Proof against Infinite past or infinite events between any two events.
Let us Define Time as simply the whole set of ordered events. An event is the entire characteristics of existence , and if present event, is , or if past event, was. The defenition of the past is all events that was the present but is not. A visual is ( E(nth)....E3, E2, E1, P), where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest. Now a reminder is that any event means that the previous one is no longer true. To give an example is say you the present where we assume only thing that is is a certain apple is above ground and the previous event it was on the ground. In other words different events happen in succession and not simultaneously.
Since I have put for the initial definition of time, Now let us assume there is an infinite past. This would mean that there is a never ending order of events before the present. Such that ( ... E3, E2, E1, P). Now remember that a past event means it had to be the present than no longer. With an infinite past there is all infinite events was the present. Remember the previous point.
Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. With that let us go to an event that is nth of the present, where n corresponds to how many even terms from the present exist. Meaning (E2, E4, E6, ...) , and with infinite past we have an infinite number of even term events. Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. Let us call it Event (!) .Meaning (E(!)...E3, E2, E1, P). As it is the case all past events by definition must have been the present meaning an infinite number of events has occured after Event(!) To ger to the present. But let us remember that any continuing addition of a finite number from a finite number will always be finite. An example is if I count 1 then 2, then 3 ... , any term in that sequence if I select one then it will be some integer which is a finite amonunt away from the first term.
Therefore If you have an infinite past then there exists some past event that must of gone an infinite number of events to get to the present, but since addition from a point will always be a finite number, an infinite past is impossible and so would two event that have infinite events inbetween.
Since I have put for the initial definition of time, Now let us assume there is an infinite past. This would mean that there is a never ending order of events before the present. Such that ( ... E3, E2, E1, P). Now remember that a past event means it had to be the present than no longer. With an infinite past there is all infinite events was the present. Remember the previous point.
Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. With that let us go to an event that is nth of the present, where n corresponds to how many even terms from the present exist. Meaning (E2, E4, E6, ...) , and with infinite past we have an infinite number of even term events. Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. Let us call it Event (!) .Meaning (E(!)...E3, E2, E1, P). As it is the case all past events by definition must have been the present meaning an infinite number of events has occured after Event(!) To ger to the present. But let us remember that any continuing addition of a finite number from a finite number will always be finite. An example is if I count 1 then 2, then 3 ... , any term in that sequence if I select one then it will be some integer which is a finite amonunt away from the first term.
Therefore If you have an infinite past then there exists some past event that must of gone an infinite number of events to get to the present, but since addition from a point will always be a finite number, an infinite past is impossible and so would two event that have infinite events inbetween.
Comments (84)
The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing. So I doubt that the past is infinite.
If your point is basically to say that time is not infinite then you are going in the wrong direction, you would have to prove that there cannot be an infinite future.
So a hypothetical function generating these events is discrete rather than continuous? This is a little like saying "X is the first number to the left of 0". You are clearly assuming time is discrete and not continuous. See below.
Quoting BB100
Quoting BB100
Why? Why not assume that if one specifies a time in the past, there will always be at least one event occurring before that time? And then at least one event occurring before that event, ad infinitum.
This is McTaggart's C series, which by itself is inadequate as a definition of time, because it lacks direction. The A series is also required to get past, present, and future.
Quoting BB100
This does not really define what an event is, which seems rather crucial for your argument.
Quoting BB100
Quoting jgill
Indeed, and this was also McTaggart's assumption--time is composed of individual moments, whose contents are individual events--which I consider faulty.
Why would anyone be restricted to traversing only half the distance to the wall with each step? If the first step goes halfway, and the second step goes the same distance, then you are contacting the wall after just those two steps. Zeno's paradoxes dissolve once we recognize that he is smuggling in a requirement for discrete steps that does not apply to continuous motion--just like assuming time to be composed of discrete moments, rather than continuous.
-alethiest
The order I thought I visualized with (E(nth)... E3, E2, E1, P). Each event is ordered from the present. The present which is defined as The characterististics of all beings of existence. Meaning that as I am typing, I am 5'11, in The Northeast and all other distinguish descriptions of reality that exists along with it. If I were to finish this text, then The instant that I was writing came became a past event while the one if I finishing is the present. Each event must have been the present and the order from which is based simply if was the present before or after. The future I won't discuss because it is not the current reality or has been, so I can not be certain of I reality will change or not.
