If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I am a Non-Timer. But the Timer's label me with their time concept: Old Timer.
I have not aged......there is no time.......
But I have "changed" - the fundamental characteristic of existence.........change is the one constant of the multiverse, and even of what exists in the other dimensions of creation.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
Since time and infinity are so linked to each other, a few other notes about time:
(1) space and time are woven together, yet only space can be traversed and explored (which action takes time). Time itself cannot be "explored".... yet when we look out at our universe, or even at our surroundings here on Earth, we are exploring time ... the further away from us an object is, the further back in time it's representation is.
(2) if all motion, even subatomic particle motion, absolutely ceased for some finite duration of time T, could we somehow know of T's existence? To go even further, could there be MASSIVE durations of time passing during which all motion ceases, and we are just unaware of it?
If the answer to the questions in (2) are yes, the implications are unfathomable. If for example there is indeed a spirit world existing side-by-side to our physical world, perhaps the reason that we cannot perceive it is that it only exists in "moments of time" when all motion in the physical world ceases. Such a "moment" could be a million years of Earth time, to which we are totally blind. Thus the "ever-present now" could be an illusion -- an illusion caused by motion in space.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Monday, 17th April, 2023, 08:35 AM.
It is hard to discuss this, when you are a Timer and I am a Non-Timer. We have opposing fundamental factual statements.
So let me examine your position, that of the Timer.
Your Item # 1: Space-Time
Einstein certainly thought in terms of space-time, as I weakly follow him. Before him, was Minkowski.
Who first said space-time continuum?
Minkowski was the first to propose the concept of a four-dimensional space-time continuum, now a popular phrase in science fiction. Minkowski later became an influential proponent of Einstein's theories, helping them to gain acceptance despite their radical view of physics and the universe.
What did Einstein call his theory of space time?
"The theory of special relativity" (1905).
This theory's evolution:
General relativity is physicist Albert Einstein's understanding of how gravity affects the fabric of space-time. The theory, which Einstein published in 1915, expanded the theory of special relativity that he had published 10 years earlier.
Gravity is a force, energy. If time is truly more than merely a concept of the human imagination, then is has "mass" (I myself have no idea how this can be, but to continue on). It is because it has mass, that it can be subject to gravitational force. Aristotle said: "Time is the measurement of motion" (I do not know if he was a Timer or a Non-Timer). But for the sake of argument, let's assume he was a Timer. If we substitute "change" for "motion", then the statement is: "Time is the measurement of change". Exploring is "change". So, somehow, change of material existence (And likely spiritual existence, if it exists also in that dimension) and the mass of time are integrated. So it seems time is really a form of matter or energy, much like matter. And so in Quantum mechanics, as I understand it, both matter and time are vibrating energy, but obviously in very different frequencies, as are air and a tree. We can walk through "vibrating air" but not a "vibrating tree".
So as we track light backwards, we are going back to earlier change in space-time.
Your Item # 2: Cessation of Motion/Change
All I can say, is that if Time is material, then it is possible for it to be "static", as can any particular material object (Accepting that it is vibrating, but otherwise not changing or in motion). If time change and space change have mass, then it can always be measure scientifically. So I see no reason it cannot be measured and found static, and we would know about that T (As you termed it).
Your Item # 3: The Non-Material World
Seems to me if Time is "real" (Has mass), then it cannot exist in a non-material world.
It is hard to discuss this, when you are a Timer and I am a Non-Timer. We have opposing fundamental factual statements.
So let me examine your position, that of the Timer.
Your Item # 1: Space-Time
Einstein certainly thought in terms of space-time, as I weakly follow him. Before him, was Minkowski.
Who first said space-time continuum?
Minkowski was the first to propose the concept of a four-dimensional space-time continuum, now a popular phrase in science fiction. Minkowski later became an influential proponent of Einstein's theories, helping them to gain acceptance despite their radical view of physics and the universe.
What did Einstein call his theory of space time?
