ZK, got it, -Bob
ZK, got it, -Bob
thx
ZK, got it, -Bob
thx
Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Bob Enyart – Thanks for the comments, I am especially honored with your contributions here and I am greatly indebted to your assistance in helping me get set free from so many false teachings about God and the bible. I only hope to become a blessing to you and your ministry in a fraction of the way you have been a blessing in my life. In the mean time, I have been trying to bless others as much as possible!
I find the whole infinite within the finite line argument to be deceptive as it holds contradictions in terms.
Please see my response to August on this issue.
Next post.
I find the whole infinite within the finite line argument to be deceptive as it holds contradictions in terms.
Please see my response to August on this issue.
Next post.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
August – Thanks for your input and encouragement.
The event of shooting an arrow includes the start, it’s prerelease from the bow until the arrow reaches its target. Just prior to shooting the arrow, it was not already shot, so the shooting of the arrow absolutely had an origination point in time (that’s it’s first ending point), and same is true with its targeted resting place (that’s its second ending point).
His infinite amount of frames of reference between the beginning and the ending of the shot arrow, tries to assert that there was an infinite space between the beginning and the end of it’s shot. Which is not true, say the arrow traveled 50 feet, 50 feet is NOT an infinite amount of space, it’s fully finite, it’s only 50 feet long. But we do have two things in all finite measurements, one is that it’s “total” distance is finite, and two, the space between any two points can be infinitely referenced or divided even though it’s “total” distance is a finite length. But the infinite reference points between any finite distance does not make a finite distance infinite, that is perfect contradiction. It would be like saying that a distance is (at the same time and in the same relationship) both ending and also not ending.
How do we consider the following sign in mathematical statements?
“ = ”
Does it always mean “equals”?
Does it always mean “totals”?
Does it always mean “is”? (short form of "the answer is")
I find the difference of the meanings of “total” and “is” and “equals” helps to uncover the location of the fallacy. Any total necessarily excludes the idea of an infinite. Infinites have no total, they are unending, and all totals have an ending. So those two ideas are mutually exclusive. But we can think of the following sign as not just simply meaning “total”, but also meaning “is” or “equals”. For example, 1 plus 2 is/or equals 3, and the answer to 2 times 3 is/or equals 6, etc. So the appropriate way of considering mathematical answers is to allow the statement’s context to remain consistent, if the answer is an infinite, then the idea of the “ = ” sign is “equals” or “the answer is”, it is not the “total is”.
I’ve heard arguments that there is no such thing as an actual infinite, that argument is held by Christians who want to portray God as existing outside of time. Here is an excerpt from “When skeptics ask” by Geilser and Brooks.
From chapter one, Questions About God, page 17, which is a second argument for the existence of God from creation. Second paragraph.
Should we use the same logic in reverse against finite things?!? Since finite measurements cannot be shown to be endless, should we then stipulate that they can not exist, or should we stipulate anything on the basis that since we can not find endlessness with a thing that by definition has ends, that my conclusion is therefore right or somehow supported? No, we will never find limits (or a total) to infinities so to use limits as a gauge to discover if an infinite exists or not, is to immediately contradict what it means to be infinite.
Now, if we do not contradict what it means to be an infinite then we might get to a better argument. Second contradiction presented as a logical argument. They just claim that time existing without a beginning (infinite time) is the same thing as creation existing without a beginning (infinite world). That is not true. One might want to assume that time and matter are of the same sort of dimension, to steal their own terminology, but time and matter are two manifestly different things. Time and matter have no such presumed necessary equation, in fact, I say that they are manifestly different and leave the claim that they are equal to remain in the illogical shambles that it is. Time and matter may be related, but they are not as they suggest, the same.
So this argument that suggests that you can not cross an actual infinite, it rests on a contradiction in terms, and thus is formally a false argument. The proponents of this sort of argument need to remain consistent with what it means to be an infinite and not expect a logical contradiction in terms to be accepted as evidence that something does or does not exist. It is not possible for anything to reach the ends of a thing that is endless. So we can not use the inability of reaching these impossible ends as proof that they a real infinite does not exist, all that has been demonstrated is that infinites really do not have ends, and we already new that by way of definition and logical necessity, so this argument is simply not valid.
