The religion of "no beginning".

[bilby]

Zero of anything is to have none of it.

Zero bricks is to have no bricks.

Zero space shuttles is to have no space shuttles.

Zero time is to have no time.

You cannot make a rational argument about time by claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead.

You do not know it.

Oh dear.

So sad.

You just killed most of the mathematics, science and engineering developed since the 17th Century. I hope there were not too many deaths when all our technology suddenly stopped working, due to your brilliant and unassailable proof.

 

[Kharakov]

What is the duration of these fractions of seconds?

The limit that Zeno's alleged paradox approaches is 1. 1/2 +1/4 +1/8 +1/16... = 1
The speed at which the next time unit passes is: 2 units per second for the first one. 4 units per second of the second one, 8 units per second for the third time unit..

So each time period passes by twice as fast as the one before it. Eventually, you get bored with the idea and accept that the second passed a long time ago, when you were still a bit stupider about infinity.

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

There isn't a smallest division.

There is a lowest IQ.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

There isn't a smallest division.

Zero?

There is a lowest IQ.

Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.


I don't understand this business about IQ, anyway.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Zero of anything is to have none of it.

Zero bricks is to have no bricks.

Zero space shuttles is to have no space shuttles.

Zero time is to have no time.

You cannot make a rational argument about time by claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead.

You do not know it.

Oh dear.

So sad.

You just killed most of the mathematics, science and engineering developed since the 17th Century. I hope there were not too many deaths when all our technology suddenly stopped working, due to your brilliant and unassailable proof.

I offered you the opportunity to show where calculus proves that zero time is an amount of time.

Go ahead prove it.

Your argument is dead.

You just don't know it.

Time cannot rationally be divided infinitely.

Only imaginary things can be imagined to be divided infinitely.

 

[untermensche]

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

There isn't a smallest division.

Then it is a lie to say it can be accomplished.

It is a lie to say time can be divided infinitely.

It can't rationally be done.

 

[Val]

If you divide one second by infinity what is the duration of each division?

Infinity multiplied by zero is not one.

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between countable and non-countable infinite sets.

 

[untermensche]

If you divide one second by infinity what is the duration of each division?

Infinity multiplied by zero is not one.

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between countable and non-countable infinite sets.

That is not an answer to the question.

Nothing can rationally be divided by infinity.

We just by definition say an infinite slice is equivalent to zero. Infinite divisions never actually happens or could happen. It is making divisions forever.

 

[Val]

What's infinity divided by infinity? Lmao.

You need to stop treating infinity as a scalar when it suits you while rejecting it when it suits you.

 

[untermensche]

The use of infinity in mathematics is a trick, a slight of hand.

It is never actually used. It is not a thing that can be used.

And in the real world it does not exist in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

What's infinity divided by infinity? Lmao.

You need to stop treating infinity as a scalar when it suits you while rejecting it when it suits you.

What is god divided by god? Giving something a name is not proving it exists.

You need to answer my question first.

What is the duration of the smallest slice if you claim to have sliced time infinite times?

 

[Val]

Doesn't it? Is the universe infinite or not?

 

[Val]

Non-zero, that is, >0. That's all you need to know. For today's homework you shall go google on the cardinality of infinite sets.

 

[untermensche]

Non-zero, that is, >0. That's all you need to know. For today's homework you shall go google on the cardinality of infinite sets.

Bullshit.

Lies are not arguments.

If it is greater than zero there can only be a finite amount of them.

No matter how small.

 

[Val]

What the fuck? Now you're denying that time is divisible to begin with whether it's infinite or not! Lmao.

 

[untermensche]

What the fuck? Now you're denying that time is divisible to begin with whether it's infinite or not! Lmao.

I am claiming that if you have a slice of time greater than zero a finite amount of them would be contained in one second. No matter how small. There is no slice too small that a finite amount of them will not fill the space.

You can never have an infinite number of slices.

Infinity is not a rational concept to try to apply to time.

It is not a rational concept to try to apply to anything real.

It can be worked with by using tricks, not actually having infinity ever expressed, in mathematics.

 

[untermensche]

The issue of this thread is the idea of traversing, completely traveling, an infinite line.

The past has all been traversed at any given moment.

It therefore could not have been infinite.

It is only possible to traverse finite lines.

 

[beero1000]

If you divide one second by infinity what is the duration of each division?

Infinity multiplied by zero is not one.

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between countable and non-countable infinite sets.

Oh sweet summer child, no! That way lies the stupid side of the force.

 

[untermensche]

Feel free to actually add substance and not just empty worthless opinion.

 

[beero1000]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[untermensche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

You have a little trouble understanding the difference between adding content and adding a worthless opinion.

Saying it is impossible to divide time infinitely because you do not end up with a slice that contains any time is content.

Actually refuting it is adding content as well.

 

[bilby]

Zero of anything is to have none of it.

Zero bricks is to have no bricks.

Zero space shuttles is to have no space shuttles.

Zero time is to have no time.

You cannot make a rational argument about time by claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead.

You do not know it.

Oh dear.

So sad.

You just killed most of the mathematics, science and engineering developed since the 17th Century. I hope there were not too many deaths when all our technology suddenly stopped working, due to your brilliant and unassailable proof.

I offered you the opportunity to show where calculus proves that zero time is an amount of time.

I offered you an opportunity to read what I wrote, and to respond to that; But you chose instead to ask me to prove something I never claimed. What a waste. I hope that you have apologised to whoever paid for your 'education'.

Go ahead prove it.

You prove it. It's only you who even raised it.

Your argument is dead.

You just don't know it.

Let's not start listing things the other person doesn't know; I will run out of space very quickly.

Time cannot rationally be divided infinitely.

So you keep baselessly asserting. Why you expect anyone else to agree, I have no idea.

Only imaginary things can be imagined to be divided infinitely.

Your continuing lack of imagination is not the killer argument you appear to imagine it to be.