Indeed, and this was also McTaggart's assumption--time is composed of individual moments, whose contents are individual events--which I consider faulty.
-alethiest
The existence of time requires that what is , is no longer the case. A change of what characteristics in reality exist and what does not, meaning if a statement X is true and then not, then the we can say statement X is an event along with all other statements that were true along with it. And then not true is another event that we can say came after because it is the present. Remember that all of our observation is the change of certain truths, velocity is the displacement from seconds, which is defined now as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). Wikipedia. Every event that is the present is not any event previous for that event became not what reality.
Again, the order is not the issue, it is the direction that is lacking; and this "visualization" wrongly treats events as discrete individuals.
Quoting BB100
Again, you are making what I consider to be a faulty assumption. In my view, time is real but does not exist--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it, but it is not a concrete thing that reacts with other concrete things. Instead, it is a law that governs concrete things, enabling them to possess different abstract qualities at different determinations of time.
Quoting BB100
A statement is not an event, although it might be a description of an event. Statements can be true or false, but events cannot. In my view, an event is a definite change; if statement X is true at an earlier determination of time and false at a later determination of time, then an event is realized at a lapse of time between those two determinations, during which statement X is neither true nor false.
First of all it is a thought experiment that says any point the takes half the distance for every change of distance to some point, then it will never get there. Reason being become it will aways have to make a finite addition of distance that will only have more distance needed to go. We can you use this for a situation if we were to assume there is an infinite set of events between two events. Lets call the two point A and B respectively. Event A is a past event that occured as well as Event B, which occured after. Since In order for Point B to occur then the event evenly between them must have occured first, which we will call A(1/2). Then before Event B to occur, the event Evenly Between Event A(1/2) to Event B must occur first and so on. Therefore if we say there is an infinite event then this process must never stop of It having to go halfway. Therefor Event B cannot happen therefore there is no two past Event that have an infinite set of Events between them because an event is a description of all reality that is and then is replaced. Since each event must have been the present then Infinite set of events between any two events is impossible ot would mean In the example I gave, Event B has Happened and not happened.
-Alethiest
True means it is , and false means it is not. Inherently they are present focused because the present is everthing that is, If I said Event A in the past is the present, then that would be false but if, I said simply Event A occured then It is true. Your last statement is false because under the law of non excluded middle a statement has to be either true or false.
Right, but it is faulty because continuous motion does not require a series of discrete steps, going only halfway to the destination with each step. Likewise, continuous time does not require a series of discrete moments or events.
Quoting BB100
Yes, that is McTaggart's A series that provides the direction of time.
Quoting BB100
It is misleading to call excluded middle a law, because it is not universally applicable. Instead, it is a logical principle that holds only for whatever is determinate. At the lapse of time when a concrete thing is changing from possessing a certain abstract quality to no longer possessing it--i.e., during an event--that thing is indeterminate with respect to that quality, so excluded middle does not hold. By contrast, the principle of contradiction is indispensable--there is no determination of time at which the same statement is both true and false. Look up intuitionistic logic for an example of how this can be worked out formally.
I need help solving this natural deduction proof (PLEASE):
1. P & Q
2. ~(P & Q) /~Q
Right, but it is faulty because continuous motion does not require a series of discrete steps, going only halfway to the destination with each step. Likewise, continuous time does not require a series of discrete moments or events.
-Alethiest
First of all, a continous function means infinite points inbetween any point with no gap. This works fine in a static dimension like a graph where you conenct points, But this is impossible in Time for What I mentioned. The point is is there exist discrete points in a continous function like the Natural Number Integers in a plane.
That is the mathematical continuum, not true continuity. I deny that the real numbers are truly continuous. A truly continuous line is not composed of discrete points.
Quoting BB100
No, again, I deny that time is composed of discrete point-like moments; i.e., durationless instants.