In the created finite world, we naturally expect all things that are finite to conform to the nature of what it means to be finite. Thus, the bookends really do represent ends to a line, which cannot hold an infinite number of real books between them. You should use appropriate conditions that match your test subject, not ones that contradict against it.
Does the words eternal and everlasting mean infinite? I think they do. Scripture teaches that God put eternity in our hearts; we humans will live forever, either with or against God. That is an actual infinite. Or would these Christians want to say that God did not put eternity in our heart? Or that the afterlife is not eternal?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
God is eternal, He has no beginning and no end, but the scriptures say that He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. So is God both infinite and finite? Or is God being the beginning and the end a subtle reference to His place as creator over and above all of creation, which I think is perhaps God’s favorite calling card, that He is the creator of the universe, which manifestly has a beginning and a prophesied end too.
What do you think?
Sorry so long, I haven't worked with this idea long enough to make it very concise yet.
and
Great response, and very provocative. I had calculus, but didn’t do very well in it, but I love math and logic, so maybe I’ll get somewhere in trying to answer this. I have two responses to the so-called paradox. First, the “paradox” tries to assert a contradiction in terms. An event in time requires time to happen, “no event can happen” if there is no time for them to occur. He just asserts that an event is happening during a none-time point of reference, and that is simply false, nothing happens if you give it no time to happen. It is true that there is an infinite progression of reference points along any finite distance, but every finite distance has a “total” elapsed time or a total elapsed amount of space. If it was truly an infinite amount of time or space traveled, then it would be logically and necessarily impossible to measure the “total” amount traversed. So these two ideas are mutally exclusive to each other, infinities are finites are exclusive concepts, something can not have both an ending, and not ending.
The event of shooting an arrow includes the start, it’s prerelease from the bow until the arrow reaches its target. Just prior to shooting the arrow, it was not already shot, so the shooting of the arrow absolutely had an origination point in time (that’s it’s first ending point), and same is true with its targeted resting place (that’s its second ending point).
His infinite amount of frames of reference between the beginning and the ending of the shot arrow, tries to assert that there was an infinite space between the beginning and the end of it’s shot. Which is not true, say the arrow traveled 50 feet, 50 feet is NOT an infinite amount of space, it’s fully finite, it’s only 50 feet long. But we do have two things in all finite measurements, one is that it’s “total” distance is finite, and two, the space between any two points can be infinitely referenced or divided even though it’s “total” distance is a finite length. But the infinite reference points between any finite distance does not make a finite distance infinite, that is perfect contradiction. It would be like saying that a distance is (at the same time and in the same relationship) both ending and also not ending.
How do we consider the following sign in mathematical statements?
“ = ”
Does it always mean “equals”?
Does it always mean “totals”?
Does it always mean “is”? (short form of "the answer is")
I find the difference of the meanings of “total” and “is” and “equals” helps to uncover the location of the fallacy. Any total necessarily excludes the idea of an infinite. Infinites have no total, they are unending, and all totals have an ending. So those two ideas are mutually exclusive. But we can think of the following sign as not just simply meaning “total”, but also meaning “is” or “equals”. For example, 1 plus 2 is/or equals 3, and the answer to 2 times 3 is/or equals 6, etc. So the appropriate way of considering mathematical answers is to allow the statement’s context to remain consistent, if the answer is an infinite, then the idea of the “ = ” sign is “equals” or “the answer is”, it is not the “total is”.
I’ve heard arguments that there is no such thing as an actual infinite, that argument is held by Christians who want to portray God as existing outside of time. Here is an excerpt from “When skeptics ask” by Geilser and Brooks.
From chapter one, Questions About God, page 17, which is a second argument for the existence of God from creation. Second paragraph.
The next paragraph on the next page goes on to explain the difference between an abstract and a concrete infinite series.
