Salutatio Mr.!
30-Jan-98, Mr. Rigor wrote to Richard Meic
Subject: Time and Again
MR>>> I dispute this claim.
RM>> How?
MR> I dispute the claim by typing "I dispute this claim."
Okay, smart ass.
MR> Why? I see no reason to believe that such an implication is a
MR> true one. The implication being (time is "infinite") => (no
MR> progression of time). At least that's what it seems like.
It makes no sense to me either.
MR> Of
MR> course I have no idea what the original poster meant by "time is
MR> infinite", but I can think of at least one way to apply the term
MR> "infinite" to a certain model of time which does allow for
MR> progression of time (if this is indeed the issue at hand). This
MR> seems to provide a counterexample to the implication (as I have
MR> interpreted it)
Well I had presented my reasoning of one way time could be infinite. I
started out with the question "Why does there need to be an end to
time?". I will try to find those posts and present them to you.
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.
MR> OK, perhaps you might pose some questions under a new subject. I
MR> like a good haunting.
I shall, and have done so.
MR>>> Disagreed.
RM>> Why?
MR> Maybe we should start a new thread, abandoning the old husk of the
MR> conversation. When I build something I like to start fresh, from
MR> a void
Okay, ignore what we have just gone through.
Question: Leading theorists of our day claim that time began at the
Big Bang (the BB is something I still dispute). Why does time have to
have a beginning? IMO, claiming such is sheer speculation, built from
assumption.
There starting from scratch. Your turn. ;)
Dicere...
email address (vrmeic@spots.ab.ca)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro
---------------
* Origin: (0) Always watching. (1:134/242.7)
|