Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2015 8:59 am**

Perhaps time is infinite.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dy ... angulation

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:45 pm**

uwot wrote:
mtmynd1 wrote:We hu'man have historically measured time thru the observations made of the heavens above, the movement the Earth around the Sun, the measurement of the seasons, etc...
That more or less was Plato's point; time is comparing one periodic event with another. So, yes, the Earth spins on its axis about 365 times as it orbits the sun is how we measure days and years. But we measure other things; the SI unit 1 second is measured by counting the 'vibrations' of a caesium atom, or as Wikipedia puts it: "the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

Good-fucking-grief, twat! Take that caesium 133 atom and you know what you can do with it... That is intellectual bullshit that bores that ears off anybody who wants real answers and not voodoo curses. (4) mentions of the caesium atoms is not enough. could you drop the name a few more times for emphasis?

All your inferences about the "time atom" has not altered our meaning or acceptance of what time is one iota. time measurement is still based upon our solar revolvement.
mtmynd1 wrote:Given that, when we ask the question "Is time infinite?" we have to ask is our earth and the Sun infinite?
Well, certainly days and years won't mean anything when the Earth and sun are gone, but caesium atoms will still be vibrating and will do so gazillions of times that would equate the Earth orbiting the sun billions of times, if they still existed. Eventually, caesium atoms, along with everything else will unravel and there will be no meaningful way of counting events and no one to do it, but a lot of things are going to happen in the meantime.
mtmynd1 wrote: We, hu'manity are not infinite. Our planet is not infinite. The Sun we rely on for life is not infinite. To make the argument that 'time' is infinite is nothing more than mental masturbation... and exercise in opinion, period.
So we're wankers. What of it?

Don't include me in your collective "we", sweetheart... But thank you for admitting you are not anywhere close to being a philosopher or even a thinker. Wankers are self-indulgent, ego-centric wannabees... but you know that.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2015 7:24 pm**

mtmynd1 wrote: Good-fucking-grief, twat! Take that caesium 133 atom and you know what you can do with it... That is intellectual bullshit that bores that ears off anybody who wants real answers and not voodoo curses.

Well, if you have real answers to contribute, let's hear them.

mtmynd1 wrote: (4) mentions of the caesium atoms is not enough. could you drop the name a few more times for emphasis?

I don't imagine it would have much effect.

mtmynd1 wrote: All your inferences about the "time atom" has not altered our meaning or acceptance of what time is one iota. time measurement is still based upon our solar revolvement.

It doesn't really matter what event you are counting, lots of calendars are based on the Lunar cycle, the changeable date of Easter is a relic of that for instance. Is the world going to orbit the sun indefinitely? No. Does that mean that everything else will stop? No. There will still be periodic events long after the sun has destroyed the Earth and shrunk back to a cinder. If there are any sentient beings left in the cosmos, they will experience change, and they very likely will have a concept like 'time' to express that change. We, including you, might measure time in Earth years, but that isn't what time is anywhere else in the universe.

mtmynd1 wrote: Don't include me in your collective "we", sweetheart...

It wasn't my intention to do so; 'we' in that context are just those of us that lack your conviction and think the subject of the thread still has legs.

mtmynd1 wrote: But thank you for admitting you are not anywhere close to being a philosopher or even a thinker. Wankers are self-indulgent, ego-centric wannabees... but you know that.

I am what I am, mtmynd1.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:00 am**

uwot wrote:I am what I am, mtmynd1.

As it should be. You shouldn't try to be any more than that... you fail at that, miserably.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:52 am**

mtmynd1 wrote:
uwot wrote:I am what I am, mtmynd1.
As it should be. You shouldn't try to be any more than that... you fail at that, miserably.

Not for lack of effort.
Anyway; do you think it makes sense to say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, if the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old?

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:17 am**

uwot wrote: Anyway; do you think it makes sense to say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, if the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old?

Does it make sense..?? For those who measure such things, if they are to be taken seriously by fellow scientists, and have to say "Sure!" How else would hu'manity fathom the age of either one? After all, uwot, in another 5-10 years those figures are bound to change as the methodologies continue changing. And then the books will have to be rewritten (again).

