Home | Community | Message Board


Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
time and numbers
    #4704815 - 09/24/05 01:38 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Ravus said:
Quote:


Time is vastly different from the number system.

To get to a higher "number" in time, you must have first passed the lower numbers. But there is an infinity of numbers to transgress in linear time, therefore to state that the past is infinite would say that, to get to zero, we've already passed infinity, which is of course impossible.

On the number system, you don't need to pass previous numbers to get to larger or smaller ones; you just use whatever symbols necessary for the task at hand. They do move in a linear fashion, but we only take advantage of an infinitieth of the numbers, because we are just utilizing those which we've needed out of infinity; in time, you can't utilize seconds and minutes as mere symbols, but rather have to pass through them first before you can make the future the present. And this would require passing through an infinity of negative numbers, to use your example.





there is an infinity of numbers to transgress in linear time,

not so- personally i've transgressed from 1979 to 2005, now how does that mean time can't go back infinitely?

for example, why couldn't time go forward infinitely? if it could, then why couldn't it go back infinitely? it's a dimension with an axis; and why can't we along this axis assign an infinity of numbers forward or back?

perhaps each life only passes through an infinitieth of time.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: time and numbers [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4704871 - 09/24/05 01:48 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Say time goes back infinitely, and we're currently at zero.

My point was that, as opposed to the real number system, time must pass through every number before it can get to zero, because time is linear, with every moment in the past preceding the present. If the past is infinite, than there are an infinite number of moments in the past. If there are an infinite number of moments in the past, then how do you get to the present?

The point of infinity is that you can never reach the end of it, yet inevitably we've reached the end of the past to get the present, which should theoretically be completely impossible.

The future can be theoretically infinite, since we have nothing to reach. There is no present in the future, just a continuation for all infinity that never ends. But the past has to end to get to the present, yet if the past is infinite, it cannot end to get to the present. You can pull out an infinitesimal series of moments, such as from 1979 to 2005, but this are just a finite series of numbers in an infinite past. If the past extends to negative infinity, then where does the present fit in? By definition, we must go by the entire past to get to the present, but the contradiction is that, by definition, we cannot go by the entire past if it's infinite.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineqhr0me
o = oo
Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 203
Loc: sun diego, ca
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4704905 - 09/24/05 01:56 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

crunchy, read the universe in a nutshell by stephen hawking, chapter 2 - the shape of time - will answer all your questions in detail. penrose & hawking showed (in the context of the mathematical model of general relativity) that time must have a beginning in what is called the big bang singularity. before that, there is no sense in talking about time, as it simply cannot exist (at least not in the way we've defined it).

now if the big bang theory gets replaced by the intelligent design theory that walker bush now wants it taught in school along with evolution, then all bets are off.

however, mc hawking (aka the hawkman), had this to say about it:

Fuck The Creationists

Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homeys working in the field of evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be my paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

read all about hawkman's dark rap theory at his crib!-)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: qhr0me]
    #4705093 - 09/24/05 02:29 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

the big bang singularity




qhr0me- what that's like, where as you go back in time, you start slowing down, so you never get to the beginning? sort of like the closer to the black hole you get, you start speeding toward the speed of light, and time slows down for you?

Quote:

By definition, we must go by the entire past to get to the present, but the contradiction is that, by definition, we cannot go by the entire past if it's infinite.




ravus- what "we" are you talking about that traverses this infinite distance? and why does time have a "we" but not the real numbers? and why do you think there has to be a "we" for time?


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4705159 - 09/24/05 02:45 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

We as in matter, the universe, space, whatever is there for time that is also us, since we are experiencing it right now also. Time may have real numbers, but it is not the real number system, because unlike mathematics, there is a past and present, not just symbols representing quantities.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineQuantumMeltdown
Space Monkey
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/31/01
Posts: 4,956
Loc: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Last seen: 28 days, 19 hours
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: Ravus]
    #4705175 - 09/24/05 02:51 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

I think the big bang is an example of intelligent design.


--------------------
-QuantumMeltdown

Total abstinence is so excellent a thing that it cannot be carried to too great an extent. In my passion for it I even carry it so far as to totally abstain from total abstinence itself.
  -Mark Twain

"The time has come the walrus said, little oysters  hide their heads, my Twain of thought is loosely bound I guess its time to Mark this down, Be good and you will be lonesome
Be lonesome and you will be free
Live a lie and you will live to regret it
That's what livin' is to me
That's what livin' is to me"
Jimmy Buffett


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: QuantumMeltdown]
    #4705181 - 09/24/05 02:53 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

I think it's an example of aliens from another universe throwing firecrackers through wormholes again.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineqhr0me
o = oo
Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 203
Loc: sun diego, ca
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4705205 - 09/24/05 03:01 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:why do you think there has to be a "we" for time?




