Can time be infinite?

[uwot]

I'm not in any mood to disagree or even agree with either side, uwot.

Fair enough.

Facts are subject to change, while Truth is impenetrable... which bit would you choose ?

Facts; precisely because we will never know that there are no new ones to discover. It is therefore impossible to know that any group of facts explain some underlying truth in full detail.
With regard to time, depending on your mood, we might agree that there are no facts about time which are not facts about events. In that context, the question is will there always be events? I don't think there is any way of telling, but that is no reason not to wonder. (Unless you take the Wittgensteinian/Logical Positivist viewpoint.)

[mtmynd1]

uwot Re: "I don't think there is any way of telling, but that is no reason not to wonder."

To wonder, to enter the realm of imagination is more than sufficient for me. But just to prevent any misunderstandings, thinking is a good thing as long as we accept mind as a tool and not an end all that we must show obedience to.

Final words... Infinity, the finite, the mind, imagination, all these and ALL is within pure consciousness that even we hu'mans, who so overvalue our minds, will never be able to fully realize. Pure Consciousness is, in hu'man terms, Absolute.

... that is the greatest metaphysical proposition that can never be fully explained but only experienced.

mtmynd1

[uwot]

Final words... Infinity, the finite, the mind, imagination, all these and ALL is within pure consciousness that even we hu'mans, who so overvalue our minds, will never be able to fully realize. Pure Consciousness is, in hu'man terms, Absolute.

So you're a subjective idealist in the same ballpark as Georges Berkeley. He took Descartes' argument that the only thing we definitely know, that there is experience, and did away with everything else, concluding that experience, nous, mind, consciousness, Pure Consciousness, call it what you will, is all there is.

... that is the greatest metaphysical proposition that can never be fully explained but only experienced.

Well, if Pure Consciousness is Absolute, then you have explained it. The problem then is to explain the experiences that suggest a material world that is not conscious. The simplest explanation is that there is a material world, but it is impossible to prove.

[mtmynd1]

Well, if Pure Consciousness is Absolute, then you have explained it. The problem then is to explain the experiences that suggest a material world that is not conscious. The simplest explanation is that there is a material world, but it is impossible to prove.

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.

[uwot]

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? You are trying to persuade me that something exists that you are incapable of describing. 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. This really is 'Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must remain silent.' (Closing words of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, if you are interested.) Limply accepting that there things you cannot know is defeatist. Insisting that others agree with you is totalitarian.

[mtmynd1]

]How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words? You are trying to persuade me that something exists that you are incapable of describing. 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 in all cases does the word follow the experience, my friend. Experience often enough stops the moment mind steps in and attempt to define or even negate the experience.

But you are certainly entitled to arguing your own point. But be assured existence does not owe us, the hu'man species any explanations for it's being.

[a test for you: put into words the best orgasm you've ever had. Make it believable and use natural language for you want others to believe what you are (attempting) to describe.)

[uwot]

[a test for you: put into words the best orgasm you've ever had. Make it believable and use natural language for you want others to believe what you are (attempting) to describe.)

Well, you know the best orgasm you've ever had? It's a bit like that. A test for you: Describe pure consciousness.

[mtmynd1]

A test for you: Describe pure consciousness.

That would be a simple thing to do if I or any other living being, "possessed" such a thing as "pure consciousness", but alas, at best we can awaken to our own Being at the very best, i.e. "enlightenment", "self-realization" or any of the several words to explain the phenomenon.

Take that enlightenment and imagine such a presence that encompasses all... all that is and all that is not, a godliness, if you will as the religions have reiterated, "God is all knowing" such is the state of enlightenment, the "Great Awakening" Buddhism uses for that experience. "Pure Consciousness" is All Knowing, of which we are only able to conceive within our own hu'man limitations.

"God" (or all the 10,000 words to explain any god), is "Pure Consciousness", beyond all 'things', no gender, no hu'man qualities, no intervention... just simply pure spirit, pure knowing, pure essence of being.

Are you able to conceive of this..?

[Impenitent]

I don't know if this had been mentioned

homo mensura - Protagoras

-Imp

[Blaggard]

Anthropological arguments are so passé.