First, the arguments are filled with claims, it’s almost difficult to tell the difference between the claims and the support argumentation because they arguments circle back around to making claims. But an argument does exist. They reason that an actual concrete infinite cannot be traversed from one end to the other, (!!!) that is the form of their argument even though they string out their words in such a way as to avoid such a gross illogical presentation. Of course one cannot cover the extents of an infinite, that is what it means to be an infinite, it has no ends! All that this argument is really supporting is that finites are not infinites and that infinites are not finites. Duh, no kidding, you can only use ends and totals and limits with finites, NOT with infinites, but they suggest that we use finite terminology and finite concepts to see if an actual infinite can exist! They suggest that since you can not cross or count or go from on end of an infinite to another, i.e. one book end, to another book end, then such an infinite can not really exist, and I sort of agree, no infinite can be spoken of as having ends at all, it is an immediate contradiction to place an infinite into a finite equation as though a total or end may be found. So the form of their argument is invalid before they even get started.
Should we use the same logic in reverse against finite things?!? Since finite measurements cannot be shown to be endless, should we then stipulate that they can not exist, or should we stipulate anything on the basis that since we can not find endlessness with a thing that by definition has ends, that my conclusion is therefore right or somehow supported? No, we will never find limits (or a total) to infinities so to use limits as a gauge to discover if an infinite exists or not, is to immediately contradict what it means to be infinite.
Now, if we do not contradict what it means to be an infinite then we might get to a better argument. Second contradiction presented as a logical argument. They just claim that time existing without a beginning (infinite time) is the same thing as creation existing without a beginning (infinite world). That is not true. One might want to assume that time and matter are of the same sort of dimension, to steal their own terminology, but time and matter are two manifestly different things. Time and matter have no such presumed necessary equation, in fact, I say that they are manifestly different and leave the claim that they are equal to remain in the illogical shambles that it is. Time and matter may be related, but they are not as they suggest, the same.
So this argument that suggests that you can not cross an actual infinite, it rests on a contradiction in terms, and thus is formally a false argument. The proponents of this sort of argument need to remain consistent with what it means to be an infinite and not expect a logical contradiction in terms to be accepted as evidence that something does or does not exist. It is not possible for anything to reach the ends of a thing that is endless. So we can not use the inability of reaching these impossible ends as proof that they a real infinite does not exist, all that has been demonstrated is that infinites really do not have ends, and we already new that by way of definition and logical necessity, so this argument is simply not valid.
In the created finite world, we naturally expect all things that are finite to conform to the nature of what it means to be finite. Thus, the bookends really do represent ends to a line, which cannot hold an infinite number of real books between them. You should use appropriate conditions that match your test subject, not ones that contradict against it.
Does the words eternal and everlasting mean infinite? I think they do. Scripture teaches that God put eternity in our hearts; we humans will live forever, either with or against God. That is an actual infinite. Or would these Christians want to say that God did not put eternity in our heart? Or that the afterlife is not eternal?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
Matthew 25:46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
God is eternal, He has no beginning and no end, but the scriptures say that He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. So is God both infinite and finite? Or is God being the beginning and the end a subtle reference to His place as creator over and above all of creation, which I think is perhaps God’s favorite calling card, that He is the creator of the universe, which manifestly has a beginning and a prophesied end too.
What do you think?
Sorry so long, I haven't worked with this idea long enough to make it very concise yet.
Last edited:
attention
New member
Infinity
Infinity
1way:
I don't want to run the risk to be abandoned here again, so I won't copy paste this, but please read this text, dealing with this problem of infinities, and the issue of the begin of time.
Here is the link Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.
BTW.
Your post was excellent, and I think you already understand the deception that takes place, when one states that an actual infinity can not exist, and that therefore time needed a beginning.
The deception is that if time is infinite, you can not start counting from the beginning and count to now, since there is no beginning. On an infinite time line, every point you place is arbitrary. And placing any other arbitrary point on the time line, will always result in a finite measurement of time between those two points.
Hence, you will never actually measure any infinities, even if time is infinite.
