Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

[Serpent]

Positor, Serpent,

A cube and a sphere are both finite objects.

1. What separates the inside of a finite cube from the outside of the finite cube?

2. What separates the inside of a finite sphere from the outside of the finite sphere?

In both cases, the surface you refuse to admit is without recognizable boundaries, even though it's limited in size and thus finite. But you were not asked about the inside and the outside. you were asked about the boundaries of the surface.

[Positor]

There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

So why keep referring to to it?
In any case, you don't have the executive privilege of swapping out solid forms in somebody else's example of limited-but-unbounded. And you might run into problems with the rock and the mannequin.

OK, since you cannot conduct this discussion in a civil manner, I'm out. I thought I was in full agreement with you on this topic, so I am puzzled by the sudden hostility. I don't know how you can disagree with both me and CanMan, because he and I are expressing opposite views!

Anyway, I will leave you two to pursue your fruitless discussion.

[CanMan]

A cube and a sphere are both finite objects.

1. What separates the inside of a finite cube from the outside of the finite cube?

2. What separates the inside of a finite sphere from the outside of the finite sphere?

Answer -- It's BOUNDARY separates the inside from the outside. Its boundary defines its shape.

In both cases, the surface you refuse to admit is without recognizable boundaries, even though it's limited in size and thus finite.

The boundary is recognized by its shape.

Contrast this with a cube, the 2D sides of which have boundaries; you can reach the edges of the sides. We are talking here about the boundaries between one side (surface) and another side (surface), not between the interior and exterior of the sphere.

The boundary of a 2D side of a cube is square. The boundaries of the square and the sphere define their shapes.

There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

That which gives the sphere its finite-ness is its boundary. Its boundary separates the inside from the outside. It's boundary can be recognized by its shape.

******
"Finite" and "boundary" are inseparable. Therefore - "finite but unbounded" (a boundary-less boundary) is as impossible as the "beginning of time" (time before time), both are self-contradictory phrases.

[Serpent]

There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

So why keep referring to to it?
In any case, you don't have the executive privilege of swapping out solid forms in somebody else's example of limited-but-unbounded. And you might run into problems with the rock and the mannequin.

OK, since you cannot conduct this discussion in a civil manner, I'm out. I thought I was in full agreement with you on this topic, so I am puzzled by the sudden hostility. I don't know how you can disagree with both me and CanMan, because he and I are expressing opposite views!

Anyway, I will leave you two to pursue your fruitless discussion.

I'm sorry my persistent attempts to persuade CanMan to distinguish between the surface of an object and the object itself strikes you as hostile. I'm even sorrier that I got the two of you mixed up that last round - that was careless of me. I only realized my mistake when I went back a page to check just now.

On consideration, though, it seems even more confusing that you would bring in the cube. True, it has two-dimensional, easily definable surfaces. Why cut out a piece of the surface? You could do that to a sphere just as well: cut out easily definable triangles, but that wouldn't be the surface of the solid anymore. My objection still stands: it's not relevant.

Anyway, I did not intend to be uncivil. I bear no ill-will and hold no convictions on this topic. I neither agree nor disagree with either of you. My position is that we can't possibly know the limits of time or the universe. I was merely challenging CanMan to present a logically consistent defense of his theory.

[TheVat]

Can,

In the companion thread to this one,

"Finite objects are proof of an infinite universe "

DavidM explained how the concept of finite but unbounded is coherent and not contradictory. Please review his comments and links, thanks. We are not going to endlessly circle on the same dispute that was already covered there. If someone doesn't follow the reasoning and relevant aspects of General Relativity, then move on.

[CanMan]

TheVat, good idea. I will put together a sound response to the fallacy of "finite but unbounded", after re-reviewing davidm links and comments. I should be able to respond by tomorrow morning. I'm tied up with work issues today.

[charon]

CanMan -

The problem here is that you are viewing time as a 'measurement', and not as a 'dimension'.

You either haven't read what we were saying earlier, or didn't get it, or have forgotten it.

Forgive me, but your original question about time has been answered now. This current topic has nothing to do with time as far as I can see. Also, as Vat has said, it's been worn out and done to death.

