Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Show where you got that absurd definition of existence. There is a hell of a lot in this universe that we can not observe because they are to far, to small, to conceiled. Just because we can't observe them or even know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist.

My argument does not contain the claim that we can possibly count all that exists. All it states is that if something exists there is the possibility to count it.

As to your logical fallacy of begging the question, your first premis is just a rewording of the conclusion you want to make - classic logical fallacy frequently used by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.

You don't even understand the argument and you want to throw around some fallacy as a smoke screen.

It isn't at all helpful.

 

[skepticalbip]

My argument does not contain the claim that we can possibly count all that exists. All it states is that if something exists there is the possibility to count it.

Just damned. Can't you make a response to the post rather than try to shift to something you think you can support even though your claim that we can "theoretically" count anything that exists has already been blown out of the water.

The subject of the post you are supposedly responding to is the absurdity of your definition of existence. Care to support it? I'll give your definition to you in case you forgot; "If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way."

As to your logical fallacy of begging the question, your first premis is just a rewording of the conclusion you want to make - classic logical fallacy frequently used by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.

You don't even understand the argument and you want to throw around some fallacy as a smoke screen.

It isn't at all helpful.

I'm sorry, I had given you credit for understanding logic.

Look up "logical fallacy" "Begging the question".

 

[untermensche]

Just damned. Can't you make a response to the post rather than try to shift to something you think you can support even though your claim that we can "theoretically" count anything that exists has already been blown out of the water.

Nothing has been blown anywhere. It is still a fact that if something exists it can possibly be counted.

And I include measurement as a kind of counting. Since of course time and space can't be counted, they are measured. But the concept is the process of assigning a number.

Try to address that.

Are you claiming that it is possible for something to exist that can't either be counted or measured? What thing that exists have you encountered where this isn't the case?

 

[skepticalbip]

Just damned. Can't you make a response to the post rather than try to shift to something you think you can support even though your claim that we can "theoretically" count anything that exists has already been blown out of the water.

Nothing has been blown anywhere. It is still a fact that if something exists it can possibly be counted.

And I include measurement as a kind of counting. Since of course time and space can't be counted, they are measured. But the concept is the process of assigning a number.

Try to address that.

Are you claiming that it is possible for something to exist that can't either be counted or measured? What thing that exists have you encountered where this isn't the case?

So you don't even want to try to defend your asinine definition of existence or your logical error of begging the question?
O.K.

Yes, it is possible for something to exist that we can not count or measure the full extent of it/them. However we can certainly count or measure a representative portion of it/them - if we are able to observe it/them.

 

[ryan]

You wouldn't finish in a finite number of seconds, but you would in an infinite number of seconds. We don't know if time ends or even if time began.

When will this infinite amount of seconds pass so that the counting is finished?

Well, if there is an infinite number of seconds and an infinite number of seconds can pass, then it will pass in an infinite number of seconds. Maybe an infinite number of seconds have already passed.

 

[Kharakov]

Your argument is logical in the sense that it is logical to present illogical arguments to perpetuate conversation and learning.

That's an opinion that has no demonstration.

I know. I try to be cautious about statements like that- because I truly can't tell if you are being clever and sarcastic, teaching through counterexample, or simply incorrect. If you are being sarcastic, a little hint would help. If teaching through counterexample, you could also say so.

However, if you simply have an incorrect idea it's the responsibility of the community to critique your the idea and teach you the correct idea, as the truth is good.

If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists.

Plenty of things exist that we cannot directly perceive, although with inference and our imaginations we can determine they probably do exist.

Assuming smooth time (evidenced by Pi found in nature-smoothness of EM, gravitational fields), there are an infinite amount of different states between t=1 and t=2 with just 2 particles traveling in relation to one another (interacting through gravity alone). Assuming smooth time, we can't count the number of states between t=1 and t=2, but each state is real.

This is only a model of reality. It is a mathematical construct.

There are many models of reality which have varying accuracy at predicting reality. If a system predicts things that happen in reality (such as QED), one can effectively say that if the system is smooth, reality itself is smooth.

