A duration is literally the time inbetween events — BB100

Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom. — BB100

This is simply the basis of our arbitrary unit for measuring the passage of time.

What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous. — BB100

Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance — BB100

No, continuous motion is the reality and distance is how we measure and describe it. A meter is an arbitrary unit for that purpose.

Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other. — BB100

Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

I wonder if aletheist is referring to Bergson’s notion of durée. — emancipate

No, I subscribe to Peirce's theory of time as truly continuous. It is somewhat similar in holding that the present is an indefinite lapse, such that "moment melts into moment" rather than being distinct.

It is ironic that Bergson criticized the spatialization of time, but then used spatial analogies to explain his notion of durée--"the unrolling of a spool," "a continual winding … of thread onto a ball," "a spectrum of a thousand shades," "an elastic being stretched," and "a spring being wound or unwound."

An interesting thread in itself.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/science-vs-philosophy-and-the-meaning-of-time/6539568

However, this thread is hopeless IMHO. :roll:

ah OK. I'm not very familiar with peirce's work.

I suppose the answer to the irony of Bergson using those spatial analogies is that he was attempting to point towards an understanding of time that is impossible to completely capture using language. Bergson asserted that it was the function of our analytical intelligence to delineate experience up into what is necessary for our virtual action. Science and language as useful for mastery of our environment, yet limited for doing metaphysics. So, the metaphors were intended to point the way, or give some kind of 'intuition' for that which cannot be properly expressed in words.. Durée.

Or, something like that.

A duration is literally the time inbetween events
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom.
— BB100
This is simply the basis of our arbitrary unit for measuring the passage of time.

What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.

But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance
— BB100
No, continuous motion is the reality and distance is how we measure and describe it. A meter is an arbitrary unit for that purpose.

Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other.
— BB100
Again, this is an assumption, which I reject.
-Alethiest

First of All, that is the definition that is used in the dictionary.

It is a measurement, therefore there is a point which had to be and all associated truths when this occured. Also you mentioned previously that the non excluded middle is not a law, while in fact it is for to be a statement it either is or is not. To say that a thing neither is or is not would be a contradiction for a thing is an existence by definition.

This is not an assumption, all emperical data is a combination of points in time.

Please learn to use the quote feature. Just highlight the text that you want to quote from a previous post, and the "Quote" button should appear. Click on it, and the highlighted text shows up in the reply box, tagged with the name of the author and linked to its source.

that is the definition that is used in the dictionary. — BB100

Dictionary definitions are often inadequate for philosophical discussions.

To say that a thing neither is or is not would be a contradiction for a thing is an existence by definition. — BB100

Let me try restating my example of an event using "S" to denote a concrete thing and "P" to denote an abstract quality. At the lapse of time before the event, "S is P" is true. At the lapse of time after the event, "S is not-P" is true. At the lapse of time during the event, neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true. There is no contradiction here--that would require both "S is P" and "S is not-P" to be true at the same determination of time--but the principle of excluded middle does not hold.

all emperical data is a combination of points in time. — BB100

If by "empirical data" you mean individual observations and measurements, sure; but this does not entail that the phenomena being observed and measured are really discrete.

If I I have one then name the first one you find and we can start from there for me to clarify. — BB100

Don't have to go far. Take this, for instance:

If have an infinite past, then there exists an event in the past that is an infinite events away from the present — BB100

Nope. Doesn't follow and doesn't even make sense. But to understand why you need to have basic mastery of the mathematical concepts at play (a couple of weeks of freshman calculus should do, if you are diligent).

Other problems are not so much technical as philosophical, like when you take it for granted that time is granular, being composed of moments of finite duration, even though this is not something that is immediately evident to the senses or well-established by science.

Don't worry, it's not just you - these are very common mistakes. At a guess, someone somewhere attempts an argument along these lines once every few months or weeks even.

Jimena Canales' s article can be found here: Einstein's Bergson Problem

[quoteLet me try restating my example of an event using "S" to denote a concrete thing and "P" to denote an abstract quality. At the lapse of time before the event, "S is P" is true. At the lapse of time after the event, "S is not-P" is true. At the lapse of time during the event, neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true. There is no contradiction here--that would require both "S is P" and "S is not-P" to be true at the same determination of time--but the principle of excluded middle does not hold.

[/quote]

If S is niether p or not p, then that just means p is not applicaple to be describe S. And would this not assume there exists an event between every concrete event that is not definable. Either way there is a distinct event you put forth of "S is P" and in that event any other description of reality as a whole.

Also answer me this, what is a true continuity?

Ok, from there lets define an infinite past. An infinite past is all the events that have occured from the present. Present is defined as simply the event that is. Event is a complete description of reality.An example being the first instant of today and all statements that are true along with it. Time is simply all events ordered from the present. A past event is an the present that longer is. Any problems so far with my defintions?

