Can time be infinite?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you missed it, "neither one necessarily indicates truth."

I must have. Where do you say this?

You said: "How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?"
Then I said: "And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?"
There it is! Plain as day as far as I'm concerned.

I, as usual, thought it might be clear, it wasn't a tit for tat game.

I was having a laugh, SpheresOfBalance. How many words for things I have no reason to think exist do you think I need?
I see no where in my dialog where I've insisted that you should, please specify.

It's that often people have the false illusion, and subsequent allusions that it means that they can only be right in that case you defend. And it's just not so!

Well, let's see:

I'll take responsibility for the "Absolute" but as far as an explanation, merely a hu'man attempt at putting into words that which transcends languages.

How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?

And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?

I really don't need words for things I have no reason to think exist and which I am not trying to describe.
My point is that your belief as to what you need words for, does not necessitate your not needing them. Though I think in this case it's more to do with your want, not your need.

You are trying to persuade me that something exists that you are incapable of describing.

I think that many speaking of absolutes don't try and define it, knowing instead, that one day we shall find it.

That's not what I understand as "knowing".
Can you really be so dishonest, believing you know everything? Not being capable of seeing knowing on your horizon?

I would argue that if it has no qualities that can be described in a natural language, English for example, then it doesn't exist.

Not at all, it's just that one cannot define something yet to be seen. There is a big difference between something not existing, and it not being known to exist, and neither one necessarily either proves or disproves anything either way.

That's not the point: mtmynd1 is talking about "that which transcends languages", ie that which, even if "one day we shall find it", we will still not be able to describe. That's actually true of everything; have a go at describing red, without reference to a red thing. mtmynd1 asked me to describe my best ever orgasm, I said it was a bit like his. If we don't have common experiences, it is very difficult to communicate. I have no experience of the 'absolute' and no expectation that I ever will. Still, if you and I ever do encounter the absolute, I'm sure we will find words to talk about it.
This is where we are having our problem. We see the absolute differently. To me it's not a thing, like you seem to indicate. To me the absolute is everything that is actually the case. It doesn't matter what it is, if it's known or not. We know some absolutes, all us humans. We once believed that the earth was flat. The absolute is that it's spheroid. I see that the actual truth of the universe is the absolute, whatever that might be. Whether it includes a creator, a big bang or not. What ever the actual truth of the matter is the absolute, it is free from imperfection; complete; perfect!

This really is 'Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must remain silent.' (Closing words of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, if you are interested.)

Which in no way means that what one 'believes' they can speak of is necessarily correct. Which is how many try and qualify it, even though they usually won't admit it.

Do you have any examples of people trying to qualify it so?
You, and anyone that believes Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus has the final words on the matter. Isn't that the point of following his words, to be correct. But then if everyone followed it, there would never be any progress. Einstein didn't know before speaking of it, he merely believed it, did some math that seemed to prove it, while someone many years later, conducted experiments to prove it, and while it still remains a theory, everyone uses it, as if fact.

Limply accepting that there things you cannot know is defeatist.

Quite the contrary, it's the other way around, as those things you believe you know often obfuscate, that which is actually fact. You said so yourself. Remember, "old dogs and new tricks," (<-my analogy)?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I have made the point several times that the only things I know (other than contingent truths and logical/mathematical tautologies) is Parmenides and Descartes: There is something. There is thinking. Neither obfuscates anything, but I take your point that belief in things like 'God' plays havoc with adherents' critical faculties.
I think he means that one cannot know, NOW! Of course one can know given billions upon billions of years.
As to old dogs and new tricks, wasn't it you that spoke of scientists reluctant to change, when new data comes along. You see their belief system obfuscates the ability to accept new data.


On a separate issue:

We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap.

No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them.[/quote]

If I'm to give you the benefit of doubt, something you failed to give me, you seem to be ignorant as to my nature, and are unable to tell when I'm speaking figuratively. Or you say this as a ploy, if I'm to not give you the benefit of doubt, as certainly a ploy is dishonest, much worse than being ignorant; yes/no?

