Salutatio Mr. Rigor!
29-Jan-98, Mr. Rigor wrote to Todd Henson
          Subject: Time and Again
 TH>> The universe, by its nature, is necessarily finite.
 MR> This statement seems vaguely worded.
Like biblical text, perhaps?  
 TH>> Time is the same as any finite progression of events. If time
 TH>> were infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all
 TH>> points of possible existence.
 MR> I dispute this claim.
How?
 TH>> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical,
 TH>> but a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning.
 MR> I don't see how accusations of cowardice contribute to your
 MR> argument.
They do not, of course.
 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.
 MR> If "we" means you and I, then no.  I do not agree with this
 MR> implication. I'm not sure how the intended recipient of your
 MR> message thinks.
If you have lurked here long enough you would know.  Shall we
discuss this, I find your responses interesting,... perhaps even
haunting.
 TH>> Now, the second half of that is that if there was ever a time in
 TH>> which anything DID exist, then that means that there is a level
 TH>> of reality which has always existed.
 MR> Disagreed.
Why?
 TH>> Remember, if nothing exists, nothing ever will because there
 TH>> would be nothing to cause anything. So, seeing as how something
 TH>> DOES exist, then we know that there was NEVER a point in which
 TH>> nothing existed.
 MR> You seem to be assuming that everything that exists has an
 MR> external cause. I dispute this assumption.
How?
 TH>> Any sequence of progression, whether it be chickens or moments in
 TH>> time, by its very nature, is finite and had a beginning,
 MR> Many do not regard the "progression" of time as a "sequence",
 MR> which is a discrete sort of thing, but as a linearly ordered
 MR> continuum with an uncountably infinite number of points. Such a
 MR> model renders all "chicken and egg" analogies faulty.
Thanks a lot, I was leading up to this and you ruined it.  :(
 TH>> else it would not be in the process of progressing from state to
 TH>> state because its infinite existence would already encompass all
 TH>> points and possibilites and wouldn't be in a process of
 TH>> progression or change.
 MR> Again I dispute this implication.
Again, how?
 MR> While I may not have seen this "everything I've told you so far",
 MR> it would appear that the contents of the message I am replying to
 MR> do not establish the finiteness of time, at least in many senses
 MR> of the word "finite".  I think what's needed most is a
 MR> clarification of terminology.
Provide your definitions of these terminologies and we shall see.
 MR> This conclusion seems to depend at least partly on an assumption
 MR> that everything that exists has an external cause, which I again
 MR> dispute
Too vague, elaborate.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca) 
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------