"The theory of special relativity" (1905).
This theory's evolution:
General relativity is physicist Albert Einstein's understanding of how gravity affects the fabric of space-time. The theory, which Einstein published in 1915, expanded the theory of special relativity that he had published 10 years earlier.
Gravity is a force, energy. If time is truly more than merely a concept of the human imagination, then is has "mass" (I myself have no idea how this can be, but to continue on). It is because it has mass, that it can be subject to gravitational force. Aristotle said: "Time is the measurement of motion" (I do not know if he was a Timer or a Non-Timer). But for the sake of argument, let's assume he was a Timer. If we substitute "change" for "motion", then the statement is: "Time is the measurement of change". Exploring is "change". So, somehow, change of material existence (And likely spiritual existence, if it exists also in that dimension) and the mass of time are integrated. So it seems time is really a form of matter or energy, much like matter. And so in Quantum mechanics, as I understand it, both matter and time are vibrating energy, but obviously in very different frequencies, as are air and a tree. We can walk through "vibrating air" but not a "vibrating tree".
So as we track light backwards, we are going back to earlier change in space-time.
Your Item # 2: Cessation of Motion/Change
All I can say, is that if Time is material, then it is possible for it to be "static", as can any particular material object (Accepting that it is vibrating, but otherwise not changing or in motion). If time change and space change have mass, then it can always be measure scientifically. So I see no reason it cannot be measured and found static, and we would know about that T (As you termed it).
Your Item # 3: The Non-Material World
Seems to me if Time is "real" (Has mass), then it cannot exist in a non-material world.
My 2 cents worth trying to think like a Timer.
~ Bob A (T-S/P)
I am not sure that I would agree that I am a "Timer". I try to be open-minded to everything.
I just wanted to first mention this video on Youtube, it's almost 20 minutes long and very much worth listening to, a near-death experience (NDE) quite unlike most of the "normal" ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xYLyuyFnz4
This woman talks about being in another realm, and the most interesting part comes after about 15 minutes, so you really have to listen to the whole story. She talks about being ready to come back into her body, and deciding with many other spiritual beings how serious her injuries would be, and she describes there being no time in this realm as they were doing these negotiations. In other words, for them, Earth time was "frozen" -- completely.
Now the other response I have to your above post, how do you conclude that time has mass? I really don't understand that. Light has no mass, it is pure energy, why can't time be massless also?
Speaking of light having no mass ... light moves (obviously) at the speed of light. Supposedly if we take something that does have mass and try to increase its velocity to the speed of light, its mass must become infinite to travel at true light speed. Yet light has zero mass.
Mass and energy are supposed to be interchangable, yet light could NEVER have had mass because if it did, its mass would have had to become infinite before it could "become" light. Thus light seems to be an exception to the idea that mass and energy are interchangeable.
Which seems to be pointed out in Genesis, when God created the universe and THEN seeing that it was dark said "Let there be light." Whoever wrote that seemed to already know that light and mass are not interchangeable.
If I understand Hegel, then mine is. God, as in a loving/benevolent/merciful/all-knowing being, only comes to be or actualizes at the end of the process, S/he/it is not there from the beginning, except implicitly as a possibility. To me the Problem of Evil demonstrates that the Christian sort of God is a contradiction in terms at this stage in the development of existence. If all of us lived in the Garden of Eden, then one could make a case for this sort of God. The task of humans, then, is to evolve our world toward the Garden to the greatest extent that we can. This would entail a vast alteration in the patterns of history. My guess is that we will miss our chance and destroy ourselves instead. And this is sad, we have the power to get there but not the wisdom. The problem with religion and religious thinking is that it supposes that we do not have to worry because the Christian sort of God will save us in the end, so nobody worries except some of the atheists (who are generally far more morally conscientious than religious people). Again, WE have the choice to make the world into a paradise, or to destroy it permanently, and it is up to US. God does not really give a shit either way. S/he/it can always start again, but WE will be extinct. There may eventually be a new species above homo-sapiens that figures this out, but WE will be eternally gone before this happens.
