(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Ah.... "your time"!!!
And here I was thinking we were talking about standard universal time...
Oh well, another looney trying to redefine things and coming up with his own version of the world.... -.-'
Have fun with "your time".

My definition is much better; why?
because it is a partial definition of time
It is accepted by all people
The universal definition of time, is not even definite or agreed on.
So just analyzing the sequence of events is better than using the whole definition of time which is not universally agreed on.

Clearly, you don't know what a dimension is.
Time is a dimension. That's the universal definition of time.
It is a special dimension along which all other 3 spatial dimensions move in a fixed direction, but a dimension nonetheless.
And if you start with a faulty concept of something so basic, how do you expect to arrive at a proper conclusion?

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:It is impossible to demonstrate an infinite, but there is no theory (that I'm aware of) which ends up with a finite spacetime as a result.

Now there is! mine

Yours is not a physical theory... only an idea arising from a warped notion of sets.

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:Just in case you missed where the error was... after some 10 pages, someone is going to show it to you.

Is this a belief?

It was a hope... but you stated your ideas so well that... look at this:

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:You defined Set1 as a finite set.

I didn't

Then what did you define it as? I read a finite series of elements, when you wrote " All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds "

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:because of something no one understands related to set1... what does set1 have to do with set2?

Members of set 2 must start after (before in time) members of set 1

I must be losing marbles as I can't see where that can be inferred from "All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by an infinite number of seconds"

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote: How likely is it that you'd find 3 in a straight line? Damned difficult to find, but not impossible.

My proof doesn't include any probabilities.

yeah.... in case you forgot how to read, here's what came before that sentence "Now, here's a nice analogy to your random toothpick drop."
hmmmm... strange... Where did I get that toothpick story from?
LOL! It's from Drew, in here: https://atheistforums.org/thread-17548-p...#pid424209.
Sorry for mixing you guys up, it's just that you sound so alike, and yet, one is christian and the other muslim...
ok, no probabilities on your side. carry on.

Assuming that G is the cause for all matter, G would have an infinite number of outcomes, therefore G would be all powerful. FALSE: Nothing can be omniscient. This can be proved by a paradox. THEREFORE: G is NOT the cause for all matter.

(April 4, 2013 at 2:28 am)Severan Wrote: Assuming that G is the cause for all matter,

It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion

Quote:G would have an infinite number of outcomes,

What do you mean by that?
Do you mean possible actions? OK
Possible actions are not real, an action is real only when it is done
So they are not infinite
God's (real actions) are finite.

Quote:therefore G would be all powerful. FALSE: Nothing can be omniscient. This can be proved by a paradox. THEREFORE: G is NOT the cause for all matter.

as the premises are false this conclusion is false as well

---

(April 2, 2013 at 5:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: My definition is much better; why?
because it is a partial definition of time
It is accepted by all people
The universal definition of time, is not even definite or agreed on.
So just analyzing the sequence of events is better than using the whole definition of time which is not universally agreed on.

Clearly, you don't know what a dimension is.
Time is a dimension. That's the universal definition of time.
It is a special dimension along which all other 3 spatial dimensions move in a fixed direction, but a dimension nonetheless.
And if you start with a faulty concept of something so basic, how do you expect to arrive at a proper conclusion?

That's why I did not use the full definition of time
Using only part of the definition of time is a key in this proof
I did not prove that time had a start
I proved that events did
and proved also that the first event must be singular
Forget about the complex definitions of time and dimensions
We (an no one) knows exactly what is time or even a dimension is!

Quote:Then what did you define it as? I read a finite series of elements, when you wrote " All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds "

Set 1 is clearly finite
but it is finite because the nature of its elements.

(April 6, 2013 at 2:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 5:52 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Clearly, you don't know what a dimension is.
Time is a dimension. That's the universal definition of time.
It is a special dimension along which all other 3 spatial dimensions move in a fixed direction, but a dimension nonetheless.
And if you start with a faulty concept of something so basic, how do you expect to arrive at a proper conclusion?

That's why I did not use the full definition of time
Using only part of the definition of time is a key in this proof
I did not prove that time had a start
I proved that events did
and proved also that the first event must be singular

Aye... I see... but All the events since the big bang, including the big bang, are finite.

But this means I can arbitrarily choose the point t=0. My previous sentence put it at the big bang, but I could as well have put it, like you did, at 00:00:00 of 01/Jan/2000 (CET - Central European Time).

All your argument then rests on the fact that your time has a start. And you then mix your time with the dimension time, and claim that the dimension time has a start.

I say you can have events before the big bang... infinite events, maybe, but we have no way of measuring anything beyond the big bang, so it will, most likely, forever remain an open question.