For the reason that travel implies time in it where there would be an infinite set of events. What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous. Our own thinking exists like this as well. The empericial evidence is that we only have finite information everytime we measure between events.
I wonder if aletheist is referring to Bergson’s notion of durée. Continuous time (durée) is a heterogeneous multiplicity, which differs in kind to that of mathematical time, which through spacialization has become homogeneous multiplicity. For Bergson true continuity cannot be stitched together from snapshots, or points, as these discrete moments are themselves cleaved off from real, time par excellence (durée) which is essentially indivisible.
Or perhaps aletheist is not drawing from bergson at all...
You could say that time is just what we postulate 'time' to be, and you could then postulate it to have a beginning. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'time' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known.
(The original quote was in the context of Russell's work on Principia, where he objected to defining mathematical entities as already possessing all the desired properties, as opposed to constructing them from more primitive elements. But the sentiment behind that quip applies just as well here.)
There seem to be some steps missing before "ergo..."
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
Quoting BB100
This is simply the basis of our arbitrary unit for measuring the passage of time.
Quoting BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
Quoting BB100
No, continuous motion is the reality and distance is how we measure and describe it. A meter is an arbitrary unit for that purpose.
Quoting BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
No, I subscribe to Peirce's theory of time as truly continuous. It is somewhat similar in holding that the present is an indefinite lapse, such that "moment melts into moment" rather than being distinct.
It is ironic that Bergson criticized the spatialization of time, but then used spatial analogies to explain his notion of durée--"the unrolling of a spool," "a continual winding … of thread onto a ball," "a spectrum of a thousand shades," "an elastic being stretched," and "a spring being wound or unwound."
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568
However, this thread is hopeless IMHO. :roll:
I suppose the answer to the irony of Bergson using those spatial analogies is that he was attempting to point towards an understanding of time that is impossible to completely capture using language. Bergson asserted that it was the function of our analytical intelligence to delineate experience up into what is necessary for our virtual action. Science and language as useful for mastery of our environment, yet limited for doing metaphysics. So, the metaphors were intended to point the way, or give some kind of 'intuition' for that which cannot be properly expressed in words.. Durée.
Or, something like that.
A duration is literally the time inbetween events
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom.
— BB100
This is simply the basis of our arbitrary unit for measuring the passage of time.
What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance
— BB100
No, continuous motion is the reality and distance is how we measure and describe it. A meter is an arbitrary unit for that purpose.
Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
-Alethiest
First of All, that is the definition that is used in the dictionary.
It is a measurement, therefore there is a point which had to be and all associated truths when this occured. Also you mentioned previously that the non excluded middle is not a law, while in fact it is for to be a statement it either is or is not. To say that a thing neither is or is not would be a contradiction for a thing is an existence by definition.
This is not an assumption, all emperical data is a combination of points in time.
Please learn to use the quote feature. Just highlight the text that you want to quote from a previous post, and the "Quote" button should appear. Click on it, and the highlighted text shows up in the reply box, tagged with the name of the author and linked to its source.
Quoting BB100
Dictionary definitions are often inadequate for philosophical discussions.
Quoting BB100
Let me try restating my example of an event using "S" to denote a concrete thing and "P" to denote an abstract quality. At the lapse of time before the event, "S is P" is true. At the lapse of time after the event, "S is not-P" is true. At the lapse of time during the event, neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true. There is no contradiction here--that would require both "S is P" and "S is not-P" to be true at the same determination of time--but the principle of excluded middle does not hold.
Quoting BB100
If by "empirical data" you mean individual observations and measurements, sure; but this does not entail that the phenomena being observed and measured are really discrete.
Don't have to go far. Take this, for instance:
Quoting BB100
Nope. Doesn't follow and doesn't even make sense. But to understand why you need to have basic mastery of the mathematical concepts at play (a couple of weeks of freshman calculus should do, if you are diligent).
Other problems are not so much technical as philosophical, like when you take it for granted that time is granular, being composed of moments of finite duration, even though this is not something that is immediately evident to the senses or well-established by science.
Don't worry, it's not just you - these are very common mistakes. At a guess, someone somewhere attempts an argument along these lines once every few months or weeks even.
