Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

[Blair]

I know of no other concept that only has
one attribute and must be absolutely infinite.

The attribute is love. it can not be experienced in human form.

[Carl G]

Just noting that God exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. Any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by God outside of the universe itself.

Partly explains the popularity of reality tv shows like Big Brother, where God/BB creates and manipulates everything inside the house as he seems fit, but not actually be in the house, always outside it.

Really? And here I thought there necessarily can be no thing outside the Universe (that's why it's called the Universe) (the One, the All).

[Robert]

Just noting that God exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. Any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by God outside of the universe itself.

Partly explains the popularity of reality tv shows like Big Brother, where God/BB creates and manipulates everything inside the house as he seems fit, but not actually be in the house, always outside it.

Really? And here I thought there necessarily can be no thing outside the Universe (that's why it's called the Universe) (the One, the All).

Just noting that, according to Tomas' definition, life is like a game show.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply. I respect your wish to not engage in the to and fro business, but I'll respond as normal and let you choose whether or how you respond in turn.

[in response to Laird's question: "If in your view, time is continuously expanding, then does it have an origin - a single point from which it started expanding?"]

Literally No but really Yes.

Literally No - there is no origin, because there is nothing outside of it. Time has no outside.

For it to have an origin would logically mean it was caused to manifest from an "outside", and then expand from a point. If you think of anything that could be outside of time, let me know.

Talk of an "outside" seems to me to refer to physical dimensionality in some way - at least two dimensions if not three - yet later you suggest that "the normal accepted meaning of 3-dimensionality is not necessarily applicable at the very most fundamental level of creation or the essence of all things", so it doesn't seem appropriate for you to be using the concept of an outside in an attempt to debunk the concept of an origin for time (which you seem to be proposing as "the essence of all things"). Anyway, it's hard for me (and as far as I can tell, for most people) to think about these sort of concepts without analogy to physical dimensionality, so I'm not trying to be hard on you here, just pointing out what seems to me to be something of a contradiction in your message.

I do not see why you insist that Time should have a beginning. I am unable accept that the change from No-Time to Time, is a logical possibility.

I'm wary of your language here - in particular your use of the words/phrases "change" and "No-Time". "Change" (transition) implies that time already exists, and "No-Time" implies that an absence can "exist", which I don't accept is meaningful in this context. Really, I'm not proposing a "change" from one state to another, I'm proposing an atemporal background sustaining principle behind time - there's no need to bring "No-Time" into it at all.

The first plane of duality, the first "cause", is simply the continuous creation-by-expansion of a "smaller"-than-the-present "past" (I mean a conceptual past otherwise no different from the present, it lacks any "thingness" other than expansion-of-itself).

The second plane, the primary "contracting" force, is what occurs when the present expands into itself, and occurs simultaneously. Combine these two and we get Space. Add in the expansion still occurring within the "past", and note that the expansion of the past would find less resistance to its expansion in the time that has since manifested - so the past flows more into its future than into its own past.

These trifold effects observed as whole and within the flow of time (which our brains categorise as a period of time), create the affect of differentiation, which when there is sufficient complexity of flows into the present from the past (evolution), literally when enough time has occurred, allows us to observe thingness.

You make heavy use of an analogy of time to physical dimensionality here, and elsewhere you refer to time as a type of substance, and I find it difficult to reconcile these conceptualisations with my own experience and understanding of time. Time is something that "passes", and I don't see how a substance can be said to "pass", so what I really would find most helpful in understanding your perspective is a bit more elaboration on how the present moment and its "passing" fits in given that you conceive of time as analogous to a three-dimensional substance. In particular, how can a "present moment" be "active" in a substance - does some part of the substance have a different property to the rest of the substance?

[Tomas]

Just noting that God exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. Any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by God outside of the universe itself.

Partly explains the popularity of reality tv shows like Big Brother, where God/BB creates and manipulates everything inside the house as he seems fit, but not actually be in the house, always outside it.

Final note: The paradox of time.

