The Extremis of Rationality

[houseofcantor]

I've got your Zeno right here...

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/infinite-series.html

So I don't understand objections to conclusions 2 and 3. 

[robvalue]

Maths!!! Woo

That's better.

[Mudhammam]

You lost me here

Furthermore, if time did not - at one time - exist,

- you assume the nonexistence of time, yet you seem to simply keep using the concept as if a timeline were still there in the background.

There are also some other things I don't exactly agree with - you might have a false dichotomy here, with time being eternal or not; You assume that time is this continuous line which either runs on or ends. The nature of time could change completely around the edges in the past, for example.

My contention is that time cannot be conceived as non-existent; its becoming - as in any concept of creation - precludes change, which is all I understand time to be. And consequently, the notion of eternal becoming - some intermediate state between non-existence and existence - is no less nonsensical, though admittedly that's more or less what the "present" is: an instant that ceases to exist (as it immediately dissolves into past time) at the very instant it arrives (from an actually non-existent but potentially existent future). 

Time begins when things happen with which to measure time. You can't have a day or a year without planets spinning around suns. If there are no events taking place, time has no meaning. So to say time has a beginning doesn't sound absurd to me. You just have to think what do we measure time by. If those things aren't there, time is meaningless.

The beginning of time would be such an event, one that would itself be measurable... by time: before and after t=0; Just as one could measure each successive change from t=0 by t=1, t=2, etc., one could still measure the amount of hypothetical time or change prior to t=0 by t=-1, t=-2, etc. There might be, say, one thousand revolutions of the earth around the sun between t=0 and t=1000; nothing makes it impossible to imagine that two thousand revolutions might have occurred beginning at t=-1000. 

Sure, but that sounds to me like those who say God's thoughts are nothing like human thoughts. What then is it that allows us to identify that supra-rationality to be rational at all?

"rational" is as subjective as any other descriptive word . what is beyond the human ability to understand we label with the word " irrational " and for humans who incorrectly believe that if it is irrational it cannot exist , if it is beyond our understanding it cannot exist , this is a result of the belief that human intelligence is supreme and if it doesnt make sense to us and is irrational then it cannot possibly exist . If you believe in the existence of intelligence that is more supreme than human intelligence its logical to think that rationality could be subjective dependent on intellectual ability to understand a concept and rationality can exist beyond our human ability to understand.

It is either raining where you presently are or it is not. It cannot be both. There is no possible world where 2+3=6. These truths are known by reason and are not subject to change on the basis of who is contemplating the veracity of these statements. It is upon this logical necessity that I am seeking to establish the absurd conclusion of either alternatives enumerated above...

[houseofcantor]

28 seconds, according to my research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7wqKkdzCnM

[Rhondazvous]

Complex is what reality is. complicated is what we make it.

Understanding time is kinda like understanding space. Where does space began and where does it end. If space had a beginning and an end, then what lies beyond that? It is infinite. So where in this infinity is our universe? At what point? So, at what point in eternity did time begin?

If time is change and change is the activities of matter, then to say that time began is to break the law of inertia. Why is it impossible to accept that time and space and matter and the laws of matter did not begin but always were? The theists reject this out of hand without giving a reason. Yet it is not impossible.in fact it’s the only conclusion that doesn’t require something impossible.

[houseofcantor]

 Why is it impossible to accept that time and space and matter and the laws of matter did not begin but always were?

Not an issue in naive philosophy such as mine, and perhaps yours. Problems begin when the first member in the truth table is the empty set.

[Mudhammam]

Complex is what reality is. complicated is what we make it.

Understanding time is kinda like understanding space. Where does space began and where does it end. If space had a beginning and an end, then what lies beyond that? It is infinite. So where in this infinity is our universe? At what point? So, at what point in eternity did time begin?

If time is change and change is the activities of matter, then to say that time began is to break the law of inertia. Why is it impossible to accept that time and space and matter and the laws of matter did not begin but always were? The theists reject this out of hand without giving a reason. Yet it is not impossible.in fact it’s the only conclusion that doesn’t require something impossible.

Where did I go wrong in my argument in the OP? There I argued that an infinite regress of change means that a series of infinite changes have reached the completion of their set, as the present is its end term for which no future time has yet come into existence, and that amounts to saying that it is possible to traverse the whole of an infinite series. But an infinite series cannot have an end term because that is the very definition of infinitude - it has no end or final term.

[Rhondazvous]

 Why is it impossible to accept that time and space and matter and the laws of matter did not begin but always were?

Not an issue in naive philosophy such as mine, and perhaps yours. Problems begin when the first member in the truth table is the empty set.

Why then does the set have to be empty? Or rather, why does it make superior sense to insist that it was empty?

[houseofcantor]

Not an issue in naive philosophy such as mine, and perhaps yours. Problems begin when the first member in the truth table is the empty set.

Why then does the set have to be empty? Or rather, why does it make superior sense to insist that it was empty?

Infinity is more descriptive of a volume rather than a line. One of the terms is doomed to be undefined. Chad argued as much earlier.

[Rhondazvous]

Complex is what reality is. complicated is what we make it.

Understanding time is kinda like understanding space. Where does space began and where does it end. If space had a beginning and an end, then what lies beyond that? It is infinite. So where in this infinity is our universe?  At what point? So, at what point in eternity did time begin?

If time is change and change is the activities of matter, then to say that time began is to break the law of inertia.  Why is it impossible to accept that time and space and matter and the laws of matter did not begin but always were?  The theists reject this out of hand without giving a reason. Yet it is not impossible.in fact it’s the only conclusion that doesn’t require something impossible.

Where did I go wrong in my argument in the OP? There I argued that an infinite regress of change means that a series of infinite changes have reached the completion of their set, as the present is its end term for which no future time has yet come into existence, and that amounts to saying that it is possible to traverse the whole of an infinite series. But an infinite series cannot have an end term because that is the very definition of infinitude - it has no end or final term.

If the present is the end of the set then you must define the present. what is the present? Even as you ask the question it moves into the past. And when you start to ask the question, the last words of the question are still in the future. The present cannot then be the definite end of the set since the present is not itself definite.

As thinking beings we experience reality in all three phases.
1. past as memory
present as experience
future as anticipation

there is no paradox unless we insist on one.