If S is niether p or not p, then that just means p is not applicaple to be describe S. — BB100

Right, it means that the concrete thing denoted by "S" is indeterminate with respect to possessing or not possessing the abstract quality denoted by "P." Again, the principle of excluded middle only applies to determinate states of things.

Either way there is a distinct event you put forth of "S is P" — BB100

"S is P" does not signify an event, it signifies a prolonged state of things.

Also answer me this, what is a true continuity? — BB100

The short version is that the following five properties are jointly necessary and sufficient for a true continuum.

• Rationality: every portion conforms to one general law or Idea, which is the final cause by which the ontologically prior whole calls out its parts.
• Divisibility: every portion is an indefinite material part, unless and until it is deliberately marked off with a limit to become a distinct actual part.
• Homogeneity: every portion has the same dimensionality as the whole, while every limit between portions is a topical singularity of lower dimensionality.
• Contiguity: every portion has a limit in common with each adjacent portion, and thus the same mode of immediate connection with others as every other has.
• Inexhaustibility: limits of any multitude, or even exceeding all multitude, may always be marked off to create additional actual parts within any previously uninterrupted portion.

The long version is my forthcoming paper, "Peirce's Topical Continuum: A 'Thicker' Theory." I do not know yet when it will be published.

What do you mean by "prolonged" or "during" in your two prior posts?

No what I mean by not applicable means for ex. The integer 1/2 is greater than 0. This is neither true or false, it is nonsense.

What do you mean by "prolonged" or "during" in your two prior posts? — BB100

A prolonged state of things, such as what "S is P" or "S is not-P" signifies, is realized at any and every arbitrary instant within a certain continuous lapse of time. An event is realized when one prolonged state of things, such as what "S is P" signifies, transitions to an incompossible state of things, such as what "S is not-P" signifies. The two states cannot be realized at the same discrete instant, because that would violate the principle of contradiction. Instead, the event must be realized at another continuous lapse of time, when neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true; instead, "S is becoming not-P" is true. During that lapse--i.e., at any arbitrarily shorter but still continuous lapse within it--an indefinitely gradual state of change is realized.

Wait, I defined an Event as a complete description of reality meaning an instant of what is or was. Lapse would entail a change of instants in Time. Since any instant of time exists one after the other, then you still can not go an infinite events after a point.

Wait, I defined an Event as a complete description of reality meaning an instant of what is or was. — BB100

Well, I reject that definition, as well as the underlying assumption that time is composed of instants. An event is a change from one state of things to a logically incompossible state of things.

Lapse would entail a change of instants in Time. — BB100

No, a lapse is a real and continuous portion of time, while an instant is an artificial and discrete limit that we mark for some purpose, such as measurement or description.

Since any instant of time exists one after the other, then you still can not go an infinite events after a point. — BB100

Again, this is precisely what I deny. For any particular instant that we single out, there is no "next" instant. Put another way, between any two instants that we actually mark, we could potentially mark other instants beyond all multitude.

Well, I reject that definition, as well as the underlying assumption that time is composed of instants. An event is a change from one state of things to a logically incompossible state of things.
-Alethiest
Sorry, still I Am incompetant in using the quote feature on this text input.

Now change by definition is from one to another. There has to be a definite point to say from and to, therefore even if you deny a next instant, you have to accept there is an order of simply before or after any instant. Instant, which I define here as the state of reality. From there you may choose any arbritary Instant that happens in a list from the most current. This first Instant is the reference point for all other arbritary instants. Now if we assume infinite past there is a real infinite instants , regardless of the events you define as, such that ( ...I3, I2, I1). Remember these are arbritary, so even if you say there is an infinite events that are changing to have two instants, they are real and come in order, meaning I3 is when I4 is no longer. Whether there is an indeterminate between them is besides the point, and not affecting my argument. If these infinite arbritary ordered points were numbered in terms from the First instant, then let us go to the Instant that's term is equal the the whole even terms there is on the list. This Instant , which we will call ( nth) would have an infinite instances from the first instant and an infinite instances before it. Any list number terms is equal to the whole even and odd terms. As I have said before that that (nth) was the present which means an addition of successive instants that is infinity has occured but an addition of successive values will never be a non integer such as infinity, therefore an infinite past leads to a contradiction thus impossible. Which would mean the infinite events between such instances is impossible. If there is a problem with the logic or facts please just list it.

If each step takes half the time of the previous, reaching the wall won't be a problem.

The wording is wrong and the conclusion. Its If you take half the time from being the go to the wall. This mean will will continue to be some events from reaching the wall , here metaphor for the present, if you have infinite events. Each event occurs one after the other, so getting to the wall is impossible. This would also mean motion is not infinitly continous.