Some thinkers believe that time is an infinite series. I do not agree with
this notion, I accept t=0, time begins in the Big Bang. But this is a valid
viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree. But that does not prove that a
beginningless series of events with no higher cause can exist. Time can
still have a higher cause, God perhaps, in hierarchical fashion.

.

[Tomas]

.


-Tomas earlier-
Just noting that God exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. Any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by God outside of the universe itself.

-Robert earlier-
Partly explains the popularity of reality tv shows like Big Brother, where God/BB creates and manipulates everything inside the house as he seems fit, but not actually be in the house, always outside it.


-tomas response-
Final note: The paradox of time.

Some thinkers believe that time is an infinite series. I do not agree with
this notion, I accept t=0, time begins in the Big Bang. But this is a valid
viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree. But that does not prove that a
beginningless series of events with no higher cause can exist. Time can
still have a higher cause, God perhaps, in hierarchical fashion.

-tomas now-
The same is true if we intend to actually travel in time,
or at least be perceived to travel in time.

But we are in danger of infinite regess here.


.

[Tomas]

.


-Tomas earlier-
Just noting that God exists outside of the universe, and is thus not subject to its laws; given that he created them along with the universe itself. Any creation or destruction of the universe or anything in it is done by God outside of the universe itself.

-Robert earlier-
Partly explains the popularity of reality tv shows like Big Brother, where God/BB creates and manipulates everything inside the house as he seems fit, but not actually be in the house, always outside it.


-tomas response-
Final note: The paradox of time.

Some thinkers believe that time is an infinite series. I do not agree with
this notion, I accept t=0, time begins in the Big Bang. But this is a valid
viewpoint, I just don't happen to agree. But that does not prove that a
beginningless series of events with no higher cause can exist. Time can
still have a higher cause, God perhaps, in hierarchical fashion.

-tomas a tad earlier-
The same is true if we intend to actually travel in time,
or at least be perceived to travel in time.

But we are in danger of infinite regress here.

.......

A 10-minute read by Maurice Lewkowicz. He has his phone # and email addy posted.

A Possible Way of Time Traveling to the Past

time is finite vs. time is infinite

Go Here > http://www.wbabin.net/science/lewkowicz.pdf

.

[Tomas]

.

Idolatry, Desire, Buddha, Causation and Malebranche

A finite good becomes an idol when it is treated as if it were an infinite good, i.e., one capable of satisfying our infinite desire.

READ MORE > http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ ... anche.html

[yana]

The wisdom is that god is transcendental and that the universe is not infinite since we are all living in a bubble of time.

[Tomas]

The wisdom is that god is transcendental and that the universe is not infinite since we are all living in a bubble of time.

Yeah, somewhere Pincho has commented (somewhat) on this, too.

[Carl G]

The wisdom is that god is transcendental and that the universe is not infinite since we are all living in a bubble of time.

Yeah, somewhere Pincho has commented (somewhat) on this, too.

Yup, or in other words, Pincho me, I think I'm dreaming.

[Tomas]

The wisdom is that god is transcendental and that the universe is not infinite since we are all living in a bubble of time.

Yeah, somewhere Pincho has commented (somewhat) on this, too.

Yup, or in other words, Pincho me, I think I'm dreaming.

Very good, Carl. You win a cookie ;-)

[Jeannie]

guest_of_logic

Oh, yeah, I explained all this to my work colleagues and they STILL did not get it...roflmaoooo

Seriously, you mentioned little bubbles of energy appearing from nothing. Again, this begs the question "can anything appear from nothing?' Energy may not have a physical body but is it a "thing"? It is at least a force, yeah?

I thought the "cause and effect" theory was prevalent here too. I thought nothing could exist without it. This is fair enough to me, as even if there is a God sitting up there, how could even he appear out of nothing?

I find it hard to grasp the thought of the universe always having been here. If you represent the universe as a circle, or any shape, what is outside that shape? All I know is I am here, so my "time" must have come somehow.