[mtmynd1]

My first argument would be the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law observes that the internal energy of an isolated system obeys the principle of conservation of energy, which states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.

That is not an argument that is your own ("my first") argument, but I do agree with the transformation of energy and thus all of life and that which life lives upon.

My second argument would be in relation to 'events' that would simply never cease to occur (which in essence what time is...a measure of events).
The universe we are in apparently had its time begin with the B.Bang. I think it far fetched to believe that time didnt exist prior to that event, and here i believe the multiverse where the events within other universes caused our own to begin.

To believe or accept in "multiverses" is to negate the existence of a "universe". Let us say there are 1,000 equivalents of the known universe we accept... that number, as large as it could possibly be, would still be "the universe" by definition created by our hu'man mind.

"Infinity" again, is a hu'man idea that in essence has no ending, hence the forever and always of life transforming from one to the next ad infinitum. We, in all honesty, do not really KNOW if there is anything that is infinite but our mind is incapable of drawing any conclusive proof of an infinity but our imagination. When we run out of "what's beyond the mountain... another mountain and what's beyond that mountain but yet another mountain..." scenarios our mind creates to answer it's own questions. (questions arise within mind and are answered within mind... a self-contained tool that keeps itself useful for our sake).

Hu'manity is in constant flux. We're an evolving species that has far greater potential than we accept. Whatever we know today of the world we live in, is but a dust mote in the eye... significant only to ourselves. But we all seek to better ourselves, to better the lives of those we love and those we like. It the little things we do that make life worth living, not whether there is or isn't something we will never agree upon.

[attofishpi]

...bla bla bla bla

You've misquoted me, please either edit your post or repost with everything i stated regarding my first argument.

I'd rather give you the chance to re-read and re-post in case it was an honest mistake.

[uwot]

You said: "How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?"
Then I said: "And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?"
There it is! Plain as day as far as I'm concerned.

It is customary to put quotation marks around words that have actually been used. None of the above says: "neither one necessarily indicates truth."

I, as usual, thought it might be clear, it wasn't a tit for tat game.

I was having a laugh, SpheresOfBalance. How many words for things I have no reason to think exist do you think I need?

I see no where in my dialog where I've insisted that you should, please specify.

Well, as the benefit of doubt is a bit of a theme, I shall extend it to you on this occasion, and assume this is the product of a finely honed sense of irony.

That's not what I understand as "knowing".

Can you really be so dishonest, believing you know everything? Not being capable of seeing knowing on your horizon?

I've been pretty consistent on this, SpheresOfBalance. I have said it before, and in fact later in the post I repeat it:

I have made the point several times that the only things I know (other than contingent truths and logical/mathematical tautologies) is Parmenides and Descartes: There is something. There is thinking.

This is where we are having our problem. We see the absolute differently.

Yeah, but:

That's not the point: mtmynd1 is talking about "that which transcends languages"...

Do you have any examples of people trying to qualify it so?

You, and anyone that believes Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus has the final words on the matter.

The only person who ever thought the Tractatus was the last word was Wittgenstein himself, and even he changed his mind. The more books you read, the more you realise that none of them are the last word on anything. It is generally people who restrict themselves to one book that believe in the truth of them.

I think he means that one cannot know, NOW! Of course one can know given billions upon billions of years.

Even given billions upon billions of years, there is no way to know that in billions upon billions and one year you will not discover something new. It is impossible ever to know that you know your absolute. Something is definitely the case, but it is beyond physics to describe it in the perfect detail you suggest. It is ironic, don't you think, that the stuff responsible for the phenomena that physicists study is itself metaphysical?

As to old dogs and new tricks, wasn't it you that spoke of scientists reluctant to change, when new data comes along. You see their belief system obfuscates the ability to accept new data.

