Posted: Nov 07, 2018 1:43 pm
Wortfish wrote:Newmark wrote:
Still just empty assertions, still no justification. Typing "TIME" in large caps isn't much in the way of argument. You still need to explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships". Bonus points for showing how mathematics is not relevant to any aspect of current understanding of time, for instance the observed phenomena of time dilation as described by special relativity. Given your avoidance of any mathematical discussion (and no, quoting someone who thinks π =4 doesn't qualify), I strongly suspect that you lack the tools necessary to do so. Prove me wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself; your choice.
Look, it is very simple: Immanuel Kant, like myself, reasoned that the universe cannot be unlimited in past time because that would mean that an infinite number of events or succession of states of the world must have occurred.
Kant, like yourself, didn't include the findings of modern mathematics in his speculations. Kant has the rather decent excuse of having been dead for better part of a century before Cantor published his ideas. What's your excuse?
But since "infinity" can never be attained by such a succession, the idea of an infinite past, or eternal universe, must be false.
Neither have I claimed that it would be, which you would have understood, if you were paying attention. Your reasoning would only apply iff there was an infinite sequence between any given points. Quite simply, you still haven't understood what you're arguing against.
You see, time passes as a succession of moments in a causal relationship to each other. One moment does not begin until the one prior to it has ended. That is not so in an infinite set of numbers that do not stand in apposition to each other.
Rather, they stand only in logical order and not in any temporal arrangement.
This does not explain why you think that common mathematical models are disqualified from describing "casual relationships", this merely re-asserts your statement. I've asked this before (so I hardly expect an intelligent answer), but what model do you think best describes a "casual relationship", and how does this model differ from a "logical order"?
Without a beginning, time does not flow and there cannot be a passage of time from a non-existent starting point. You don't need "special relativity" to get this.
Given what has already been explained in this thread, this jumble of blind assertions and logical fallacies is simply astounding. But if you keep screaming it, maybe a pixie will come by and sprinkle some dust on it, and it will magically become true!