It's important to accept the permanence of change. The Universe we have seen captured thru Hubble, for example, provides proof positive that the Universe is similar to our own lives, we are all in a constant state of change which includes our present pool of knowledge.

Another worthwhile contemplation you may consider is: within each generation there are certain principles and even theories that are accepted within that generation. We hu'mans need to believe in certain things in our lives to give life a purpose. But each succeeding generation will accept different bits learned knowledge, new facts, new technologies, new means of "doing things" that becomes that group's way of life... what they/we believe in to validate our own lives.

[enough]

mtmynd1

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:38 am**

uwot wrote:
mtmynd1 wrote:
uwot wrote:I am what I am, mtmynd1.
As it should be. You shouldn't try to be any more than that... you fail at that, miserably.
Not for lack of effort.
Anyway; do you think it makes sense to say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, if the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old?

Depends where you start the cut off point, It's probably close 4.5, but as we've all seen some people beg to differ about what makes a system, a solar, and some facts. If you catch my drift.

Pobodies Nerfect. Not even Spooner, and he had brain damage so we are told. Incidentally why Spooner transposed the first letter of each word is a thread in itself. But not for this one.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:51 am**

mtmynd1 wrote:
uwot wrote: Anyway; do you think it makes sense to say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, if the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old?
Does it make sense..?? For those who measure such things, if they are to be taken seriously by fellow scientists, and have to say "Sure!" How else would hu'manity fathom the age of either one?

I wasn't asking those that measure such things, I was asking you. The point being that regardless of the actual ages or how our estimates might change, if you accept that it is coherent to say there was 'time' prior to there being an Earth circling our sun, then even if our concept of time is based on it, 'time' clearly isn't any single event. To say that time is the Earth's orbit only makes sense if there is an Earth to orbit the sun.

mtmynd1 wrote:After all, uwot, in another 5-10 years those figures are bound to change as the methodologies continue changing. And then the books will have to be rewritten (again).

It's important to accept the permanence of change. The Universe we have seen captured thru Hubble, for example, provides proof positive that the Universe is similar to our own lives, we are all in a constant state of change which includes our present pool of knowledge.

Anyone familiar with Heraclitus, or the ship of Theseus knows this.

mtmynd1 wrote:Another worthwhile contemplation you may consider is: within each generation there are certain principles and even theories that are accepted within that generation.

Thomas Kuhn called them paradigms.

mtmynd1 wrote:We hu'mans need to believe in certain things in our lives to give life a purpose. But each succeeding generation will accept different bits learned knowledge, new facts, new technologies, new means of "doing things" that becomes that group's way of life... what they/we believe in to validate our own lives.

Well, you're getting into pop psychology here. It is true that advances in technology are apt to show us things we didn't know before, but it is only Luddites that refuse to accept their findings. Occasionally this is because technology shows things that contradict the way we validate our lives, famously when Galileo's telescope showed the Vatican that the Earth isn't the centre of the universe. It is also true that people, even scientists, are resistant to new ideas; Max Planck commented that new ideas don't really replace old, it's just that old ideas die with the people that held them. How people validate their lives is up to them, if they feel it necessary.

mtmynd1 wrote:[enough]

But you haven't said anything we don't already know.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:57 pm**

uwot wrote:
mtmynd1 wrote:
uwot wrote: Anyway; do you think it makes sense to say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, if the solar system is only 4.5 billion years old?
Does it make sense..?? For those who measure such things, if they are to be taken seriously by fellow scientists, and have to say "Sure!" How else would hu'manity fathom the age of either one?

I wasn't asking those that measure such things, I was asking you.

Very well : In relation to the Universe, as we know it, time is irrelevent... merely a hu'man device to measure what we know. The Universe is forever 'present', in the Now, where time has no basis. Hu'manity is interested in time and measurement only to satisfy the Mind. There is no other reason to be bound by what we call 'time'.

mtmynd1 wrote:After all, uwot, in another 5-10 years those figures are bound to change as the methodologies continue changing. And then the books will have to be rewritten (again).

It's important to accept the permanence of change. The Universe we have seen captured thru Hubble, for example, provides proof positive that the Universe is similar to our own lives, we are all in a constant state of change which includes our present pool of knowledge.

