Just address the argument.

For instance, can something exist that is infinitely extended? Well, no. — Bartricks
Why not? You are making it axiomatic that this cannot happen. Is your axiom true or false? How can you tell? — John Gill

I've already said. I am not 'making it' axiomatic, I am appealing to reason.

Actual infinities can't exist. Or so says the reason of virtually everyone (which is the best evidence there can ever be that something is the case).

To borrow the example of Hilbert's hotel - an example employed to illustrate the rank absurdity of supposing infinities to be actual - a hotel with infinite rooms could be full to capacity and still accept new guests (indeed, an infinity of them). And if half the guests left, it would still be full.

Now, that's true - no? And it is also absurd. If I told you I own a hotel that is full to capacity but we can take as many new guests as you like, you'd be fine with that?? You'd think "yup, there are hotels like that"?? Or would you say "er, how can your hotel be full to capacity 'and' be able to take as many new guests as I like?"

Thanks for reminding me. All I wanted to do was prove that time is non-spatial, despite its measurement being so and that time isn't some kind a special space. Although it's represented as a 4th dimension in modern physics it is unique enough to deserve separate treatment. — TheMadFool

Yes, but I have not claimed that time is mistakenly thought to be space. I have claimed that time is mistakenly thought to be a dimension.

The case I have made for that is that, conceived of as a dimension, it would be infinitely divisible. Yet nothing can be infinitely divisible, and thus time is not a dimension.

So, here's argument 1:

1. If time is a dimension, then it will be infinitely divisible
2. Nothing existent can be infinitely divisible.
3. Therefore, if time is a dimension it does not exist
4. Time exists
5. Therefore, time is not a dimension

Another argument was that if time is a dimension, then it would have to extend infinitely as any event in time can recede into the past forever. Yet nothing can extend infinitely.

Argument 2:

1. If time is a dimension, then it extends to an actual infinity.
2. Nothing that exists is infinitely extended
3. Therefore, if time is a dimension, then it does not exist
4. Time exists
5. Therefore time is not a dimension

Another argument was that if time is a dimension, then there is no fundamental difference between events that are past, present and future. Past, present and future cease to be intrinsic features of time. But they are intrinsic features of time, thus time is not a dimension.

Argument 3:

1. If time is a dimension, then past, present and future are not the intrinsic temporal properties
2. Past, present and future are the intrinsic temporal properties
3. Therefore time is not a dimension

And here's the problem with your posts. You think I have not addressed your argument. I have, by pointing out that you are off-track. When you use "dimension" you are not talking about the same sort of thing as a physicist or mathematician who is using that word.

And here's the problem with your posts. You think I have not addressed your argument. — Banno

Yes, that's what I think.

Address an argument. You know, do some actual philosophy for a change.

There's the issue: your failure to recognise the critique of your argument.

1. If time is a dimension, then it will be infinitely divisible
2. Nothing existent can be infinitely divisible.
3. Therefore, if time is a dimension it does not exist
4. Time exists
5. Therefore, time is not a dimension — Bartricks

(2) is false. But not just false, it is malformed. Clearly there are things that are infinity divisible.

where's your case? Nay saying isn't arguing.

What's a "substance"? And what does "Extended" mean? And again what is "Stuff." I think defining these is just as hard as defining time, which is why I don't think this discussion ever goes anywhere. — khaled

Agreed. It is just another example of playing with words.

I answered those questions.

A substance is a bearer of properties.

And to be 'extended' is to occupy some space.

'Time' is neither. It exists, but it is not a kind of stuff and nor is it extended.

Nay saying isn't arguing. — Bartricks

:smile:

Nor is mere assertion.

Here is your assertion: Nothing existent can be infinitely divisible

But, says I, there are things that can be infinity divided.

Like number lines. Or seven.

Hence, your assertion is wrong. But more than just wrong - your assertion shows that you choose to misuse words such as "dimension".

misuse words — Banno

You are misusing the word 'misuse'.

Nor is mere assertion. — Banno

I didn't merely assert, I appealed to self-evident truths of reason. Try it sometime.

