Salutatio Todd!
26-Jan-98, Todd Henson wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Time and Again
 RM>> The nature of time/space seems to contradict any theory of a
 RM>> beginning to the universe.  Unless your the kind that would cop
 RM>> out and state that time/space was made to _look_ that way .
 TH> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite. I explained
 TH> this to you before with the analogy of the half-infinite line,
 TH> which you never addressed, and couldn't counter.
This is the kind of blatant ignorance that you have been tossing in
everyone's face since you "SAW THE LIGHT".  Truth is, Todd, you seem to
be unable to accept other points of view, or other arguments (especially
the ones that rip your ideas to itty bitty pieces).  You seem to be
unable to remember any statement that clarifies any of my positions on
anything.  You seem to choose your own interpretations of my statements
and choose to ignore all the rest.  It has been too long for me to delve
back in the PHIL archives, (and perhaps this is the only defense you
have left... time) so for your own good, and for the good of any
conversation between us, don't restart this.
 TH> Time is limited in scope, but constantly progressing. The key here
 TH> is to understand that anytime you have a progression of events,
 TH> such as a sequence of moments of time, a numeric progression,
 TH> chicken and egg scenario, etc. you are dealing with the finite.
 TH> For instance, lets look at chickens and eggs. A chicken lays an
 TH> egg, the egg makes a chicken, the chicken lays another egg, which
 TH> makes yet another chicken. How long has this continued? Can you
 TH> count the number of generations of chickens since the beginning?
 TH> Its a big number, however, both evolutionists and creationists
 TH> understand that there are points in history where there were no
 TH> chickens, and there are periods afterward where there certainly
 TH> were.
 TH> Time is the same as any finite progression of events.
Sure,... IF time is a finite progression, right?  Y'see this is an
assumption.  Assumption is not a problem in philosophical discussion, so
we can banter this one about first.  Time COULD be an "infinite"
progression of events,... this we can discuss after, deal?
 TH> If time were
 TH> infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all
 TH> points of possible existence.  Time isn't like that.
Perhaps not for us linear beings.  Methinks it is a matter of
perspective, a matter of whether one exists from moment to moment or
everywhen.  How would we know otherwise, really?  No one to MY knowledge
has ever existed simultaneously in every moment of time, BUT that does
not rule out ANY being existing in that way.
 TH> Time
 TH> progresses moment by moment
Exactly,... but for us.  Our perspective of time is all we have to go on...
well that and our imagination.
 TH>  - it doesn't matter if you measure
 TH> moments in years, seconds, etc - the effect is the same. One
 TH> finite moment of time passes and ends,
Yes, one can break up the flow of time in that way, and think of it as a
kind of movie film one watches in the theater (one picture at a time
really fast).  But no matter how small your pieces are there will always
be a smaller piece.  Where does it end?  Is time not, like matter,
infinitely divisible?
 TH> then another comes and
 TH> goes, and so on. It is a finite progression of events. Time is
 TH> continually moving toward the future. Moments that are now in
 TH> transition are the present, and the present moments move into the
 TH> past, and new moments that have never happened before are now
 TH> added to the sequence.
I understand, and agree in part, but those moments are also composed of
smaller moments, and those smaller moments are composed of even smaller
moments, and on and on.
 TH> If time were infinite, the it would not pass.
You will have to explain this in more detail.  Why would time not pass
if it were infinite in duration (which is what I meant by infinite)?
 TH> it continually
 TH> passes from one mode of temporal existence to new modes that it
 TH> did not occupy. That is why there are moments that have not
 TH> happened yet - time's existence is finite, and as more moments
 TH> pass, time is covering new moments that it did not previously
 TH> cover.
Yes, BUT from our perspective as linear beings.  If you wish to confine
this part of the discussion to linear existence, I can accommodate you
for a while?
 TH> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical,
 TH> but a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning.
