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.
 RM> This is the kind of blatant ignorance that you have been tossing in
 RM> everyone's face since you "SAW THE LIGHT".  Truth is, Todd, you seem
 RM> to be unable to accept other points of view, or other arguments
 RM> (especially the ones that rip your ideas to itty bitty pieces).  You
Truth is, you have yet to ever come up with any kind of valid refutation
to anything I have ever posed - the only rebuttal I ever receive from you
is this exact type of reaction - anger, frustration, and character attacks.
Is this a philosophy echo or a grade school playground? If you cannot
offer a decent answer, please don't dishonor yourself by displays like
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.
 RM> Sure,... IF time is a finite progression, right?  Y'see this is an
 RM> assumption.  Assumption is not a problem in philosophical discussion,
 RM> so we can banter this one about first.  Time COULD be an "infinite"
 RM> progression of events,... this we can discuss after, deal?
Show me how each moment that passes is of infinite length. Show me how
time does not progress, but is a ever-present "now".
 TH> If time were
 TH> infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit all
 TH> points of possible existence.  Time isn't like that.
 RM> Perhaps not for us linear beings.  Methinks it is a matter of
 RM> perspective, a matter of whether one exists from moment to moment or
 RM> everywhen.  How would we know otherwise, really?  No one to MY
Oh please...
 RM> knowledge has ever existed simultaneously in every moment of time, BUT
 RM> that does not rule out ANY being existing in that way.
That's like saying nobody has ever witnessed Porky Pig in Godhood but not
ruling out the possibility altogether. Are gonna do phil here or play with
semantics?
 TH> Time
 TH> progresses moment by moment
 RM> Exactly,... but for us.  Our perspective of time is all we have to go
 RM> 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,
 RM> Yes, one can break up the flow of time in that way, and think of it as
 RM> a kind of movie film one watches in the theater (one picture at a time
 RM> really fast).  But no matter how small your pieces are there will
 RM> always be a smaller piece.  Where does it end?  Is time not, like
 RM> 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.
 RM> I understand, and agree in part, but those moments are also composed
 RM> of smaller moments, and those smaller moments are composed of even
 RM> smaller moments, and on and on.
That's like the old nonsense paradox that because any distance can be
further divided into smaller ones, that travel from point A to B is
impossible. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's an example of a non-existant
limitation created by people's imagination but which has no observable
credibility.
 TH> If time were infinite, the it would not pass.
 RM> You will have to explain this in more detail.  Why would time not pass
 RM> if it were infinite in duration (which is what I meant by infinite)?
My entire message served that purpose. Maybe if you didn't start off with
an emotional reaction like you did...
 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.
 RM> Yes, BUT from our perspective as linear beings.  If you wish to
 RM> confine this part of the discussion to linear existence, I can
 RM> accommodate you for a while?
How many non-linear beings do you know that would like to participate
in this discussion?
 TH> Arbitrarily saying that it always existed is not only illogical,
 TH> but a cowardly cop-out. Every finite sequence has a beginning.
 RM> Every FINITE sequence has a beginning.  This is true,... if one
 RM> assumes a finite aspect to time.  Hey I was proposing just one idea
 RM> (ie. that if space is curved, as Einstein theorized, and if time and
 RM> space are linked together, also as Einstein theorized, then time too
 RM> may very well be curved)
Depends on what you mean by "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.
 RM> 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.
 RM> A spagetti noodle?  
Actually, that would be a segment 
 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.
 RM> I kind of like the idea of a looooooong spagetti noodle with only one
 RM> end. But if one looks at it this way:
 RM> Time is always progressing (AFAWK) in one direction, but it is still
 RM> progressing.  Can you think of a point in which all time ceases to
 RM> progress forward?  It is in this way that I mean that time is
 RM> infinite. Infinite in *duration*.
