Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

That's a good question. As would be, what is the point of "the past isn't real"?

Random argument walk syndrome, perhaps. I also referred to it as dart throwing earlier.

 

[Juma]

This is your biggest fault: you doesnt really acknowledge your own errors, you just gloss them over and blame the result on the other part.

You should take full responsibility for your posts.

In ryan's defense, I've seen him acknowledge errors and change his position in response to reason several times in the past.

Yes, i know: in the past. But not lately.

 

[bilby]

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

That's a good question. As would be, what is the point of "the past isn't real"?

Random argument walk syndrome, perhaps. I also referred to it as dart throwing earlier.

If you can't show that a finite past is more reasonable than an infinite past, despite claiming that the idea of an infinite past is illogical, then where else can you go than into the bizarre assertion that neither exist?

At least if the past is non-existent, the shamefully poor attempts at logic, used earlier in the thread in an attempt to support the claim that an infinite past is illogical, can be declared never to have been made.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

If the universe is frozen it can't do anything. It can't cease to exist. It is there frozen.

You have not given a rational objection to the conception.

And the purpose is to model a universal "now". If the universe can be imagined to be frozen then that frozen universe can only represent one moment in time.

 

[Juma]

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

If the universe is frozen it can't do anything. It can't cease to exist. It is there frozen.

What are you talking about? What do you mean frozen? Do you mean that every speed and acceleration is set to zero? Or do you just mean that you take a "snapshot" of the entire state of the universe when a certain event happens?

 

[ryan]

I don't think that it makes sense to assign a number that is not unique to something that is unique. It would be like saying that there are 11 days in the last 7 days.

Anyways, I don't care about that argument as much as I do the next argument.

So you agree that that argument is flawed?

I am not sure. I certainly don't feel as strong about it as I do with the argument that you left out of the post.

 

[Juma]

So you agree that that argument is flawed?

I am not sure. I certainly don't feel as strong about it as I do with the argument that you left out of the post.

You are not sure? What is there to be unsure of? Did you read my post? It clearly shows that the argument is shit.

 

[untermensche]

If the universe is frozen it can't do anything. It can't cease to exist. It is there frozen.

What are you talking about? What do you mean frozen? Do you mean that every speed and acceleration is set to zero? Or do you just mean that you take a "snapshot" of the entire state of the universe when a certain event happens?

An imaginary snapshot. Nothing has changed.

If there is a universal now then it must be something we can conceptualize.

The conception of a universal now would be that frozen snapshot.

 

[Juma]

What are you talking about? What do you mean frozen? Do you mean that every speed and acceleration is set to zero? Or do you just mean that you take a "snapshot" of the entire state of the universe when a certain event happens?

An imaginary snapshot. Nothing has changed.

If there is a universal now then it must be something we can conceptualize.

The conception of a universal now would be that frozen snapshot.

If nothing changed then everything retains their speeds and accelerations etc.

So if we look at the example with the runner that runs through the tunnel: if you, the bystander, take the snapshot when the pole is totaly within the tunnel, there is no corresponding moment for the runner.

 

[ryan]

Do you think the past exists?

Where does it exist?

If only present moments exist, then your question does not exist; your doubt does not exist. Only instantaneous bits of sensations exist, no memories, logic, truths etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you saying it is conceptually impossible to halt all motion and all effects of energy?

What would prevent this conception?

If you halt all effects of energy the universe seizes to exist.

What is the point of such an example?

I think it is a holdover from way back when this randomly jumping thread ended up on relativity for a while. It seems that it was some attempt to show that relative velocities had no effect on time or sequence of events or something like that. I could be wrong but that's my recollection.

Why it resurfaced, I don't have a clue.

 

[Juma]

Do you think the past exists?

Where does it exist?

If only present moments exist, then your question does not exist; your doubt does not exist. Only instantaneous bits of sensations exist, no memories, logic, truths etc.

You can think like this:
You have only access to the present. That that was present earlier (and now is past) affect us only through how it affects the present.

 

[untermensche]

Do you think the past exists?

Where does it exist?

If only present moments exist, then your question does not exist; your doubt does not exist. Only instantaneous bits of sensations exist, no memories, logic, truths etc.

Saying the present is all that exists does not mean memories don't exist.

Memories are not the past. They were made in the past.

Playing a song that was recorded in the past is not listening in the past. It is listening to something recorded in the past.

But all listening occurs in the present. All remembrance occurs in the present.

 

[ryan]

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

This is your biggest fault: you doesnt really acknowledge your own errors, you just gloss them over and blame the result on the other part.