If S is niether p or not p, then that just means p is not applicaple to be describe S. And would this not assume there exists an event between every concrete event that is not definable. Either way there is a distinct event you put forth of "S is P" and in that event any other description of reality as a whole.
Also answer me this, what is a true continuity?
Right, it means that the concrete thing denoted by "S" is indeterminate with respect to possessing or not possessing the abstract quality denoted by "P." Again, the principle of excluded middle only applies to determinate states of things.
Quoting BB100
"S is P" does not signify an event, it signifies a prolonged state of things.
Quoting BB100
The short version is that the following five properties are jointly necessary and sufficient for a true continuum.
The long version is my forthcoming paper, "Peirce's Topical Continuum: A 'Thicker' Theory." I do not know yet when it will be published.
A prolonged state of things, such as what "S is P" or "S is not-P" signifies, is realized at any and every arbitrary instant within a certain continuous lapse of time. An event is realized when one prolonged state of things, such as what "S is P" signifies, transitions to an incompossible state of things, such as what "S is not-P" signifies. The two states cannot be realized at the same discrete instant, because that would violate the principle of contradiction. Instead, the event must be realized at another continuous lapse of time, when neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true; instead, "S is becoming not-P" is true. During that lapse--i.e., at any arbitrarily shorter but still continuous lapse within it--an indefinitely gradual state of change is realized.
Well, I reject that definition, as well as the underlying assumption that time is composed of instants. An event is a change from one state of things to a logically incompossible state of things.
Quoting BB100
No, a lapse is a real and continuous portion of time, while an instant is an artificial and discrete limit that we mark for some purpose, such as measurement or description.
Quoting BB100
Again, this is precisely what I deny. For any particular instant that we single out, there is no "next" instant. Put another way, between any two instants that we actually mark, we could potentially mark other instants beyond all multitude.
-Alethiest
Sorry, still I Am incompetant in using the quote feature on this text input.
Now change by definition is from one to another. There has to be a definite point to say from and to, therefore even if you deny a next instant, you have to accept there is an order of simply before or after any instant. Instant, which I define here as the state of reality. From there you may choose any arbritary Instant that happens in a list from the most current. This first Instant is the reference point for all other arbritary instants. Now if we assume infinite past there is a real infinite instants , regardless of the events you define as, such that ( ...I3, I2, I1). Remember these are arbritary, so even if you say there is an infinite events that are changing to have two instants, they are real and come in order, meaning I3 is when I4 is no longer. Whether there is an indeterminate between them is besides the point, and not affecting my argument. If these infinite arbritary ordered points were numbered in terms from the First instant, then let us go to the Instant that's term is equal the the whole even terms there is on the list. This Instant , which we will call ( nth) would have an infinite instances from the first instant and an infinite instances before it. Any list number terms is equal to the whole even and odd terms. As I have said before that that (nth) was the present which means an addition of successive instants that is infinity has occured but an addition of successive values will never be a non integer such as infinity, therefore an infinite past leads to a contradiction thus impossible. Which would mean the infinite events between such instances is impossible. If there is a problem with the logic or facts please just list it.
Again, I deny the reality of instantaneous states of things. The minimum of real time is an indefinite moment, and an event can only be realized at a lapse of time during which the transition from one prolonged state of things to a logically incompossible state of things is strictly continuous. Consequently, I also deny that events are rigidly sequential and never simultaneous; on the contrary, an isolated event is impossible. Every concrete thing is constantly changing with respect to some of its abstract qualities, such that the overall state of things at the present is always an indefinitely gradual state of change.
Quoting BB100
Again, I deny that there are any real instants in time, just those that we artificially mark for some purpose. Moreover, our inability to mark an actual infinity of instants has no bearing whatsoever on whether real time extends into the infinite past; it is sufficient to recognize that there is a potential infinity of such instants. This remains true even if we posit that there was a first event a finite number of years in the past; in my view, there could have been time without events, but events without time are impossible.
Again, it is not necessary to break up the motion into a series of discrete steps, such that each "occurs one after the other." Getting to the wall is obviously not impossible--I can simply move from my starting point toward it at a constant velocity, and I will get there. I do not have to stop at each halfway point, then start again.
