If you are not using the words “world” and “universe” as synonyms, then what's the difference between the two? — Amalac
we could deduce the proposition “The universe has a necessary origin in time” without experience, merely by analysis of the concept “world”, right? — Amalac
show me how that proposition is analytic. — Amalac
The world is a phenomenon, an object of experience, now that we’ve witnessed it in its entirety from outside its limits; the universe is not. If the universe is the condition for space and time, it cannot be a phenomenon determined by them. Trying to equalize them, is, as the Good Professor says, “...a mere subterfuge...”, nevermind the lengthy exposition on why this is so. — Mww
How the universe has a necessary origin in time? Hmmmm.....two ways, perhaps. Show the origin of the universe is simultaneous with the origin of time, — Mww
Wittgenstein overhears someone saying "5, 1, 4, 1, 3. Done."
He asks what that was about, and they respond that they just finished reciting π backward.
"But, how old are you?"
"Infinitely old. I never started, but have been at it forever and finally finished."
Everywhere, counterintuitive implications everywhere? Should we just make stuff up? Drop sufficient reason (in this case at least)? Are we back to square one? A non-infinite "edge-free" universe? — jorndoe
What lesson did Kant draw from these puzzling antinomies? He concluded that our ideas of space and time are inapplicable to the universe as a whole. We can, of course, apply the ideas of space and time to ordinary physical objects and physical events. But space and time themselves are not objects or events: they cannot even be observed, they are more elusive. They are a kind of framework for things and events, something like a box system, or a recording system, for observations. Space and time are not part of the empirical, real world of things and events, but are part of our mental equipment, of our apparatus to capture the world. The appropriate use that can be given to them is that of observation instruments: when observing any event we usually place it, immediately and intuitively, in an order of space and time. Thus, space and time can be considered as a frame of reference that is not based on experience, but is used intuitively in experience and is appropriately applicable to it. This is why we are inconvenienced when we misapply the ideas of space and time, and use them in a realm that transcends all possible experience, as we did in our two proofs on the universe as a whole. — Karl Popper
Question: is it? Or do they think in terms of unbounded? Or even unending? Or, is the physicist's infinite a term of art that differs significantly from the mathematician's infinity? — tim wood
isn't that as fallacious as arguing that the series of negative integers cannot be infinite because otherwise it could never reach -3? — Amalac
SO the question arrises as to how accurately it represents Kant's argument. — Banno
Suppose the world does not have a beginning in time. In this case, an eternity has elapsed until each given instant and, consequently, an infinite series of successive states of things in the world. Now, the infinity of a series consists in that it can never be finished by means of successive syntheses. Therefore, an infinite past cosmic series is impossible and, consequently, it is an indispensable condition of the existence of the world that it has had a beginning, which is the first point that we wanted to demonstrate. — Kant
Infinite Regress.That does follow if 1 and 2 are true. — Amalac
there is nothing logically inconsistent about a universe with an infinite past, — Amalac
I'm rejecting is Kant's argument which states that the universe couldn't have been infinite towards the past because that would imply that an infinite amount of time would have elapsed up to to the present moment.
That one would be the one that begs the question, by assuming tacitly that the universe must have had a beginning in time — Amalac
I don't have a problem with the idea of time passing, but with the idea that “if the universe has an infinite past then an infinite amount of time must have passed”. — Amalac
You claim to have no problems with an infinite past but then you say you can't accept that "if the universe has an infinite past then an infinite amount of time must have passed". It doesn't add up. — TheMadFool
Oh dear, just answer the question: Assuming the universe was infinite towards the past, and that an infinite amount of time passed all the way to the present, since which moment down to the present did it pass? Since when to when did it pass? — Amalac
When you assume "...the universe was infinite towards the past...", you shouldn't be asking "...since which moment down to the present did it pass? Since when to when did it pass?" because that question, whatever else it is, presupposes a beginning, a starting point, to time - the "which moment", the"when" in "when to when". — TheMadFool
So you are saying that an infinite amount of time “passed” in that infinite past universe, but not since any particular moment in time. What do you mean by “passed” then? — Amalac
we’ve witnessed it in its entirety from outside its limits — Mww
unknown parts of the world, and parts we have not observed yet or of whose existence we are not even aware at present — Amalac
the universe, according to you, was the condition for space and time, in which case wouldn't that imply that the universe is determined by time, contrary to what you said? — Amalac
Assuming the universe was infinite towards the past, and that an infinite amount of time passed all the way to the present, since which moment down to the present did it pass? Since when to when did it pass? — Amalac
There are two ways of thinking about infinity — god must be atheist
Now, just as the unit which is taken is greater or smaller, the infinite will be greater or smaller — Mww
therefore he can't equate the two. — god must be atheist
Now, just as the unit which is taken is greater or smaller, the infinite will be greater or smaller
— Mww
This is actually not right. There is no such thing as "infinite" other than to describe a feature of infinity. — god must be atheist
There is no such thing as "infinite" other than to describe a feature of infinity. — god must be atheist
Should we just make stuff up? — jorndoe
As long as we're making shit up, go hog-wild, you know — Bill Hicks
I would like to return to the op — god must be atheist
Witnessing indicates observation. To witness an object from outside its limits merely indicates observing the object’s spatial boundaries. — Mww
Assuming the absolute validity of the principle, the only reconciliation is simultaneity, in which time is no longer presupposed, yet for which account is given. — Mww
There is no present. Questions predicated on impossibilities are irrational. — Mww
Do we have valid reasons to justify such differential treatment of space and time? Why is time (thought to be) in "motion" and space (thought to be) is "motionless"? — TheMadFool
I think we are being invited to consider this project to be logically incoherent; as opposed to merely practically impossible, like reciting the digits of pi forwards. Forwards, you'll never finish. Backwards, you will never have begun. — Cuthbert
And then it's clear that there are an infinite number of years that have passed already to the present day. — god must be atheist
That is not a valid question. Much like you can't say, "what year will time end?" A question or statement with "since" implies a point in time. The beginning of time does not exist, and therefore there is no point in time that is the beginning....since when? — Amalac
If the infinite is an adjective as you say, — Mww
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.