Any wagers on how much longer this thread will go? :chin:

its already BB's best ever thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/2849/bb100

Frightening.

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

Yes. If an event is a "complete description of reality," full stop, then what is left to describe? You probably want to say that an event is a "complete description of reality at a point of time," but that would make your definition of time circular, since you want to define time in terms of events. And even if we allow that, then by defining the whole of time as the sum of all events, you end up defining time as a "complete description of reality" that was, is and will be, and that doesn't seem right.

Anyway, I don't think it's worth yours or my time for you to frog-march me through your proof, because believe me, I am thoroughly familiar with such proofs.

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

This is puzzling. Are you now doubting your own conclusion? The way you originally stated it gave me the impression that you yourself thought it to be straightforward.

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

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.

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

And what qualifies as 'measurement'? Can we measure our way to having a good idea of what the inside of the Moon consists of, for example (without having to hollow it out to find out)?

No, Time is The combination of all events in order of relation of what the present. Event is the complete description of reality. But since reality changes then that event no longer is true. It is replaced by a new complete description of reality, called the Present. The future is not anything that exists, so do not need the consider it.

I read your thread of definitions, and have an idea of intuitive logic. — BB100

The thread includes a lot more than definitions, and it is intuitionistic logic not intuitive logic.

You can not have a situation s is neither p or not p, for that means p does not exist at all. — 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.

If we have an event where s exists and is p then p must be some statement. — 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."

Remember there is and only is . P=-(-p). — 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.

Simply put that state of things means that which exists — 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.

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.
-Alethiest

The best way to understand something is break down its components and compare to others. You mention that an abstract quality does not exist unless you have it in a concrete thing. Abstract quality means that which exists in thought. An example is numbers, they represent reality and may be used in objects that exist. For example there is 1 dog infront of me. This may be true or false, but the 1 exists as a description of objects. Object itself, as a concept, is an abstract thought that represent physical phenomena. 2+2=4 is always true, this exists, but a physical object that exists is different for this may exist. Real ,as you are using, means an object existence. When you say some abstract essence exists, you mean it describes a physical object. With your example that s is an object and p is some abstract quality we can just define an object. If s exists, then what defines s must exist. Let us say s=a,b,andc. 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. This is because an abstract essence if true of an object, is part of the definition. If not, then it is not in the definition. 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. An example of this is imagine A represents myself. Myself is defined by only Three things B,C,and D. Let us say E means dead. A is E, in other words A is B,C,D,and E. E becomes my defintion and may or may not change my other descriptions. The moment I say A is neither E nor Not E. I am saying only one of three things. One is I have never existed. Second death does not exist. Or third having A=E makes a contradiction. An example of the third option is Imagine A was redefined as simply sound. Sound,one of it definition is not alive. Saying A=E is just a contradiction. Whenever you say Any object has an abstract thought, you are saying it is part of what defines it. If it is not what defines it then that abstract quality then does not exist in that said object and saying p is neither in it nor not in it , can be flipped to saying nothing about About S exists for there is no meaning of it that can be compared to say either is or is not. Same holds true for p. That is why we have law of exluded middle for any proposition to either be true or false because anything other would mean the thing being said just is nonsense.

This is puzzling. Are you now doubting your own conclusion? — SophistiCat

Not at all, saying that you doubt something is not reaching a conclusion, it is a statement of indecision. And the comment was about your use of the word "trivially", and whether or not one had to work to be able to reach a conclusion. How much actual work did you do to reach your conclusion? Read a book maybe about someone else's thoughts on the topic.

The way you originally stated it gave me the impression that you yourself thought it to be straightforward. — SophistiCat

It can be a straight forward idea and still be incorrect. As I stated, neither has more than guesses to support our ideas. Why should your way of thinking be better or more correct than my way of thinking.

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

It is not mocking, and you can feel as silly as you like.
And if you check the dictionary, we do presuppose beer to have an origin just because it exists, even if most people are unaware of the origin of it and have to do the research(google it) to find out.
You can do all of the research you like and never find out whether time is finite or infinite because no one knows, so no one can presupposes or postulate about it. They can only make guesses and try to prove them to be true or false.

But anyway, apart from all of that, I never postulated that time has a beginning. What I said was that the idea of time, a measurement, presupposes a starting point.

It holds only for determinate states of things, and if the universe were truly determinate, then change would be impossible.
-Alethiest

First of all change simply means from to another. No, the law of Exluded Middle just means every propositions, a claim on reality, is either true or not true, is or is not. We just need to say change of the whole true propositions is already in the state of what is. Meaning Time is defined as all propisitions that is or was. Say s is p in the present, what curently is, then we say s is not p, the new present. Law of excluded middle is not violated because we just need to say there is no gap between the two events. You say change to have an inbetween by defintion of going from one to another. Just define Time as the whole set of instants ordered from the present. Where no instant is the same as the other. Motion is just just the change of certain propositions of distance of objects, and the concept of continuity is simply an illusion. Film is the best example to give.

Abstract quality means that which exists in thought. — BB100

No, it does not mean that. Again, the mode of being of an abstract quality is essence, not existence.

Real ,as you are using, means an object existence. — 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.

When you say some abstract essence exists, you mean it describes a physical object. — 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 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, "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.

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 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.

Just define Time as the whole set of instants ordered from the present. — 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.

Motion is just just the change of certain propositions of distance of objects, and the concept of continuity is simply an illusion. — 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.

