidence to support the fact that most of the universe is a hard vacuum then thinking it is would be a logical belief.

Oh shit, a whole post that is nothing but a string of arguments from incredulity. That is a logical fallacy in case you have forgotten.

It's called the foundation of science. Evidence.

Now you rail against the scientific method. There is no limit to your madness.

The evidence is there. It can not be poured into your brain if you resist for the sole purpose of maintaining denial.

The scientific method is to seek evidence (which is already there) and try to make sense of it. Your idea of the scientific method apparently is to close your eyes and ears and go lalalalalala so nothing you don't already believe gets in.

 

[bilby]

Translation: I don't believe things that have no evidence to support their existence exist.

It is no more logical to say that the past does not exist than it is to say that nature abhors a vacuum. It is an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.

These two statements can either be supported by evidence or they can't. No amount of hand waving can replace evidence.

No, you haven't ever been at any time that wasn't the present from your perspective; No, that doesn't mean that other parts of time don't exist.

Having no evidence to support the existence of the past makes thinking it exists illogical. It is illogical to think that things with no evidence to support their existence exist.

No, you haven't ever lived surrounded by hard vacuum; No, that doesn't mean that a vacuum doesn't exist in nature (in fact, most of the universe is a hard vacuum).

If there is evidence to support the fact that most of the universe is a hard vacuum then thinking it is would be a logical belief.

 

[Mageth]

So since you now say that time doesn't exist, what happens to your claim that time started with the BB that you maintained for a couple hundred pages? Your new position would seem to mean that there was no such thing a past time so, obviously, no BB.

You seem to be trying to turn this mini-forum into a place to practice a little mental masturbation like most of our philosophy forum.

To say the past does not exist is not saying time doesn't exist.

Time and the past are not the same thing. The past is the conception of time that previously passed.

If time passed previously then that means time DOES exist.

Why is everything you write the exact opposite of the way things are?

Let me get this straight...

If time passed previously then that means time DOES exist. The past is the conception of time that previously passed. But the past doesn't exist. Oh, and lest we forget, the present comes before the past...which is the conception of time that previously passed, but which is not real.

WTF???