Rather than further repeating myself, I will refer you to my recent thread on "The Reality of Time."
Quoting BB100
No one is arguing for the existence of infinite events, which would be an actual infinity. An event is not a concrete thing that exists, it is a state of things that is real; again, a change from one prolonged state of things to another (logically incompossible) prolonged state of things.
Quoting BB100
Nonsense, it is the infinite series of steps going only halfway that wrongly treats motion as discrete. Continuity is not synonymous with infinite divisibility, the latter is only one of the five properties that I specified for the former. The rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet no one considers them to be continuous.
Quoting BB100
Again, please read up on intuitionistic logic.
The mathematician sighs. "I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There'll always be some finite distance between us."
The engineer gets up and starts walking. "Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes."
Whether it is trivial or not is only a matter of your personal beliefs, because you have no evidence of it being either the correct or incorrect conclusion.
Quoting SophistiCat
How much honest toil is needed to reach an inconclusive conclusion?
Quoting SophistiCat
You could say that beer is just what we postulate 'beer' to be, and you could then postulate it to have an origin. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'beer' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known and do the bloody research to find out where it came from.
I think that my version makes more sense, and I do not have to refer to authorities to back me up.
Perhaps more precisely it means that all we know of reality comes in the form of measurement, and so if we cannot measure anything as being infinite, then the infinite does not occur in our knowledge of the world.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/2849/bb100
Frightening.
Yes. If an event is a "complete description of reality," full stop, then what is left to describe? You probably want to say that an event is a "complete description of reality at a point of time," but that would make your definition of time circular, since you want to define time in terms of events. And even if we allow that, then by defining the whole of time as the sum of all events, you end up defining time as a "complete description of reality" that was, is and will be, and that doesn't seem right.
Anyway, I don't think it's worth yours or my time for you to frog-march me through your proof, because believe me, I am thoroughly familiar with such proofs.
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
This is puzzling. Are you now doubting your own conclusion? The way you originally stated it gave me the impression that you yourself thought it to be straightforward.
Quoting Sir2u
Your mocking misses the mark. Indeed, we don't presuppose beer to have an origin - we know this from experience, inference or reliable report. Not so with time. I feel silly even having to explain this to you.
And what qualifies as 'measurement'? Can we measure our way to having a good idea of what the inside of the Moon consists of, for example (without having to hollow it out to find out)?
The thread includes a lot more than definitions, and it is intuitionistic logic not intuitive logic.
Quoting BB100
Again, "P" denotes an abstract quality. The mode of being of such a quality is not existence, but essence. It only exists by inhering in concrete things. When "S is P" is true, the quality denoted by "P" inheres in the thing denoted by "S." When "S is P" is not true, the quality denoted by "P" does not inhere in the thing denoted by "S." It might inhere in other things, or it might not inhere in anything, but its non-inherence in one particular thing does not affect its being a real quality.
Quoting BB100
No, "P" is not a statement. "S is P" is a statement; i.e., a proposition that attributes the abstract quality denoted by "P" to the concrete thing denoted by "S."
Quoting BB100
That is precisely what intuitionistic logic denies, because it requires the principle of excluded middle. It holds only for determinate states of things, and if the universe were truly determinate, then change would be impossible.
Quoting BB100
No, states of things are real--they are as they are regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about them--but they do not exist. Only concrete things exist; i.e., react with each other in the environment.