crunchy, in the absence of "we" - the observers - it isn't yet clear that anything at all really exists. in that context, time is more of a philosophical notion than an absolute characteristic of the universe (whatever that even is, again, in the absence of minds to argue about it).

one more book for you, the fabric of the universe by brian greene, chapter 5 - the frozen river; does time flow? - will open your eyes way more than any of us laymen could do.

really quick, let's suppose you can fall into a black hole, as you pass the event horizon, you talk about time slowing down for you. you will still experience time as you always do, you will still age and die in your due time (i'm making abstraction of the fact that no matter based life being can live around there, just supposing for the fun of it). the only thing that happens is that outside, time flows so much faster, that if you were to somehow step outside again, all the stars had prolly burned out by then, billions of years had passed, all that jazz. so it's not that time slows down for you and you are frozen in an eternal moment. it's that outside (whence you came from) shit happens so much faster that in effect you are frozen in time for them.

now i gots to go eat lunch, but if you still have questions, i'll quote a few more things about time from this book i've just told you about...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: Ravus]
    #4707886 - 09/25/05 02:08 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

qhr0me-
so you're saying if you went back through time to the big bang, you could keep going- but it's just impossible to perceive anything there?

Quote:

crunchy, in the absence of "we" - the observers - it isn't yet clear that anything at all really exists. in that context, time is more of a philosophical notion than an absolute characteristic of the universe (whatever that even is, again, in the absence of minds to argue about it).




according to the line of thought, wouldn't such philosophical notions themselves be the absolute characteristics of the universe?

ravus-
Quote:


*By definition, we must go by the entire past to get to the present, but the contradiction is that, by definition, we cannot go by the entire past if it's infinite.

*what "we" are you talking about that traverses this infinite distance? and why does time have a "we" but not the real numbers? and why do you think there has to be a "we" for time?


*We as in matter, the universe, space, whatever is there for time that is also us, since we are experiencing it right now also. Time may have real numbers, but it is not the real number system, because unlike mathematics, there is a past and present, not just symbols representing quantities.




your argument seems to be that a real number system is symbolic and therefore separate from the reality it represents. thus while the real number system can stretch back infinitely as an axis, time as an axis cannot, because part of the concept of time is that each moment procedes from the last; and there can be no present moment without the precession of the previous one. please correct me if i've misunderstood.

the criticism that the real number system is symbolic only applies if something is lost in the translation. but that begs the question of the second part of the argument- which seems to be that because of the particular nature of time, procession from moment to moment cannot stretch backwards infinitely, because procession could not have happened infinitely.

yet if it were true that that procession could not co-exist with infinity, then it would be impossible to conceive of real numbers in a non-paradoxical way. yet it is perfectly possible to conceive of real numbers as an internally consistent concept. IOW if it were true that infinity and procession logically could not go together, then one would find this logical flaw in the mathematician's concept, real numbers. yet this flaw is patently absent, since real numbers proceed, one from the other (though of course not in a temporal way).


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Edited by crunchytoast (09/25/05 02:24 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineqhr0me
o = oo
Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 203
Loc: sun diego, ca
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4709469 - 09/25/05 01:43 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
qhr0me- so you're saying if you went back through time to the big bang, you could keep going- but it's just impossible to perceive anything there?




crunchy, dude, i have no idea what i'm saying anymore  :smile: the only thing i really know for sure i've said is to read parts of those books (or at least read the wiki on time), because what we're doing in this thread approaches voodoo at times.

anyway, i'll say a few more things.  you know how all shroomerites pretty much would agree that "time is an illusion, mAn!"  well, that's to say that your mind could give a shit about time as defined by our physics.  when you're happy happy joy joy, time flies, when you're in the dentist's chair, it fucking stops.  so that's pretty much the relativity of time for you in a philosophical context.

the relativity of time in a physics context (and according to einstein's relativity laws) happens whenever you measure time in 2 places that are in motion with respect to each other, it's just that it's hardly noticeable unless the speed approaches that of light.  the hafele-keating experiment proved that using stupid atomic clocks placed on board of flying airplanes.

now then, we're getting to time travel.  time travel into the future is "piece of cake" and completely allowed by einstein's laws; all you gotta do is fly around the goddam earth at speeds approaching the speed of light and when you land again, the earth time would be way ahead of you.  while you've been flying for say a few hours at speeds fractionally close enough to the speed of light, when you land back, it'd be say year 2105 on good ole exrth.  time travel into the past isn't allowed by einstein's laws, you can't go over the speed of light, end of story, there's none of that bullshit of flying faster than light will actually turn time backwards.  you wanna do time travel into the past, you need to do some other kind of voodoo outside the timespace as described by einstein's laws and that is all fantasy at this point, although some theories exist (see wormholes for example).

finally then, i have no idea whatchu talking about in terms of "going back in time to the big bang" and the black hole scenario we discussed before is a completely different hypothetical and once again evokes time travel into the future, as by the time you get out of the dam black hole, the universe outside has had enough time to burn out of existence.


