# Zeno time and the continuum of nows discussion thread

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Jul 31, 2009.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
You keep banging on about this and yet you haven't actually provided a logical rebuttal. I assume you agree that time is a dimension? If the time dimension is infinite in extent then it follows trivially that two events can be separated by an infinite extent.

For example, lets consider the following scenario - there is a point in time, call it now and another point in time, lets call it then. We can choose our points so that now and then are infinitely far apart. Now consider a point that's 24 hours after now - tomorrow, or 24 hours before now - yesterday. Both tomorrow and yesterday are infinitely far from then because infinity plus or minus 24 hours is still infinity. The same argument holds for any point in time of significance to us - the formation of the sun, the earth, you being born and flunking physics at school. All are separated from then by an infinite amount of time.

That makes no sense to me, because if an observer were to find him or herself at then they would have to wait forever to get to now. Maybe that is a deficiency in my understanding which I would be more than happy to admit if someone were to point out the flaw in my logic, and not simply tell me it's "flawed."

So if you want to have a sensible discussion with the reasonable and smart people on this board stop trying (and failing) to score points and start expressing yourself with a but more maturity than a 5 year old.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
No it doesn’t. It implies that movement could be continuous and you cannot make a perfect correspondence between reality and any form of math or simulation that uses such a lattice.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I see you are sticking by this foolish statement.
No, you can't.
You are hanging yourself.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### phytiRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
317
A rephrasing:
Humans measure the interval between two events that are each marked by clock events in space.
The beginning of the universe* and now would both be events that are marked by clock events in space.

*It hasn't been seen yet, but it might be coming to a theater near you.

8. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I acknowledge the improvement.

And the conclusion statement then would be:

The beginning of the universe and now are measured by the interval between them.

Then should come a syllogism for if there was no beginning of the universe. If there was no beginning then there was no clock event in space. Therefore it is nonsense to talk about the measure of an interval when there is no clock event to start the interval.

9. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
You make big claims and talk about logic but when the time comes to walk the walk you turn out to be impotent.

Consider this: I have a line of length x. what is the maximum separation of two points on that line?

10. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
You are the empty shell Humpty and you fell off the wall. All the kings horses and all the kings me couldn't put Humpty together again. Bring in all of the famous Physics and Math people that you can find who agree that it is impossible that the universe has always existed. I just want to see who they are when they show up to support you.

Admit you are wrong when you say it is absurd to think that the universe has always existed because if it had we couldn't get to now.

It seems so funny that someone who brags about his education, PhD studies, papers, etc. could be so bull headed about admitting that it is possible that the universe has always existed. It is not absurd so when you insist it is you are being absurd. Your best move is to make some vague statement like, "well of course it is possible, I was just kidding", or something like that.

11. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,810
According to GR, the universe may well be infinite in extent, every point in space being equally treatable as the center. It's not absurd to say we have a location at which we exist just because there are locations arbitrarily far away from which to reference us. Don't see why it necessarily has to be any different with time. Weird maybe, but that doesn't make something physically impossible.

12. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
That is true according to GR as well as a cosmology that has boundless space to start with.
No, it is not absurd to say that we are at a location within the universe.
Now I have to ask you about that part of your statement. “A location arbitrarily far away”. I’m not clear on your meaning here. Would such a location be a specific location? Or are you describing any possible location arbitrarily far away but not at any specific location?

If the location that you refer to as arbitrarily far away can be located as a point in space, there is a finite distance between our location and that point.

13. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,810
Every point in the universe is a finite distance from us. When I say there are points arbitrarily far away in space, I mean in principle that you can give me any distance no matter how large, and I can always find you a point which is located at least that distance from us. One could say the same thing about time if it were to go infinitely far back- doesn't mean we can't exist in the present.

14. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
You are a wise man and a gentleman.

15. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
This is nothing but ad hominem. You clearly have no grasp of logic whatsoever. Are you too scared or to stupid to answer this question:

I have a line of length x. what is the maximum separation of two points on that line?

16. ### OphioliteValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,232
The universe could have existed for ever. Just because we cannot comprehend such a notion is a reflection on our limitations, not those of the universe.

Just because QW is an idiot, does not prevent him from occasionally being correct.

17. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Y, thank you. Signed: Your favorite idiot.

18. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
I’ll answer your question but first admit that the reason you hijacked, trolled, and used ad homs on my QWC threads is because the first idea I discuss about QWC is that the universe has always existed and you believe that it is absurd to think that.

19. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
I will not admit that because it's not true. I've always and I am always happy to admit that my understanding of things, even things that I study and know a lot about, is lacking however, you still have not been able to logically refute the notion that it is absurd for an infinite amount of time to pass before we get to now.

basically, Ophiolite and CptBork are appealing to the anthropic principle, something which my training has taught me to distrust as much as possible. Also, I believe that CptBork is talking about the universe being infinite in spatial, not temporal extent - it's true that a particular solution of the Friedman equation leads to a universe that is open in spatial extent, but it still originates at a finite point in the past - it is not eternal.

So my argument stands, comments from people I respect notwithstanding: I have a line of length x. what is the maximum separation of two points on that line?

20. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
Are those the only two choices?

21. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
You still haven't answered the question!

22. ### quantum_waveContemplating the "as yet" unknownValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,626
You are bringing back memories of when you, Guest, Alphanumeric, Oli, and Orpheolite were trolling, using ad homs, and hijacking the threads where I freely discussed my ideas until the the ad homs, hijacking and trolling got out of hand.

23. ### prometheusviva voce!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
2,045
Diversionary tactics - why can't you simply answer the question. I don't think it's all that hard: I have a line of length x. what is the maximum separation of two points on that line?

PS no ad hominems or hijacking here: this is on topic and relevant.