-Alethiest
The best way to understand something is break down its components and compare to others. You mention that an abstract quality does not exist unless you have it in a concrete thing. Abstract quality means that which exists in thought. An example is numbers, they represent reality and may be used in objects that exist. For example there is 1 dog infront of me. This may be true or false, but the 1 exists as a description of objects. Object itself, as a concept, is an abstract thought that represent physical phenomena. 2+2=4 is always true, this exists, but a physical object that exists is different for this may exist. Real ,as you are using, means an object existence. When you say some abstract essence exists, you mean it describes a physical object. With your example that s is an object and p is some abstract quality we can just define an object. If s exists, then what defines s must exist. Let us say s=a,b,andc. When you say s=p, then you must be saying a,b,and c,p=p. When you say s is not p, then a,b,and c is not p. This is because an abstract essence if true of an object, is part of the definition. If not, then it is not in the definition. The moment you say s is neither p nor not p, you are actually saying s itself is nonsense for the definition of s has to be means nothing if p exists. An example of this is imagine A represents myself. Myself is defined by only Three things B,C,and D. Let us say E means dead. A is E, in other words A is B,C,D,and E. E becomes my defintion and may or may not change my other descriptions. The moment I say A is neither E nor Not E. I am saying only one of three things. One is I have never existed. Second death does not exist. Or third having A=E makes a contradiction. An example of the third option is Imagine A was redefined as simply sound. Sound,one of it definition is not alive. Saying A=E is just a contradiction. Whenever you say Any object has an abstract thought, you are saying it is part of what defines it. If it is not what defines it then that abstract quality then does not exist in that said object and saying p is neither in it nor not in it , can be flipped to saying nothing about About S exists for there is no meaning of it that can be compared to say either is or is not. Same holds true for p. That is why we have law of exluded middle for any proposition to either be true or false because anything other would mean the thing being said just is nonsense.
Not at all, saying that you doubt something is not reaching a conclusion, it is a statement of indecision. And the comment was about your use of the word "trivially", and whether or not one had to work to be able to reach a conclusion. How much actual work did you do to reach your conclusion? Read a book maybe about someone else's thoughts on the topic.
Quoting SophistiCat
It can be a straight forward idea and still be incorrect. As I stated, neither has more than guesses to support our ideas. Why should your way of thinking be better or more correct than my way of thinking.
Quoting SophistiCat
It is not mocking, and you can feel as silly as you like.
And if you check the dictionary, we do presuppose beer to have an origin just because it exists, even if most people are unaware of the origin of it and have to do the research(google it) to find out.
You can do all of the research you like and never find out whether time is finite or infinite because no one knows, so no one can presupposes or postulate about it. They can only make guesses and try to prove them to be true or false.
But anyway, apart from all of that, I never postulated that time has a beginning. What I said was that the idea of time, a measurement, presupposes a starting point.
-Alethiest
First of all change simply means from to another. No, the law of Exluded Middle just means every propositions, a claim on reality, is either true or not true, is or is not. We just need to say change of the whole true propositions is already in the state of what is. Meaning Time is defined as all propisitions that is or was. Say s is p in the present, what curently is, then we say s is not p, the new present. Law of excluded middle is not violated because we just need to say there is no gap between the two events. You say change to have an inbetween by defintion of going from one to another. Just define Time as the whole set of instants ordered from the present. Where no instant is the same as the other. Motion is just just the change of certain propositions of distance of objects, and the concept of continuity is simply an illusion. Film is the best example to give.
No, it does not mean that. Again, the mode of being of an abstract quality is essence, not existence.
Quoting BB100
No, it does not mean that. Reality and existence are not synonymous or coextensive; everything that exists is real, but there are realities that do not exist--including time, qualities, states of things, and events.
Quoting BB100
No, I do not mean that. Again, a quality only exists by inhering in a concrete thing. A proposition, such as "S is P," is what describes this relation by signifying a state of things.
Quoting BB100
No, that is not what I am saying. Again, "S" denotes a concrete thing and "P" denotes an abstract quality; so "S is P" does not mean "S equals P," it means "S possesses P." I have no idea what "a, b, and c" are supposed to be in this context.
Quoting BB100
No, that is not what I am saying. Again, the statement that neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true means that the thing denoted by "S" is really indeterminate with respect to possessing or not possessing the quality denoted by "P." The universe is never strictly determinate, so the principle of excluded middle is never strictly true, because everything is always changing in some ways.
Quoting BB100
No, that is not my definition of time. Again, there are no real instants in time, only the ones that we artificially mark for some purpose. Real time is continuous, not discrete.
Quoting BB100
No, that is not my view. Continuous motion is the reality, while positions are something that we invented to describe it, and an arbitrary unit of distance is how we measure it.
These are fundamental disagreements, and I doubt that there is anything more to say at this point, other than further repetition.
