Can time be infinite?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The point being that regardless of the actual ages or how our estimates might change, if you accept that it is coherent to say there was 'time' prior to there being an Earth circling our sun, then even if our concept of time is based on it, 'time' clearly isn't any single event.

Oh but it is, the "Big Bang" if you believe it. Why light (electromagnetic energy)? The BB gave rise to stars that give rise to planets, and elements, cesium just being one of many, decay rates. And as to our universe's standard ticker, as if it's tied to any one element, is ridiculous, as all elements are in fact the children of the universe's creation. Is there a standard ticker, with which all others must be compared? Earths and suns are just as arbitrary as cesium atoms. Could there be cesium that decays at a different rate in a different universe, and before you say it wouldn't be cesium, does it matter? Where's that standard ticker of change in any given universe, as if we can 'know' that universes can only work one way, that physics aren't just as relative? Puny humans at this stage can't necessarily 'know' this, they can only base guess's on what the 'believe' they sense thus far.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'll take responsibility for the "Absolute" but as far as an explanation, merely a hu'man attempt at putting into words that which transcends languages.

How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?
And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?

You are trying to persuade me that something exists that you are incapable of describing.
I think that many speaking of absolutes don't try and define it, knowing instead, that one day we shall find it.

I would argue that if it has no qualities that can be described in a natural language, English for example, then it doesn't exist.
Not at all, it's just that one cannot define something yet to be seen. There is a big difference between something not existing, and it not being known to exist, and neither one necessarily either proves or disproves anything either way.

This really is 'Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must remain silent.' (Closing words of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, if you are interested.)
Which in no way means that what one 'believes' they can speak of is necessarily correct. Which is how many try and qualify it, even though they usually won't admit it.

Limply accepting that there things you cannot know is defeatist.
Quite the contrary, it's the other way around, as those things you believe you know often obfuscate, that which is actually fact. You said so yourself. Remember, "old dogs and new tricks," (<-my analogy)?

Insisting that others agree with you is totalitarian.
I don't see a gun to your head, and even then one can refuse.

"There is no good guy, there is no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree." --Dave Mason--
I thought that's what we're here to do, challenge one another, for the sake of one another, of course????

Crap, he said as much!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Facts are subject to change, while Truth is impenetrable... which bit would you choose ?

No, truth is subject to change. Facts remain facts. The situation can change, which may bring new facts. But in the time a fact was the case, it will always have been the case.
For example if I were to say Elizabeth II is the monarch of England that is an unchangeable fact for 20/01/2015.
When she dies and Charlie takes over, then he will be the monarch of England; fact.

However, the truth value of "monarch" is open to a range of opinions, obvious, subtle and banal. What monarch means is not the same for all persons, and in each of us the importance or significance of truth is variable.

Bullshit, she is not a butterfly. So much for your Fact! A fact should be definitive, such that there is no place for ambiguity.
Your example does not necessarily indicate that a truth is not a fact, can be false, and that a fact is always true. That someone 'calls' something a fact or a truth, or a non fact or a falsehood, doesn't necessarily mean it's so. Both truth and fact 'should' mean the same thing, i.e., the condition of actuality. But they sometimes do not, but that's got to do with liars and fools. In fact, "truth" always points to the actually of things, as that's why it was created in the first place. The reason "fact" came into existence historically, was because philosophers were questioning truth, arguing it's proofs, from the perspective I've outlined, such that a new word was required so business could proceed. Check out history, and I'm sure you'll find.

[uwot]

Reality is not all it's cracked up to be when we rely upon it 24/7/365... and hu'manity doesn't. We balance reality with imaginings or dreams. These are our escapisms we use in order to elevate our realities that don't quite satisfy.

The problem with some 'escapisms' is that they are political, cultural or personal. Some require emotional investment and a by-pass of the critical faculties. When this is brought to the attention of people in the thrall of some "imaginings or dreams", the response can range from petulance to murderous rage.
I'm sorry your reality doesn't "quite satisfy". Finding comfort in the idea that you will be better off dead is harmless in itself, but if your dreams or imaginings are a substitute for doing anything to improve your unsatisfactory reality, you should consider adjusting them.

The only way we can make God real is to create places of worship, write books what we need our god(s) to be, to convince others that our belief in a god is what others should believe to enforce our own belief.