What we need is to let the voice of Reason shine, and we need to dump all religions. 'Ain't gonna' happen. Enjoy your time while you can. Perhaps a race in the future will find its way through and look back upon our extinct souls with pity and remorse. And they will ask themselves how we could have been so stupid not to listen to Lemmy, who had it all figured out despite his being a total damage case. Motrhead God was never on your Side - YouTube Motörhead - Damage Case (Live At Gampel Wallis 2002) - YouTube
I believe my life view is different than the philosophy/theology of both Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel. I hopefully can explain it at some point....need to think about it a bit. I also will post my own theology at some point, before I deal with Kant and Hegel. It is important for anyone dealing with me on this to know the foundational thinking behind my "Theism" (I believe likely it would come within the definition of "religion", but without being "institutional" as we see all mainstream religions to date).
But in the meantime, it is necessary for us to recognize that we may have some differing definitions.
"Philosophy"
The discipline that works at understanding all there is to know about the being of existence, and how we know existence. And this existence is of the "material world". So when it comes to discussion of some type of higher material existence (Say that the Multi-verse of Gaia is a living, conscious, organic whole), I consider it to be referring to a "material whole".......the consciousness is totally integrated into the matter.....the matter is all part of this consciousness. So for me, discussion of Gaia's "Consciousness" is "philosophy".......discussion of the nature of material existence.
"Theology"
The discipline that works at understanding all there is to know about the Being of the non-material, whatever it may be - God, angels, soul, devils, etc.
I am not suggesting that others must adopt these definitions.........I'm merely clarifying my use of the terms, for those trying to understand my muddled concepts. Of course, I'd be happy if others gave serious consideration to my definitions, and would be pleased to get feedback, both approbation and constructive criticism.
`Bob A (T-S/P)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 17th April, 2023, 09:11 AM.
To return to what Time is, as Pargat and Bob are discussing, let us return to music. Musicians in particular, but almost anyone, can tap along with a beat and keep time, or more to the point, create their own beat without the aid of anything. How is this possible? First, it is not based upon the observation of change. Musicians or people may use counts in their minds (one.. two... one... two... three... four... and so on), to help them to keep time, but in between counts there is no change that the player of the beat is appealing to, rather the duration of time is purely sensed. (Almost in the Kantian manner of speaking, time is imposed by the mind as a form of sensible intuition). What does this tell us? Time is a pure intuition that accompanies all consciousness of particulars/sensations/emotions/thoughts. It seems to me that it tells us that the mind IS time. Thus God/S/he/it IS time/substance. Only time exists as a universal, or essence, while all particulars exist as manifestation of time, the One substance. This substance is conscious, it is mind substance, no material substance exists. The Laws of Nature are nothing more than patterns of God's thoughts. Gravity and light are simply reducible to patterns.
It seems we agree that Kant's idea of time is one of his a priori knowings, rather than learned from objective existence/experience. This pretty much accords with my idea that time is merely a mental construct....it has nothing to do with what is "out there" in either the material or the non-material worlds. Nevertheless, it is a most important construct, because it accords with the logic of the mind, and so helps humans organize data coming in from "out there".
It seems to me we are therefore on the other side of Pargat's position. We two are Non-Timers (NT'ers), whereas Pargat (As I understand him so far) is a Timer (T'er).
However I don't see why Consciousness has as its fundamental characteristic, "Time". In fact you seem to go further.......time is not just a "characteristic" of Mind, but Time IS Mind.
Instinctively I feel that Mind/Consciousness is multi-faceted.......yes "time" is one of its attributes that allows for "thinking". But it seems to me there are other attributes also required to have effective thinking. Time alone will not account for the Mind's thinking.