These are fundamental disagreements, and I doubt that there is anything more to say at this point, other than further repetition.

How are you defining essence, reality, and existence then? The definition of abstact is something conceived in thought.

The very definition of existence is something determinate, meaning it is. The implicit meaning would have you reach the simple fact that anything is and is not whatever not is. Nonsense by definition is it means absolutley not a single thing is either true or false.

The point I was making about About S is simply that saying having a thing would be the same as defining S as a being that has it. Therefore if S is P, a definition of S is having P. A, B, C are just things that define S. A concrete thing anyway is just something that exists that can distint from another through simple abstract concepts like color, numbers, etc. You can not have a concrete thing with some abstact concept. If S is P, it is no more than saying The definition of A,B,C and P. Definition is an if and only if of distinction. Something having p or not would make them seperate things.

Any definition can be switched with the name of said thing. Like myself being dead or not example I gave. If I exist with A representing myself. And E exists then when I say A is E, myself is defined already as dead along with the Characteristics of B,C, and D. In other words A=B,C,D and E is the equivalent of saying A=E for E is a definition of A. If the proposition is false, then that means I do not possess E in Myself, A. As long as it is not in Myself it is not in myself. 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. There is only existence mean is, for meaning means literally is. There is none other then what is for theat is the definition. If it does not follow the three laws it is nonsense. Literally an equivalent. The basis of what I am saying is more overarching and less assuming for the one premises is only existence, therefore we can say the identity law from such A=A, law of Exluded Middle, for since there is nothing but existence, the concept of not is formed through whatever is not in existence which we get aV(-a). And law of non contradition from the prior two, if there is not any except whatever is and is self and whatever not is not then you can not have A=-A. The simple premise is reality or existence is just existence.

You and I, before going any further may need to create a new discussion in the forum the the premise of logic to use for our disagreement on time is simple. If I am Right on just that all three laws are, then you are wrong, and If I am wrong you have an argument to have on your side. Either way my argument of not having a infinite past is either proven or debateable under such conditions.

The definition of abstact is something conceived in thought. — BB100

No, the definition of abstract is "not concrete."

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, existence is not the only mode of being.

The simple premise is reality or existence is just existence. — BB100

No, reality includes existence but is not limited to it.

Again, our disagreements are fundamental, and I am tired of repeating myself. Cheers!

Read a post of yours earlier that involved the discussion of the speed of light being constant implies motion is continous. Wanted to know how you arrived to such a thing. Speed of light by definition as the distance (m) over Time (s), and both are based currently based on , respectively, the speed of light taken to be absolutely 299,792,458 m/s and divided over the cesium atom period which is over 9,192,637,770 periods. Each of this presume absolute instance of events to measure each other, therefore the use of such instances if time that leads to a constant should refute such notion.

Speed of light by definition as the distance (m) over Time (s) — 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.

Fundmental means none can derive further, and both plank length and time require speed of light. And that is set to by the new SI units to be a set exact value of 299,792,458 m/s , and that require the measuring of the instants of a cesium atom to derive meter from. Such that the only thing Fundamental is the cesium atom radiation at a set occurence, and speed of light already set in from the motion of light which lead to exact instances.

No, the Planck system of units is an alternative to the SI system of units. The Planck length and the Planck time are derived from the speed of light (c=1) and two other physical constants (ħ=1, G=1), which are all taken as fundamental. Their relation is that the Planck time is the duration required for light to travel the Planck length in a vacuum. Both can be expressed in SI units, but this is just a conversion; they are not derived from meters or seconds.

That is no different that saying 1inch=2.54 cm. The fact of the matter is the planck constants need time(s) of SI Units and The planck constant by nature is not as consistant since gravitational force can't be repeatedly measured at all. And all of these can be described as instance of phenomena like light in comparison to others like cesium atom radiation. Evidence is the observational data is always taken as instances, and quantum theory is compatible with discrete instants of motion.

Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present — BB100

If you're going by the integers or some such, then no.
They're closed under subtraction (and addition).
Adding and subtracting any two integers gives an integer.
And ∞ ∉ N, by the way (Archimedean property).

The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing — Sir2u

That's pretty much what we already do, yes?
Except, we place whatever markers we want, year 0 by the common Western calendar is a good couple 1000 years ago, epoch 0 commonly used in computing is 1970-01-01 00:00:00 GMT, we use 1 year day second as whatever, and go by that.
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.

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

OK, while I agree that we not need to assume an earliest possible time for everyday purposes, it does not make sense to asume that there can be an indefinite or infinite past.

Infinity is not an integer,

Soory did not finish, accidently posted comment. The fact is Since infinity is not an integer you can ever have such in successive addition, so an infinite past is impossible for event Infinite events from the past is impossible.

The fact is Since infinity is not an integer you can ever have such in successive addition, so an infinite past is impossible for event Infinite events from the past is impossible. — BB100

Please clarify this. :chin:

What is your native language?

Sorry, my grammar was always said by my humanities professor to be awkward.

But what I mean is if you assume There is an infinite past. Then you can represent event event from the present with the natural numbers, since they are real events. If you went back to the nth event that was equivalent to how many even number events there are, then you have a past event that is infinite number of events from the present. Each past event was the present and then not, one after the other. An addition of finite events from a point will always be separeted by a finite amount, so an infinite past leads to a contradition, so it is false.

Hope you understand.