Anyone familiar with Heraclitus, or the ship of Theseus knows this.

Sorry, uwot, I only know of these names, not what they have taught you.[/b

mtmynd1 wrote:Another worthwhile contemplation you may consider is: within each generation there are certain principles and even theories that are accepted within that generation.

Thomas Kuhn called them paradigms.

I, mtmynd1, call them "contemplations" as I said. I have no idea who Thomas Kuhn is.

mtmynd1 wrote:We hu'mans need to believe in certain things in our lives to give life a purpose. But each succeeding generation will accept different bits learned knowledge, new facts, new technologies, new means of "doing things" that becomes that group's way of life... what they/we believe in to validate our own lives.

Well, you're getting into pop psychology here.

I'm getting to the heart of the matter. If that is "pop" to you, so be it. Again, I don't study others psychologies or philosophies.

mtmynd1 wrote:[enough]
But you haven't said anything we don't already know.

Again, you hold onto this word, "we" as if I'm talking to a crowd of thousands and you're one of them.

Next time maybe I should talk to you about things you don't know. Care to give me a list?

Posted: **Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:49 am**

He that knows nothing knows your mum.

Stop bickering and get on with it.

Posted: **Sat Jan 17, 2015 10:44 am**

mtmynd1 wrote:In relation to the Universe, as we know it, time is irrelevent... merely a hu'man device to measure what we know.

That's more or less what Immanuel Kant said.

mtmynd1 wrote:The Universe is forever 'present', in the Now, where time has no basis.

In which case 'forever' doesn't mean anything. Still, 'the Now' is the state the universe is in. It seems to change; the Earth turns, the moon orbits the Earth and the couple orbit the sun. Any particular configuration can be identified by specifying a day of the month in a year. But if your point is that it doesn't follow that 'time' exists, or that it is probably irrelevant to the universe, I would agree.

mtmynd1 wrote:Hu'manity is interested in time and measurement only to satisfy the Mind. There is no other reason to be bound by what we call 'time'.

Well, if you deny a sequence of events, you cannot make sense of a sentence; if for no other reason than that you cannot read all the words at once. Language, and the entire human experience, is dependant on 'time' in the sense of change; regardless of the 'truth' or the cause of our experience, being human is what we do.

mtmynd1 wrote:Sorry, uwot, I only know of these names, not what they have taught you.

The advantage of familiarising yourself with the thoughts of others is that you don't have to spend a great deal of time working out stuff which is already common knowledge. This gives you more time to actually mull them over and compare them. As Descartes said: 'There is nothing so strange and so unbelievable that it hasn't been said by one philosopher or another.' Being aware of the richness of human thought doesn't make you beholden to any given ideology; on the contrary, I would suggest it protects you from fanaticism. It is only when people can't appreciate alternative points of view that they say things like: "Good-fucking-grief, twat!" Or in extreme cases go to war with people who think differently.

mtmynd1 wrote:I'm getting to the heart of the matter. If that is "pop" to you, so be it. Again, I don't study others psychologies or philosophies. [/b]

As I said, it would save you a great deal of time to do so.

mtmynd1 wrote:Again, you hold onto this word, "we" as if I'm talking to a crowd of thousands and you're one of them.

That's your perception; I just mean we who have read a bit.

mtmynd1 wrote:Next time maybe I should talk to you about things you don't know. Care to give me a list?

"I am not ashamed to admit that I am ignorant of what I do not know." Cicero. The list is endless.

Posted: **Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:58 pm**

uwot: "being human is what we do."

which means very little to all except for ourselves. there is no other life on this single rock in our Solar System that has any concern in what we believe, for their own being is what they do. So what gives us the idea we are special..? That what we have accomplished is only remarkable and significant for our own species. We are totally "hu'man-centric" to believe and live as if our very hu'manity has been bestowed upon us because "we are'. Included in that "we are" is a long over-looked fact - hu'manity is the youngest life form upon this planet... we are still learning to adapt and "become" what we instinctively (might) know as our full potential. Potential is sorely lacking amongst our own... we far too often, clumsily, fall short in trying to do the 'right thing', often to the detriment of other of the living. What has ended the lives of other species before we ever stepped upon the earth, was natural phenomenon, i.e. natural disasters we're all familiar with that nobody has any control over. Other than that, life shows no greed, no needless killing, no behaviors that are uniquely our own hu'manity's doing.