The trouble with the conceptual mind is that it starts with concepts, and stays there, so any old answer is invariably seen as just another concept and therefore unsatisfactory. A mind like that will never find a true answer to anything.

Start with fact, reality, and go from fact to fact. You'll rarely go wrong and your only problem will be those who think your results are just more concepts to add to the pile :-)

[CanMan]

The problem here is that you are viewing time as a 'measurement', and not as a 'dimension'.

You either haven't read what we were saying earlier, or didn't get it, or have forgotten it.

It seems that you still do not understand the difference between 'time as a measurement' and 'Time as a dimension'. ...do you?

Forgive me, but your original question about time has been answered now.

What's the answer? ...do you agree that Time is infinite? ...or do you believe Time existed before it existed?

This current topic has nothing to do with time as far as I can see.

Yes, agreed, we have veered off topic. Unless there are any more relevant comments, I think it is "time" to move on. I'll address the fallacy of "finite but unbounded" in another topic. Hopefully tomorrow.

The trouble with the conceptual mind is that it starts with concepts, and stays there, so any old answer is invariably seen as just another concept and therefore unsatisfactory. A mind like that will never find a true answer to anything.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Isn't this response also a concept from your mind? ...is this also not a "true answer to anything"?

[charon]

This is finished, CanMan. It was actually answered in my second post to you.

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=35955&p=351871#p351871

I'll leave you to check back whether I understand the difference between measurement and dimension. It's all there.

You spend a lot of time here, don't you? Why is that?

[charon]

Isn't this response also a concept from your mind?

See, every time :-)

[Neri]

If, by “time,” one means a series of perfectly determinable intervals (per Zeno, Einstein and McTaggart), then time is just an idea that has no existence independent of the human mind.

If, by “time,” one means change, then time has an existence independent of the mind and has always existed. However, in such case, time cannot consist of a series of fully determined intervals. That is, it must be completely seamless (metaphysically continuous).

[charon]

If time is movement, measured with a man-made system, then obviously it is seamless. From our perspective things start and stop but that's not the beginning or end of time, it's just there.

But, as you say, our perception and experience of time is internal, to do with the mind. So time, for us, is mentally created and we tend to live in that. But the important thing then is to see if time can end. Not space-time but our own internal sense of time. Then there's a different state.

The interesting thing then is whether that state is an experience. Any experience involves an entity who experiences but, if there is such an entity, that entity is the result of all sorts of previous experiences, therefore he is the very essence of time and what is of time cannot experience the timeless.

So as long as the self of time exists there's no timelessness.

Time is what we measure, it is the coming and going of events, and it's doubtful if there was any beginning of it. The physicists say that time began with the Big Bang but, to me, that is conjecture. It may or may not be, but one has to ask what was there, or not there, before the Big Bang. It would be wrong to say nothing because nothing comes out of nothing.

[curiosity]

If time is movement, measured with a man-made system, then obviously it is seamless. From our perspective things start and stop but that's not the beginning or end of time, it's just there.

If, by “time,” one means change, then time has an existence independent of the mind and has always existed. However, in such case, time cannot consist of a series of fully determined intervals. That is, it must be completely seamless (metaphysically continuous).

What an excellent thread ... particularly the above two paragraphs!

[charon]

What an excellent post

You've quoted two different people, not one post.

[curiosity]

You've quoted two different people, not one post.

Oops,Yes, I meant to say thread not post!

[curiosity]

[quote]Time is what we measure, it is the coming and going of events, and it's doubtful if there was any beginning of it. The physicists say that time began with the Big Bang but, to me, that is conjecture. It may or may not be, but one has to ask what was there, or not there, before the Big Bang. It would be wrong to say nothing because nothing comes out of nothing./quote]

I must say that I found the paragraph above insightful too Charon. It makes a refreshing change to find such interesting reading on here. Keep up the good work guys.

[charon]

But have you nothing to say on it yourself?

[curiosity]

Yes, charon I do have things to say.

Maybe when the time is right... (Pun intended)

However...Be forewarned that my thoughts could be considered more than a smidge radicle. Hopefully I will get the opportunity to jot them down and share them, in the not too distant future. Judging by your post mentioning the Big-bang, (which I quoted,) you will likely find my own opinion on time and Big-bang-theory interesting.

[charon]

Up to you.