The first has it, almost as a trick of our need to find patterns in the world, that a series of events would still occur even if one entity in the series was erased. — substantivalism
When quantum objects are entangled, measuring the properties of one changes those of the other — Relativist
An infinite series of, say, dominoes going into the past does indeed need a prime mover or movers (Aristotle) or a Trinity (Aquinas) to keep it well ordered. — Gregory
Try if you can to imagine humanity with all the births and deaths going back forever with no first human or evolution. It verges on the illogical. — Gregory
The Page-Wooters mechaism is a fascinating phenomonen. It suggests time is a local phenomenon associated with quantum entanglement. An elapse of time is experienced by observers within a quantum system, but external observers to not observe the elapse of time within the system: — Relativist
I'm aware of no metaphysical analysis that would have predicted this, nor that even attempts to account for it. Hence, I suggest metaphysics is futile for understanding it. — Relativist
I think set paradoxes which are only resolvable by an unmechanized mind proved an infinite past would require a divine mind, but I still think it's impossible — Gregory
Yes it's the case, and yes, it's more complicated than that. It's not mysticism, it's confirmed physics.Is this exactly the case? I thought it was a bit more complicated than that, — jgill
Yes it's the case, and yes, it's more complicated than that. It's not mysticism, it's confirmed physics. — Relativist
When quantum objects are entangled, measuring the properties of one changes those of the other — Relativist
Is this exactly the case? I thought it was a bit more complicated than that, but I am not a physicist and could be mistaken. Kenosha Kid? :chin: — jgill
There is no mechanized or unmechanized minds in your sense. Only what part of reality is from you and that which isn't. — substantivalism
I’d like to suggest a review of exactly what “infinity” is. Since time and space are inextricably linked, another way of saying this is, you can’t have one without the other. As finite “material” beings we exist in a finite material universe. Since when is it correct to assume the universe - made up of matter which has finite properties - is in and of itself infinite? — Dan Cage
If we’re calling into question “The Big Bang”, indeed “where” did the singularity from which the creation of all matter sprang come “from”? If “where” didn’t exist before The Bang occurred, then neither did “when”. This implies time has a beginning and is therefore finite. Perhaps the term “forever” applies, but that is a time reference. Eternity is not equal to infinity. — Dan Cage
Eternity is infinite. But if you can't make sense of the beginning of time, pushing it back forever doesn't give you a more logical explanantion. There are illogical things in this world, but the logical is prior. How a physical timeless universe goes from being still and then into the flow of time without outside causality is a question scientists are breaking their heads over. They have no forrm of natural faith so they can't see creation out of nothing. I reject the idea of God for certain reasons but if there was a God I can perfectly well see him creating our of nothing. I do have natural faith but I reject supernatural faith as the dreams of trolls — Gregory
That makes sense, but I don't believe in an infinite universe anways. — Gregory
All you need to do is imagine pure potentiality flowing or falling, or however you like, into actuality. I really have no problem doing this, and so the whole God thing doesn't matter to me anymore — Gregory
I don't think metaphysical analysis can provide definitive answers about time. On the other hand, physics may develop insight into its nature. — Relativist
I'm open to considering the value of metaphysical analysis in this regard, but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". And it's physicists who are exploring what may be the fundamental basis of time.I think this is actually the opposite of reality. Analysis of the problems which physics encounters with its representations of time, juxtaposed with the firmly established metaphysical conceptions of causation, is what develops insight into the nature of time. Physicists do not value metaphysical conceptions, metaphysicians do. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.