Even when people speak of dimensions, what is outside of those dimensions? I found the concept that we experience time because of the changes we see very interesting, although, in a vacuum, where there is "nothing" does time pass? Is there "anything" in a vacuum?

[guest_of_logic]

Jeannie,

Oh, yeah, I explained all this to my work colleagues and they STILL did not get it...roflmaoooo

Ah, perfect - a bunch of new recruits for The Infinite. ;-)

Oh, hang on - that counts as "trolling" to some folk around here.

Seriously, you mentioned little bubbles of energy appearing from nothing. Again, this begs the question "can anything appear from nothing?'

Well it's only nothing in the physical and temporal senses; but those "little bubbles of energy" - quantum fluctuations - actually appear "from" an abstract, non-physical and timeless quantum principle, which is a "something", not "nothing". Weird and unintuitive, but there ya go - I'm not sure that it's correct but it's at least more logically consistent than the notion of an infinite past.

Energy may not have a physical body but is it a "thing"? It is at least a force, yeah?

At least in the realm of physics, forces and energy are two distinct phenomena. As to whether energy is a "thing", I'd say that in the broadest sense of the word "thing", in which it is simply a placeholder for that which can be referred to, then yes, it is a thing, but in the narrower sense of "a physical entity", then I'd say that no, it's not a thing - it is rather the stuff out of which things are formed.

I thought the "cause and effect" theory was prevalent here too. I thought nothing could exist without it. This is fair enough to me, as even if there is a God sitting up there, how could even he appear out of nothing?

Right, and this is basically the other half of the problem that led me to explore the value of the quantum principle idea: if neither God nor the universe can have just appeared out of nothing, and if the past can't be infinite, so that neither God nor the universe can have been around forever, then what other options are there? I'm not sure that the atemporal quantum principle idea is the correct answer, but it makes more sense than either of those two ideas.

I find it hard to grasp the thought of the universe always having been here. If you represent the universe as a circle, or any shape, what is outside that shape?

How can there be an "outside" to that which is not subject to dimensions, but is instead comprised of them?

Anyway, maybe you mean "outside" as a type of metaphor, and I'm just not being lateral-minded enough.

Even when people speak of dimensions, what is outside of those dimensions?

Don't "inside" and "outside" only make sense within the context of a dimension? How can there be an outside to that which makes inside and outside possible and sensible?

Again, I might not be thinking laterally enough to catch your meaning.

I found the concept that we experience time because of the changes we see very interesting, although, in a vacuum, where there is "nothing" does time pass?

It's an interesting idea but it doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that time makes change possible, not the other way around.

Is there "anything" in a vacuum?

Well there's space, if you're willing to count that as a "thing", and if you believe the quantum physicists then there are all sorts of particle/anti-particle pairs spontaneously popping into existence before colliding and destroying themselves again, which is an idea related to the quantum fluctuations which form the subject of the second part of my OP.

[Jeannie]

How do I copy certain posts and reply to them one at a time? Like you all do? Ta!

[guest_of_logic]

Jeannie, I've just sent you an explanatory PM. Feel free to drop in another post if you didn't get it.

[guest_of_logic]

I love that there is no beginning!

And I also love romance, but when the kiss reveals a mouth of stone, one forbids one's tongue.

I love the in itself and the resistance to it, the wariness of philosophers is one of the funniest things on earth!

Funny that the vulnerable must shield themselves.

I love that logic leads to love!

And I depend on mutual dependency, which is to say: me too.

Infinity is no ring!

To eternity, I give my life

To eternity one's life is bound; from eternity it is insensible.

[David Quinn]

Laird's opening post is flawed on almost every level.

Let it be reiterated that Laird's interest in this subject is primarily motivated by a desire to make room for his personal god, which in turn is needed to feed his Messiah-complex. In other words, he has a vested interest in shying away from understanding the nature of reality's timelessness.