This next one, I'm going to add the whole quotes:

(April 6, 2013 at 2:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

pocaracas Wrote:

(April 2, 2013 at 2:10 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

pocaracas Wrote:You defined Set1 as a finite set.

I didn't

Then what did you define it as? I read a finite series of elements, when you wrote " All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by a finite number of seconds "

Set 1 is clearly finite
but it is finite because the nature of its elements.

So, you defined something, which "is clearly finite", but you didn't define it as finite...

(April 6, 2013 at 6:20 am)pocaracas Wrote: Aye... I see... but All the events since the big bang, including the big bang, are finite.

Correct

Quote:But this means I can arbitrarily choose the point t=0. My previous sentence put it at the big bang, but I could as well have put it, like you did, at 00:00:00 of 01/Jan/2000 (CET - Central European Time).

All your argument then rests on the fact that your time has a start. And you then mix your time with the dimension time, and claim that the dimension time has a start.

We can omit the word time totally
We can say events had a first event
the first event needs an eventer/starter

Quote:I say you can have events before the big bang... infinite events, maybe, but we have no way of measuring anything beyond the big bang, so it will, most likely, forever remain an open question.

No, it is impossible (by logic not by science)
the Big Bang is not relevant here.

Quote:So, you defined something, which "is clearly finite", but you didn't define it as finite...

It is just for clarifications, the point to prove is for Set 2 not Set 1.

(April 6, 2013 at 2:42 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 4, 2013 at 2:28 am)Severan Wrote: Assuming that G is the cause for all matter,

It is not an assumption, it is a conclusion

And therein lies the problem. You've begun your argument from the wrong end.

(April 6, 2013 at 6:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:So, you defined something, which "is clearly finite", but you didn't define it as finite...

It is just for clarifications, the point to prove is for Set 2 not Set 1.

Set2, then... I don't get what it is that you want to claim with this set... here's where you mention it in your OP:

(March 18, 2013 at 6:07 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Set 2: All Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by an infinite number of seconds
S1= {U(1), U(2), ….}, S2={U(-∞), U(-∞+1), U(-∞+2),….}

3. S1 is finite & S2≠ɸ
False: it means that Set 1 has a last point where next points are away by an infinite time/seconds, but as the next point is separated by an extra 1 second, that point does not exist

4. S1≠ɸ & S2= ɸ
which is the only true and possible option

The conclusion is that
The universe had a finite number of states and had a start or beginning, Time itself had a start as well.

Of course that, if you define time as a series of events, you'll never get an infinite amount of events when you arbitrarily set a start for those events.

Is your time the real time?

I think your time is the time in a movie, with a lot of takes, but ultimately finite, with a clear maker.. or a few makers.

Is our reality just a divine movie?

(April 6, 2013 at 7:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Of course that, if you define time as a series of events, you'll never get an infinite amount of events when you arbitrarily set a start for those events.

Is your time the real time?

To remove confusion, I just used part of the definition of time
We all agree that TIME somewhat including relation between two events;
Then by using this partial definition, a First event must existed (it cannot be two first events)
Think about it (without bias) you will get it easily!

Quote:I think your time is the time in a movie, with a lot of takes, but ultimately finite, with a clear maker.. or a few makers.

It is proved to be one maker, it cannot be more than one.

(April 6, 2013 at 8:50 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 6, 2013 at 7:38 am)pocaracas Wrote: Of course that, if you define time as a series of events, you'll never get an infinite amount of events when you arbitrarily set a start for those events.

Is your time the real time?

To remove confusion, I just used part of the definition of time
We all agree that TIME somewhat including relation between two events;
Then by using this partial definition, a First event must existed (it cannot be two first events)
Think about it (without bias) you will get it easily!

Quote:I think your time is the time in a movie, with a lot of takes, but ultimately finite, with a clear maker.. or a few makers.

It is proved to be one maker, it cannot be more than one.

I understand your version of "time".
I see it for what it is... a different time. An event counter, of sorts.
And you want this counter to have an event 0.
Sure, in fairytale world, you can have fairytale space-time and in this fairytale, time is counted in terms of these events and, as all fairytales, it starts at some point (once upon a time), and has a maker of said world

I just don't see the connection between the fairytale world you're creating and the real world.

Okay... Let me make it simple for you. G=god f=factors affecting gods decisions I=infinite number of outcomes g(f)=i F cannot change. So G would be the only changing factor. "Concluding" that G is omniscient. Omniscience is impossible. Therefore g(f) DOES NOT EQUAL infinite number of outcomes. This statement basically says that G cannot be omnicient and cannot be the cause for all matter and all being.