In fact, the idea of the graininess (non-smoothness) of spacetime is a proposed "mathematical construct". There is (AFAIK) no evidence that spacetime is grainy- the mathematical constructs which would indicate that space is even slightly grainy have all failed to make accurate predictions, and the  INTEGRAL observations of distant  gamma ray bursts have not detected any granularity.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein

Another "mathematical construct" describes spacetime as smooth. This one is called  general relativity.

So the mathematical constructs that you so readily dismiss as "only models" describe both the hypothetical finite state reality and the actual smooth reality. Guess what- reality has aspects of both.

We cannot assume smooth time. We cannot assume such a thing as infinite states.

Yeah. You're supposed to infer the existence of both via your experience of reality. Inference is not assumption. Your inference is supposed to encompass inferring that we have a collective experience of reality as well as personal experience of reality.

What you are talking about is imaginary not real.

It is both. The problem is that you appear to believe certain real components are entirely imaginary, and don't understand how the imaginary components relate to reality.

 

[untermensche]

When will this infinite amount of seconds pass so that the counting is finished?

Well, if there is an infinite number of seconds and an infinite number of seconds can pass, then it will pass in an infinite number of seconds. Maybe an infinite number of seconds have already passed.

That to me is an evasion.

The answer is, never.

 

[untermensche]

Plenty of things exist that we cannot directly perceive, although with inference and our imaginations we can determine they probably do exist.

I include perception via inference as the same thing as direct perception. The inference must flow from evidence for the inference to be valid.

So suppose we say there is this real thing that can't be perceived directly but it's existence can be inferred from things we can see. Something like dark energy.

Because dark energy is inferred from actual perception it can be measured. So the fact that something is only inferred does not mean it can't be counted or measured.

There are many models of reality which have varying accuracy at predicting reality. If a system predicts things that happen in reality (such as QED), one can effectively say that if the system is smooth, reality itself is smooth.

Smoothness is a conceptual construct.

It is a description of reality, not the same thing as reality. If I describe a dog at no time do my descriptions become a dog.

 

[George S]

The subject of the post you are supposedly responding to is the absurdity of your definition of existence. Care to support it? I'll give your definition to you in case you forgot; "That is the definition of existence. If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists."

"in some way" covers a lot of ground. As long as indirect perception is allowed. We cannot see dark matter. Trillions upon trillions flowing through us every second imperceptibly. But without its gravity galaxies would look different. We know it is real, and that's about it.

I perceive time but not by visualizing a line but instead a 4-D manifold. There is a natural slice (partial derivative) named now. Funny thing about it, though, it looks different from different locations. To one observer A preceded B, and to another B preceded A. And they're both right!

Now. The eternal changing moment. Just as a mass must fall it must do so in its own present moment. The time slice above, it bends and weaves at the quantum level. Photon behavior, guiding wave interpretation, has each photon peering into the future with the future affecting what's happening now. Entanglement. Two distinct space time locations share a now, but not a here.

Everything falls. Technically energy flows down geodesics over time. That is all there is. This vector, magnitude and direction, is the sum of the 4 forces contributions. Massless things fall very fast. Things with mass run into the goo of the Higgs field.

Note that each "point" particle must not be a point if gravity varies as the inverse square of distance so as to avoid dividing by zero. Each mass has a here and now, a sphere no other particle may penetrate upon penalty of mutually assured destruction.

A mind's subjective time? I suspect it is the brain doing some counting. Those two are talking bowling. Trapped with them I'm forced to listen. To them time passed quickly in interesting conversation, but to me it was blah, blah, blah punctuated by a word that was used in a novel way.

 

[Kharakov]

Smoothness is a conceptual construct.

It is a description of reality, not the same thing as reality. If I describe a dog at no time do my descriptions become a dog.

The granular models of spacetime do not make accurate predictions. The smooth model of spacetime does make accurate predictions.

From this, what can we infer about the nature of spacetime?

