Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:29 pm
It means that you cannot reach from the infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.
Then how did I place the 0 there?
-∞<--------------------0------------------> +∞
The distance between -∞ and 0 is finite in your picture.
The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:51 pm
The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.
Yes, but in your picture it is finite.
Which has what to do with anything? It's just a representation to aid the dialogue.
I simply disagree with this representation.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:03 pm
IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.
It cannot happen somehow. As I argued: It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point. Therefore, time has a beginning.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:51 pm
I don't know how. But it did.
So you agree what you said does not make logical sense?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 3:51 pm
Declaring it "impossible" is argument from incredulity.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:01 pm
So it's still yesterday, at Lizzo's house?
You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.
Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.
I'm listening.
Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 10:51 am
You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.
Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.
I'm listening.
Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 5:25 pm
Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system.
X and Y can be different points in space, but the same point in time.
Entangled particles.
Spooky action at a distance.
Or if you don't want to think about this in terms of quantum - there are classical models of concurrency too; in which is time is non-linear.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:03 pm
IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.
It cannot happen somehow. As I argued: It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.
Why does it mean that?
That is the property of infinity.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:03 pm
You can get from 0 to 1 on the Real number line just fine. There are infinitely many points between them too.
That is not how the continuum is defined. A change in the continuum is deferential and it is defined as the limit of difference between two points when the distance between two points is arbitrarily small. In another world, dX=limit (X2-X1) when X1 tends to X2. In this manner, the number of points between 0 and 1 is not infinite but arbitrarily large.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 5:25 pm
Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system.
X and Y can be different points in space, but the same point in time.
Entangled particles.
Spooky action at a distance.
Or if you don't want to think about this in terms of quantum - there are classical models of concurrency too; in which is time is non-linear.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 4:22 pm
Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.
I'm listening.
Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.
"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?
No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 5:25 pm
Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.
"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?
No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 5:52 pm
"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?
No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.
Okay. Roll on.
Please read my argument then. That variable that I call has to exist otherwise all events lay at the same point meaning that we are dealing with a simultaneous process, in other words, there could be no change.
I thought it was quite a funny line.