It is "we" who are interested in "time" and have even created not only the word but the mechanisms of "it's" measurement to verify there is indeed, such a presence... a presence, btw, that has no proof, per se. Time is matter-less, we can only sense it, observe moments that have passed, but we cannot hold, touch it, smell or hear time... only thru the measuring devices we have created to verify times existence. Could that existence be our own insistence... our mind's insistence which tells us, "there must be time, there has to be such a presence for things DO change, DO evolve, DO live and die." Are these phenomena proof that time exists... or simply life IS..? Remember, no other life of any kind that lives upon this planet have any knowledge or even interest in measuring this invisible notion of time.

But I digress...

In reference another comment of mine you included this - "As Descartes said: 'There is nothing so strange and so unbelievable that it hasn't been said by one philosopher or another.'"

I've not read anything specific by Descartes, other than the occasional blurb such as this. I enjoy bits and pieces of selected quotes that have been offered by various sources... I find many of them beneficial to my way of thinking, such as I assume, you also attach yourself to various quotes you have come across in your own studies. This Decartes quote is the parallel to "nothing new under the sun", IMO... nothing but a new word for an old occurrence, as language continues evolving as our own hu'manity does.

I'm sure you've attended University or some such institution of (more) learning, judging by the name dropping you've use throughout our exchanges. I had a very limited University/College education which was my own decision...which is why I am unable to respond to many references you drop for your own amusement or references that support your ideas (if indeed, your ideas are your own and not a reflection of others that you admire..). I am an autodidact, although I do not favor labeling one's methodology to learn.

Which brings me to this - "Being aware of the richness of human thought doesn't make you beholden to any given ideology.."

I agree. But I'm not sure why you'd put this into your commentary. Perhaps me having used "twat" has something to do with it..? Just interjecting a quiet hint that speaks of your alarm that someone would think so little of you to use that word.

... and not to pass on this - "That's your perception; I just mean we who have read a bit."

A little dig at me who hasn't read what you have, I presume..?

It's okay, "twat", I been called much worse over my years. I do read, really. But over the years, I have become more select for reading requires spending "time" engrossed in another's opinions or ideas, others imaginings or foresights... and I prefer to find my own voice after doing exactly that, and having face-to-face discussions with like-minded souls. And, surprise! I do enjoy discussions with a very few folks on these boards.

I've had enough of this for a day! My dogs are hungry and patiently awaiting their breakfast.

Posted: **Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:43 pm**

The concept of time. Now, we all know what it is don't we? When we go and try to explain it we suddenly lack in words and how to put it. We can jabber about it all "day" long, tomorrow never comes. Time is the present here and now, what you see and precieve. Trying to describing something that is infinite it suddenly becomes untangible. You can see it, you can't smell it and you cannot pin point where it is but it's simply there anyway.

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:13 am**

mtmynd1 wrote:It is "we" who are interested in "time" and have even created not only the word but the mechanisms of "it's" measurement to verify there is indeed, such a presence... a presence, btw, that has no proof, per se.

Here again is the first thing I posted in this thread:

uwot wrote:Plato was on the money about time, in my view, although for all the wrong reasons. He argued, probably in the Timeaus, but I wouldn't swear on it, that the Demiurge created the sun and moon so that we could mark out time. A year is as long as it takes the Earth to orbit the sun, a month is the time it takes the moon to orbit us, a day is the time it takes the Earth to spin on its axis. All times are approximate; the Demiurge is a bit crap. The thing is, there is no way of measuring 'time' that doesn't involve the counting of events. As Einstein predicted, and has been subsequently proven, events happen at different rates according to the velocity and gravity acting on the thing being measured. As it happens, this is the subject of my latest blog (I'll get to gravity) which you can see here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

Posted: **Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:10 pm**

uwot wrote:]Which bit of that do you disagree with?

I'm not in any mood to disagree or even agree with either side, uwot. Facts are subject to change, while Truth is impenetrable... which bit would you choose ?

Philosophy Now Forum

Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?

Re: Can time be infinite?