Infinite regress is logically impossible

[Immanuel Can]

No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.

Okay. Roll on.

Please read my argument then. That variable that I call has to exist otherwise all events lay at the same point meaning that we are dealing with a simultaneous process, in other words, there could be no change.

What do you mean when you say that the variable "has to exist"? It seems obvious to me that there is an interval between two points: but it's a space, a blank, an interim, a time-gap, not any kind of substance. As such, it doesn't change.

If it takes five minutes to boil an egg hard, then it takes five minutes (under the same conditions) to boil another egg. Nothing has changed, except the eggs. The interval's remained what it was.

[bahman]

Okay. Roll on.

Please read my argument then. That variable that I call has to exist otherwise all events lay at the same point meaning that we are dealing with a simultaneous process, in other words, there could be no change.

What do you mean when you say that the variable "has to exist"? It seems obvious to me that there is an interval between two points: but it's a space, a blank, an interim, a time-gap, not any kind of substance. As such, it doesn't change.

What two points refer to if they are not on a variable?

[Immanuel Can]

Please read my argument then. That variable that I call has to exist otherwise all events lay at the same point meaning that we are dealing with a simultaneous process, in other words, there could be no change.

What do you mean when you say that the variable "has to exist"? It seems obvious to me that there is an interval between two points: but it's a space, a blank, an interim, a time-gap, not any kind of substance. As such, it doesn't change.

What two points refer to if they are not on a variable?

There are two points. Between them is an interval known as time. One point is the unboiled egg. The other is the boiled egg. In the interval, the egg changes: it transforms from a raw to a boiled egg. But the timespan is still five minutes. And it will still be five minutes when you boil the next egg. Nothing about time changed. Only the egg did.

[bahman]

What do you mean when you say that the variable "has to exist"? It seems obvious to me that there is an interval between two points: but it's a space, a blank, an interim, a time-gap, not any kind of substance. As such, it doesn't change.

What two points refer to if they are not on a variable?

There are two points. Between them is an interval known as time. One point is the unboiled egg. The other is the boiled egg. In the interval, the egg changes: it transforms from a raw to a boiled egg. But the timespan is still five minutes. And it will still be five minutes when you boil the next egg. Nothing about time changed. Only the egg did.

I asked whether those points are on a variable. You cannot have two points and not a variable.

[Immanuel Can]

What two points refer to if they are not on a variable?

There are two points. Between them is an interval known as time. One point is the unboiled egg. The other is the boiled egg. In the interval, the egg changes: it transforms from a raw to a boiled egg. But the timespan is still five minutes. And it will still be five minutes when you boil the next egg. Nothing about time changed. Only the egg did.

I asked whether those points are on a variable. You cannot have two points and not a variable.

You say "variable." I say, "interval." We're talking about the same space between two points. What's your argument for it, and how does it help with the OP?

[bahman]

There are two points. Between them is an interval known as time. One point is the unboiled egg. The other is the boiled egg. In the interval, the egg changes: it transforms from a raw to a boiled egg. But the timespan is still five minutes. And it will still be five minutes when you boil the next egg. Nothing about time changed. Only the egg did.

I asked whether those points are on a variable. You cannot have two points and not a variable.

You say "variable." I say, "interval." We're talking about the same space between two points. What's your argument for it, and how does it help with the OP?

I am talking about two points that different events lay within. If two points don't exist then events lay at the same point, so they are simultaneous or in other words, there cannot be any change. Of course, there is an interval between them, time duration. Our discussion deviated from the point that you did not agree with the nature of time. I am arguing that time exists and has a property, the rate at which it changes. I was saying that time cannot come to existence, whether by chance or divine intervention, since that leads to regress.

[Immanuel Can]

I asked whether those points are on a variable. You cannot have two points and not a variable.

You say "variable." I say, "interval." We're talking about the same space between two points. What's your argument for it, and how does it help with the OP?

I am talking about two points that different events lay within.

Then that's more than two points. It's a bunch of points, with two on the extreme sides of the series. You might find it easier just to work with two, and with the interval between them. It will keep things clear.

I am arguing that time exists and has a property, the rate at which it changes.

Time does have properties. But what it doesn't have is the properties that are associated with materials. It has the sort of properties that are associated with concepts.

I think I see the problem: you're thinking of time as if it were a thing-in-itself, rather than a chronological interval between things that exist as substances, and which are thus subject to change. But that's what we call a "category error," which is a fallacy: it's when you treat something that is unlike a particular category of things as if it were just another member in that same category of things. You're treating "time" as if it were a substance. But it's not.

[bahman]

You say "variable." I say, "interval." We're talking about the same space between two points. What's your argument for it, and how does it help with the OP?

I am talking about two points that different events lay within.

Then that's more than two points. It's a bunch of points, with two on the extreme sides of the series. You might find it easier just to work with two, and with the interval between them. It will keep things clear.

Yes, if we accept that time is continuous then we are dealing with a bunch of points. The point is that those points have to exist otherwise there cannot be any change.

I am arguing that time exists and has a property, the rate at which it changes.

Time does have properties. But what it doesn't have is the properties that are associated with materials. It has the sort of properties that are associated with concepts.