It's not the data which is at issue. The data is the data. Experimental results are experimental results. The things that happen, happen. I don't know of any examples of a scientist being confronted with consistently repeatable experimental results who has insisted that what they can quite clearly see happening isn't happening. Scientists have all the best toys, but like the rest of us, how they interpret the data is personal or consensual. When Einstein said God doesn't play dice, he was not arguing with the data, he was making his case for hidden variables, something which perhaps given billions upon billions of years we might discover, to explain what appear to be random events as the result of cause and effect.

If I'm to give you the benefit of doubt, something you failed to give me, you seem to be ignorant as to my nature, and are unable to tell when I'm speaking figuratively.

Yes; it's tricky. Am I to take it that every time you say something contentious you don't mean it?

Or you say this as a ploy, if I'm to not give you the benefit of doubt, as certainly a ploy is dishonest, much worse than being ignorant; yes/no?

Same thing, really. I can only give you the data; how you interpret it is up to you. Still; dishonest, eh? Well, if it's a fight you're after...

[HexHammer]

...bla bla bla bla

You've misquoted me, please either edit your post or repost with everything i stated regarding my first argument.

I'd rather give you the chance to re-read and re-post in case it was an honest mistake.

mtmynd1 is a very kuku person, and you shouldn't waste time on him, dawg!

[artisticsolution]

Not at all, AS. But it is true that many only find what they want to find in ones words. I'll clue you in, sometimes words are meant literally, and sometimes figuratively. Both you and uwot, obviously have not paid attention to all the things I have said here at PNF to know when I'm meaning either one. Both of you have attached preconceived notions as to what I am, instead of knowing what I am. It happens all the time here. It can be seen as a ploy, but I could give you two the benefit of doubt, something you haven't given me, and instead assume it's your ignorance talking. Because ploys are dishonest, which is much worse than ignorance. But then it's really me that's the nice guy!

Oh, see? Now I think I've gone and hurt your feelings. I 'feel' this because of two important things you have said above.

1. Instead of reading the 'flowery and emotional' words you use in every single one of your posts, as if you were a stranger reading them for the first time, you lash out (again emotionally) and try to hurt me by calling me ignorant. That is a 'classic' argument used by the emotional. I know because I do it myself. It's better than having to take a closer look and exam the truth of our sneakiness in language...don't you think? lol

2. You are doing the Cinderella move that all us emotional people* do which is...make ourselves out to be Cinderellas at the expense of everyone else. Which sadly means we have to place others in the role of the evil stepmom and sisters, so that we look like Cinderella in comparison. It is the Classic move of the emotionally driven to say things like "I am a nice guy!" and "You are too ignorant to notice!". Now I ask you....is that a 'nice' thing to say?

Here's the deal...when I first called your sentence below emotional, I did not mean it as a derogatory remark, I thought it was just understood. I mean take a look at these 2 statements again and pretend that you had no clue who wrote them. Just read them on their own merit. Tell me which one is more emotional.


1. "We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap."



2. "No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them."

(You have to admit number 1 has emotional written all over it. Don't kill the messenger like emotional people are so want to do. Just saying. lol)

[artisticsolution]

...bla bla bla bla

You've misquoted me, please either edit your post or repost with everything i stated regarding my first argument.

I'd rather give you the chance to re-read and re-post in case it was an honest mistake.

mtmynd1 is a very kuku person, and you shouldn't waste time on him, dawg!

I wouldn't call mtmynd1 kuku, ...he is an artist and a poet. I guess we all can appear a little kuku to the rest of the world.

Getting back to the subject...I don't know why it matters if time is infinite....the only thing that matters is it is not infinite for us.

[mtmynd1]

mtmynd1 is a very kuku person, and you shouldn't waste time on him, dawg!

You are missing the point, Hex (as usual!)... "attofishpi" knows he can get a sensible and well-reasoned discussion out of me. He well knows how scramble-minded you are, my friend, with your disjointed way of thinking and the half-assed worthwhile "discussions" you presume to offer others.

