Can time be infinite?

[HexHammer]

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.

This is a philosophy site, and we'r not supposed to speak straight out of the ass like he does.

We'r supposed to dwell in words on wisdom, that's what philosophy really means, how is his retarded words wise?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

This is a philosophy site, and we'r not supposed to speak straight out of the ass like he does.

We'r supposed to dwell in words on wisdom, that's what philosophy really means, how is his retarded words wise?

Hex as usual, anything that doesn't have to do with bridge building, or any sort of construction, engineering or the corporate bottom line, escapes you. And I am indeed sorry. Remember, that you are not necessarily the measure of everything philosophical. Actually I would say that as to philosophy, you've had very little to give. All you pretty much do is wave your hexhammer (phallus) around, trying to beat people to death with it, otherwise why such a nym. I mean it only goes with your attitude oh so well. Lighten up with your derogatory diatribe, as surely it is a reflection of your always nasty disposition, and closed mindedness. Just because someone believes differently than you, does not make them retarded, quite the contrary, it makes you retarded for believing so.

[Blaggard]

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.

This is a philosophy site, and we'r not supposed to speak straight out of the ass like he does.

We'r supposed to dwell in words on wisdom, that's what philosophy really means, how is his retarded words wise?

Couldn't hurt, hint hint.

I disagree talking out of your ass is the essence of philosophy when faced with incorrigible, it's how you learn to talk out of your face, even if the hand is not listening.

No ones too cool for school, especially me, and I hear humility is a virtue.

[attofishpi]

Time is infinite.

My first argument is based on 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.
Hence energy always remains in some form, for that to remain the case, time must be present, ergo...time is infinite.


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.

[Lev Muishkin]

Presenting the law of thermodynamics is an empty gesture. Laws have been discovered within a very narrow band of known time. Such attempts to posit time as infinite in this way are therefore circular.

The fact is that, as we are temporal beings, we have no knowledge of whether or not time had a beginning.
But this also means that we cannot witness an end. In fact if time were infinite that fact could never be established positively for the simple reason that it can only be established negatively - ie when time ends. At that point it would be too late to make use of the information that time was finite.

It is thought that time had a beginning. according to the standard BB theory time is finite. I suppose they could be wrong.
You would have to say why they are wrong.

[surreptitious57]

The First Law Of Thermodynamics applies to within the Universe but not the Universe itself
Time and the measurement of time are not the same thing. Time could be infinite if it does
not require anything else to exist although it cannot be separated at present from space but
spacetime could under go a phase transition from being a space dimension to a time one and
vice versa but this is an untestable hypothesis and can not be subject to potential falsification
at this moment. And the Big Bang is but one model on the table and so has not yet been proven

[mtmynd1]

Presenting the law of thermodynamics is an empty gesture. Laws have been discovered within a very narrow band of known time. Such attempts to posit time as infinite in this way are therefore circular.

"Laws have been discovered..." that in due "time" will prove to be incorrect, as you can well imagine. All things are temporal, not only hu'manity. Even any theory of "infinity" or even the "finite" calculated by the best of our hu'man minds, is subject to the permanence of change.

The fact is that, as we are temporal beings, we have no knowledge of whether or not time had a beginning.
But this also means that we cannot witness an end. In fact if time were infinite that fact could never be established positively for the simple reason that it can only be established negatively - ie when time ends. At that point it would be too late to make use of the information that time was finite.

It is thought that time had a beginning. according to the standard BB theory time is finite. I suppose they could be wrong.
You would have to say why they are wrong.

... and conversely, the opposing view would also have to say why they are wrong. But the debate is really mute... there is no proof which we could call infallible. The debate is really nothing more than a mental masturbation for the sake of expressing our personal opinions, period. There is nothing wrong with that practice, just as there is no problem with physical masturbation. Both practices are to relieve ourselves of the need to communicate. Talking is what hu'mans do... and not necessarily intelligent talking... just the need to "get our words off the mind."

[Lev Muishkin]

Presenting the law of thermodynamics is an empty gesture. Laws have been discovered within a very narrow band of known time. Such attempts to posit time as infinite in this way are therefore circular.

"Laws have been discovered..." that in due "time" will prove to be incorrect, as you can well imagine. All things are temporal, not only hu'manity. Even any theory of "infinity" or even the "finite" calculated by the best of our hu'man minds, is subject to the permanence of change.

The fact is that, as we are temporal beings, we have no knowledge of whether or not time had a beginning.
But this also means that we cannot witness an end. In fact if time were infinite that fact could never be established positively for the simple reason that it can only be established negatively - ie when time ends. At that point it would be too late to make use of the information that time was finite.

It is thought that time had a beginning. according to the standard BB theory time is finite. I suppose they could be wrong.
You would have to say why they are wrong.

... and conversely, the opposing view would also have to say why they are wrong. But the debate is really mute... there is no proof which we could call infallible. The debate is really nothing more than a mental masturbation for the sake of expressing our personal opinions, period. There is nothing wrong with that practice, just as there is no problem with physical masturbation. Both practices are to relieve ourselves of the need to communicate. Talking is what hu'mans do... and not necessarily intelligent talking... just the need to "get our words off the mind."

When you say the debate is "mute" you mean "moot" and I agree, for this reason: the assertion that time is infinite is beyond man's means to experience.
That's an irrefutable point.
It does not rely on any theory, nor the refutation of one.
The very meaning of time relies on the fact that humans are finite and therefore cannot experience infinity.