Edited by qhr0me (09/25/05 01:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblethePatient
Criminal Bodhisattva
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/07/02
Posts: 3,289
Loc: Indiana Flag
Re: time and numbers [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4709789 - 09/25/05 02:52 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

it was very interesting to read all your thoughts on time.
The illusion of time and our perception of it always intrigued me.


--------------------
T h e r e  a r e  n o  o r d i n a r y  m o m e n t s.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledorkus
don't look back
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/04
Posts: 1,511
Re: time and numbers [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4710066 - 09/25/05 03:57 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

It is a snake eating it's own tail I think. Someone says life is a circle.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinecrunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: qhr0me]
    #4711015 - 09/25/05 08:06 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

because what we're doing in this thread approaches voodoo at times.




:frown:

Quote:

you need to do some other kind of voodoo outside the timespace as described by einstein's laws and that is all fantasy at this point, although some theories exist (see wormholes for example).

finally then, i have no idea whatchu talking about in terms of "going back in time to the big bang" and the black hole scenario we discussed before is a completely different hypothetical and once again evokes time travel into the future, as by the time you get out of the dam black hole, the universe outside has had enough time to burn out of existence.




i was just trying to figure out what that means, the big bang is a singularity of the universe at the beginning of time-.

i wasn't really talking about building time machines or using voodoo, i was trying to figure out what the universe would look like if you pressed the rewind button past the big bang (although i don't really believe in a rewind button).

maybe i should read some of them books, because this doesn't make sense to me: time began at a moment in time?  that's like it's born IN itself, IOW it has less duration than itself.  :confused: that's one reason why i figure time should at least go infinitely backward.

:shrug:

so thanks man, for the book suggestions :thumbup:


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4711111 - 09/25/05 08:37 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

wow, this is a cool thread, but the original concept a'la Ravus has some fallcies. We can compare the "real" world to the number system and we get good results. We can take 5 and subtract 8 and get -3. But this doesn't always apply to the real world. You can't have 5 apples, sell 8 of them and end up with -3 apples.

So what we are really doing is defining things IN TERM OF THE ORIGIN (the point [0,0]). Things can only be negative in relation to the origin. It's simply a symbolic system of RATIOS.

In the case of time, the origin would be the present. Time is relative to our point of view and is not constant throughout the universe. The present is our starting point for measuring time. e.g. Three days ago (-3 days) three days later (+3 days).

It seems to me that time may or may not be infinite, but it at least extends in all directions for as long as we are able to measure. Perhaps it is the PRESENT that is infinite and thus the origin of all time.

but I don't know a terrible amount about time theories, so I'm kinda just talking out of my ass. but I hope I helped contribute to the thread


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineqhr0me
o = oo
Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 203
Loc: sun diego, ca
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4711142 - 09/25/05 08:47 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
i was trying to figure out what the universe would look like if you pressed the rewind button past the big bang.




crunchy, as far as i understand, most physicists still instinctively dislike the idea of time having a beginning, but in the context of the general relativity model, the hawkman & penrose have used their fucked up mind boggling mathematics and rigourously proved that time must have a beginning in what is called the big bang.

to grasp that intuitively, before the big bang, there was no universe (as we know it). there was god or there was something else or nothing or whatever in between and outside in, but it was something else where time as we know it could not exist.  the big bang gave birth to time, not the other way around.

Quote:

crunchytoast said:
maybe i should read some of them books, because this doesn't make sense to me: time began at a moment in time?  that's like it's born IN itself, IOW it has less duration than itself.  :confused:




nah, boring shit, maybe just skim over 'em.  better eat some shrooms, get to level 5 and dissolve time on your own terms, then be kind & let it start flowing once again or shit, we'll all be frozen out here not being able to post at the shroomery!-)

ps: thomAs is correct, long live ouroboros!  the shithead snake that ate its tail.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRavus
Not an EggshellWalker
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: dr0mni]
    #4711453 - 09/25/05 10:20 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
wow, this is a cool thread, but the original concept a'la Ravus has some fallcies. We can compare the "real" world to the number system and we get good results. We can take 5 and subtract 8 and get -3. But this doesn't always apply to the real world. You can't have 5 apples, sell 8 of them and end up with -3 apples.

So what we are really doing is defining things IN TERM OF THE ORIGIN (the point [0,0]). Things can only be negative in relation to the origin. It's simply a symbolic system of RATIOS.

