GENIUS FORUMS

Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

Are we truly men of the infinite?

yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

Are we truly men of the infinite?

Welcome Yana.

"Then what happens" seems to introduce time again through the backdoor. An after in a realm where after lost relevance?

Infinite could be taken to mean "beyond the finite". Can we really question the beyond beyond the beyond? It's still beyond...

Thanks for the answer. I suppose "I" am not that wise yet. Infite it is..

yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens?

Time ceases to exist.

An existence without time but with causality intact? Is that even possible?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

Are we truly men of the infinite?

Welcome Yana.

"Then what happens" seems to introduce time again through the backdoor. An after in a realm where after lost relevance?

Welcome from me too, yana.

What Diebert wrote there is spot on, and I'll add here that even the phrase "ceases to exist" is somewhat troublesome: it implies a progression from a state of existing to a state of not existing, and this type of progression occurs within time, however it is time itself whose (progressive) existence you are speculating on... I'm not saying exactly that this phrase doesn't make sense or that it's illogical, I'm just pointing out that it's a little troublesome due to a sense of circularity (using time-based words to describe the end of time) - but then I have always found the consideration of existence and lack of time to be troublesome.

yana wrote:An existence without time but with causality intact? Is that even possible?

The only way I can find to make even partial sense of existence without time is in the scenario that I wrote of in the second half of my opening post to the Wisdom of the Infinite Regress thread: that is, for some sort of atemporal (quantum) principle to be the foundation of time itself. It still involves time, however the principle is atemporal (independent of time). And yes, the atemporal quantum principle "causes" time, so in some sense causality is intact, or perhaps "bridged" between the atemporal and the temporal.

yana wrote:Once time ceases to exist, then what happens? Ignore the big bang and the crunch if you must.

It's a moot point, as time doesn't cease to exist; it's not a linear line, but a symbol of an oval nature. When consciousness is outside of time, time itself still exists, as a potential concept.

yana wrote: Are we truly men of the infinite?

Infinite = In (the) finite.

Thank you gentlemen. I should have read that other thread on the infinite regress. Ah, I see so it is not infinity but in the finite sense.

yana wrote:An existence without time but with causality intact? Is that even possible?

What I was trying to say is, that it is impossible for time to "cease to exist." Because there would be no ceasing of existence after it ceases to exist. Time will never cease to exist because it does not exist. And neither does it not exist, because nothing gives it the quality of non-existence.

prince wrote:Infinite = In (the) finite.

Actually, "infinite" means "not finite", not "in the finite." The infinite cannot be "in" anything.

Of course, time would still remain as a concept. It's in the seed so to speak. I was just pondering the infinite cycles of death and rebirth one such universe could go through.

prince wrote:Infinite = In (the) finite.

Actually, "infinite" means "not finite", not "in the finite." The infinite cannot be "in" anything.

No, this is the common misconception placed by memes to blind people from the truth.

In means of, Within. Inside, of it (the circular truth).

prince wrote:

prince wrote:Infinite = In (the) finite.

Actually, "infinite" means "not finite", not "in the finite." The infinite cannot be "in" anything.

No, this is the common misconception placed by memes to blind people from the truth.

In means of, Within. Inside, of it (the circular truth).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin "infinitus"(in+finitus) which means "not finite", as in "incompatible", "indifferent" etc.

And even if Infinite IS defined as "in the finite", I reject that definition on the grounds of it being illogical.

jupiviv wrote:The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin ....

C'mon jupi, don't lose you spirit in the pedantic!

The point was made clear enough: the infinite lies within the finite as where else would it lie? Prince tried out a paradox, why would he concern himself with thumbed dictionaries?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jupiviv wrote:The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin ....

C'mon jupi, don't lose you spirit in the pedantic!

The point was made clear enough: the infinite lies within the finite as where else would it lie?

It lies nowhere. It is impossible for the infinite to be within the finite, by definition. The finite is within the infinite, because the infinite would include the finite, by definition.

Can the Infinite be without the finite? And can one not see the necessity of the Infinite in finitude itself?

Dan Rowden wrote:Can the Infinite be without the finite? And can one not see the necessity of the Infinite in finitude itself?

The question is not whether it is without the finite, but with*in*. And basically, saying that the infinite "is" or "is not" something is meaningless.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The point was made clear enough: the infinite lies within the finite as where else would it lie?

It lies nowhere.

For it to become relevant to anyone it must lie somewhere, like in everything, even the tiniest speckle. To imagine a nowhere is potentially a great falsehood.

The infinite in our case is connected to the question of what we can absolutely know, which is: that our concepts are true, false, good, bad, and even existent only by definition - YOUR definition, which is and can be whatever you want it to be - meaning that there is nothing to know is the sense you expected. So where does that leave you?! Exactly. It leaves you in the infinite.

The infinite describes the experience of having nowhere to stop in the absence of underlying essences, inherent meanings, and absolute knowledge. You can't have the kind of agenda you used to have when there’s nothing left internally to believe in. You are now self-made, from the bottom up. Only you decide the meaning of your existence.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The point was made clear enough: the infinite lies within the finite as where else would it lie?

It lies nowhere.

For it to become relevant to anyone it must lie somewhere, like in everything, even the tiniest speckle. To imagine a nowhere is potentially a great falsehood.

Why must it become relevant to anyone? "Relevance" is a relative thing.

jupiviv wrote:Why must it [the infinite] become relevant to anyone? "Relevance" is a relative thing.

It doesn't have to, of course. After all, the dictionary describes "relevant" as: having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

But when any absolute subject matter comes up in philosophy or general contemplation, by definition it becomes relevant. And the moment it comes up, its bearing will still be the finite.

Time, measured by change, time, percieved as awareness of the infinite.

When time ceases to be, so does change cease to be, time = change.

consciousness keeps building on what came before, so once time ceases, consciousness stops changing into new data, it no longer changes to be conscious of anything new, so the point of consciousness is lost. If you froze in time(change) you wouldnt be able to change into feeling that you were frozen.

thus if consciousness ceases when change does, then time ceases to appear, and stops to exist.

it's impossible to define something outside of consciousness, anything outside it is neither something nor nothing - it's undefinable.

We are Menoftheinfinite, so far that we ( finite ) depend on the infinite and the infinite depends on the finite.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It doesn't have to, of course. After all, the dictionary describes "relevant" as: having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.

Yes, when I'm thinking about the infinite, it is relevant to me, but that does not prove that it lies somewhere. Because relevance is relative, it will "lie in the finite" relative to the fact whether its relevant to someone or not, which is nonsensical.

If the infinite is nowhere, and the finite is in the infinite, where's the finite: Here, or nowhere? It just makes more sense for the finite to be here, and 'nowhere' to be "in" here.

divine focus wrote:If the infinite is nowhere, and the finite is in the infinite, where's the finite: Here, or nowhere? It just makes more sense for the finite to be here, and 'nowhere' to be "in" here.

The infinite cannot be said to be nowhere at all, because that would exclude many things which lie somewhere.

Jupiviv: It [the infinite] lies nowhere
Jupiviv: The infinite cannot be said to be nowhere at all

Jupiviv: the infinite would include the finite, by definition.
Jupiviv: The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin "infinitus" which means "not finite"

More clarity and consistency seems certainly possible here, Jup.