Infinity
1way:
I don't want to run the risk to be abandoned here again, so I won't copy paste this, but please read this text, dealing with this problem of infinities, and the issue of the begin of time.
Here is the link Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.
BTW.
Your post was excellent, and I think you already understand the deception that takes place, when one states that an actual infinity can not exist, and that therefore time needed a beginning.
The deception is that if time is infinite, you can not start counting from the beginning and count to now, since there is no beginning. On an infinite time line, every point you place is arbitrary. And placing any other arbitrary point on the time line, will always result in a finite measurement of time between those two points.
Hence, you will never actually measure any infinities, even if time is infinite.
Last edited:
Re: ZK, got it, -Bob
Re: ZK, got it, -Bob
On a totally unrelated note:
I have listened to several of your radio broadcasts, and have noted that you have a very "friendly" voice and demeanor. I get the impression that you are a kind and gentle person.
However, in the current debate, and other things you have posted on here, I get the feeling that you are a "jerk" (ie: unkind, unfriendly, hostile, & arrogant).
I was wondering if that is just because of the medium (written as opposed to spoken), or if when you are writing your posts you are not in the same sort of "gentle spirit" mentality as you are on the air.
I mean no offense by this... just an observation, and hopefully some good input on how the perceptions differ with mediums.
Thanks,
--ZK
Re: ZK, got it, -Bob
You're welcome.
On a totally unrelated note:
I have listened to several of your radio broadcasts, and have noted that you have a very "friendly" voice and demeanor. I get the impression that you are a kind and gentle person.
However, in the current debate, and other things you have posted on here, I get the feeling that you are a "jerk" (ie: unkind, unfriendly, hostile, & arrogant).
I was wondering if that is just because of the medium (written as opposed to spoken), or if when you are writing your posts you are not in the same sort of "gentle spirit" mentality as you are on the air.
I mean no offense by this... just an observation, and hopefully some good input on how the perceptions differ with mediums.
Thanks,
--ZK
1WAY:
I'm going to re-read your post, since it was so long... and I'm tired right now...
but, before I do, can you please tell me how the following fits into your understanding of infinites & finites:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... + 1/(2^infinity) = 1
Thanks!!
--ZK
I'm going to re-read your post, since it was so long... and I'm tired right now...
but, before I do, can you please tell me how the following fits into your understanding of infinites & finites:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... + 1/(2^infinity) = 1
Thanks!!
--ZK
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Attention – I will not spend much time on this issue because the contradiction in terms and concepts is so prevalent.
He goes on to say:
Ok, I found something I agree with.
But then the next paragraph seems totally false. Blue = I disagree.
Errrrrrrrrrrrrr. Stop, I’m sorry, I must leave, the next door neighbor lady’s friend is having a baby, perhaps today, so I am going with, gotto go. And take this as a rough draft.
I find the bolded statements fairly accurate, the blue statements are a cross between confusing and wrong. Who cares about direction of traverse, either you can or can not traverse an actual infinite. But that is missing the point I am trying to make. Being infinite or finite is a property of existence. You do not take an infinite endless limitless thing and then test it by seeing if you can reach it’s ends! That is ludicrous.
He goes on to say:
While I obviously agree with this conclusion, I totally disagree with his support reasoning, which involves direct contradiction. I would say that since the world is not a perpetual motion machine, nothing is a perpetual motion machine, there fore the world was created. The next consideration is that either it created itself, or it was created by something other than itself.
Ok, I found something I agree with.
Right, you should not expect to test an infinity, a thing that has no limits with concepts that requires the use of limits, like totals and counting and ends, etc.
But then the next paragraph seems totally false. Blue = I disagree.
This is a bunch of subjective impressions and accusations. To suggest that infinity does not exist is much like suggesting that reality does not exist.
Errrrrrrrrrrrrr. Stop, I’m sorry, I must leave, the next door neighbor lady’s friend is having a baby, perhaps today, so I am going with, gotto go. And take this as a rough draft.
attention
New member
Well, please calm down. As you might have noticed, this paragraph (as also the whole book) is a critique by Friedrich Engels on the philosophy ("world schematism") of Herr Eugen Duhring, and he cites passages from Herr Eugen Duhring which he then discusses and criticizes.