You should take full responsibility for your posts.

I think your quote of me is evidence that I did acknowledge my mistake.

And bilby said something that made me realize that the argument I was using most of this thread was insufficient. It was that an arithmetic increasing sequence (from -infinity) can have an upper bound (any integer), which blows my mind but was also a tough pill to swallow.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure. I certainly don't feel as strong about it as I do with the argument that you left out of the post.

You are not sure? What is there to be unsure of? Did you read my post? It clearly shows that the argument is shit.

What post?

- - - Updated - - -

If only present moments exist, then your question does not exist; your doubt does not exist. Only instantaneous bits of sensations exist, no memories, logic, truths etc.

You can think like this:
You have only access to the present. That that was present earlier (and now is past) affect us only through how it affects the present.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[untermensche]

An imaginary snapshot. Nothing has changed.

If there is a universal now then it must be something we can conceptualize.

The conception of a universal now would be that frozen snapshot.

If nothing changed then everything retains their speeds and accelerations etc.

So if we look at the example with the runner that runs through the tunnel: if you, the bystander, take the snapshot when the pole is totaly within the tunnel, there is no corresponding moment for the runner.

The snapshot is a snapshot of the whole universe and it is observed from without, not within.

It is not a snapshot taken by any person in the universe.

In a frozen universe no person can take a snapshot. No person can do anything.

 

[Juma]

This is your biggest fault: you doesnt really acknowledge your own errors, you just gloss them over and blame the result on the other part.

You should take full responsibility for your posts.

I think your quote of me is evidence that I did acknowledge my mistake.

And bilby said something that made me realize that the argument I was using most of this thread was insufficient. It was that an arithmetic increasing sequence (from -infinity) can have an upper bound (any integer), which blows my mind but was also a tough pill to swallow.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure. I certainly don't feel as strong about it as I do with the argument that you left out of the post.

You are not sure? What is there to be unsure of? Did you read my post? It clearly shows that the argument is shit.

What post?

#2008

 

[ryan]

If only present moments exist, then your question does not exist; your doubt does not exist. Only instantaneous bits of sensations exist, no memories, logic, truths etc.

Saying the present is all that exists does not mean memories don't exist.

Let's say that I bite into an apple. I choose to concentrate on the apple and its taste, smell, feel, etc. In your theory, the memories and pretty much everything else in the universe would not exist since the present is mentally "occupied" with the apple.

Memories are not the past. They were made in the past.

Don't you mean that they were made in the present since you are saying that the past doesn't exist?

 

[Juma]

If nothing changed then everything retains their speeds and accelerations etc.

So if we look at the example with the runner that runs through the tunnel: if you, the bystander, take the snapshot when the pole is totaly within the tunnel, there is no corresponding moment for the runner.

The snapshot is a snapshot of the whole universe and it is observed from without, not within.

It is not a snapshot taken by any person in the universe.

In a frozen universe no person can take a snapshot. No person can do anything.

The pole is never completely inside the tunnel in the frame of the runner but it is for the guy at rest relative the tunnel. How can these two have a common now?

 

[untermensche]

It was that an arithmetic increasing sequence (from -infinity) can have an upper bound (any integer), which blows my mind but was also a tough pill to swallow.

First of all you shouldn't commit to any argument until you have thought it through.

But infinite time is not an infinity like an infinity of fractions bounded by a whole number.

Infinite time is like the infinity of the positive integers. It is an ever growing infinity that is unbounded. It never hits anything.

Both the past and the future begin at the present and move away from it. If they are infinite they move away forever. They are not bounded by anything.

To avoid this argument some are making the ludicrous claim that the past ends at the present. They have to turn reality on it's head to make this claim. The present comes before the past. The present can't be the end of something that happens after it.

We say the future starts at the present because it comes after the present. We should be consistent in our conceptions and also say the past starts at the present because it comes after it.

 

[untermensche]

The snapshot is a snapshot of the whole universe and it is observed from without, not within.

It is not a snapshot taken by any person in the universe.

In a frozen universe no person can take a snapshot. No person can do anything.

The pole is never completely inside the tunnel in the frame of the runner but it is for the guy at rest relative the tunnel. How can these two have a common now?

They are viewing the same thing differently. Just as a change in position will cause us to view the same building differently.

They have the same now as they do this.

But we don't say the conception of a snapshot of the universe, which is a better conception than frozen universe, can't happen because two observers see something different in a moving universe. What they see in a moving universe has no bearing on whether we can conceptualize a snapshot of that moving universe.