Needless to say, such an understanding would completely blow away the identity he has formed for himself over the years. To even contemplate approaching this matter in an open and sincere manner would cause his whole world to come crashing down.

Hence, the mental blocks spring into being, the subject is reduced to the level of an academic problem, and the whole issue breaks apart into a sea of uncertainty and endless questions, which suits Laird perfectly.

As a rule, believers in God adore confusion. They literally find their life in it.

A few examples:

The first problem is that of an infinite amount of time having passed prior to the present moment, and is raised in the first thread linked to above. This problem is often referred to in words similar to these: "it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist, and the traversal of an infinity of time constitutes such an impossible actual infinite". The way that this statement is sometimes interpreted is that if we count in some unit of time such as seconds, we will never actually reach infinity, which seems to be what a universe of an infinite past requires.

Already we are falling into error, that of assuming the beginningless past is actually composed of "time units" or "moments". The subsequent analysis by Laird merely reinforces and builds upon this initial error. The seamless continuum of Nature is artificially carved up, thus allowing the false, academically-constructed paradoxes to emerge, thus creating the much-needed confusion.

We can see how selective and biased Laird is in this issue by considering that a single unit of time - say, a second - can also be artificially cut up into an infinite number of divisions. We could then argue that it would be impossible for such a period of time - indeed, any period of time - to elapse because its infinite divisions would require an eternity to reach completion. By rights, the end of a time period should never be reached.

And following this line of reasoning, we could conclude that a finite past is just as impossible as an infinite past.

Contrived mathematical infinities can be invoked to "disprove" anything to do with time, space, movement, etc. Zeno had a lot of fun with such things. But unlike Laird, at least he knew that he wasn't really disproving anything, other than the ultimate validity of our artificial carvings in the first place.

To be consistent, Laird should find the flow of time itself to be equally as impossible as beginninglessness. Yet I've never seen Laird apply his "analysis" more broadly in this manner. It's always very selective. And why? Because, at root, he is only interested in those lines of thought which promise to make room for his god.

The atemporal creativity of the quantum principle

The basic idea behind this model of modern cosmology is that there is some quantum principle that allows bubbles of oppositely polarised energies to emerge out of nowhere and out of no time, and that these oppositely polarised energies, in rare cases and if appropriately formed, expand into a universe, thus creating the time and space of that universe out of "nothing". These bubbles that can birth a universe are sometimes described in terms of "quantum fluctuations" or oppositely-paired "virtual particles"; I will stick with "quantum fluctuations".

The quantum fluctuations arise out of nothing at all except the quantum principle: thus their grounding is atemporal and non-spatial; there is no space or time for quantum fluctuations except that which is generated by them. It is therefore false to speak of this quantum principle out of which quantum fluctuations arise as existing "before" the universe, because time is a property of the universe but not of the quantum principle: outside of the context of the universe, there is no time, and no "before". If anything, the most accurate way of trying to conceptualise how the quantum principle relates to the spatio-temporal universe with which it is associated, is to think of it as being cotemporary with every moment, past, present and future.

Laird's analysis of the "quantum principle" is even more confusing. Interesting that he has no trouble accepting the timelessness of a finite phenomenon such as the "quantum principle", yet balks at recognizing and understanding the timelessness of Nature itself. Somehow, the timelessness of latter is riddled with contradictions, while the latter is miraculously free of them. Again, the reason is obvious. Reducing timelessness to a confined finite phenomenon allows room for a god, while the timelessness of the Totality ruthlessly squeezes all room out.

If Laird really wants to understanding the beginninglessness of Nature, then he needs to invert his mind a full 180 degrees and starting thinking terms of Nature's timelessness, as opposed to Nature existing within time and unfolding over time. If he could do that, then he would find that all these false problems would vanish and his confusion would come to an end.

Ah, but we can't have that, can we .....