I wouldn't call mtmynd1 kuku, ...he is an artist and a poet. I guess we all can appear a little kuku to the rest of the world.

Getting back to the subject...I don't know why it matters if time is infinite....the only thing that matters is it is not infinite for us.

Now, here is a voice of reason and calm..! Ah. so fresh a voice you are, a/s. It's always a pleasure to read you versus the notorious "Hex Hammer" (sounds like a WWE wrestler doesn't it? )

[HexHammer]

mtmynd1 is a very kuku person, and you shouldn't waste time on him, dawg!

You are missing the point, Hex (as usual!)... "attofishpi" knows he can get a sensible and well-reasoned discussion out of me. He well knows how scramble-minded you are, my friend, with your disjointed way of thinking and the half-assed worthwhile "discussions" you presume to offer others.

I'm afraid that is but a delusion.

[mtmynd1]

...bla bla bla bla

You've misquoted me, please either edit your post or repost with everything i stated regarding my first argument.

I'd rather give you the chance to re-read and re-post in case it was an honest mistake.

Hmmm... I didn't say "...bla bla bla bla" in any reply to you. Care to explain yourself..?

[mtmynd1]

I'm afraid that is but a delusion.

Fear not, Hex, for fear will undermine whatever sensibility you left, my friend. Deep breathe, concentrate on your naval, drop all doubt and negativism... regain your innocence.... peace, peace, peace... calm down, fellow... all will be well eventually... just give Self a chance to speak to you.

[HexHammer]

I'm afraid that is but a delusion.

Fear not, Hex, for fear will undermine whatever sensibility you left, my friend. Deep breathe, concentrate on your naval, drop all doubt and negativism... regain your innocence.... peace, peace, peace... calm down, fellow... all will be well eventually... just give Self a chance to speak to you.

Please go to any other philosophy site and pour out your prolific brain diarrhea there.

Just stop pesting this site with your helpless stupidity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You said: "How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?"
Then I said: "And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?"
There it is! Plain as day as far as I'm concerned.

It is customary to put quotation marks around words that have actually been used. None of the above says: "neither one necessarily indicates truth."
But I see that it does, seriously! How else can it be interpreted? You say that one can fail in not finding words, and I counter by saying that it's also true that one can fail in finding words. Of course I threw in that they are not necessarily your words, indicating hearsay, calling interpretation possibly suspect. What else could that possibly mean? Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question, what else could it mean? By the way I often talk that way. I invert the statement, showing the other side of dichotomy, to remind one that the reverse could be said as well, and have just as much actual truth to it. It really all depends on what the actual truth is, and with regard to science, the jury is still out on a great many things.

I, as usual, thought it might be clear, it wasn't a tit for tat game.

I was having a laugh, SpheresOfBalance. How many words for things I have no reason to think exist do you think I need?

I see no where in my dialog where I've insisted that you should, please specify.

Well, as the benefit of doubt is a bit of a theme, I shall extend it to you on this occasion, and assume this is the product of a finely honed sense of irony.
It's hard to communicate, most believe they are somehow correct, I mean who actually puts forth that which they believe is incorrect? But I have found that some statements of ones believed correctness are based largely upon assumptions. That the way in which they attempt to qualify, could be empty, not that it necessarily is, but also that it not necessarily isn't. That there are certain things that people call on for support, largely because a majority seem to agree, but once a majority believed the earth was flat, and that going to the moon was impossible. The mob does not necessarily rule, unless to hear them tell of it. Sure, it's easy. Look at all that support. Sometimes a falsehood in and of itself.

That's not what I understand as "knowing".

Can you really be so dishonest, believing you know everything? Not being capable of seeing knowing on your horizon?

I've been pretty consistent on this, SpheresOfBalance. I have said it before, and in fact later in the post I repeat it:

I have made the point several times that the only things I know (other than contingent truths and logical/mathematical tautologies) is Parmenides and Descartes: There is something. There is thinking.