7 is laughable example. I mean, really? 7 is a thing, is it? A thing that can be infinitely divided? And it cannot actually be infinitely divided, only potentially so. You're mistaking the number 7 with '7 things'.

Now, tell me, which premise of this argument is false and why?

1. If an infinitely divisible thing can exist, then a hotel with infinite rooms can exist
2. A hotel with infinite rooms is a hotel that can be full to capacity, yet still admit new guests - an infinite number.
3. It is impossible for there to be a hotel that is full to capacity yet can still admit new guests
4. Therefore an infinitely divisible thing cannot exist

I didn't merely assert, I appealed to self-evident truths of reason. Try it sometime. — Bartricks

Rationalism. It's a tried and failed philosophical method. Good for you.

7 is laughable example. I mean, really? 7 is a thing, is it? A thing that can be infinitely divided? And it cannot actually be infinitely divided, only potentially so. You're mistaking the number 7 with '7 things'. — Bartricks

So you say seven doesn't exist? Or seven cannot be divided by any other number? Or both?

Keep going; it all only serves to further my point.

Now, tell me, which premise of this argument is false and why? — Bartricks

Ah. Quick, change the topic...

1. If an infinitely divisible thing can exist, then a hotel with infinite rooms can exist
2. A hotel with infinite rooms is a hotel that can be full to capacity, yet still admit new guests - an infinite number.
3. It is impossible for there to be a hotel that is full to capacity yet can still admit new guests
4. Therefore an infinitely divisible thing cannot exist — Bartricks

(3) is wrong. Hilbert's hotel can always take more visitors.

And yet again, your objection shows only that you choose not to use"infinite" in the way mathematicians do,

Poor stuff.

(3) is wrong. Hilbert's hotel can always take more visitors. — Banno

Ah, yes, of course. Thank you oh mighty Banno. I see now. Yes. It can. Yes. Brilliant reply. I be learning much.

So you say seven doesn't exist? Or seven cannot be divided by any other number? Or both? — Banno

Sorry, I am being too subtle for you. I am saying it is not a 'thing'.

Exactly what numbers are is itself a fraught philosophical issue, but no-one apart from a PLatonist thinks they're actual things, and even they would agree that the thing that is the number 7 - the Form of 7 - is not divisible.

And yet again, your objection shows only that you choose not to use"infinite" in the way mathematicians do, — Banno

Hilbert was a mathematician. Hilbert's hotel was a thought experiment he devised to underline the absurdity of thinking actual infinities can exist.

But don't let that worry you. If you want actual infinities to exist, then they jolly well can.

I answered those questions.

A substance is a bearer of properties.

And to be 'extended' is to occupy some space.

'Time' is neither. It exists, but it is not a kind of stuff and nor is it extended. — Bartricks

But it is still playing with words. You define words in terms of other words, which no doubt, in turn, can be defined by other words.

If you wish to say something interesting about Time, you will need to get below the level of words; like physicists do.

Look, you're going to say I am playing with words no matter what I argue - or rather, if or when I argue for something you disagree with. Basically, you have a problem with me using words.

Physicists are not investigating what time is. That's not a question in physics. How it behaves, yes. What it is, no. That's a philosophical question. You have to use your reason to figure out the answer.

When you watch a documentary about time, pssst, it's not about time. It'll have lots of physicists doing philosophy badly and saying weird stuff about time bending and such like - but it isn't about time, it is just about entertaining people for half an hour while they push fish fingers into their face.

yeah i pretty much agree with the OP. Are you familiar with special relativity as well as vector analysis and Newtonian physics? I believe to understand special relativity you have to understand vectors and also Newtonian physics.

Thanks for the post.

Are you familiar with special relativity as well as vector analysis and Newtonian physics? I believe to understand special relativity you have to understand vectors and also Newtonian physics. — christian2017

No I am not because those are not theses about what time is, but about 'behaviour'.

For instance, a theory - no matter how complex - about how someone behaves, is not a theory about what a person is.

Likewise, a theory about how things that are in time behave, is not a theory about what time is.

This kind of confusion - thinking that squarely philosophical questions are and have been answered by scientists - is, needless to say, rife.