So you need to take care as to what passage is a quote of Herr Eugen Duhring, and what is the critique of Friedrich Engels.
The position of Herr Eugen Duhring is that he argues against the Infinity of Time, and therefore 'proofs' that time had a begining. He based that on the argument (which you yourself already exposed as invalid) that the Infinity can't be measured.
Engels, who in this passage quotes large part of the arguments of Herr Eugen Durhing, however (in a similar way as you) exposes the falsity of these arguments. What he exposes is that the argument against the Infinity of time is invalid, since you can not start counting Time at the beginning. Infinity has no begin to start with. You can only start counting at any arbitrary point on the time line. But that means you leave behind an infinite amount of time and thereby the thing you had to proof!
In short the falsity of the argument is that the Infinite can not exist, since it does not have a begin. But an Infinite exist by definition in the way, that is does not have a begin!
Hence, this argument against Infinity is invalid.
The He you refer to, is in this case Herr Eugen Duhring, who argues against the Infinity of time, and he used for that an argument stolen from Immanuel Kant ('Critique of Pure Reason'), while throwing away the other argument of Kant, which was the exact opposite.
Further, you say that your argument against the Infinity of time would be that it would neccesitate of the universe as a perpetuum mobile.
This is however a conclusion you draw from the Second law of Thermodynamics, which state that the amount of usueable energy for a closed thermodynamic system must decrease, and can not remain the same.
Your argument then would be: the universe is a closed thermodynamic system.
However that is a big leap, since we only know about thermodynamic systems from finite, laboratory sized experiments.
The terms "open" and "closed" are defined for finite size systems, and are not directly applicable to the universe.
So, it is an assumption, which you must first proof.
I have not seen any proof of that yet.
Start with a closed thermodynamic system. Then add to that any surrounding system, making the end result still a provable closed system. And repeat that, untill you have enclosed all of the universe.
You may however not "use" the assumption that the universe is a closed system, cause that is what you have to proof.
Try and see if you can proof that the universe is a 'closed' system.
He does not state that Infinity does not exist. On the contrary! He (that is: Friedrich Engels) argues vigorously for the Infinity of time.
He only makes clear that the arguments used against the Infinity of time, are all based on a contradiction, which is in it's nature part of Infinity itself, and which one can not get around (the contradiction) but which neither are valid arguments against the Infinity of time.
Engels argues that even when we can not concieve of Infinity without contradiction, this is not a reason to reject it. In fact he states, when we eliminate the contradiction of Infinity, that would be the end of Infinity itself!
You need to accomodate for the fact that something which is or seems contradictionary, does not mean that it doesn't exist!
If you remove the contradiction of Infinity, this means you erase Infinity, which means you have the Begin of Time concept.
In the same paragraph, Friedrich Engels argues against that aspect of the position of Herr Eugen Duhring, who as we know, argues for the begin of time.
I hope you read that part too. In short, the argument of Engels against the begin of time is that there is no possible way in which a change or motion can come from total motionlessness.
That is: unless one allows for a kick from 'outside' of the universe.
