tronvillain

Franc28:
Under my view, every moment is the present, at least to those that exist at that moment. We are having this conversation yesterday because yesterday it is "now", and we are having this conversation tommorow because tommorow it is also "now."

No, it is not. It is no more a contradication than it would be for the Earth to exist at this point in space if space was infinite in extent. I suppose you could claim that would be a contradiction too, but you'd have to demonstrate it.

There is nothing absurd about it. As I have pointed out, to an observer within time, your view is indistinguishable from mine. The only difference is that mine is simpler.

No, I am pointing out a flaw in your view to which you are apparently obvivious. Vague hand waving about reference frames does nothing to answer the question at hand.

I hate to resort to insults, but you are a fool. You are claiming that the present is moving forward in time, which means that it is moving at some rate. Claiming that this rate is "1 sec relative/1 sec absolute" is like claiming that a ball you've thrown moves at a rate of "1 meter relative/1 meter absolute." Unless you posit an additional dimension, or "meta-time" as I have called it, you cannot rationally hold that the present moves forward in time.

Pointing out the huge flaw in your view is not "digressing." Anyway, depending on what point of view one takes, I either deny "we are having this conversation" or "any action necessitates a present." Take your pick.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

Then why did you keep saying before that there was no present moving in time ? It's fairly obvious from this that you do think there is one.


I am not sure if this is a joke. Are you seriously contending that time does not necessarily have to cross every single moment ? By what mechanism could time somehow become not-time (for an infinite amount of time !), and then time again ? It makes no logical sense, if only for the reason that non-time cannot pass just as non-existence cannot exist (not to mention the total lack of evidence, let alone possibility of any evidence, for such a skip).


No, yours involves an impossibility. And since you now said that there *is* a present, you are contradicting yourself. Our positions are similar only because you have changed your mind above, but now you deny it again. Perhaps you should decide on one position to adopt and stick to it.


Hand-waving ? I was answering your silly objection. It's not my fault if you don't like the lack of profundity of your own protests. For an example of frames of reference in time, see the example I gave in my last post.


The feeling has been mutual since your second-to-last post, and I'm afraid it's only getting worse. Instead of trying to explain your own ideas with examples or explanations like I've done, all you're doing is mindless repetition.


Simply repeating the same fallacy does not make it true. From my frame of reference, I am traveling at 1sR/1sA, just as the ball is traveling at a given speed from a given frame of reference, as I explained after the statement of my example. My example had nothing to do with "absolute" and "relative" meters.

Funnily you did not answer to that explanation at all - did you conveniently skip it ? Your simple-minded repetition wouldn't be so bad if you at least answered to my example.


Fine. I pick that you deny that we are having this conversation, and therefore I end this conversation to satisfy your expressed wish. Or are you going to repeat the same stuff over again in another post ?

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

tronvillain

Franc28:
Nothing about what you quoted implies that there is a present moving in time, and nothing about what you have quoted is a departure from what I have maintained all along.

Time does not have to cross every single moment, time is every single moment. Under my view time is not something which passes at all, it is something which simply exists.

Where is this impossibility? Since you have yet to demonstrate it, I am forced to conclude it exists only within your imagintion, just as my claim that there is a present does.

I'm sorry, but what you said did not even vaguely resemble an answer to the question. In fact, virtually everything you've said about frames of reference is compatible with my view.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Bitch.

What, are you insane? Saying that you are travelling at 1sR/1sA is exactly the same as saying a ball is travelling at 1mR/1mA. You are attempting to explain the rate of travel in a dimension in terms of the dimension itself! It simply can't be done, as much as you may wish to pretend it can.

I didn't skip it, I substituted a valid analogy for an invalid one. This is not a question of frame of reference, this is a much more basic question.

Well, in a sense I do deny that we are having this discussion, but from my perspective it appears to me that we are. That it is, in a sense, an illusion doesn't matter to "me" any more than the illusion of free will.

Malaclypse the Younger

Even in the subjective sense, "the present" is difficult to define precisely. Dennet goes into this point in some depth in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316180661" target="_blank">Consciousness Explained</a>; he makes a compelling case that the apparent subjective phenomenon of "moving through time" is actually constructed retrospectively. If so, then "the present" is not even a primary subjective phenomenon: Even our consciousnes does not actually "move through" time, it only remembers moving through time.