Instant, which I define here as the state of reality. — BB100

Again, I deny the reality of instantaneous states of things. The minimum of real time is an indefinite moment, and an event can only be realized at a lapse of time during which the transition from one prolonged state of things to a logically incompossible state of things is strictly continuous. Consequently, I also deny that events are rigidly sequential and never simultaneous; on the contrary, an isolated event is impossible. Every concrete thing is constantly changing with respect to some of its abstract qualities, such that the overall state of things at the present is always an indefinitely gradual state of change.

Now if we assume infinite past there is a real infinite instants , regardless of the events you define as, such that ( ...I3, I2, I1). — BB100

Again, I deny that there are any real instants in time, just those that we artificially mark for some purpose. Moreover, our inability to mark an actual infinity of instants has no bearing whatsoever on whether real time extends into the infinite past; it is sufficient to recognize that there is a potential infinity of such instants. This remains true even if we posit that there was a first event a finite number of years in the past; in my view, there could have been time without events, but events without time are impossible.

Each event occurs one after the other, so getting to the wall is impossible. — BB100

Again, it is not necessary to break up the motion into a series of discrete steps, such that each "occurs one after the other." Getting to the wall is obviously not impossible--I can simply move from my starting point toward it at a constant velocity, and I will get there. I do not have to stop at each halfway point, then start again.

can you list your definitions of time , event, change, indefenite moment, and potential infinity in any order. In order to refute your conclusion, I will need to have the same dictionary to explain.

Getting to the wall is impossible if a thing was always going halfway the distance. This would naturally disprove the existance of infinite events, rather we motion is dicrete on that all particles are essentially teleporting at a certain distance, which is consistant with quantum theory and special relativaty.

Also, sorry for the many posts, but I fail to see how Non Excluded Middle is not a law like the identity and noncontradiction. A statement itself is a claim of truth implicitly, and from that it is or is not and also neither both.

can you list your definitions of time , event, change, indefenite moment, and potential infinity in any order. — BB100

Rather than further repeating myself, I will refer you to my recent thread on "The Reality of Time."

Getting to the wall is impossible if a thing was always going halfway the distance. This would naturally disprove the existance of infinite events — BB100

No one is arguing for the existence of infinite events, which would be an actual infinity. An event is not a concrete thing that exists, it is a state of things that is real; again, a change from one prolonged state of things to another (logically incompossible) prolonged state of things.

rather we motion is dicrete on that all particles are essentially teleporting at a certain distance, which is consistant with quantum theory and special relativaty. — BB100

Nonsense, it is the infinite series of steps going only halfway that wrongly treats motion as discrete. Continuity is not synonymous with infinite divisibility, the latter is only one of the five properties that I specified for the former. The rational numbers are infinitely divisible, yet no one considers them to be continuous.

I fail to see how Non Excluded Middle is not a law like the identity and noncontradiction. — BB100

Again, please read up on intuitionistic logic.

A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar.

The mathematician sighs. "I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There'll always be some finite distance between us."

The engineer gets up and starts walking. "Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

If you postulate that time must have a starting point, then you trivially get the conclusion that the past cannot be infinite. — SophistiCat

Whether it is trivial or not is only a matter of your personal beliefs, because you have no evidence of it being either the correct or incorrect conclusion.

Of course, no one who does not already believe the conclusion would be satisfied with that postulation, and even those who do ought to be leery about getting their prize without honest toil. — SophistiCat

How much honest toil is needed to reach an inconclusive conclusion?

You could say that time is just what we postulate 'time' to be, and you could then postulate it to have a beginning. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'time' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known. — SophistiCat

You could say that beer is just what we postulate 'beer' to be, and you could then postulate it to have an origin. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'beer' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known and do the bloody research to find out where it came from.

I think that my version makes more sense, and I do not have to refer to authorities to back me up.

65

↪A Seagull that assumes that measurement = reality. — BB100

Perhaps more precisely it means that all we know of reality comes in the form of measurement, and so if we cannot measure anything as being infinite, then the infinite does not occur in our knowledge of the world.

I read your thread of definitions, and have an idea of intuitive logic. First things first, Reality is whatever is. I read your thread and came across times where you said an event is a gradual state of changing between any actual. The meaning of gradual is over period of time, which is of little value in actually talking about time. You have claimed in this thread and the other one that non excluded middle does not apply in the event inbetween s is p and s is not p. If we assume S exists then all things that define it exist. If it is not then it is not S. Reality implicitly puts itself as is, nothing else. You can not have a situation s is neither p or not p, for that means p does not exist at all. It can never exist for it is nonsense. If we have an event where s exists and is p then p must be some statement. And I will repeat the meaning of statement, which is a putting forth of what is. Remember there is and only is . P=-(-p). That is the simple fact of reality. The three laws of logic is the very foundation of everything, the intuitive logic stems from pure mathemtics. Reality is simply what is. I am either walking or not, there is no reality that i am neither walking or not walking for Either I do not exist or walking is nonsense. If I am, then that which defines me is only that.

Also, simple fact you define Events as state of things that are real. Simply put that state of things means that which exists