Maybe that's why I sense levelheadedness in you. Still your arguments seem to sometimes go beyond those constraints. Do you know what one of my pet peeves is? When one words things in such a way that they seem certain, when in fact they cannot necessarily know it.

This is where we are having our problem. We see the absolute differently.

Yeah, but:

That's not the point: mtmynd1 is talking about "that which transcends languages"...

Yes but does he mean now, or forever and always ultimately. To me it wasn't clear, and he doesn't seem the type that believes himself clairvoyant.

Do you have any examples of people trying to qualify it so?

You, and anyone that believes Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus has the final words on the matter.

The only person who ever thought the Tractatus was the last word was Wittgenstein himself, and even he changed his mind. The more books you read, the more you realise that none of them are the last word on anything. It is generally people who restrict themselves to one book that believe in the truth of them.
That's great. I did try and read that book, but quickly believed there were holes in the language itself. And it was extremely dry. It's good that you say that though, and I think more should, as it leaves more room for growth. It seemed, that as you said it, you used it as an undisputed qualifier, of truth. This is the thing I have problems with, when someone makes a statement, that is formulated in such a way, as to make it seem irrefutable.

I think he means that one cannot know, NOW! Of course one can know given billions upon billions of years.

Even given billions upon billions of years, there is no way to know that in billions upon billions and one year you will not discover something new. It is impossible ever to know that you know your absolute. Something is definitely the case, but it is beyond physics to describe it in the perfect detail you suggest. It is ironic, don't you think, that the stuff responsible for the phenomena that physicists study is itself metaphysical?
Sure, No one now can speak of the future, absolutely, no one is clairvoyant, but it would surely seem that if the human race outlives it's stupidity, and finally balances it's biosphere, it's short term selfishness, and we actually do travel the cosmos, and one day find the secrets of circumnavigating the universe, that it's possible that we finally understand the absolute truth of everything, that is our universe. I'm not saying it's a given, just that it's possible, if man can tame his excesses completely.

As to old dogs and new tricks, wasn't it you that spoke of scientists reluctant to change, when new data comes along. You see their belief system obfuscates the ability to accept new data.

It's not the data which is at issue. The data is the data. Experimental results are experimental results. The things that happen, happen. I don't know of any examples of a scientist being confronted with consistently repeatable experimental results who has insisted that what they can quite clearly see happening isn't happening. Scientists have all the best toys, but like the rest of us, how they interpret the data is personal or consensual. When Einstein said God doesn't play dice, he was not arguing with the data, he was making his case for hidden variables, something which perhaps given billions upon billions of years we might discover, to explain what appear to be random events as the result of cause and effect.
Same thing applies, whether it's based upon interpretation or not, their conclusion is obscured by bias, and or missing pieces. To me this just means that they must always remain open, remembering what Socrates said, 'I only know that I know nothing.' It's the only way to ensure one doesn't jump to conclusions. It shouldn't be about money or tenure, just the need to find the truth, which means being open, without ego. A tough thing for a man, granted, but it's necessary.

If I'm to give you the benefit of doubt, something you failed to give me, you seem to be ignorant as to my nature, and are unable to tell when I'm speaking figuratively.

Yes; it's tricky. Am I to take it that every time you say something contentious you don't mean it?
No, and I know full well that you've not read everything I've written, lucky you, So that you would know when I'm being pointed, figuratively speaking. This is one of our challenges here, to actually know one another so we get one another. Face to face, it'd probably be a different story, as eyes can convey quite a lot, as does body language, and vocal inflections. I was not talking of blowing people up, I was being funny, picturing people actually trying to dance on glass of varying shapes, of course the outcome would surely be gruesome, as they fell, ouch. My point is though, that I shall not stand a let anyone kill anyone, for any selfish want. In case you haven't read it before, the only life I believe anyone has an absolute right to extinguish, is their own.