That says it all.

But far too many have had experiences that so closely parallel what is nothing less that a 'godly experience' that frees us from our mind and it's dualities in a near-constant battle within itself...

This is the difference: what you think is far too many people having godly experiences for you to dismiss, is not nearly enough for me to accept as evidence of anything meaningful. I'm not sure if that is why you called me a twat, we can do that until the cows come home, but I very much doubt if either will shift our criteria much.

[uwot]

'time' clearly isn't any single event.

Oh but it is, the "Big Bang" if you believe it.

Just for clarity, I don't 'believe' the Big Bang theory, I think it is a very plausible hypothesis that is supported by compelling evidence. But taking the Big Bang as given, you could argue that the visible universe, the change and hence time we witness, is the Big Bang. If that is what you mean, I wouldn't argue.

And as to our universe's standard ticker, as if it's tied to any one element, is ridiculous, as all elements are in fact the children of the universe's creation. Is there a standard ticker, with which all others must be compared? Earths and suns are just as arbitrary as cesium atoms.

Indeed. As Popper said: "It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." I didn't intend to imply that the universe is governed by the shaking of caesium, it just happens to be the cyclical event that we currently compare others to.

[uwot]

How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?

And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?

Are you having a go, SpheresOfBalance? Very well; how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether mine, yours or the Blue Magoos'?

Insisting that others agree with you is totalitarian.

I don't see a gun to your head, and even then one can refuse.

Lucky old me lives in a fairly tolerant democracy, but as we speak, people are having their heads hacked off simply for disagreeing.

[Lev Muishkin]

No, truth is subject to change. Facts remain facts.

Truth that changes can hardly be called 'Truth'. It was a long-held fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth until it sunk in with proof, (truth) the fact was erroneous... and so it goes. Many facts after lifetimes of acceptance are found to be subject to change.

It was held as true that the sun went round the earth for thousands of years. I was assumed to be the case in the Bible too.
It was true because it appears to be the case, and people had faith that humans were the special creation of god and therefore the earth was the centre of the universe. There were no facts here.
What is a fact is that people held it to be true that the earth was the centre of the universe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?

And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?

Are you having a go, SpheresOfBalance? Very well; how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether mine, yours or the Blue Magoos'?

I think you missed it, "neither one necessarily indicates truth." I, as usual, thought it might be clear, it wasn't a tit for tat game. It's that often people have the false illusion, and subsequent allusions that it means that they can only be right in that case you defend. And it's just not so!

Insisting that others agree with you is totalitarian.

I don't see a gun to your head, and even then one can refuse.

Lucky old me lives in a fairly tolerant democracy, but as we speak, people are having their heads hacked off simply for disagreeing.

Yes and if they try it on our turf, you and I shall band together and kick their stupid ass's! And you know we'll win.

We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap.

You know how I feel about that stuff, everyone deserves freedom to either, "burn out or fade away," as they see fit. Life's a one way ticket my friend, only one shot. If I didn't have some sort of freedom, I'd fight to obtain it. And I would suggest everyone do the same, wherever they are.

[uwot]

I think you missed it, "neither one necessarily indicates truth."

I must have. Where do you say this?

I, as usual, thought it might be clear, it wasn't a tit for tat game.

I was having a laugh, SpheresOfBalance. How many words for things I have no reason to think exist do you think I need?

It's that often people have the false illusion, and subsequent allusions that it means that they can only be right in that case you defend. And it's just not so!

Well, let's see:

I'll take responsibility for the "Absolute" but as far as an explanation, merely a hu'man attempt at putting into words that which transcends languages.

How can you be sure that it isn't just your failure to find the words?

And how can you be 'sure' it's not your failure to find the words, whether yours or others?

I really don't need words for things I have no reason to think exist and which I am not trying to describe.

You are trying to persuade me that something exists that you are incapable of describing.

I think that many speaking of absolutes don't try and define it, knowing instead, that one day we shall find it.

That's not what I understand as "knowing".

I would argue that if it has no qualities that can be described in a natural language, English for example, then it doesn't exist.

Not at all, it's just that one cannot define something yet to be seen. There is a big difference between something not existing, and it not being known to exist, and neither one necessarily either proves or disproves anything either way.