One way to conceptualise its nature is as being somewhat analogous to gravity. Like gravity, it has effects on spacetime. Like gravity, it is not a physical entity: it is instead an abstract principle that nevertheless produces effects. It could be thought of as being transcendent, because it is beyond space and time; it could also be thought of as being the referent of the Bible's famous proclamation from John 1:1-3:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

The quantum principle could be viewed as God's Word in the sense of being the abstract and non-physical principle out of which everything arises and is sustained.

And here the madness reaches full cry. After meticulously articulating what he thinks are insurmountable problems with the idea of beginninglessness, Laird's final solution is to invoke . . . . a beginningless God. Suddenly, the "problems" associated with Nature's beginninglessness don't apply to God's beginninglessness. And why? Well, we all know why .....

-

[guest_of_logic]

dejavu:I love that there is no beginning!

Laird: And I also love romance, but when the kiss reveals a mouth of stone, one forbids one's tongue.

dejavu: Hard reality: When one truly loves, one forbids nothing.

Forbidden love: the impossible.

dejavu: I love the in itself and the resistance to it, the wariness of philosophers is one of the funniest things on earth!

Laird: Funny that the vulnerable must shield themselves.

dejavu: lol The inherency of existence is unconscious.

And self-evident to the invulnerable.

dejavu:I love that logic leads to love!

Laird: And I depend on mutual dependency, which is to say: me too.

dejavu: Is co-dependency the answer then to your love?

Co-dependency is a predicament, not an answer, but love and logic answer one another.

dejavu:Infinity is no ring!

To eternity, I give my life

Laird: To eternity one's life is bound;

dejavu: Yes bound, but freed in the giving.

So, what is this gift compared to that of the average man?

Laird: from eternity it is insensible

dejavu: Initially, yes, our infancy is lost upon us.

An infinite infancy?

(Going away for some days, I'll return in the new year)

Bon voyage.

[guest_of_logic]

Already we are falling into error, that of assuming the beginningless past is actually composed of "time units" or "moments". The subsequent analysis by Laird merely reinforces and builds upon this initial error. The seamless continuum of Nature is artificially carved up, thus allowing the false, academically-constructed paradoxes to emerge, thus creating the much-needed confusion.

We can see how selective and biased Laird is in this issue by considering that a single unit of time - say, a second - can also be artificially cut up into an infinite number of divisions. We could then argue that it would be impossible for such a period of time - indeed, any period of time - to elapse because its infinite divisions would require an eternity to reach completion. By rights, the end of a time period should never be reached.

The "divisions" would have to be instants with no duration, and if there's anything artificial in the air, then it's an instant with no duration: we know that such a conceptualisation of time's flow (i.e. as a progression over an infinity of instants) does not reflect reality, and that this flawed conception is superseded by calculus.

Conversely, I know of no such problems with dividing time into finite intervals: indeed, calculus, which actually works (i.e. reflects reality), is predicated on it, as is much of physics, which also actually works. If you know of a problem other than your mere personal distaste, then please go ahead and share it.

Interesting that he has no trouble accepting the timelessness of a finite phenomenon such as the "quantum principle", yet balks at recognizing and understanding the timelessness of Nature itself.

Interesting that you slip in a strawman. I was refuting that Nature has an infinite past, which is by no means equivalent to "timelessness" - in fact it is so full of time as to have more than any amount that you can imagine. The timelessness of the quantum principle is entirely different to a past infinity of time (to replace your "timelessness of Nature" strawman with what I was actually arguing against): it is devoid of any dependency on time whatsoever.

After meticulously articulating what he thinks are insurmountable problems with the idea of beginninglessness, Laird's final solution is to invoke . . . . a beginningless God.

What happened to your reading comprehension skills whilst you were away? I was not invoking God, let alone a beginningless God: to have posited a beginningless God would have undermined the whole point of the first half of my essay, which was to refute the concept of beginninglessness. I was simply remarking on the parallels between certain parts of Christian doctrine and certain interpretations of quantum physics.

Your oft repeated claim that the point of my essay is to make room for God is ridiculous, and verges on ad hominem. My essay proposed an atemporal quantum principle, not a deity, and no part of the essay required or advocated belief in God.