Which as we know is just another name for God.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Attention – I am getting confused between you and Zrokewl. You two are birds of the same feather. I had the feeling that I may be confused also about the reference you sited for me to read. So I just gave my reaction to what I did understand and let the chips fall where they may, my time is really too short for all this. As to
The first and second laws of thermodynamics, entropy and the conservation of energy, the fire burns out, energy states go from a state of order to a state of disorder towards equilibrium. So in laymans terms, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, the universe has usable energy that will someday burn up and cannot be reclaimed. As to your allegation that it is somehow unreasonable to assume that the universe effectively represents a closed system. First, you are pressing me in an area that I am honestly not very familiar, although it does greatly interest me, so I am afraid that my response will be hampered by my lack of understanding. That being said, I’ll do my best. I don’t really know how many closed systems we could provide that only completely demonstrate or substantiate the first and second laws of thermodynamics, but I would have to guess that altogether scientists and laymen alike have tested this idea on the order of hundreds and hundreds of millions of millions of times. Every time we produce anything, man always figures out that it always takes more work going in than the work you get back out, every time one tries to conserver the maximum amount of usable energy given a specific operation or task, but then you always find out that you never can get a 1 to 1 ratio of return on energy spent on either of these accounts (energy conversion or conservation), you always loose some amount of effort or energy, usually in the form of heat loss that is often due to friction or other such constraining laws that prohibit a perpetual motion machine from occurring. Now, examine the arenas that these findings have been consistently observed. The macro and the micro, from atomics and I presume subatomics, all the way to cosmology. At the tiny end, we find that atomic states end up loosing usable energy in tests done over just about any and all sorts. I imagine its why we have things called half life and why materials commonly degrade over time. We find the first and second laws of thermodynamics being consistently confirmed by chemical and electron reactions that are common in battery and charging systems. A chemical based battery, over time leaks away some of it’s charge such that it never is regained. And so on and so forth, we find the laws of thermodynamics confirmed innumerable times at the smallest scales. We also find them consistently confirmed at the macro levels also. Orbits decay over time. The red eye storm of Jupiter slowly dissipates, the sun would some day consume all it’s useable energy and burn out, the list just goes on an on. In short, EVERTHING that we do know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to every aspect of physics, and nothing lends to the opposite. Sure, we don’t have enough time to watch the sun burn out, but everything we do know about the macro universe is consistent with our findings that reach down all the way into subatomics.
So there is no good reason to suggest that these two laws would somehow become invalid if we could examine the entire universe. Secondly, you seem to be trying to suggest that the alternative to our universe as being a closed system is that it may not be a closed system. That is one unfounded and wildly fictional notion. As long as we define the universe as all existent matter, then I fail to see what you mean for assuming that our universe may not be a closed system. I suggest that you can’t even imagine what could make our system not a closed system, let alone give reasonable arguments that the universe is not closed.
So the only thing that I posit for support that the universe is a closed system, is all reliable accumulated knowledge to that point, it’s why no one laughs at the notion that given enough time, the sun would burn up it’s own fuel, even a young child can understand such a concept. That is not to say that some really are extremely willfully ignorant, but it is to say that reasonable people accept the first and second laws of thermodynamics as applying to the entire world since everything we do know about the world confirms these laws.
So since I am relying on all hard science that is observed from the micro to the macro world, and you are resting on unsubstantiated faith, please explain your assumption that the world is not a closed system.
As to
As to the main point, I agree, you get nothing done for all eternity if you can’t do anything because of a perfect lack of time to do it. Therefore, time necessarily is eternal, since some things do happen.
I have no argument against the infinity of time, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I offered the only three options for the origins of the world. I learned of them by others, and I’m quite certain that many thousands if not more certainly millions of people have learned of them also. And evidently, the claim that there is only 3 options for the origins of the world still hold true till this very moment. So, hopefully for the last time, if you disagree, then please provide another option, and if not, then concede the point, there are only three options.