The Impossibility of Infinite Time

[odysseus]

EB
I make clear that I am at my cell phone to explain why I am not selecting parts of the text and discussing them individually. Instead u will notice I speak in big block paragraphs. Awkward. Can’t tespond to your thoughts now because I am busy. And I am on my phone.

[odysseus]

Well EB, let’s look at your thoughts.
What you call a soup of nonsense is called serious philosophy. This is what happens when you go to a philosophy club having read so little philosophy. What IS a moment in time if not the witnesed events therein? What is time as a concept if not these events in duration? But this term is merely redundant, as extension is redundant when talking about space. Duration is a relative term, is it not? One duration is of an indeterminate designation. We have other terms for this, like minutes and centuries. But are these not arbitrarily conceived? Grounded in sidereal events and pragmatically conceived considerations, it is not time that produces the usual terminology, but events. I believe time is reducible to events. Events do not occur in time. They are tangled with our pragmatic systems of measuring and scheduling and the like. Time IS time words like today and later this morning and so on. So, when it comes tothe usual notions, keep in mind we are dealing with time utility terms and not absolutes But infinity IS an absolute termisnt it? Wel, no. The term is , like all terms, an attempt to bring the wotld to heel, deal with it, that is. We do this by assimilating what we do not know into what we do by applying the usual vocabulary: What is eternity if not an infinite number of nights, of sevonds , and so on. But all we do here is multiply and turn the actuality of a transcendence into something familiar.
The only way out of this is to discard such familiarity and reconceive time, infinity and finitude. One must, heh heh, read Kant, then read Heidegger. And in between read a lot of philosophy.
I don’t mind people who don’t read. But to toss ideas around so disparaging that you know nothing whatsoever about is just nothing short of juvenile.
Have a nice day

[Logik]

What you call a soup of nonsense is called serious philosophy.

And I would say that what you call "serious philosophy" is an oxymoron.

What IS a moment in time if not the witnesed events therein?

What is 'witnessing' if not sampling and measurement?

One duration is of an indeterminate designation.

No, it isn't. It's already quantified.

The Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem deals with such issues and the planck length in Physics determines the shortest possible wave-length in this universe.

That determines the smallest possible unit of time. Not as "indeterminate" as you claim.

We have other terms for this, like minutes and centuries. But are these not arbitrarily conceived? Grounded in sidereal events and pragmatically conceived considerations, it is not time that produces the usual terminology, but events. I believe time is reducible to events. Events do not occur in time. They are tangled with our pragmatic systems of measuring and scheduling and the like. Time IS time words like today and later this morning and so on. So, when it comes tothe usual notions, keep in mind we are dealing with time utility terms and not absolutes

Wrong. We are very much dealing with absolutes. Time is irreducible beyond Planck-length.

Sure, time is arbitrarily conceived, but that's a truism. Energy is arbitrary. Mass is arbitrary. All the SI units used in science are arbitrary. That does not detract from their utility. They predict. They were always grounded in real-world phenomena.

Since their conception those units have been grounded and calibrated for precision against more and more concise physics phenomena. Consult the SI bureau for the various standards.

To make my point simply. Any analogue wave particle with frequency N, can be perfectly described if sampled at a frequency of 2N, which means that at planck scale - you are left with 50% uncertainty on its phase-position. Hello Mr Heisenberg!

This phenomenon of measurement/sampling has a proper name in Mathematics. It's called "bandwidth", which is in term tackled in the Shannon-Hartley theorem.

Bandwidth is information per unit of time. Time is quantified. Information is quantified.

I don’t mind people who don’t read. But to toss ideas around so disparaging that you know nothing whatsoever about is just nothing short of juvenile.

I terribly mind people who only read philosophy but don't DO science.

It's not short of. It IS sophistry.

[uwot]

...the planck length in Physics determines the shortest possible wave-length in this universe.

That determines the smallest possible unit of time. Not as "indeterminate" as you claim.

