Hello Richard.
29 Jan 98 17:16, Richard Meic wrote to Mr. Rigor:
29-Jan-98, Mr. Rigor wrote to Todd Henson
 TH>>> Time is the same as any finite progression of events. If time
 TH>>> were infinite then its existence would simultaneously exhibit
 TH>>> all points of possible existence.
 MR>> I dispute this claim.
 RM> How?
I dispute the claim by typing "I dispute this claim."
Why?  I see no reason to believe that such an implication is a true one.
The implication being (time is "infinite") => (no progression of time).
At least that's what it seems like.  Of course I have no idea what the
original poster meant by "time is infinite", but I can think of at least
one way to apply the term "infinite" to a certain model of time which does
allow for progression of time (if this is indeed the issue at hand).  This
seems to provide a counterexample to the implication (as I have interpreted 
it).
 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.
 RM> If you have lurked here long enough you would know.  Shall we
 RM> discuss this, I find your responses interesting,... perhaps even
 RM> haunting.
OK, perhaps you might pose some questions under a new subject.
I like a good 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.
 RM> Why?
I might retract this, as I can see it being true-in-some-sense, but I can see 
it being false-in-some-other-sense. It's begging for more precise phrasing.
I don't see myself endorsing such a claim at this point.
 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.
 RM> How?
I refer you to my earlier smart-ass remark.
I'll bet you a zillion dollars that I can construct a model of Universe which 
is consistant with observed phenomena but does not have the property that all 
events have an external cause.  I have not seen any reasonable argument 
establishing the truth of such an axiom in "real" Universe.
Even if 100% of events I have observed have been "caused" by different events 
(something I would not normally agree with), does not mean that all events 
not observed were "caused".  Dunno if anyone was trying to make argument 
about this but thought I'd say it just in case.  Might as well note that even 
though a certain event may have had a cause attributed to it by some 
observer, such a claim of causality does not accurately describe "real" 
Universe.
[.......]
 RM> Thanks a lot, I was leading up to this and you ruined it.  :(
Sorry.
 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.
 RM> Provide your definitions of these terminologies and we shall see.
Maybe we should start a new thread, abandoning the old husk of the 
conversation.  When I build something I like to start fresh, from a void.
 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
 RM> Too vague, elaborate.
which part?  the conclusion depending on the assumption, or the 
disputation(?)?
Mr. Rigor
--- GoldED 2.50+
---------------