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics, entropy and the conservation of energy, the fire burns out, energy states go from a state of order to a state of disorder towards equilibrium. So in laymans terms, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, the universe has usable energy that will someday burn up and cannot be reclaimed. As to your allegation that it is somehow unreasonable to assume that the universe effectively represents a closed system. First, you are pressing me in an area that I am honestly not very familiar, although it does greatly interest me, so I am afraid that my response will be hampered by my lack of understanding. That being said, I’ll do my best. I don’t really know how many closed systems we could provide that only completely demonstrate or substantiate the first and second laws of thermodynamics, but I would have to guess that altogether scientists and laymen alike have tested this idea on the order of hundreds and hundreds of millions of millions of times. Every time we produce anything, man always figures out that it always takes more work going in than the work you get back out, every time one tries to conserver the maximum amount of usable energy given a specific operation or task, but then you always find out that you never can get a 1 to 1 ratio of return on energy spent on either of these accounts (energy conversion or conservation), you always loose some amount of effort or energy, usually in the form of heat loss that is often due to friction or other such constraining laws that prohibit a perpetual motion machine from occurring. Now, examine the arenas that these findings have been consistently observed. The macro and the micro, from atomics and I presume subatomics, all the way to cosmology. At the tiny end, we find that atomic states end up loosing usable energy in tests done over just about any and all sorts. I imagine its why we have things called half life and why materials commonly degrade over time. We find the first and second laws of thermodynamics being consistently confirmed by chemical and electron reactions that are common in battery and charging systems. A chemical based battery, over time leaks away some of it’s charge such that it never is regained. And so on and so forth, we find the laws of thermodynamics confirmed innumerable times at the smallest scales. We also find them consistently confirmed at the macro levels also. Orbits decay over time. The red eye storm of Jupiter slowly dissipates, the sun would some day consume all it’s useable energy and burn out, the list just goes on an on. In short, EVERTHING that we do know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to every aspect of physics, and nothing lends to the opposite. Sure, we don’t have enough time to watch the sun burn out, but everything we do know about the macro universe is consistent with our findings that reach down all the way into subatomics.
So there is no good reason to suggest that these two laws would somehow become invalid if we could examine the entire universe. Secondly, you seem to be trying to suggest that the alternative to our universe as being a closed system is that it may not be a closed system. That is one unfounded and wildly fictional notion. As long as we define the universe as all existent matter, then I fail to see what you mean for assuming that our universe may not be a closed system. I suggest that you can’t even imagine what could make our system not a closed system, let alone give reasonable arguments that the universe is not closed.
So the only thing that I posit for support that the universe is a closed system, is all reliable accumulated knowledge to that point, it’s why no one laughs at the notion that given enough time, the sun would burn up it’s own fuel, even a young child can understand such a concept. That is not to say that some really are extremely willfully ignorant, but it is to say that reasonable people accept the first and second laws of thermodynamics as applying to the entire world since everything we do know about the world confirms these laws.
So since I am relying on all hard science that is observed from the micro to the macro world, and you are resting on unsubstantiated faith, please explain your assumption that the world is not a closed system.
As to
Yes I did, but I did not understand the nature of the contradiction he is referring to. I do not see the contradiction, I simply see the formal error of wanting to test an infinite by using finite tools. It is the logic behind this foolish test that is contradictory, but I say that this contradiction can be done away with, not by eliminating the existence of infinities, but by dismissing the errant reasoning and replacing it with proper reasoning. Hence the contradiction would be gone, but the infinity would remain. So while I seem to agree with most of what he is saying, I apparently do not see things eye to eye with him.
As to the main point, I agree, you get nothing done for all eternity if you can’t do anything because of a perfect lack of time to do it. Therefore, time necessarily is eternal, since some things do happen.
The various concepts and discussions of infinity are interesting, but seem to have little to do withe the specifics of the debate, which is the subject of this thread. Please switch to the other discussion thread if you wish to continue your discussion of infinity.
(BTW, my opinion is that infinity is not a characteristic of the real world)
Your friendly moderator,
Bob B.
(BTW, my opinion is that infinity is not a characteristic of the real world)
Your friendly moderator,
Bob B.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
There I/(we) go again, off onto another tangent. Sorry!
There I/(we) go again, off onto another tangent. Sorry!
Very well Bob B, and sorry for straying the topic. Oh, boy, where should this sort of topic go?
(I wonder what your response would be if I asked you what then if space and time is part of our real world. If they are part of this real world, then I wonder what would you say is beyond the limited amount of space around us. I think we are utterly engulfed in infinite space, infinity is all around us in the form of space and time.)
Ok, I found a better place for this debate topic. I'll start a thread over in the
attention - Oh, ok, I was going to start one, but yours should do well enough, thanks.
In search of truth (section)
Origins (forum)
Could time possibly be finite? (thread)
If it is possible, I would move all our posts over there to keep things more together, or seperate, I'll give it a try and see what I can do.