Yer might wanna check that. Oh it's you, Logik. All that Planck scale stuff is about what is measurable, rather than actual. It's epistemology, not ontology.

...I believe time is reducible to events. Events do not occur in time. They are tangled with our pragmatic systems of measuring and scheduling and the like. Time IS time words like today and later this morning and so on. So, when it comes tothe usual notions, keep in mind we are dealing with time utility terms and not absolutes

Wrong.We are very much dealing with absolutes. Time is irreducible beyond Planck-length.

The point is that there is no way to observe events beyond the Planck scale, not that there aren't any.

[Logik]

Yer might wanna check that. Oh it's you, Logik. All that Planck scale stuff is about what is measurable, rather than actual. It's epistemology, not ontology.

You keep telling me to "check that" but you keep failing to provide any useful feedback. So you are making me dig into your head with questions....

Do you think you can get to ontology without epistemology?
Do you think you can get to ontology without measurement?

The point is that there is no way to observe events beyond the Planck scale, not that there aren't any.

OK! Lets do some hypothesis-testing here. You have two hypotheses:

A: There is an ontology beyond Planck scale
B: There is no ontology beyond Planck scale

Agnosticism (I don't know either way) is the excluded middle. The default position.

Probability(A) = Probability(B) = 0.5
A/B = 50/50
A:B = 1:1

MeasureDecibel(A, B) = 0 dB ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel )

"There are ontological events beyond Planck scale" is an epistemic claim that A is more probable than B.

Probability(A) > Probability(B)
A/B > 50/50
MeasureDecibel(A,B) > 0 dB

If you make that claim then you have necessarily measured something. That which you are measuring is called "evidence" a.k.a information.

IF you have somehow found a way/mechanism to obtain evidence for your epistemic claim that A is more probable than B then you have, in practice, falsified the "limit" Planck imposes on you.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent!

[surreptitious57]

The Planck scale like the Big Bang is a limit that physics cannot go beyond but it is probably only temporary
For at some point it may be possible to reduce it and observe events and how time operates at such a scale

[surreptitious57]

Do you think you can get to ontology without epistemology

Ontology is philosophy / epistemology is science - they are therefore not very compatible
So using one to get to the other is not going to work - much better to keep them separate

[Logik]

Ontology is philosophy / epistemology is science - they are therefore not very compatible
So using one to get to the other is not going to work - much better to keep them separate

Ontology follows from epistemology.

If you want anything to philosophise about - first you need knowledge.

ergo. science comes before philosophy. ergo - philosophy is dead.

[surreptitious57]

If you want anything to philosophise about - first you need knowledge

You can philosophise from a point of zero knowledge so it is not actually necessary
Though its more preferable to have some epistemological foundation to work from

[surreptitious57]

ergo science comes before philosophy . ergo - philosophy is dead

Philosophy has a purpose which is to ask the right questions
And that is questions which are beyond the remit of science

[Logik]

You can philosophise from a point of zero knowledge so it is not actually necessary
Though its more preferable to have some epistemological foundation to work from

No you can't.

Schrödinger's default position is "I don't know if the cat is dead or alive".

That is zero-knowledge.

To philosophize about a dead cat or about an alive cat is to take a position.
If you have taken a position you are claiming knowledge.

[surreptitious57]

To philosophize about a dead cat or about an alive cat is to take a position
If you have taken a position you are claiming knowledge

A position can be hypothetical without actually being a knowledge claim
And without actual evidence to support it any knowledge claim is invalid

[Logik]

A position can be hypothetical without actually being a knowledge claim
And without actual evidence to support it any knowledge claim is invalid

OK, but you are (hypothetically) saying is that IF you were able to (hypothetically) obtain the evidence then you would hold that position.

Fine. In the most cases - you can do that, because in most cases there is a way to obtain the evidence.

In uwot's case you can't do that. Planck lengths are the LIMITS of our ability to obtain evidence.

So to speak of hypotheticals of obtaining evidence whereas you know you cannot - that's magical thinking.