That's not the point: mtmynd1 is talking about "that which transcends languages", ie that which, even if "one day we shall find it", we will still not be able to describe. That's actually true of everything; have a go at describing red, without reference to a red thing. mtmynd1 asked me to describe my best ever orgasm, I said it was a bit like his. If we don't have common experiences, it is very difficult to communicate. I have no experience of the 'absolute' and no expectation that I ever will. Still, if you and I ever do encounter the absolute, I'm sure we will find words to talk about it.

This really is 'Whereof you cannot speak, thereof you must remain silent.' (Closing words of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, if you are interested.)

Which in no way means that what one 'believes' they can speak of is necessarily correct. Which is how many try and qualify it, even though they usually won't admit it.

Do you have any examples of people trying to qualify it so?

Limply accepting that there things you cannot know is defeatist.

Quite the contrary, it's the other way around, as those things you believe you know often obfuscate, that which is actually fact. You said so yourself. Remember, "old dogs and new tricks," (<-my analogy)?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I have made the point several times that the only things I know (other than contingent truths and logical/mathematical tautologies) is Parmenides and Descartes: There is something. There is thinking. Neither obfuscates anything, but I take your point that belief in things like 'God' plays havoc with adherents' critical faculties.

On a separate issue:

We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap.

No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them.

[artisticsolution]

Emotional people think like this:

"We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap."

Rational people think like this:

"No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them."

Unfortunately, most emotional people have no clue they are not being rational. I know...I am one of the rare emotional people who has been fortunate enough to learn to 'know' the difference. Not that I will ever be 100% rational, but that I can tell when I, or someone else, is blowing shit out their ass (Yes I said ass not arse...if ya'll can say lift not elevator, or fag not cigarette, then I can certainly say ass not arse. )

Can this thread be infinite is my question?

[mtmynd1]

War will never end
until there is only One. - mtmynd1

Now let's get back to the subject as hand - either time is infinite or time is finite, which is it? and who is going to claim the prize?

[attofishpi]

War will never end
until there is only One. - mtmynd1

Now let's get back to the subject as hand - either time is infinite or time is finite, which is it? and who is going to claim the prize?

Time is infinite.
What finite fing have i won?

[Ginkgo]

edit

[attofishpi]

War will never end
until there is only One. - mtmynd1

Now let's get back to the subject as hand - either time is infinite or time is finite, which is it? and who is going to claim the prize?

Time is infinite.
What finite fing have i won?

I suppose clarification is required.

My first argument would be the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law observes that the internal energy of an isolated system obeys the principle of conservation of energy, which states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.

Hence energy always remains in some form, for that to remain the case, time must be present, ergo...time is infinite.

My second argument would be in relation to 'events' that would simply never cease to occur (which in essence what time is...a measure of events).
The universe we are in apparently had its time begin with the B.Bang. I think it far fetched to believe that time didnt exist prior to that event, and here i believe the multiverse where the events within other universes caused our own to begin.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Emotional people think like this:

"We got nukes, how about you, lets turn their sand to glass! And watch them dance around on that crap."

Rational people think like this:

"No thanks. There are innocent men, women and children being raped, tortured and murdered. I'd like to think we could help end their misery in a more constructive way than vapourising them."

Unfortunately, most emotional people have no clue they are not being rational. I know...I am one of the rare emotional people who has been fortunate enough to learn to 'know' the difference. Not that I will ever be 100% rational, but that I can tell when I, or someone else, is blowing shit out their ass (Yes I said ass not arse...if ya'll can say lift not elevator, or fag not cigarette, then I can certainly say ass not arse. )

Can this thread be infinite is my question?

Not at all, AS. But it is true that many only find what they want to find in ones words. I'll clue you in, sometimes words are meant literally, and sometimes figuratively. Both you and uwot, obviously have not paid attention to all the things I have said here at PNF to know when I'm meaning either one. Both of you have attached preconceived notions as to what I am, instead of knowing what I am. It happens all the time here. It can be seen as a ploy, but I could give you two the benefit of doubt, something you haven't given me, and instead assume it's your ignorance talking. Because ploys are dishonest, which is much worse than ignorance. But then it's really me that's the nice guy!