Physicists are not investigating what time is. That's not a question in physics. How it behaves, yes. What it is, no. That's a philosophical question. You have to use your reason to figure out the answer. — Bartricks

I agree with the first four sentences. Physicists that I have known are interested in results, in the predictive power of their processes. I don't know how many, for example, worry about the metaphysics of the quantum world. Some do, of course, but when Feynman's integral gives the correct answer to a problem out to many decimal places that is considered success.

But time is far more than a philosophical question. We may never understand its fundamental nature. It may be beyond our limited powers of reason. But that doesn't argue against trying.

Hilbert's hotel was a thought experiment he devised to underline the absurdity of thinking actual infinities can exist. — Bartricks

Rubbish.

There is a great deal of empirical evidence that the speed of light is a universal constant obeyed by everything in the universe; we have been measuring it for 100s of years and we currently know it within a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion.

Saying the statement "nothing travels faster than light" is about the language of physics seems to me to be equivalent to saying the statement is a natural law — Devans99

Sort of, yes.

Consider the statement "All objects have a temperature at or above zero Kelvin". Interpreted from a realist's perspective, the sentence is synthetic and makes potentially falsifiable empirical claims, and in this sense is considered to be a "natural law".

But from the anti-realist's perspective, the statement is analytic and merely states that negative numbers play no role in our physical concept of temperature states; From this perspective, the statement is part of the convention of our physics language and in being fixed by convention isn't considered to be 'up for grabs'.

Yet as Quine pointed out, conventions often undergo dramatic revision every so often in order for a language to improve it's expression of new observations. But as Carnap pointed out, given any state of evidence, there is freedom as to the physics convention used. So there will invariably be disagreement as to whether any statement taken in isolation is false, true or meaningless. So in this sense there is indeed 'equivalence'.

The language of physics is our model of natural laws after all - so I maintain a belief that the natural laws of the universe are time-aware. .This suggests time is more than just a human invention. — Devans99

Unfortunately there isn't a single viable language of physics. Holistically, all viable languages account for the same observed phenomena, but each language suggests different prescriptions as to what are the most informative future experiments to conduct.

No I am not because those are not theses about what time is, but about 'behaviour'.

For instance, a theory - no matter how complex - about how someone behaves, is not a theory about what a person is. — Bartricks

Thats actually not true. You can claim a very weak connection between any two entities or concepts and in some case a strong connection.

You might be right that there is almost no connection between special relativity and what time is but it is doubtful.

On a different note, i don't believe time travel would be possible unless there was someone who over sees what happened in the past. Time as a substance is a concept which basically says we observe objects and particles move. Since the past is forgotten as soon as it happens, someone would have to be responsible for recording it in exact detail in order to replicate it.

I believe time is understood and measured by the movement of particles. Since matter is limited by speed C (max speed C) and the summation of vectors probably plays a role (x + y + z cant exceed C) in why clocks tell time depending on how close to speed C they are traveling in a given direction, time is relative. This is one of many explanations of special relativity.

This kind of confusion - thinking that squarely philosophical questions are and have been answered by scientists - is, needless to say, rife. — Bartricks

You sound very young. You have to understand people of many philosophies on this sight see science as the only way to answer any question on this site. Believe it or not various mathematical fields can be applied to any field of study including philosophy. Your favorite ice cream could probably be quantified through a systems analysis and design approach.

Without applying some field of mathematics or even a science, how do you expect to get a real answer other than "time is a banana split sundae."?

Exactly what numbers are is itself a fraught philosophical issue, but no-one apart from a PLatonist thinks they're actual things, and even they would agree that the thing that is the number 7 - the Form of 7 - is not divisible. — Bartricks

Folks, notice the slide Bartricks makes from "it doesn't exist", as used in the OP, to "it's not a thing", as used here.

1. If time is a dimension, then it extends to an actual infinity.
2. Nothing that exists is infinitely extended
3. Therefore, if time is a dimension, then it does not exist
4. Time exists
5. Therefore time is not a dimension — Bartricks

Adopting for the sake of argument Bart's term "actual infinity", which strikes me as itself muddled...

(1) is wrong. A dimension need not be actually infinite, only potentially so.
(2)... well, we just do not know. But there is no obvious reason the universe could not be infinite.