If you were to ACTUALLY obtain evidence beyond Planck scale you would immediately falsify it as a "law" of physics.

[Speakpigeon]

Well EB, let’s look at your thoughts.
What you call a soup of nonsense is called serious philosophy. This is what happens when you go to a philosophy club having read so little philosophy. What IS a moment in time if not the witnesed events therein? What is time as a concept if not these events in duration? But this term is merely redundant, as extension is redundant when talking about space. Duration is a relative term, is it not? One duration is of an indeterminate designation. We have other terms for this, like minutes and centuries. But are these not arbitrarily conceived? Grounded in sidereal events and pragmatically conceived considerations, it is not time that produces the usual terminology, but events. I believe time is reducible to events. Events do not occur in time. They are tangled with our pragmatic systems of measuring and scheduling and the like. Time IS time words like today and later this morning and so on. So, when it comes tothe usual notions, keep in mind we are dealing with time utility terms and not absolutes But infinity IS an absolute termisnt it? Wel, no. The term is , like all terms, an attempt to bring the wotld to heel, deal with it, that is. We do this by assimilating what we do not know into what we do by applying the usual vocabulary: What is eternity if not an infinite number of nights, of sevonds , and so on. But all we do here is multiply and turn the actuality of a transcendence into something familiar.
The only way out of this is to discard such familiarity and reconceive time, infinity and finitude. One must, heh heh, read Kant, then read Heidegger. And in between read a lot of philosophy.
I don’t mind people who don’t read. But to toss ideas around so disparaging that you know nothing whatsoever about is just nothing short of juvenile.
Have a nice day

Sorry if I offended you, but what I really meant was that what you say is tosh. I really have nothing against you and I'm sure you're a nice bloke. So, please keep in mind that when I say that what you say is tosh, I really mean that and not something else. So, no good reason to feel offended, really.
As to good philosophy, well, good philosophy is good philosophy because it is good philosophy, not because it's you who've read it in some book or because it's Kant. Also, what you've read may actually be good philosophy, and why not, but what you say is still tosh.
Time is not conceived as events "in duration". We just don't need the word "duration" to talk about time and nobody does. It would be stupid. And who even ever said that? Ah, yes, just you. When philosophers use the expression "time in duration", it is therefore not to define time but to make clear what they are talking about, i.e. time and not just one moment in time. You're welcome.
Minutes and centuries are not arbitrary notions either. Just wait a century for the loo and you will notice the not at all arbitrary difference between a minute and a century. Our notion of duration is grounded in our subjective experience, and again, that's definitely not something arbitrary because this is indeed all we actually know. You don't seem to understand that. We could say here very a propos that man is the measure of everything. .
And if you say that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events, then you're just asserting something you don't know so why should I or anyone believe you? Further, this isn't anything like an original idea, so what you say you believe is likely merely what you are repeating without proper justification. So, what's the justification for believing that events do not occur in time and that time is reducible to events? Well, it could be true, isn't it? Yeah, could be. Could be false, too. Could be. So, not much in terms of justification. It's just you're choice to believe it.
Personally, I don't believe time exists as we ordinarily think of it. But then again I don't believe that space, or indeed anything physical, including the physical world itself, exist as we ordinarily think of them. So, you can keep you're "serious" philosophy for when you've find something a bit more original to teach me.
As to using time words as if they are referring to actual things, there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe time exists, maybe it doesn't exist. When you can prove it doesn't, come back to teach us.
I'm myself not even interested in whether time really exists or not. Who cares,really? Doesn't make much difference either way, isn't it?
Instead, I was discussing the logic of our usual notion of time or of the infinite and the logic of the notion of time doesn't rely at all on whether time is a real thing or just a figment of our imagination. So, if you have something to say about the logic of our ordinary concept of time, you're welcome.
EB

[odysseus]

Well EB, it will be a week and a half or so that I am back at my desk. Then I can respond properly. Not at all offended.