[uwot]

"God" (or all the 10,000 words to explain any god), is "Pure Consciousness", beyond all 'things', no gender, no hu'man qualities, no intervention... just simply pure spirit, pure knowing, pure essence of being.

Are you able to conceive of this..?

No problem. This is essentially the first premise of an ontological argument. They go back to St Anselm. Wikipedia summarises his argument thus:
1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

The key issue is whether you are convinced that existence contributes to greatness. I made the point somewhere in relation to Descartes version of an ontological argument, that the things we know exist are definitely not as great as we can conceive, much less perfect to use Descartes word. I can conceive of a pint of beer greater than which no other beer can be imagined, or indeed orgasm; doesn't make it real.

[mtmynd1]

I can conceive of a pint of beer greater than which no other beer can be imagined, or indeed orgasm; doesn't make it real.

Those (4) words are not convincing, are they? It leaves room for doubt because you are not convinced that your imagination is real. Altho I do not favor others quotes to speak for me, there are exceptions, and this is one of them:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

Reality is not all it's cracked up to be when we rely upon it 24/7/365... and hu'manity doesn't. We balance reality with imaginings or dreams. These are our escapisms we use in order to elevate our realities that don't quite satisfy.

Einstein obviously relied upon his imagination to create some mind-blowing ideas that became much more than imaginings but were birthed thru his imagination.

Why all this talk over imagination..? Imagination is the creative power behind the efforts to solidify reality.
There is no proof that God or the equivalent, is real. God requires others to 'believe', to blindly accept, to trust and be rewarding in an afterlife. That is the reality that requires much more imagination to understand what hu'manity has been involved with ever since we began thinking... praying to an unknown, worshiping an unknown, pleading to an unknown... that we 'feel' is real... and yes, we imagine to exist. The only way we can make God real is to create places of worship, write books what we need our god(s) to be, to convince others that our belief in a god is what others should believe to enforce our own belief.

But far too many have had experiences that so closely parallel what is nothing less that a 'godly experience' that frees us from our mind and it's dualities in a near-constant battle within itself... the excellently explained symbol of 'yin/yang' , which as near as perfectly speaks of everything within our lives, our reality life that we deal with daily... the mundane existence which is one side of that duality which is necessary for our growth and evolution to attaining our potential.

[break time... back to my reality. ]

[Lev Muishkin]

Facts are subject to change, while Truth is impenetrable... which bit would you choose ?

No, truth is subject to change. Facts remain facts. The situation can change, which may bring new facts. But in the time a fact was the case, it will always have been the case.
For example if I were to say Elizabeth II is the monarch of England that is an unchangeable fact for 20/01/2015.
When she dies and Charlie takes over, then he will be the monarch of England; fact.

However, the truth value of "monarch" is open to a range of opinions, obvious, subtle and banal. What monarch means is not the same for all persons, and in each of us the importance or significance of truth is variable.

[mtmynd1]

No, truth is subject to change. Facts remain facts.

Truth that changes can hardly be called 'Truth'. It was a long-held fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth until it sunk in with proof, (truth) the fact was erroneous... and so it goes. Many facts after lifetimes of acceptance are found to be subject to change.

Pls note, I wrote "Truth is impenetrable", with a capital "T" rather than 'truth' which, indeed is subject to change. The capital Truth, (the only way our language can phrase the essence), really is insufficient when defining the Absolute which is impenetrable. Why else would anyone call Truths the Truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Exactly! Largely we involve ourselves with drama, so as to ignore our lives inevitability. Each one of us is here because they want meaning, we want solution to big questions as it supplies pats for our backs, then our lives are worth something big, in our own minds, which is where each individual lives. It's got to be warm and fuzzy because so much of life can be quite the contrary. Fear, largely the motivator, for everything we do. It's fun to watch the fear, as someone delivers outbursts to save face, we've all done it, it's just that many won't admit it, for FEAR!. No matter what we do, there's only one thing at the end, we 'change' back to the inanimate constituents, that we are made of, stardust. So that other animate things can come into being. I essence we are all eternal, infinite, we just can't recollect it, as it happens. Consciousness that part of us that is indeed born of a combination of things, or so it surely seems. Or is it so? 'Can' we know for sure?