[David Quinn]

Already we are falling into error, that of assuming the beginningless past is actually composed of "time units" or "moments". The subsequent analysis by Laird merely reinforces and builds upon this initial error. The seamless continuum of Nature is artificially carved up, thus allowing the false, academically-constructed paradoxes to emerge, thus creating the much-needed confusion.

We can see how selective and biased Laird is in this issue by considering that a single unit of time - say, a second - can also be artificially cut up into an infinite number of divisions. We could then argue that it would be impossible for such a period of time - indeed, any period of time - to elapse because its infinite divisions would require an eternity to reach completion. By rights, the end of a time period should never be reached.

The "divisions" would have to be instants with no duration, and if there's anything artificial in the air, then it's an instant with no duration: we know that such a conceptualisation of time's flow (i.e. as a progression over an infinity of instants) does not reflect reality, and that this flawed conception is superseded by calculus.

Conversely, I know of no such problems with dividing time into finite intervals: indeed, calculus, which actually works (i.e. reflects reality), is predicated on it, as is much of physics, which also actually works.

All this is true enough. However, I was demonstrating that if a person wanted to "disprove" that time actually flows, he could easily go down your track and claim that each time period (e.g. a second) is composed of an infinite number of intervals, which would mean that it could never reach its end. Hence, he would claim, the flow of time is logically impossible.

It is a ridiculous argument, I know, but it is pretty much on the same level as your "infinite regress" argument against a beginningless past. It is just as sophistic as your argument, and just as meaningless.

Interesting that he has no trouble accepting the timelessness of a finite phenomenon such as the "quantum principle", yet balks at recognizing and understanding the timelessness of Nature itself.

Interesting that you slip in a strawman. I was refuting that Nature has an infinite past, which is by no means equivalent to "timelessness" - in fact it is so full of time as to have more than any amount that you can imagine. The timelessness of the quantum principle is entirely different to a past infinity of time (to replace your "timelessness of Nature" strawman with what I was actually arguing against): it is devoid of any dependency on time whatsoever.

To my way of thinking, the timelessness of Nature automatically implies a beginningless past and endless future. Its timelessness means that it is wholly beyond life and death. It can never wink in and out of existence, it can never evolve, never change into something else. It is what it is for all eternity.

The same goes for your quantum principle. If it is truly timeless, then it will always be unaffected by time. From our perspective as time-bound beings, it will have existed unchanged since the beginningless past.

After meticulously articulating what he thinks are insurmountable problems with the idea of beginninglessness, Laird's final solution is to invoke . . . . a beginningless God.

What happened to your reading comprehension skills whilst you were away? I was not invoking God, let alone a beginningless God: to have posited a beginningless God would have undermined the whole point of the first half of my essay, which was to refute the concept of beginninglessness. I was simply remarking on the parallels between certain parts of Christian doctrine and certain interpretations of quantum physics.

And why were you doing that?

On the face of it, there is no similarity or connection between that Bible quote and quantum physics. The Bible quote is so vague, it could mean anything. So why would you introduce it, other than to surreptitiously slip God into the picture?

Your oft repeated claim that the point of my essay is to make room for God is ridiculous, and verges on ad hominem. My essay proposed an atemporal quantum principle, not a deity, and no part of the essay required or advocated belief in God.

You didn't answer the question why you find the timelessness of a "quantum principle" perfectly acceptable, but not, say, the timelessness of Nature itself. What reasons do you have for making what appears to be a completely arbitrary distinction?

-

[guest_of_logic]

The "divisions" would have to be instants with no duration, and if there's anything artificial in the air, then it's an instant with no duration: we know that such a conceptualisation of time's flow (i.e. as a progression over an infinity of instants) does not reflect reality, and that this flawed conception is superseded by calculus.

Conversely, I know of no such problems with dividing time into finite intervals: indeed, calculus, which actually works (i.e. reflects reality), is predicated on it, as is much of physics, which also actually works.