Every FINITE sequence has a beginning.  This is true,... if one assumes
a finite aspect to time.  Hey I was proposing just one idea (ie. that if
space is curved, as Einstein theorized, and if time and space are linked
together, also as Einstein theorized, then time too may very well be
curved)
 TH> It hinges on the first question I posed. We can agree that if
 TH> there was ever a point in which absolutely nothing exists, then
 TH> nothing would EVER exist. Now, the second half of that is that if
 TH> there was ever a time in which anything DID exist, then that means
 TH> that there is a level of reality which has always existed.
 TH> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there would
 TH> be nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something DOES
 TH> exist, then we know that there was NEVER a point in which nothing
 TH> existed.
This seems logically correct.
 TH> Now, the universe does not exhibit characteristics of infinite as
 TH> I have explained. There is another level of reality which does not
 TH> change, which is beyond time, which as always existed and always
 TH> will, and that is the origin of the universe. Any sequence of
 TH> progression, whether it be chickens or moments in time, by its
 TH> very nature, is finite and had a beginning, else it would not be
 TH> in the process of progressing from state to state because its
 TH> infinite existence would already encompass all points and
 TH> possibilites and wouldn't be in a process of progression or
 TH> change.
 TH> Time flows in one direction, and is often compared to a line.
A spagetti noodle?  
 TH> A
 TH> mathematical line is construct that is an infinite set of points
 TH> along a direction. Infinite in both directions. The scenario you
 TH> are proposing is that the past extends into infinity, yet we see
 TH> that the future is still happening. That makes the line infinite
 TH> in one way, yet finite in the other. You cannot have something
 TH> that is half-infinite. That's illogical.
I kind of like the idea of a looooooong spagetti noodle with only one end.
But if one looks at it this way:
Time is always progressing (AFAWK) in one direction, but it is still
progressing.  Can you think of a point in which all time ceases to
progress forward?  It is in this way that I mean that time is infinite.
Infinite in *duration*.
 TH> The very nature and behavior of the universe under the laws of
 TH> physics demands a finite universe.
No, I must disagree here.  PEOPLE demand a finite universe.  IMO, this
is because it IS so hard to fathom infinity (just like it is hard to
fathom 4 spacial dimensions), so people do not prefer to think of the
universe as infinite.  It is easier and more comfortable to think that
it is finite.
There are two different schools of thought on finity and infinity when
it comes to the universe.  Yes, it seems that small parts of existence
are finite (the chicken/egg thing), but where did the first creature
come from in this universe of our's?  If every moment in time (whatever
the size) succeeds another moment in time, where was the first moment in
time?  What caused the fist moment in time?  The Big Bang?  How did the
Big Bang start?   What started that which started the Big Bang?  What
started that?  And so on *infinitely*.
 TH> The universe operates on
 TH> entropy and inertia. Eventually, stars "die", energy dissipates.
 TH> Angular monentum is lost - maybe bled off in the form of scattered
 TH> heat. The natural tendency is toward balance - nature hates a
 TH> vacuum as they say. This natural winding down, coupled with
 TH> everything I have told you so far, indicates a finite universe
 TH> which existed in a more energetic and maybe concentrated state
 TH> from which the winding down process began. And as with all things,
 TH> this process continues.
You read Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time"!  Is THAT what you've been
doing all this time you were gone from the echo?  I am truly impressed,
Todd... glad you did it. :)  Have you read Learner's "The Big Bang Never
Happened"?  I really think you should have both sides of the issue
examined before choosing one.  I mean even if you did read BOTH books
that would be equally great because you would have made the effort to
see both sides.  Do you not agree?
 TH> The universe is finite, yet logically, because existence HAS
 TH> ALWAYS existed in some level, there remains a force, God,
 TH> continuum, etc that has always existed, always will, is beyond
 TH> time, and brought the universe into existence.
At first when I saw the "God" word in this last statement I was going to
skip reading the rest, BUT I kept myself in check and did anyway.  What
sort of "continuum" did you have in mind?  You have piqued my interest,
now.  ;)
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------