Or you say this as a ploy, if I'm to not give you the benefit of doubt, as certainly a ploy is dishonest, much worse than being ignorant; yes/no?

Same thing, really. I can only give you the data; how you interpret it is up to you. Still; dishonest, eh? Well, if it's a fight you're after...

Not A fight Uwot. If you don't know it, you're one of the ones here I like. Because you seem to be level headed. I know that I can seem abrasive. But I see that being abrasive is the best way to put forth contrary argument, sometimes. Because to be honest, I don't always feel good, sometimes more feisty, more short Right now the Rhino Virus is kicking my ass, I'm miserable. And if in fact I actually have any friends here, I expect them to cut me some slack, like I've done for others. I was just flipping the coin of dichotomy, so you could clearly see the other side, in case, for some reason, you forget it sometimes.

But if you want to fight...

[SpheresOfBalance]

...bla bla bla bla

You've misquoted me, please either edit your post or repost with everything i stated regarding my first argument.

I'd rather give you the chance to re-read and re-post in case it was an honest mistake.

mtmynd1 is a very kuku person, and you shouldn't waste time on him, dawg!

I wouldn't call mtmynd1 kuku, ...he is an artist and a poet. I guess we all can appear a little kuku to the rest of the world.

Getting back to the subject...I don't know why it matters if time is infinite....the only thing that matters is it is not infinite for us.

"Hear, hear," or is that "here, here?" Actually I think both applies. We know entropy well! Unfortunately! Sure I want to live forever. I want to fly the astral plain.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not at all, AS. But it is true that many only find what they want to find in ones words. I'll clue you in, sometimes words are meant literally, and sometimes figuratively. Both you and uwot, obviously have not paid attention to all the things I have said here at PNF to know when I'm meaning either one. Both of you have attached preconceived notions as to what I am, instead of knowing what I am. It happens all the time here. It can be seen as a ploy, but I could give you two the benefit of doubt, something you haven't given me, and instead assume it's your ignorance talking. Because ploys are dishonest, which is much worse than ignorance. But then it's really me that's the nice guy!

Oh, see? Now I think I've gone and hurt your feelings. I 'feel' this because of two important things you have said above.
You know I love you AS. Nothing you could do would wear me down to the point that I would not love you. Why? Well because you're a artist of course. You may not have heard me say this before, but I assure you that I said it long before I ever "graced" these PNF pages. "Humans are never as beautiful as when they create, as with art." And I love beautiful things!


1. Instead of reading the 'flowery and emotional' words you use in every single one of your posts, as if you were a stranger reading them for the first time, you lash out (again emotionally) and try to hurt me by calling me ignorant. That is a 'classic' argument used by the emotional. I know because I do it myself. It's better than having to take a closer look and exam the truth of our sneakiness in language...don't you think? lol

2. You are doing the Cinderella move that all us emotional people* do which is...make ourselves out to be Cinderellas at the expense of everyone else. Which sadly means we have to place others in the role of the evil stepmom and sisters, so that we look like Cinderella in comparison. It is the Classic move of the emotionally driven to say things like "I am a nice guy!" and "You are too ignorant to notice!". Now I ask you....is that a 'nice' thing to say?

Here's the deal...when I first called your sentence below emotional, I did not mean it as a derogatory remark, I thought it was just understood. I mean take a look at these 2 statements again and pretend that you had no clue who wrote them. Just read them on their own merit. Tell me which one is more emotional.


1. "We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap."



2. "No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them."

(You have to admit number 1 has emotional written all over it. Don't kill the messenger like emotional people are so want to do. Just saying. lol)

And while it's true that I'm very emotional, You never hurt my feelings with anything other than believing, even for a second, that I would actually advocate the senseless killing of anyone. I thought you, after all our go arounds, would know at least that much about me. But that's OK, I expect no less from south westerners. (pssst not really)