All this is true enough. However, I was demonstrating that if a person wanted to "disprove" that time actually flows, he could easily go down your track and claim that each time period (e.g. a second) is composed of an infinite number of intervals, which would mean that it could never reach its end. Hence, he would claim, the flow of time is logically impossible.

It is a ridiculous argument, I know

We both know it is: as you agreed, the model that it's based on is flawed and is superseded by calculus. There's no such flaw with the model that my analysis is based on, at least not to my knowledge, but if you know of one then please share it.

but it is pretty much on the same level as your "infinite regress" argument against a beginningless past. It is just as sophistic as your argument, and just as meaningless.

My analysis is pretty straightforward, and it isn't really based on carving up a seamless continuum - it's based on the self-evident notion that time has a duration that can be quantified. From that notion it doesn't matter how we then choose to quantify the duration of time - whether it's in seconds or eons - we end up at the same observation regarding a beginningless past: that its duration cannot be quantified with any finite number, and is instead infinite. From there we have a founding for the objection that the traversal of an infinity of time constitutes an actual infinite, which is impossible. There's no need to even bring "artificial carvings up" of the "seamless continuum" into it - the relevant notion is only the impossibility of traversing a duration which is infinite when quantified, no matter how it is quantified.

To my way of thinking, the timelessness of Nature automatically implies a beginningless past and endless future. Its timelessness means that it is wholly beyond life and death. It can never wink in and out of existence, it can never evolve, never change into something else. It is what it is for all eternity.

Fair enough, but as I'm trying to explain, to my way of thinking a beginningless past is logically untenable, and I've tried to provide a more viable alternative. To me, "the timelessness of Nature" means simply that Nature is not subject to time, because time is instead a property of Nature.

The same goes for your quantum principle. If it is truly timeless, then it will always be unaffected by time. From our perspective as time-bound beings, it will have existed unchanged since the beginningless past.

Yes, except that as far as I can reason it, a beginningless past is impossible, so that there would be a beginning attributable to that principle.

guest_of_logic: I was simply remarking on the parallels between certain parts of Christian doctrine and certain interpretations of quantum physics.

David: And why were you doing that?

On the face of it, there is no similarity or connection between that Bible quote and quantum physics. The Bible quote is so vague, it could mean anything. So why would you introduce it, other than to surreptitiously slip God into the picture?

I could ask you a similar question: why do you quote the Bible so extensively when you don't even believe in a personal God?

The Bible is one of the most significant books in our culture - it's natural to want to try to interpret it in the light of one's own notions.

You didn't answer the question why you find the timelessness of a "quantum principle" perfectly acceptable, but not, say, the timelessness of Nature itself. What reasons do you have for making what appears to be a completely arbitrary distinction?

I thought I made it clear that I considered you to be constructing a strawman: I don't find the timelessness of Nature to be "unacceptable" (according to what I understand the notion of Nature's timelessness to mean, as I explained above); instead I find a beginningless (i.e. infinite) past to be "unacceptable".

[Blair]

Laird, you are correct in asking, and there are two ways you can see existence, and it's all condensed in time down to this, as only human existence can be condensed , you either see it the way of the Quinn, or the way of the Prince.

Does your life mean something that you can not articulate? Does it have an intrinsic value which a nihilistic outlook can not take away or explain?

You know the answer to this inside yourself, and you know who "Prince" really is.

[David Quinn]

My analysis is pretty straightforward, and it isn't really based on carving up a seamless continuum - it's based on the self-evident notion that time has a duration that can be quantified.

Your "analysis" isn't straightforward at all.

First off, you need to demonstrate how time can be quantified without making recourse to seconds, or eons, or some other carved up portions of the continuum.

If you can't do this, then the rest on your thinking of this issue automatically collapses into a heap.

To my way of thinking, the timelessness of Nature automatically implies a beginningless past and endless future. Its timelessness means that it is wholly beyond life and death. It can never wink in and out of existence, it can never evolve, never change into something else. It is what it is for all eternity.