The very definition of existence is something determinate, meaning it is. The implicit meaning would have you reach the simple fact that anything is and is not whatever not is. Nonsense by definition is it means absolutley not a single thing is either true or false.
The point I was making about About S is simply that saying having a thing would be the same as defining S as a being that has it. Therefore if S is P, a definition of S is having P. A, B, C are just things that define S. A concrete thing anyway is just something that exists that can distint from another through simple abstract concepts like color, numbers, etc. You can not have a concrete thing with some abstact concept. If S is P, it is no more than saying The definition of A,B,C and P. Definition is an if and only if of distinction. Something having p or not would make them seperate things.
Any definition can be switched with the name of said thing. Like myself being dead or not example I gave. If I exist with A representing myself. And E exists then when I say A is E, myself is defined already as dead along with the Characteristics of B,C, and D. In other words A=B,C,D and E is the equivalent of saying A=E for E is a definition of A. If the proposition is false, then that means I do not possess E in Myself, A. As long as it is not in Myself it is not in myself. The reason there exists 3 laws of logic is because there is only existence, things like concrete or abstact are just distinctions like those within them that are simply is. There is only existence mean is, for meaning means literally is. There is none other then what is for theat is the definition. If it does not follow the three laws it is nonsense. Literally an equivalent. The basis of what I am saying is more overarching and less assuming for the one premises is only existence, therefore we can say the identity law from such A=A, law of Exluded Middle, for since there is nothing but existence, the concept of not is formed through whatever is not in existence which we get aV(-a). And law of non contradition from the prior two, if there is not any except whatever is and is self and whatever not is not then you can not have A=-A. The simple premise is reality or existence is just existence.
You and I, before going any further may need to create a new discussion in the forum the the premise of logic to use for our disagreement on time is simple. If I am Right on just that all three laws are, then you are wrong, and If I am wrong you have an argument to have on your side. Either way my argument of not having a infinite past is either proven or debateable under such conditions.
No, the definition of abstract is "not concrete."
Quoting BB100
No, existence is not the only mode of being.
Quoting BB100
No, reality includes existence but is not limited to it.
Again, our disagreements are fundamental, and I am tired of repeating myself. Cheers!
Apparently you did not come across the post where I pointed out that the only non-arbitrary units for measuring distance and time are the Planck length and Planck time, respectively, which are derived from the speed of light and two other physical constants. Continuous motion through spacetime is thus more fundamental than distance in space or duration in time taken separately.
No, the Planck system of units is an alternative to the SI system of units. The Planck length and the Planck time are derived from the speed of light (c=1) and two other physical constants (?=1, G=1), which are all taken as fundamental. Their relation is that the Planck time is the duration required for light to travel the Planck length in a vacuum. Both can be expressed in SI units, but this is just a conversion; they are not derived from meters or seconds.
If you're going by the integers or some such, then no.
They're closed under subtraction (and addition).
Adding and subtracting any two integers gives an integer.
And ? ? N, by the way (Archimedean property).
Quoting Sir2u
That's pretty much what we already do, yes?
Except, we place whatever markers we want, year 0 by the common Western calendar is a good couple 1000 years ago, epoch 0 commonly used in computing is 1970-01-01 00:00:00 GMT, we use 1 year day second as whatever, and go by that.
We only need indexicals, contextuals from which to proceed, and with those conventional markers we can (and do) go back and forward as we see fit, without being bound to any one particular marker or unit.
So, in that sense at least, we need not assume a definite earliest time altogether, if that's what you meant.
OK, while I agree that we not need to assume an earliest possible time for everyday purposes, it does not make sense to asume that there can be an indefinite or infinite past.
Please clarify this. :chin:
What is your native language?
But what I mean is if you assume There is an infinite past. Then you can represent event event from the present with the natural numbers, since they are real events. If you went back to the nth event that was equivalent to how many even number events there are, then you have a past event that is infinite number of events from the present. Each past event was the present and then not, one after the other. An addition of finite events from a point will always be separeted by a finite amount, so an infinite past leads to a contradition, so it is false.
Hope you understand.