In the case of time, the origin would be the present. Time is relative to our point of view and is not constant throughout the universe. The present is our starting point for measuring time. e.g. Three days ago (-3 days) three days later (+3 days).

It seems to me that time may or may not be infinite, but it at least extends in all directions for as long as we are able to measure. Perhaps it is the PRESENT that is infinite and thus the origin of all time.

but I don't know a terrible amount about time theories, so I'm kinda just talking out of my ass. but I hope I helped contribute to the thread




That's not one of my fallacies, because I believe that. Your original point was, to an extent, my point; the real number system doesn't lean on before or after moments, but simply the symbolism of 5 apples minus 8 apples = -3 apples. You don't need to go from negative infinity apples to get to zero apples, because you're only using numbers as symbols for that which you have; anything more is unnecessary.

Which is obviously different from time, because in time you do have to go from first to last, by the passing from the past to the present. If time started at negative infinity, you would have to go from negative infinity to get to zero. I was just using zero as the present in my posts, with negative numbers being the past and positive numbers being the future, but it's rather irrelevant with time; you can use any number for the present that you wish.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: Ravus]
    #4711815 - 09/25/05 11:39 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Yeah, I kinda see the similarities in our arguments now, but...

no, you don't have to go through negative infinity if you set the origin at the beginning of time.

The western calender set the origin of time 2,005 years ago. Now time is relative to that point. Upon traveling from 0 a.d. to 2005 a.d. there is only a foward movent towards positive infinity (as far as our conception of linear time is concerned).

So if Hawkins and company are correct, there is a calculatable origin of linear time. "Before" that? Well I say we burn that bridge when we get there. But for now we can set our [0,0] at the big bang and there will be no traveling through infinity except in a positive direction.

Also though, you could define the present moment as any point between negative infinity and positive infinity. So therefore we are not done going through infinity and never will be since any assigned origin is arbitrary.

As far as I'm concerned, until we learn what the conscious experiance truly is, I doubt we will ever understand the real difference between past, present, and future.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: big bang v intelligent design [Re: dr0mni]
    #4711850 - 09/25/05 11:45 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

ooh, and another point...

even if time was bounded on an interval, there are infinity number of points (or moments) on that interval. Using the idea of falling into a black whole, or the graph of the function 1/x, time could stretch out to infinity without ever actually reaching the end point since it has to go through an infinite number of points to get there.

the origin and end of time might be like a dimensional asymptote...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 3 years, 1 day
Re: time and numbers [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4712850 - 09/26/05 04:55 AM (11 years, 2 months ago)

i question the notion of being able to describe infinty in, linear, numerical fashions.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnomM
※※※※※※
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,364
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 23 days, 9 hours
Re: time and numbers [Re: Ravus]
    #4713523 - 09/26/05 12:29 PM (11 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Ravus said:
Say time goes back infinitely, and we're currently at zero.

My point was that, as opposed to the real number system, time must pass through every number before it can get to zero, because time is linear, with every moment in the past preceding the present. If the past is infinite, than there are an infinite number of moments in the past. If there are an infinite number of moments in the past, then how do you get to the present?

The point of infinity is that you can never reach the end of it, yet inevitably we've reached the end of the past to get the present, which should theoretically be completely impossible.

The future can be theoretically infinite, since we have nothing to reach. There is no present in the future, just a continuation for all infinity that never ends. But the past has to end to get to the present, yet if the past is infinite, it cannot end to get to the present. You can pull out an infinitesimal series of moments, such as from 1979 to 2005, but this are just a finite series of numbers in an infinite past. If the past extends to negative infinity, then where does the present fit in? By definition, we must go by the entire past to get to the present, but the contradiction is that, by definition, we cannot go by the entire past if it's infinite.




Damn, that's weird  :weirdeyes: :nut:

Time is fucked up.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Zero and Infinity
( 1 2 all )
Kid 3,382 26 09/03/01 12:38 AM
by feign
* infinity and the mind stefan 775 10 05/18/06 06:48 PM
by Lakefingers
* Singularity, Free Will, Infinite Dimensions...
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 3,531 30 04/12/02 05:47 PM
by skaMariaPastora
* Nothing is greater than infinity
( 1 2 3 all )
justAkid 2,615 52 12/11/07 11:20 AM
by daytripper23
* another thread about infinity EternalCowabunga 436 7 12/08/07 01:15 PM
by shakercee
* Is there any way out of infinity? EternalCowabunga 615 11 07/11/07 02:53 AM
by Cracka_X
* Life is infinitely questionable mikebart101 749 7 07/09/07 12:47 AM
by EternalCowabunga
* How can the universe not be infinate?
( 1 2 3 all )
Dreamer987 2,277 43 10/25/04 06:14 PM
by kbilly

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, DividedQuantum
1,898 topic views. 1 members, 18 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.135 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.