It certainly seems to me that it is by no means axiomatic that there is some objective phenomenon called "the present" which actually exists, and "moves through" a dimension of time. It is, I suppose, possible to conclude such a thing actually objectively exists, but I have no idea of how to do that.

Mathematically, an infinite quantity does not preclude addition of units to that quantity, it merely means that the quantity is still infinite after that addition. One can always welcome more guests to the Infinite Hotel!

It should also be noted that the 'axiomaticity' of a proposition is validly refuted by simple denial. If denied, the value of an axiom must be established in a meta-language by showing that its rejection entails a contradiction, not merely a counter-intuitive result.

We are by no means 'obliged' to hold that, for instance, Zeno's Paradoxes are actual paradoxes--quite the contrary: That they are paradoxes (they entail contradictions) means that our implicit axioms that result in those paradoxes are somehow wrong. To claim that the denial of "the present" as an actual objective phenomenon causes Zeno's Paradox of motion to disappear does not constitute a refutation of that denial.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

Fine, let's just deny having this conversation, because your last post was merely yet another repetition of your other posts. I can only foresee this nonsense going downhill from here.

Your other fallacies - non-time that can exist and pass just like time, or your omission of temporal frames of reference - are simply derivates of the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a present. But since action requires time, the existence of a present is axiomatic (it is, for example, implied in the very act of a denial). Your denial is just a non-objective, sour-puss, stupid way of thinking which leads to nothing except a passive acceptance of everything simply because it strikes your fancy.

Your sole attempts to resolve this grave contradiction were : "you are a fool" and "bitch".

This is much akin to someone saying he does not exist, who gets angry when another stops talking to him. It is simply a demonstration of extreme stupidity. There is simply no point in talking to someone who denies a basic principle of reality. I'm sorry to have to say this, and I've been very nice to you because this is supposed to be an intelligent and civilized board, but you don't seem to share either of these characteristics. Look in the mirror and you'll see a complete idiot.

I think I've made more than ample demonstration that infinite regress is impossible, and that there must be an uncaused cause. Perhaps these things can be shown to be false, but gross metaphysical mistakes are really not credible proof.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

tronvillain

Fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it to any observers to make their own decision.

John Page

Malaclypse:

I read Daniel Dennet's book and don't think it explained consciousness. As to your assertion that our consciousness doesn't move through time: If this is true, how can consciousness detect time (in order to remember it) if it doesn't experience the changes that evidence time's passing?

Surely the act of being conscious is an awareness of one's surroundings. We have senses that provide us information about our surroundings. A sense of time comes from correlating changes across disparate senses - how otherwise could we associate, for example, changes in smell with the sight of smoke coming from underneath the door.

So, in relation to first cause, I think there is a paradox if you define the state prior to the universe's coming into being as "changeless". You cannot "be" if there is no difference between you and your surroundings, it one big 'null'.

How about differentiating between a causal universe and the non-causal universe? Both exist at the same point in time, the latter is undetectable and is completely unaffected by time and thus not subject to first cause issues.

Malaclypse the Younger

John Page

I guess that's a matter of opinion.

I make no such assertion. I assert rather that Dennett makes the case that our perception of time is a retrospective construct. I am agnostic about the objective existence of the present; I merely deny that such a concept must be held axiomatically without some proof in a metalanguage.

Detecting a specific extension in time does not entail an objective 'present' (in the sense that Franc28 describes) any more than detecting an extension in space requires an objective 'here' that moves from point to point.

"prior to" implies that there is a dimension of time that exists independently of the universe, which is held to be spacetime itself. Such a definition is incoherent with both 'infinite time' theories as well as the usual interpretation of big bang theories.

Causality is just a relationship between events in time; to presume that events are related in a time dimension no more entails an objectively existing moving 'now' than does the presumption that events are spacially related entails an objectively moving 'here'. Both kinds of relationships can be thoroughly described by noting their respective coordinates, without privileging a specific coordinate.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

John Page

Malaclypse:

So measurement of time and space is an illusion?

Malaclypse the Younger

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">