There I/(we) go again, off onto another tangent. Sorry!
Very well Bob B, and sorry for straying the topic. Oh, boy, where should this sort of topic go?
(I wonder what your response would be if I asked you what then if space and time is part of our real world. If they are part of this real world, then I wonder what would you say is beyond the limited amount of space around us. I think we are utterly engulfed in infinite space, infinity is all around us in the form of space and time.)
Ok, I found a better place for this debate topic. I'll start a thread over in the
attention - Oh, ok, I was going to start one, but yours should do well enough, thanks.
In search of truth (section)
Origins (forum)
Could time possibly be finite? (thread)
If it is possible, I would move all our posts over there to keep things more together, or seperate,
I'll give it a try and see what I can do.He likes to keep his life private, I can understand that to keep his family safe. There are stalkers that will harass people. I was hoping that he was friends with some one here and they could say if all is ok.
I am hoping he is just being onery but I can't really see him not finishing his debate. So I am very concerned.
Demeanor
Demeanor
ZK wrote: "I have listened to several of your radio broadcasts, and have noted that you have a very 'friendly' voice and demeanor. I get the impression that you are a kind and gentle person. However, in the current debate, and other things you have posted on here, I get the feeling that you are a 'jerk' (ie: unkind, unfriendly, hostile, & arrogant). I was wondering if that is just because of the medium (written as opposed to spoken), or if when you are writing your posts you are not in the same sort of 'gentle spirit' mentality as you are on the air. I mean no offense by this... just an observation, and hopefully some good input on how the perceptions differ with mediums. Thanks, --ZK"
ZroKewl, I change my demeanor as I judge appropriate by the circumstance. Most people like to be liked, and so generally, most of us are polite to one another. Some months ago, a young woman called into my radio show and was defending Palestinian terrorists. I described an event that had happened perhaps that week or so, when a Palestinian man broke into a Jewish home at night, entered a young girl's bedroom, and shot her in the head splattering her blood and brains across the wall. When this caller continued to defend such acts, I became extremely angry and condemned her. That was the correct demeanor in that circumstance. If someone defends selling crack to kids, or ripping the arms off of a baby in the womb who had been sucking his thumb, I get really angry. While human beings should generally be kind to one another, all people should express anger and outrage at those who empower, or defend, or justify, or even simply tolerate, such injustice.
Thus, I expect that any harshness you can recall from me will be in defense of those being hurt. For, ideas have consequences.
Thanks for asking, -Bob
Demeanor
ZK wrote: "I have listened to several of your radio broadcasts, and have noted that you have a very 'friendly' voice and demeanor. I get the impression that you are a kind and gentle person. However, in the current debate, and other things you have posted on here, I get the feeling that you are a 'jerk' (ie: unkind, unfriendly, hostile, & arrogant). I was wondering if that is just because of the medium (written as opposed to spoken), or if when you are writing your posts you are not in the same sort of 'gentle spirit' mentality as you are on the air. I mean no offense by this... just an observation, and hopefully some good input on how the perceptions differ with mediums. Thanks, --ZK"
ZroKewl, I change my demeanor as I judge appropriate by the circumstance. Most people like to be liked, and so generally, most of us are polite to one another. Some months ago, a young woman called into my radio show and was defending Palestinian terrorists. I described an event that had happened perhaps that week or so, when a Palestinian man broke into a Jewish home at night, entered a young girl's bedroom, and shot her in the head splattering her blood and brains across the wall. When this caller continued to defend such acts, I became extremely angry and condemned her. That was the correct demeanor in that circumstance. If someone defends selling crack to kids, or ripping the arms off of a baby in the womb who had been sucking his thumb, I get really angry. While human beings should generally be kind to one another, all people should express anger and outrage at those who empower, or defend, or justify, or even simply tolerate, such injustice.
Thus, I expect that any harshness you can recall from me will be in defense of those being hurt. For, ideas have consequences.
Thanks for asking, -Bob
- Status