We could get somewhere if you just accept that there is at least one watch in the universe that shows the passage of time.
The only "watch" which would fit said roll, would have to be the Universe itself.
That clock/timepiece can still be considered "within" the Universe and any notion of an "outside" is assumming said Universe is itself "within" some "other" Universe (supernaturalism).
One cannot "see" the Universe from a perspective "outside" of the Universe which is why we cannot describe the Singularity even that we can pinpoint it as a "beginning." (of the Universes current overall form...which itself is ever-changing).
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 8:37 pm
In what sense ffs.
In the sense that there are events in the universe and they are separated by relative time.
Yes
And you believe that the infinite past exists? If yes, then how could you reach from the infinite past to now given the fact that infinity is not reachable?
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 8:41 pm
In the sense that there are events in the universe and they are separated by relative time.
Yes
And you believe that the infinite past exists? If yes, then how could you reach from the infinite past to now given the fact that infinity is not reachable?
I don't really "believe" anything. But for the n-th time: no, I don't think that the infinite past exists as I think time is circular, as are all dimensions.
And you believe that the infinite past exists? If yes, then how could you reach from the infinite past to now given the fact that infinity is not reachable?
I don't really "believe" anything. But for the n-th time: no, I don't think that the infinite past exists as I think time is circular, as are all dimensions.
But you don't believe that time does not have a beginning therefore even in a cyclic universe there are an infinite number of cycles in the past.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 1:20 pm
And you believe that the infinite past exists? If yes, then how could you reach from the infinite past to now given the fact that infinity is not reachable?
I don't really "believe" anything. But for the n-th time: no, I don't think that the infinite past exists as I think time is circular, as are all dimensions.
But you don't believe that time does not have a beginning therefore even in a cyclic universe there are an infinite number of cycles in the past.
Of course there are an infinite number of cycles in the past, when overall we still treat time as linear. Which is not my position as I reject linear time, which I said at least 4-5 times.
Atla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:14 pm
I don't really "believe" anything. But for the n-th time: no, I don't think that the infinite past exists as I think time is circular, as are all dimensions.
But you don't believe that time does not have a beginning therefore even in a cyclic universe there are an infinite number of cycles in the past.
Of course there are an infinite number of cycles in the past, when overall we still treat time as linear. Which is not my position as I reject linear time, which I said at least 4-5 times.
So in your opinion we are in the first cycle? If no, how many cycles have existed in the past?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:06 pm
But you don't believe that time does not have a beginning therefore even in a cyclic universe there are an infinite number of cycles in the past.
Of course there are an infinite number of cycles in the past, when overall we still treat time as linear. Which is not my position as I reject linear time, which I said at least 4-5 times.
So in your opinion we are in the first cycle? If no, how many cycles have existed in the past?
Either there is only one "cycle", or a finite amount of them. But to make it simple, let's focus on the possibility where there is only one.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:13 pm
Of course there are an infinite number of cycles in the past, when overall we still treat time as linear. Which is not my position as I reject linear time, which I said at least 4-5 times.
So in your opinion, we are in the first cycle? If no, how many cycles have existed in the past?
Either there is only one "cycle", or a finite amount of them. But to make it simple, let's focus on the possibility where there is only one.
If there is only one cycle then there is a beginning for the time that is the beginning of this cycle.
Either there is only one "cycle", or a finite amount of them. But to make it simple, let's focus on the possibility where there is only one.
If there is only one cycle then there is a beginning for the time that is the beginning of this cycle.
There is no beginning on a circle.
We are at a specific point in the cycle right now. Consider that we rewind time. We return to the same point in time if we wait enough. That is what I call one cycle.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:29 pm
If there is only one cycle then there is a beginning for the time that is the beginning of this cycle.
There is no beginning on a circle.
We are at a specific point in the cycle right now. Consider that we rewind time. We return to the same point in time if we wait enough. That is what I call one cycle.
And that's the circle. But of course you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying and are still thinking in a spiralic movement backwards and forwards in time. Even though all you have to do is realize that those two same points aren't one cycle apart, instead they are one and the same thing.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:30 pm
There is no beginning on a circle.
We are at a specific point in the cycle right now. Consider that we rewind time. We return to the same point in time if we wait enough. That is what I call one cycle.
And that's the circle. But of course you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying and are still thinking in a spiralic movement backwards and forwards in time. Even though all you have to do is realize that those two same points aren't one cycle apart, instead they are one and the same thing.
Yes, they are the same point but it takes one cycle to reach to the same point.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:36 pm
We are at a specific point in the cycle right now. Consider that we rewind time. We return to the same point in time if we wait enough. That is what I call one cycle.
And that's the circle. But of course you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying and are still thinking in a spiralic movement backwards and forwards in time. Even though all you have to do is realize that those two same points aren't one cycle apart, instead they are one and the same thing.
Yes, they are the same point but it takes one cycle to reach to the same point.
Only in linear (spiralic) time. See, you are simply not able to understand what I'm saying.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:41 pm
And that's the circle. But of course you are unable to comprehend what I'm saying and are still thinking in a spiralic movement backwards and forwards in time. Even though all you have to do is realize that those two same points aren't one cycle apart, instead they are one and the same thing.
Yes, they are the same point but it takes one cycle to reach to the same point.
Only in linear (spiralic) time. See, you are simply not able to understand what I'm saying.
No, I am not talking about spiralic time. Indeed, you never reach the same point in spiralic time. I am talking about a circle.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:52 pm
Yes, they are the same point but it takes one cycle to reach to the same point.
Only in linear (spiralic) time. See, you are simply not able to understand what I'm saying.
No, I am not talking about spiralic time. Indeed, you never reach the same point in spiralic time. I am talking about a circle.
No physicist, you are talking about traveling on a circle round and round in time, which adds one more dimension. But the circle in my analogy already represents time itself.
