Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Infinity Lover · 09-06-2002, 08:09 AM

From "Contingency, causality, and the Big Bang" thread (philosophy section)

------T.V.-------
"Well, something analagous to time would seem to be required for causality."
-----------------

Oh dear...

All of a sudden it's starting to dawn why I'm having such a hard time discussing the concept of time.

Other's on that thread didn't seem to have trouble with comprehending that time is not a thing, but how we measure the amount of change.

---T.V.----
"...in the absence of any evidence for a "meta-time" or a "meta-universe"..."
-----------

Absence of evidence for something 'metaphysical'?

Oh dear...

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

tronvillain · 09-09-2002, 04:03 PM

Infinity Lover:

Quote:

Or else straight to my room and no desert?

It is simply annoying to have one's points ignored.

Quote:

There is a limit to how well one can interface one's thoughts. This is not only a matter of one's personal expressive abilities, but subject to the random element of someone else's (mis)ineterpretation as well.
Whether either of us has the tendancy to (sub)consiously look for things to misinterpret, for the benefit of our own position, is something I'm not going to put on the board for debat. I think it's wiser to simply point that it's something to be mindfull of.

For future reference with respect to your personal expressive abilities, your use of "interface" is incorrect. I presume it was intended to mean something like "communicate" or "express" or "articulate" since otherwise the sentence makes little sense.

Quote:

Concerening what our exchange of thoughts is starting to evolve into(or at least my interpretation of it):
Let's say my position is that I have a cat. I get the impression, it's now being countered, by saying you've got a dog, and I'm supposed to point out why you don't, which hasn't got anything to do with me having a cat or not.

My interpretation of our exchange is that your position is that it is logically necessary that the universe be infinite with respect to space and time, while my position is that it is not.

Quote:

One of the first things you brought up in your initial post, was something I'll, for the sake of argument, refer to as 'the bubble of no-beyond'.

Here is where I burst the bubble
-----------Tronvillain-----
"Well, the boundary would be impossible to get beyond BECAUSE there would be NO BEYOND to get to."
------------------------------

There's no way to determine there's no other side of the boundary, so the 'lack of beyond' can't serve as a valid cause.
Why?
Because the boundary makes it impossible to upgrade the 'lack of beyond' from mere assumption to certainty.
A posibility that could never become a certainty, is NOT a possible certainty. It's an imposiblity that's waiting for you to get your head out of your tailpipe; the very bogus God's made from.
(Little confidence in my ability to logicly deduct?)
I'm going to asume you either 1)overlooked this error, or 2)were deliberately throwing a puzzle at me, so you could get some laughs out of seeying me wrestle with it. Either way I sincerely hope you're not going to insult your intellect by insulting mine.
Before I continue responding to your posts on this thread, I'd like a straight answer Tron. Not to sling false accusations, but because I want to avoid doing something as unbecoming as that...

Okay, now this is just pathetic. Do you even think about these things before you write them? Your argument applies just as well to your own position: there is no way to determine that there is no boundary, so there is no way to upgrade "infinity" from mere assumption to certainty. Anyway, the response in both cases should be that the inability to determine that a certain state of affairs is the case does not imply that a certain state of affairs is not the case - it may or may not be, but the anability to determine does not affect that.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

echidna · 09-09-2002, 04:30 PM

I_L, the website you PM�d me didn�t work.

Maybe a third party reference can explain what you�re trying to get at. Some of your material appears to be shared by rejectors of the Big Bang Theory.

sweep · 09-10-2002, 11:20 AM

On the subject of temporal dimensions, infinity, I think that Tronvillain has asked you to make a model of reality. That is to say that it is possible you are confusing empirical data, impressions on the senses with apriori knowledge, such as time, which has no grounds in empiricism. Time allows us to 'make sense' of reality by way of our judgement.

There again, If I have underestimated you, perhaps it is we that are making apriori judgements and that your apriori model of reality does not need a time dimension in order for us to describe reality, independent of whether any of this hypothetical scenario is verifiable.

do we have to follow the 'great' philosophers and are they that 'great'

Tonight, TronVillain is Emmanuel Kant- come on down! de da da da, da dada da, da dada da, da dada da.

Ignoring all such assumptions I can imagine 'reality' without any dimension made-up through imagination, which ultimately means that I am not subject to time in a hypothetical sense. If anyone -infinity or tronvillain- can offer me some material making head or tail of any of what has just been written, feel free.

rules, shmools! pah!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-06-2002, 08:09 AM	#21
Infinity Lover Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,047	From "Contingency, causality, and the Big Bang" thread (philosophy section) ------T.V.------- "Well, something analagous to time would seem to be required for causality." ----------------- Oh dear... All of a sudden it's starting to dawn why I'm having such a hard time discussing the concept of time. Other's on that thread didn't seem to have trouble with comprehending that time is not a thing, but how we measure the amount of change. ---T.V.---- "...in the absence of any evidence for a "meta-time" or a "meta-universe"..." ----------- Absence of evidence for something 'metaphysical'? Oh dear... [ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>

09-09-2002, 04:30 PM	#23
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	I_L, the website you PM�d me didn�t work. Maybe a third party reference can explain what you�re trying to get at. Some of your material appears to be shared by rejectors of the Big Bang Theory.

09-10-2002, 11:20 AM	#24
sweep Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: sugar factory Posts: 873	On the subject of temporal dimensions, infinity, I think that Tronvillain has asked you to make a model of reality. That is to say that it is possible you are confusing empirical data, impressions on the senses with apriori knowledge, such as time, which has no grounds in empiricism. Time allows us to 'make sense' of reality by way of our judgement. There again, If I have underestimated you, perhaps it is we that are making apriori judgements and that your apriori model of reality does not need a time dimension in order for us to describe reality, independent of whether any of this hypothetical scenario is verifiable. do we have to follow the 'great' philosophers and are they that 'great' Tonight, TronVillain is Emmanuel Kant- come on down! de da da da, da dada da, da dada da, da dada da. Ignoring all such assumptions I can imagine 'reality' without any dimension made-up through imagination, which ultimately means that I am not subject to time in a hypothetical sense. If anyone -infinity or tronvillain- can offer me some material making head or tail of any of what has just been written, feel free. rules, shmools! pah!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.