That does not equal infinity, only boundlessness. Start at point "A" and
draw a line 3 "units" long. Extend its length by 10. By another 1000. By
a million. By a million billion billion zillion. Infinite yet? Add another
zillion zillion zillion zillion zillion. Any limits found to its extension
potential yet? No. Is it infinite yet? No, just longer. If it were truly
infinite in scope, there would be no more points to extend it to because
it would already occupy all points simultaneously, without beginning or
end. There would never be a time in which it wasn't infinite, nor will there
be a time when it will not be.
Our univers does not exhibit those properties. Nuff said.
 TH> The very nature and behavior of the universe under the laws of
 TH> physics demands a finite universe.
 RM> No, I must disagree here.  PEOPLE demand a finite universe.  IMO, this
 RM> is because it IS so hard to fathom infinity (just like it is hard to
 RM> fathom 4 spacial dimensions), so people do not prefer to think of the
 RM> universe as infinite.  It is easier and more comfortable to think that
 RM> it is finite.
I care not for "feelings". For many athiests, it is easier for them to
believe in an "infinite" universe than to deal with creationsist questions
of how it all came to be. The argument above is nonsense, and does not
apply to everyone's "feelings". It has no place in an objective exploration
of existence.
 RM> There are two different schools of thought on finity and infinity when
 RM> it comes to the universe.  Yes, it seems that small parts of existence
 RM> are finite (the chicken/egg thing), but where did the first creature
 RM> come from in this universe of our's?  If every moment in time
 RM> (whatever the size) succeeds another moment in time, where was the
 RM> first moment in time?  What caused the fist moment in time?  The Big
 RM> Bang?  How did the Big Bang start?   What started that which started
 RM> the Big Bang?  What started that?  And so on *infinitely*.
No, you haven't paid attention. You just got through agreeing with the
following:
 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.
 RM> This seems logically correct.
Therefore, the backwards progression of where it all began does NOT go
back to infinity. Since this continuum isn't infinite, and seeing how
the above was, by your agreement, logically correct, the conclusion is
obvious. There are levels of existence which are finite, and those which
are infinite. The finite was created by the infinite "thing" that has
always existed out of logical necessity. This is the Origin. It's maybe
an energy, a force, or God, or quantum properties, etc which always
existed and always will. THAT is what brought the finite into existence.
 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.
 RM> You read Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time"!  Is THAT what you've
 RM> been doing all this time you were gone from the echo?  I am truly
Uhh, no, its really common sense in agreement with the observable everyday
behavior of the laws of this finite universe. I have read very little
of Hawking.
 RM> impressed, Todd... glad you did it. :)  Have you read Learner's "The
 RM> Big Bang Never Happened"?  I really think you should have both sides of
 RM> the issue examined before choosing one.  I mean even if you did read
 RM> BOTH books that would be equally great because you would have made the
 RM> effort to see both sides.  Do you not agree?
I have, a while back, heard very good arguments on both sides. The Big Bang
is a side issue that you seem to fixate on arbitrarily. It is logically
consistent to conclude that the universe has not always existed, as I
have attempted to explain. The observations of the behavior of the universe
associated with the Big Bang and its theories are secondary. The Big Bang
is only on avenue of trying to explain how the finite universe first came
into being. It may be close or maybe not. The Big Bang is man's attempt at
trying to hammer out the details of a universe that had a beginning.
 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.
 RM> At first when I saw the "God" word in this last statement I was going
 RM> to skip reading the rest, BUT I kept myself in check and did anyway. 
 RM> What sort of "continuum" did you have in mind?  You have piqued my
 RM> interest, now.  ;)
I am creating a ground-up exploration into the nature of existence. At this
point, given what we have explored so far in this, there isn't enough yet
to conclude there is a God - only a level of existence which has always
existed and always will, which brought our necessarily fininte universe
into being.
BWT, what if I WAS stressing God as the only possibility? If the argument
was sound, it would be pretty close minded and unphilosophical and actually
quite ignorant to skip over it just because you don't like it. You know?
... "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message."
---
---------------