Bob, yes, it seems to me that Time IS Mind, IS substance, IS Reason (in Hegel's sense), IS Being and so on... Keep in mind that I do not believe in the existence of material substance, I believe that what is often construed as material substance is simply and only what S/he/it imagines. Thus, my metaphysic is very simple, and very similar to that of Berkeley, the only difference being that for Berkeley, God is Jehovah, the Christian God, while for myself the Problem of Evil demonstrates that God is more like Nature, and more brutal and undeveloped. I believe in the Hegelian notion that this brutal Nature will over time evolve or develop into the equivalent of the Christian God. But S/he/it is not there yet. It is up to mankind to facilitate this process, or go bust.
If I understand Hegel, then mine is. God, as in a loving/benevolent/merciful/all-knowing being, only comes to be or actualizes at the end of the process, S/he/it is not there from the beginning, except implicitly as a possibility. To me the Problem of Evil demonstrates that the Christian sort of God is a contradiction in terms at this stage in the development of existence. If all of us lived in the Garden of Eden, then one could make a case for this sort of God. The task of humans, then, is to evolve our world toward the Garden to the greatest extent that we can. This would entail a vast alteration in the patterns of history. My guess is that we will miss our chance and destroy ourselves instead. And this is sad, we have the power to get there but not the wisdom. The problem with religion and religious thinking is that it supposes that we do not have to worry because the Christian sort of God will save us in the end, so nobody worries except some of the atheists (who are generally far more morally conscientious than religious people). Again, WE have the choice to make the world into a paradise, or to destroy it permanently, and it is up to US. God does not really give a shit either way. S/he/it can always start again, but WE will be extinct. There may eventually be a new species above homo-sapiens that figures this out, but WE will be eternally gone before this happens.
What we need is to let the voice of Reason shine, and we need to dump all religions. 'Ain't gonna' happen. Enjoy your time while you can. Perhaps a race in the future will find its way through and look back upon our extinct souls with pity and remorse. And they will ask themselves how we could have been so stupid not to listen to Lemmy, who had it all figured out despite his being a total damage case. Motrhead God was never on your Side - YouTube Motörhead - Damage Case (Live At Gampel Wallis 2002) - YouTube
Fantastic post Brad. I am learning at the feet of the masters, you and Bob A.
If it can be said infinity of time does exist in both directions forward and backward (which I'm not saying you agree to that), could it be argued then that God coming to be at the end of the process has no meaning, and that He always existed? Otherwise what exactly does "the end of the process" mean? If we become God, do we not control time and thus there is no such thing as the end of the process?
One of the reasons why I don't believe humanity can become God(s) is that we are greedy. Therefore if we become God, we will strive for still MORE. And exactly what would that mean, hypothetically speaking? Of course, we could agree that in becoming God(s), we give up our greed. But I don't believe humanity can do that ... or more specifically, I don't believe ALL of humanity can do that. That means there will be at least 1 human to become "Lucifer" or "Satan".
As difficult as it is to imagine no beginning and a God that has "always" existed and in fact that we have "always" existed, I still think that is more possible than imagining that humanity or any other race in the physical realm become God(s).
To bring this into the chess realm, I learned in the past year about Hostage Chess, invented by Canadian philosopher John Leslie, whom you know Brad. What I discovered is that Hostage Chess is a game that can go on to infinity. Of course, there are others: baseball for example can potentially go to infinity, if no team ever takes the lead in the bottom of the overtime innings. But as we have seen, no baseball game has yet approached infinity, they have all fallen woefully short.
Whereas Hostage Chess can much more easily go to infiinity. Captured pieces can be returned to the board, and importantly, Pawns captured on rank N can be returned to the 2nd rank where they first began. I wrote a Python program to play Hostage Chess, and I have already achieved games lasting over a thousand moves (using an algorithm to randomly choose from the available moves on any given ply). If I want the game to go longer, I simply load the longest game, undo the last move that ended the game, and let it continue.
I really don't know where I"m going with this. I have a kind of Socratic idea that I only know that I have more to know ... and it goes on forever.
Solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.
Who is the proponent of solipsism?
Solipsism is a term that seems to have been first used by G. W.Leibniz; derived from the Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self), it designates the philosophical teaching that a person can know only himself and that there are no grounds for acknowledging the existence of anything apart from self.
But my research is confusing, since when I search Liebniz and God, I get:
Leibniz on God
Leibniz famously argued that our world is “the best of all possible worlds” in spite of the obvious evils within it. Leibniz argues that God chose the world with greatest possible variety of phenomena brought about by the simplest possible laws - a world of harmonious order.
To me, this implies that the self does know "the best of all possible worlds".
I'll just leave that contradiction for the moment.
When I studied this, it was presented as an "anti-reality (Material or Non-Material)" philosophy. Only the person exists. There is no reality "out there"........it is all a projection of the person's mind, very logically constructed.
You say there is an Absolute: Nature. And that is all there is; it IS existence.
Is there a self, a person, that has discovered this?
I guess what I am wondering is if you are a solipsist?
There is no material world "out there", including "Nature". There is only the person who "imagines an alleged "reality outside itself".
Just to be clear - my participation in forums like this I call part of my "Conversations" life project.
By this I mean that I am presenting my best opinions for others to consider, and hopefully discuss, with me, but also with the others in the learning pool. Then we each learn, and make our own conclusions.
I, and Brad, have some background, but one should never hold positions by the argument from authority (X is an expert; therefore I accept what X says as true).
I have no idea if my positions are correct. It is like science: all is a hypothesis, open to change at any time, since new evidence nearly always arises that necessitates revision of the original hypothesis. I am sure that my ideas need tweaking, even when they seem to have majority approval, at this moment.
I think of conversations as being around a "round table"........all are equally invited to contribute, whatever the level of their knowledge of the topic.....in this way all learn, even the alleged expert.
If it can be said infinity of time does exist in both directions forward and backward (which I'm not saying you agree to that), could it be argued then that God coming to be at the end of the process has no meaning, and that He always existed? Otherwise what exactly does "the end of the process" mean? If we become God, do we not control time and thus there is no such thing as the end of the process?
In fact, I do not believe it can be said that time exists in both directions to infinity. It seems to me that there had to have been a beginning of time, from nothing. There is no before this. There is a before to all times since the first time. If time went backwards infinitely, then any processes would have played out an infinite amount of time ago. Clearly development is taking place, thus time cannot go backwards infinitely. Further, if time did go backwards infinitely this would mean that it neither came from something nor nothing, which would mean it could not exist. This being said, the answer to your question is, yes, that is the only conclusion that could be reached. I do not believe that we will or can become God, or Nature, or S/he/it. But I do believe that we can teach S/he/it to evolve into a truly merciful and loving being that would resemble the Christian conception. Will we? When the Leafs win the Cup.
Thanks Bob, no I am not a solipsist. In the final analysis I am not sure that we can ever escape the logical possibility that "I am the only existent", but no one believes it, not even Donald Trump. The best argument against solipsism, or at least a good one, is provided by Berkeley. First, he demonstrates that there is no "out there", no material substance. Then he points out that we do not create our own ideas of sense. If there is no matter interacting so as to cause our ideas of sense, and we do not create our ideas of sense ourselves, then they must be created by another mind, and this mind is God. Hence, the argument against solipsism is also an argument, and a very good one, for the existence of God. As I have said, where I disagree with Berkeley is his assertion that this God is Jehovah, rather than a brute Nature, or S/he/it.
Thus, all of the sensible universe is a projection of/imagined by S/he/it. Just like we can imagine scenes in our mind, S/he/it does the same thing, and we live IN this mind, and sense some of the contents of its ever-changing thinking/imagining.
I have always found Leibniz to be completely kooky when it comes to his metaphysics. And I always read him as a solipsist- each monad has the entirety of its life within itself eternally, thus there is no way to demonstrate the existence of any other monad and no other monad it needed to demonstrate the existence of the one.