Fair enough, but as I'm trying to explain, to my way of thinking a beginningless past is logically untenable, and I've tried to provide a more viable alternative. To me, "the timelessness of Nature" means simply that Nature is not subject to time, because time is instead a property of Nature.

Which automatically implies that Nature never came into being at some point in the past - i.e. that it is beginningless.

If you want to affirm that a beginningless past is untenable, then it means affirming that timelessness is also untenable. There can't be one without the other.

The same goes for your quantum principle. If it is truly timeless, then it will always be unaffected by time. From our perspective as time-bound beings, it will have existed unchanged since the beginningless past.

Yes, except that as far as I can reason it, a beginningless past is impossible, so that there would be a beginning attributable to that principle.

Then it is not really timeless.

guest_of_logic: I was simply remarking on the parallels between certain parts of Christian doctrine and certain interpretations of quantum physics.

David: And why were you doing that?

On the face of it, there is no similarity or connection between that Bible quote and quantum physics. The Bible quote is so vague, it could mean anything. So why would you introduce it, other than to surreptitiously slip God into the picture?

I could ask you a similar question: why do you quote the Bible so extensively when you don't even believe in a personal God?

The only parts of the Bible that I quote are the wise parts of the Gospels - i.e. those parts where Jesus affirms the reality of the Infinite. The rest is dull and forgetable.

You didn't answer the question why you find the timelessness of a "quantum principle" perfectly acceptable, but not, say, the timelessness of Nature itself. What reasons do you have for making what appears to be a completely arbitrary distinction?

I thought I made it clear that I considered you to be constructing a strawman: I don't find the timelessness of Nature to be "unacceptable" (according to what I understand the notion of Nature's timelessness to mean, as I explained above); instead I find a beginningless (i.e. infinite) past to be "unacceptable".

Again, you need to explain how a thing can be "timeless" and yet somehow contrive to have a beginning in time.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Prince, at all points in my life I would (have) answer(ed) your questions in the affirmative.

I would only be able to take seriously your claim to divinity were you to reveal a higher nature, and to explain the frequency with which you instead reveal a base and reactive one. If you can interpret the following question - from which I have deliberately omitted context and explanation - and provide an answer that makes sense to me, then I'll grant the possibility of your connection to the divine:

Has there been a trial of limitation, and in that trial has the worst truth been realised?

David,

First off, you need to demonstrate how time can be quantified without making recourse to seconds, or eons, or some other carved up portions of the continuum.

Why do I need to do that? I've asked you a couple of times already what the problem is, but you haven't explained, merely repeated your claim.

I'll ask you a few more specific questions to see if we can get to the heart of things:

1. Do you agree that duration can be quantified?
2. If so, do you agree that duration can be quantified without theoretical problem?
3. If not, please describe all problems of which you are aware.
4. Do you agree that the duration of a beginningless past can only be quantified as infinite, no matter which units it is quantified in?

guest_of_logic: To me, "the timelessness of Nature" means simply that Nature is not subject to time, because time is instead a property of Nature.

David: Which automatically implies that Nature never came into being at some point in the past - i.e. that it is beginningless.

I don't see that implication. Nature is no less free from subjection to time if time has a beginning than if time is beginningless: time is no less a property of Nature if it has a beginning than if it does not.

The only parts of the Bible that I quote are the wise parts of the Gospels - i.e. those parts where Jesus affirms the reality of the Infinite.

And you are no less interpreting the Gospels in the light of your own philosophy than I am interpreting (or at least drawing parallels from) the Bible's words in the light of those ideas that my essay draws from modern physics.

Again, you need to explain how a thing can be "timeless" and yet somehow contrive to have a beginning in time.

As I explained above: whether time has a beginning or not, that which has time as a property is regardless not subject to time, and thus is timeless.

In any case, it seems that we might each have different definitions of "timelessness", in which case this particular bit of back-and-forth is somewhat counter-productive seeing that I didn't even use that word in my essay.