Time is not a concept. I am wondering why you didn't comment on the rest of my argument!

I think I see the problem: you're thinking of time as if it were a thing-in-itself, rather than a chronological interval between things that exist as substances, and which are thus subject to change. But that's what we call a "category error," which is a fallacy: it's when you treat something that is unlike a particular category of things as if it were just another member in that same category of things. You're treating "time" as if it were a substance. But it's not.

It is a substance if you follow my whole argument!

[Immanuel Can]

I am talking about two points that different events lay within.

Then that's more than two points. It's a bunch of points, with two on the extreme sides of the series. You might find it easier just to work with two, and with the interval between them. It will keep things clear.

Yes, if we accept that time is continuous then we are dealing with a bunch of points. The point is that those points have to exist otherwise there cannot be any change.

"Continuous" is the opposite of "points." So no, that's not what we're dealing with.

Time is not a concept.

No, but it's not a substance either.

I am wondering why you didn't comment on the rest of my argument!

I can't see what your argument is. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain more clearly?

It is a substance if you follow my whole argument!

Well, then, where is this "argument" I'm supposed to be seeing? You haven't made it to me, so far as I can see.

[bahman]

Then that's more than two points. It's a bunch of points, with two on the extreme sides of the series. You might find it easier just to work with two, and with the interval between them. It will keep things clear.

Yes, if we accept that time is continuous then we are dealing with a bunch of points. The point is that those points have to exist otherwise there cannot be any change.

"Continuous" is the opposite of "points." So no, that's not what we're dealing with.

No, it is not given the definition of change in a continuous substance. A change in a continuous substance is given by deferential which is defined as the limit when two points tend to each other.

Time is not a concept.

No, but it's not a substance either.

I am wondering why you didn't comment on the rest of my argument!

I can't see what your argument is. It doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can explain more clearly?

It is a substance if you follow my whole argument!

Well, then, where is this "argument" I'm supposed to be seeing? You haven't made it to me, so far as I can see.
[/quote]
Here is my argument: I am talking about two points that different events lay within. If two points don't exist then events lay at the same point, so they are simultaneous, or in other words, there cannot be any change.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, if we accept that time is continuous then we are dealing with a bunch of points. The point is that those points have to exist otherwise there cannot be any change.

"Continuous" is the opposite of "points." So no, that's not what we're dealing with.

No, it is not given the definition of change in a continuous substance.

Prove that time is a substance. I don't believe it is.

Here is my argument: I am talking about two points that different events lay within.

Okay. Here they are:

. . . . . . .

The dots are your "points." The space between is time. What are you trying to argue about that?

[bahman]

"Continuous" is the opposite of "points." So no, that's not what we're dealing with.

No, it is not given the definition of change in a continuous substance.

Prove that time is a substance. I don't believe it is.

The points exist so we are dealing with a substance. What is the time property? The rate at which it changes.

Here is my argument: I am talking about two points that different events lay within.

Okay. Here they are:

. . . . . . .

The dots are your "points." The space between is time. What are you trying to argue about that?

I am talking about time that exists otherwise change is impossible since all events lay at the same point which means that we are dealing with a simultaneous process in which there cannot be any change.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it is not given the definition of change in a continuous substance.

Prove that time is a substance. I don't believe it is.

The points exist so we are dealing with a substance. What is the time property? The rate at which it changes.

But it doesn't "change." Time remains time. Five minutes is still five minutes, even five minutes from now. What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not a proof, it's not even true.

I am talking about time that exists otherwise change is impossible since all events lay at the same point which means that we are dealing with a simultaneous process in which there cannot be any change.

You're still amphibolizing the words "exists" and "change." I don't know what else to tell you, except that if you're having trouble convincing anybody, it's because the argument is incoherent and fallacious.

Have you got anything better, or is that your best?

[bahman]

Prove that time is a substance. I don't believe it is.

The points exist so we are dealing with a substance. What is the time property? The rate at which it changes.

But it doesn't "change." Time remains time. Five minutes is still five minutes, even five minutes from now. What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not a proof, it's not even true.

I am talking about time that exists otherwise change is impossible since all events lay at the same point which means that we are dealing with a simultaneous process in which there cannot be any change.

You're still amphibolizing the words "exists" and "change." I don't know what else to tell you, except that if you're having trouble convincing anybody, it's because the argument is incoherent and fallacious.

Have you got anything better, or is that your best?

I cannot help you if what I said does not make the argument clear.

[Immanuel Can]

The points exist so we are dealing with a substance. What is the time property? The rate at which it changes.

But it doesn't "change." Time remains time. Five minutes is still five minutes, even five minutes from now. What on earth are you talking about? Not only is that not a proof, it's not even true.

I am talking about time that exists otherwise change is impossible since all events lay at the same point which means that we are dealing with a simultaneous process in which there cannot be any change.

You're still amphibolizing the words "exists" and "change." I don't know what else to tell you, except that if you're having trouble convincing anybody, it's because the argument is incoherent and fallacious.

Have you got anything better, or is that your best?

I cannot help you if what I said does not make the argument clear.

Okay. Thanks for trying to explain your idea, anyway. It's just not at all clear to me.