I am a student of the Catholic Philosopher/Theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274). The basis of his thinking is the work of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384 -322 B.C.).
However, it is only part of my foundation. I accept in theology significant concepts from Aboriginal Spirituality.
In Philosophy, I accept the view of Edmund Husserl and his philosophy called "Phenomenology".
In fact, I do not believe it can be said that time exists in both directions to infinity. It seems to me that there had to have been a beginning of time, from nothing. There is no before this. There is a before to all times since the first time. If time went backwards infinitely, then any processes would have played out an infinite amount of time ago. Clearly development is taking place, thus time cannot go backwards infinitely. Further, if time did go backwards infinitely this would mean that it neither came from something nor nothing, which would mean it could not exist. This being said, the answer to your question is, yes, that is the only conclusion that could be reached. I do not believe that we will or can become God, or Nature, or S/he/it. But I do believe that we can teach S/he/it to evolve into a truly merciful and loving being that would resemble the Christian conception. Will we? When the Leafs win the Cup.
The idea of time going infinitely forwards is easy for we humans to imagine. The idea of time going infinitely BACKWARDS is by contrast truly unimaginable to the human mind. I have dwelt on this concept for my entire adult life. I don't think of it 24/7 of course, but it crops up in my mind more often than would seem natural. It is truly frightening to consider.
Why so? Because it is so ALIEN to our physical existence. All we know about in this physical universe are beginnings and endings. The universe began with the Big Bang, we are told, and we are told the entire universe will end in Heat Death. So no infinite time in either direction, forward or backward. Still we can conceptually imagine that even after Heat Death, something else might survive, might go on.
But time going infinitely backwards .... I think of it as the most challenging philosophical concept of all. Nothing else matches it. One thing I thought might match it would be describing color to a person who has been blind since birth. You can't reference any objects because that person hasn't every seen objects or color at all. So there is no language for it ... no way to communicate it.
But at least in that case, there is the hope that the person blind since birth can one day see and discover color and realize that an orange is orange LOL.
There is no such possiblilty with the concept of time going infinitely backward. There is no day coming ever that we will open our eyes and see that. Well, at least no way imaginable to ANY of us. Of course, the person who is blind since birth also can't imagine such a day that s/he might see colors. But there are so few of us in that position that the rest of us can feel somewhat comforted. WE know what colors look like, and thus we know that colors exist.
But on the case of imagining time going infinitely backwards, there are none of us that can feel comforted. None of us can ever imagine time going infinitely backwards. And so we dismiss it as impossible. But the Christian religions teach that God is infinite in time ... forwards and backwards. This can only be accepted by faith, and there is no imagining possible in the case of time going infinitely backwards.
I do myself believe that time goes infinitely backwards, even if it is proven someday to be not the case for our physical universe. I can only conceive of it in the following way: the number Pi is known to be 3 followed by an infinite, never-cycling sequence of decimal digits. Therefore it is possible to conceive of an integer number going on to infinity -- "backwards" so to speak -- which is the digits of Pi after the decimal point but going in the opposite direction. That is actually quite easy to imagine. And since we all agree that Pi exists in our physical universe, then we must also agree that this integer equivalent also exists.
Perhaps if Heat Death is not going to end our physical universe .... the Big Bang also did not begin it. The answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" might be that existence has no end ... and has no beginning.
I remember a commercial years ago for Welch's grape juice, in which a small child says "I like purple better than orange!" (implying grape juice could easily surpass orange juice for children). I imagine that same child saying "I like time going infinitely backward much better than time going infinitely forward!" LOL
EDIT: I just thought too that if time could have had a beginning, then the most difficult concept in philosophy is indeed "Why is there something rather than nothing?" What could POSSIBLY have prompted a beginning to time?
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Wednesday, 19th April, 2023, 10:22 AM.
Tweet
Comment