 

[untermensche]

Smoothness is a conceptual construct.

It is a description of reality, not the same thing as reality. If I describe a dog at no time do my descriptions become a dog.

The granular models of spacetime do not make accurate predictions. The smooth model of spacetime does make accurate predictions.

From this, what can we infer about the nature of spacetime?

But we can't say that the "smoothness" of spacetime is the same thing as the predictive models. They are two completely different things.

 

[skepticalbip]

The granular models of spacetime do not make accurate predictions. The smooth model of spacetime does make accurate predictions.

From this, what can we infer about the nature of spacetime?

But we can't say that the "smoothness" of spacetime is the same thing as the predictive models. They are two completely different things.

That must be a royal "we". Science hasn't been sold on solipsism so they can say that the data confirming the model is reason to believe that the model is describing reality.

 

[ryan]

Well, if there is an infinite number of seconds and an infinite number of seconds can pass, then it will pass in an infinite number of seconds. Maybe an infinite number of seconds have already passed.

That to me is an evasion.

The answer is, never.

Yes, that is a reasonable answer. But how do we really know that an infinite number of seconds can't pass?

 

[untermensche]

But we can't say that the "smoothness" of spacetime is the same thing as the predictive models. They are two completely different things.

That must be a royal "we". Science hasn't been sold on solipsism so they can say that the data confirming the model is reason to believe that the model is describing reality.

This is not responsive to the point.

 

[untermensche]

That to me is an evasion.

The answer is, never.

Yes, that is a reasonable answer. But how do we really know that an infinite number of seconds can't pass?

That concept is imbedded in the definition.

You can't have both an amount of seconds that is infinite and an amount of seconds that will pass.

 

[skepticalbip]

That must be a royal "we". Science hasn't been sold on solipsism so they can say that the data confirming the model is reason to believe that the model is describing reality.

This is not responsive to the point.

I saw no point other than your saying that you can't "know". Meanwhile science goes on reaching new understandings used to develop things (from those understandings that you can't know) that you use daily and probably find indespensable.

 

[untermensche]

This is not responsive to the point.

I saw no point other than your saying that you can't "know". Meanwhile science goes on reaching new understandings used to develop things that you use daily and probably find indespensable.

The point was not "you can't "know"".

And I have not the least problem with science. I just understand the differences between models and the thing they model.

 

[skepticalbip]

I saw no point other than your saying that you can't "know". Meanwhile science goes on reaching new understandings used to develop things that you use daily and probably find indespensable.

The point was not "you can't "know"".

And I have not the least problem with science. I just understand the differences between models and the thing they model.

Anyone with any sense understands that difference.

However:

Science hasn't been sold on solipsism so they can say that the data confirming the model is reason to believe that the model is describing reality.

Not reality but a description of reality.

 

[ryan]

Yes, that is a reasonable answer. But how do we really know that an infinite number of seconds can't pass?

That concept is imbedded in the definition.

You can't have both an amount of seconds that is infinite and an amount of seconds that will pass.

Because you are arguing about this using logic, I will turn to mathematical logic. According to mathematical logic, you can.

Mathematics gives a logical explanation on how an infinite number of subintervals can pass given an infinitely long interval. Intuitively this doesn't seem right, but it is.

 

[untermensche]

That concept is imbedded in the definition.

You can't have both an amount of seconds that is infinite and an amount of seconds that will pass.

Because you are arguing about this using logic, I will turn to mathematical logic. According to mathematical logic, you can.

Mathematics gives a logical explanation on how an infinite number of subintervals can pass given an infinitely long interval. Intuitively this doesn't seem right, but it is.

The only place you will find those infinities is in mathematics.

They have a definitional logic within mathematics but we are talking about time itself not mathematics, or the models that help humans make some sense of it.

If we say there are an infinite amount of seconds then those seconds will never pass.

We can't divide time into sub-intervals. It is not a thing that can be divided. There is no knife to cut it. All we can do is and measure the passing of it with some arbitrary repeating system.