[Blaggard]

Presenting the law of thermodynamics is an empty gesture. Laws have been discovered within a very narrow band of known time. Such attempts to posit time as infinite in this way are therefore circular.

The fact is that, as we are temporal beings, we have no knowledge of whether or not time had a beginning.
But this also means that we cannot witness an end. In fact if time were infinite that fact could never be established positively for the simple reason that it can only be established negatively - ie when time ends. At that point it would be too late to make use of the information that time was finite.

It is thought that time had a beginning. according to the standard BB theory time is finite. I suppose they could be wrong.
You would have to say why they are wrong.

Quite laws can be disproved with any counter example and so can the rest. good points.

Gravity tends to fall if it ever went up it would be in trouble, although magnetic laws are stronger literally and figuratively...

[mtmynd1]

The fact is that, as we are temporal beings, we have no knowledge of whether or not time had a beginning.
But this also means that we cannot witness an end. In fact if time were infinite that fact could never be established positively for the simple reason that it can only be established negatively - ie when time ends. At that point it would be too late to make use of the information that time was finite.

It is thought that time had a beginning. according to the standard BB theory time is finite. I suppose they could be wrong.
You would have to say why they are wrong.

... and conversely, the opposing view would also have to say why they are wrong. But the debate is really moot... there is no proof which we could call infallible. The debate is really nothing more than a mental masturbation for the sake of expressing our personal opinions, period. There is nothing wrong with that practice, just as there is no problem with physical masturbation. Both practices are to relieve ourselves of the need to communicate. Talking is what hu'mans do... and not necessarily intelligent talking... just the need to "get our words off the mind."[/quote]


When you say the debate is "mute" you mean "moot" and I agree, for this reason: the assertion that time is infinite is beyond man's means to experience.
That's an irrefutable point.
It does not rely on any theory, nor the refutation of one.
The very meaning of time relies on the fact that humans are finite and therefore cannot experience infinity.[/quote]

Re: "..you say the debate is "mute" you mean "moot".."

Correction made. Thank you.

Re: "The very meaning of time relies on the fact that humans are finite and therefore cannot experience infinity."

I would have no qualms in saying in addition, the very meaning of time is an hu'man explanation to a phenomenon that we have been bickering about, seeking satisfactory definitions of, and hoping to find a definition that is mutually acceptable. As I've said elsewhere, we are the only species sharing this planet that gives a tinker's damn about 'time'.

[Blaggard]

Nice post, I don't masturbate to relieve myself of anything but the rock rolling that is life, when anxiety builds wanking seems apt.

"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."

or to put it in English, there's utility in almost anything. If we ever have the grace to learn from it.

Biologically speaking humans can wank and do at great length male or female, because they like it, not because it achieves anything but worn sheets over time. It also, scientifically speaking, is hypothesised it clears the pipes out and readies an inactive sexual organ for the real deal. One can never forget evolution, even if Dawkins whangs on about it too much.

[mtmynd1]

Nice post, I don't masturbate to relieve myself of anything but the rock rolling that is life, when anxiety builds wanking seems apt.

A wee bit of the "TMI" you think, Blag..?

note what I had written: "... there is no problem with physical masturbation. Both practices are]to relieve ourselves of the need to communicate. Talking is what hu'mans do...

Then you continue with :

Biologically speaking humans can wank and do at great length male or female, because they like it, not because it achieves anything but worn sheets over time. It also, scientifically speaking, is hypothesized it clears the pipes out and readies an inactive sexual organ for the real deal. One can never forget evolution, even if Dawkins whangs on about it too much.

... which goes to verify what I had written, eh? You sure did communicate!!

Thanks for the input (not put it in, mind you. )

[Blaggard]

Lol take it to the mental spank bank for later.

I agreed with you, I just thought I'd make a joke about wanking. And leave a serious point about wanking, while I was wanking myself. TMI.

[mtmynd1]

Lol take it to the mental spank bank for later.

I agreed with you, I just thought I'd make a joke about wanking. And leave a serious point about wanking, while I was wanking myself. TMI.

I always enjoy when one is on a roll... waiting to see if there is a win or a crash.

[Lev Muishkin]

Nice post, I don't masturbate to relieve myself of anything but the rock rolling that is life, when anxiety builds wanking seems apt.

"That which does not kill us makes us stranger."

or to put it in English, there's utility in almost anything. If we ever have the grace to learn from it.

Biologically speaking humans can wank and do at great length male or female, because they like it, not because it achieves anything but worn sheets over time. It also, scientifically speaking, is hypothesised it clears the pipes out and readies an inactive sexual organ for the real deal. One can never forget evolution, even if Dawkins whangs on about it too much.

There is no evolutionary utility in wanking. The cleaning the pipes idea is just false. The fact is that spilling seed is only done by humans, and one or two species of primate. Even in the most dangerous of environments, we humans only need to successfully plant seed a handful of times in our lifetimes, but as you probably will have realised we are able to spill much seed as many as a handful of times per day, or per week, as we grow older.
It does not matter if the pipes are "clean". All other mammal species are perfectly capable of tupping their females without any wanking.

Dawkins verbally masturbates on this topic, but every thing of value was already said by Darwin. The Theory of NS does not have to provide teleological explanations for every bloody action we take. The only measure is viable progeny, which is easily enough achieved.