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? — BB100
If you postulate that time must have a starting point, then you trivially get the conclusion that the past cannot be infinite. — SophistiCat
The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing. So I doubt that the past is infinite. — Sir2u
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. — Sir2u
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. — Sir2u
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. — A Seagull
The thread includes a lot more than definitions, and it is intuitionistic logic not intuitive logic.I read your thread of definitions, and have an idea of intuitive logic. — BB100
Again, "P" denotes an abstract quality. The mode of being of such a quality is not existence, but essence. It only exists by inhering in concrete things. When "S is P" is true, the quality denoted by "P" inheres in the thing denoted by "S." When "S is P" is not true, the quality denoted by "P" does not inhere in the thing denoted by "S." It might inhere in other things, or it might not inhere in anything, but its non-inherence in one particular thing does not affect its being a real quality.You can not have a situation s is neither p or not p, for that means p does not exist at all. — BB100
No, "P" is not a statement. "S is P" is a statement; i.e., a proposition that attributes the abstract quality denoted by "P" to the concrete thing denoted by "S."If we have an event where s exists and is p then p must be some statement. — BB100
That is precisely what intuitionistic logic denies, because it requires the principle of excluded middle. It holds only for determinate states of things, and if the universe were truly determinate, then change would be impossible.Remember there is and only is . P=-(-p). — BB100
No, states of things are real--they are as they are regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about them--but they do not exist. Only concrete things exist; i.e., react with each other in the environment.Simply put that state of things means that which exists — BB100
This is puzzling. Are you now doubting your own conclusion? — SophistiCat
The way you originally stated it gave me the impression that you yourself thought it to be straightforward. — SophistiCat
Your mocking misses the mark. Indeed, we don't presuppose beer to have an origin - we know this from experience, inference or reliable report. Not so with time. I feel silly even having to explain this to you. — SophistiCat
No, it does not mean that. Again, the mode of being of an abstract quality is essence, not existence.Abstract quality means that which exists in thought. — BB100
No, it does not mean that. Reality and existence are not synonymous or coextensive; everything that exists is real, but there are realities that do not exist--including time, qualities, states of things, and events.Real ,as you are using, means an object existence. — BB100
No, I do not mean that. Again, a quality only exists by inhering in a concrete thing. A proposition, such as "S is P," is what describes this relation by signifying a state of things.When you say some abstract essence exists, you mean it describes a physical object. — BB100
No, that is not what I am saying. Again, "S" denotes a concrete thing and "P" denotes an abstract quality; so "S is P" does not mean "S equals P," it means "S possesses P." I have no idea what "a, b, and c" are supposed to be in this context.When you say s=p, then you must be saying a,b,and c,p=p. When you say s is not p, then a,b,and c is not p. — BB100
No, that is not what I am saying. Again, the statement that neither "S is P" nor "S is not-P" is true means that the thing denoted by "S" is really indeterminate with respect to possessing or not possessing the quality denoted by "P." The universe is never strictly determinate, so the principle of excluded middle is never strictly true, because everything is always changing in some ways.The moment you say s is neither p nor not p, you are actually saying s itself is nonsense for the definition of s has to be means nothing if p exists. — BB100
No, that is not my definition of time. Again, there are no real instants in time, only the ones that we artificially mark for some purpose. Real time is continuous, not discrete.Just define Time as the whole set of instants ordered from the present. — BB100
No, that is not my view. Continuous motion is the reality, while positions are something that we invented to describe it, and an arbitrary unit of distance is how we measure it.Motion is just just the change of certain propositions of distance of objects, and the concept of continuity is simply an illusion. — BB100
No, the definition of abstract is "not concrete."The definition of abstact is something conceived in thought. — BB100
No, existence is not the only mode of being.The reason there exists 3 laws of logic is because there is only existence, things like concrete or abstact are just distinctions like those within them that are simply is. — BB100
No, reality includes existence but is not limited to it.The simple premise is reality or existence is just existence. — BB100
Apparently you did not come across the post where I pointed out that the only non-arbitrary units for measuring distance and time are the Planck length and Planck time, respectively, which are derived from the speed of light and two other physical constants. Continuous motion through spacetime is thus more fundamental than distance in space or duration in time taken separately.Speed of light by definition as the distance (m) over Time (s) — BB100
Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present — BB100
The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing — Sir2u
We only need indexicals, contextuals from which to proceed, and with those conventional markers we can (and do) go back and forward as we see fit, without being bound to any one particular marker or unit.
So, in that sense at least, we need not assume a definite earliest time altogether, if that's what you meant. — jorndoe
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.