Infinite regress is logically impossible

[Immanuel Can]

... passage and change are the same thing.

No, they actually aren't. If time passes, it doesn't mean that time itself changes. It means that things that are decaying have the interval necessary for that process to take place. But it is the things that change; not time.

[bahman]

... passage and change are the same thing.

No, they actually aren't. If time passes, it doesn't mean that time itself changes. It means that things that are decaying have the interval necessary for that process to take place. But it is the things that change; not time.

So, time does not change yet material change is possible!? If time does not change then it means that we are dealing with one point in time. If all events take place at that point then we are dealing with a simultaneous process. There is no change in a simultaneous process. Change exists. Therefore, we are dealing with events at different points of time. But you cannot reach from one point in time to another point if change in time does not exist. Therefore, time changes as well.

[Immanuel Can]

... passage and change are the same thing.

No, they actually aren't. If time passes, it doesn't mean that time itself changes. It means that things that are decaying have the interval necessary for that process to take place. But it is the things that change; not time.

So, time does not change yet material change is possible!?

Of course materials change. That's the whole point I'm making. Time is not a material entity, of course. If it were, it would have mass, volume, density, etc. It doesn't.

If time does not change then it means that we are dealing with one point in time.

You're making an error of amphiboly here, without realizing you are. (Amphiboly is when you're accidentally using one word to say two different things, and mistaking them for the same thing. It always creates illogic.)

The word is "change." To say "time changes" is not the same use of "change" as to say "materials change." They don't "change" in the same way at all.

Time "changes" only in terms of the markers we use to indicated it: one o'clock becomes two o'clock, two o'clock becomes three o'clock.... But time is not decaying, or changing from the state of being one thing into another. It remains just time, the thing itself. That's why we use the word "passes," instead of "changes" (though "passes" can also be ampibolized and create nonsense, of course). Time moves on. But it does not, itself, decline or become something else other than what it is.

[bahman]

No, they actually aren't. If time passes, it doesn't mean that time itself changes. It means that things that are decaying have the interval necessary for that process to take place. But it is the things that change; not time.

So, time does not change yet material change is possible!?

Of course materials change. That's the whole point I'm making. Time is not a material entity, of course. If it were, it would have mass, volume, density, etc. It doesn't.

If time does not change then it means that we are dealing with one point in time.

You're making an error of amphiboly here, without realizing you are. (Amphiboly is when you're accidentally using one word to say two different things, and mistaking them for the same thing. It always creates illogic.)

The word is "change." To say "time changes" is not the same use of "change" as to say "materials change." They don't "change" in the same way at all.

Time "changes" only in terms of the markers we use to indicated it: one o'clock becomes two o'clock, two o'clock becomes three o'clock.... But time is not decaying, or changing from the state of being one thing into another. It remains just time, the thing itself. That's why we use the word "passes," instead of "changes" (though "passes" can also be ampibolized and create nonsense, of course). Time moves on. But it does not, itself, decline or become something else other than what it is.

So time moves on but it does not change?

[attofishpi]

I was not the one who claimed that there cannot be a time when there is no event. That was you. I have my argument for time when change happens.

Ya, I know, but you haven't answered my question. How does time exist if no events are occurring?

I can prove that time is necessary if change happens. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no time if there is no event.

I already have. Time cannot exist unless an event occurs. Prove otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

So time moves on but it does not change?

If you want to put it that way, I suppose you could.

"Moves on" is a metaphor that makes one think of position in a space, which isn't right either; but if you understand it merely as a metaphor, that would be okay.

[attofishpi]

IC, I think we are basically trying to get the same comprehension across to bahman.

[bahman]

Ya, I know, but you haven't answered my question. How does time exist if no events are occurring?

I can prove that time is necessary if change happens. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no time if there is no event.

I already have. Time cannot exist unless an event occurs. Prove otherwise.

I already said that I can prove the necessity of time when change occurs. You didn't prove that time cannot exist if there is no event.

[bahman]

So time moves on but it does not change?

If you want to put it that way, I suppose you could.

"Moves on" is a metaphor that makes one think of position in a space, which isn't right either; but if you understand it merely as a metaphor, that would be okay.

Do you by move on mean that time takes different values?

[attofishpi]

I can prove that time is necessary if change happens. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is no time if there is no event.

I already have. Time cannot exist unless an event occurs. Prove otherwise.

I already said that I can prove the necessity of time when change occurs.

That is the point you fail to understand, time is not of the necessity when it comes to 'change' - change IS of the necessity to ALLOW the concept of TIME.

You didn't prove that time cannot exist if there is no event.

Try try again. Try comprehending the point I am making above and then attempt to prove the contrary to my statement.

Where is your evidence that TIME can exist when there is NO events?

[bahman]

I already have. Time cannot exist unless an event occurs. Prove otherwise.

I already said that I can prove the necessity of time when change occurs.

That is the point you fail to understand, time is not of the necessity when it comes to 'change' - change IS of the necessity to ALLOW the concept of TIME.

What I said. Please read what I said carefully.

You didn't prove that time cannot exist if there is no event.

Try try again. Try comprehending the point I am making above and then attempt to prove the contrary to my statement.

Where is your evidence that TIME can exist when there is NO events?

I already said what I can prove. You cannot prove that time does not exist when there is no event.

[attofishpi]

I already said that I can prove the necessity of time when change occurs.

That is the point you fail to understand, time is not of the necessity when it comes to 'change' - change IS of the necessity to ALLOW the concept of TIME.

What I said. Please read what I said carefully.

You didn't prove that time cannot exist if there is no event.

Try try again. Try comprehending the point I am making above and then attempt to prove the contrary to my statement.

Where is your evidence that TIME can exist when there is NO events?

I already said what I can prove. You cannot prove that time does not exist when there is no event.

Of course I can. Time is a measure of events, ergo it requires events.

Now bahman, what is your counter argument? Show us HOW time can exist without any events.

[bahman]

That is the point you fail to understand, time is not of the necessity when it comes to 'change' - change IS of the necessity to ALLOW the concept of TIME.

What I said. Please read what I said carefully.

Try try again. Try comprehending the point I am making above and then attempt to prove the contrary to my statement.

Where is your evidence that TIME can exist when there is NO events?

I already said what I can prove. You cannot prove that time does not exist when there is no event.

Of course I can. Time is a measure of events, ergo it requires events.

What do you mean that time is a measure of events?

Now bahman, what is your counter argument? Show us HOW time can exist without any events.

What you offer is not an argument.

[attofishpi]

What I said. Please read what I said carefully.


I already said what I can prove. You cannot prove that time does not exist when there is no event.

Of course I can. Time is a measure of events, ergo it requires events.

What do you mean that time is a measure of events?

Now bahman, what is your counter argument? Show us HOW time can exist without any events.

What you offer is not an argument.

Yer just another SAP that will take this to Nth degree when you know you're beat. If you HONESTLY don't comprehend how time is a measure of events, then you really should not have created a thread about infinite regress of causality.

[bahman]

Of course I can. Time is a measure of events, ergo it requires events.

What do you mean that time is a measure of events?

Now bahman, what is your counter argument? Show us HOW time can exist without any events.

What you offer is not an argument.

Yer just another SAP that will take this to Nth degree when you know you're beat. If you HONESTLY don't comprehend how time is a measure of events, then you really should not have created a thread about infinite regress of causality.

What do you mean by time is a measure of events? Please don't evade.