The 1st law

Too shallow, people will split their heads open arguing with you. Of course that's usually what happens when one bangs their head against a brick wall.

And people who speak more then they listen, write more then they read, tend to be brick walls.

 

All things MUST begin, and all things MUST end.
(That's nethier a naive nor arrogant prononcement; it is, indeed, a nesaccary consequence of The Parameters of Existence.)

The Infinity Concept is a matematical artifact: It does not and cannot exist in Reality.

Further, the OP's assertion assumes that Time has a Static Nature-- and NO THING that exist or CAN exist is Static, NOT EVEN BLACK HOLES. Time is quite dynamic, and is, IN FACT, "slowing down" in response to the General Expansion of the Universe.

Rather than repeat things posted past, I'll simply challenge anyone to come up with an example of ANYTHING that they believe to be infinite.

 

The present.

 

What you call the "present" is merely a reflection of your peceptive abilities. Witness some days fly by faster than others.
-------

"Present" has no objective meaning UNLESS time is Quatum in nature (Relativity Suggest that it is not, Quantum Theory that it is), in which case the "present" is the current Temporal Quantum (coordinates?), which is limited in "size" by definition.

NEXT!

 

Yes it does, "currently happening"

 

"currently"?

What is that? Just another word for present-- the human perspective.
---------
consider a thought. is it instantaneous? Relativety denies the possibility.
Time must pass for neurons to gather and synaptic responses to take place.

And, of course, EVERYTHING that assails your senses has alredy happened.
In other words, speed-of-light-lag, (Relativity) makes "present" i.e. "happening at the same instant of time", a null concept. Simultaneous is a meaningless word, scientifically.
What you precieve as "current" is, relative to the Objective Universe, "past", and relative to others, ethier "past" or "future", but never "present".

Is that clear?

 

Perhaps I should qualify that "objective meaning" is defined as "would be the same if no life existed", and not "having a ridgid dictionary definition."

 

What is currently happening has nothing to do with human observation. Human observation would be a subset of currently happening, if indeed that observation be extant.
What is currently happening is non local nor is it remote and if it is not currently happening it does not exist.
Is that clear?

 

I'm sorry, but you statement is non-sequiter.
again, you're assuming "simultaneous"-- an unwarranted assumption. Nor have you addressed speed-of-light-lag.

" non local nor is it remote " is a self contradictory statement, and, indeed, a possible definition (inadequate) of non-existence.

this is a science forum, not philosophy. I suggest a study of Relativity, both Special and General.
--------------------

“To begin with, it must be recognized that essentials elements of the basic theory of Here require the supposition that the static nature of where must intersect the dynamic nature of when at the most fundamental level in order to form the now. “

“Ah- then, When am I?” Ask Human.

“Now, now, now, now, now, now, now, now…”

-from an unproduced play.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. The statement non local nor remote is not self contradictory. The lines of force in that statement converge at everywhere at once. If I say simply non local, then that might suggest, not in this locale, so I add the words, nor remote. I am not versed enough in math to make my statements in the form of mathematical equation, however my linguistic equations are consistent and contradict nothing other than your notions.

No, suppositions are not required, observation is sufficient and this is a science forum, not a drama forum. (Not to be antagonistic, just playing in kind.)

 

No such thing as non existence. Your parameters are theoretical boundaries only. Just because you claim necessity does not make it so.

 

The 'parameters of existence' remain unknown. And will continue to be so. We are well equipped to hypothesize and ill equipped to determine that which is known to be "truth" regarding existence as we understand it in our present forms or perhaps in any forms imaginable.

 

So we are going to ignore the Laws of Thermodynamics, The Uncertainty Principle, Relativity, and Quantum Theory?

Scratcho,
I expect better from you.
Offer an alternative that approaches the rigidity of those-- whatever it pleases you to call them. ANY reasonable explanation MUST incorporate those --things--until someone invalidates, or at least modifies, them. And you know that as well as I.

You know as well as I do that everything I've posted is RELATIVELY true-- truer than all the uninformed BS expounded by... others.

Also, I don't see you defending the Infinity Concept--
Do you tentatively (it's ALL tentative) agree that Entropy precludes Infinity relative to existence in our Universe?
And yes, I know 2nd Law may not hold throughout the Universe-- but you know that there is no reason to suspect it doesn't

the Dope,
Since you won't except a Scientific explanation of why the "present" is not infinite, I' ll resort to Common Sense(?)/Logic/ Reason:

If the "Present" is infinite, than how do you account for the past and future?
Are you being born, living and Dying all Now? After all, you claim Now is always...

And please-- save the semantics BS. If I wished to play that game you would find yourself up against a Pro. I make my living with the written word.

 

Indeed it is so, the cells of your body being born and dying in this very moment.
The past and future are both elements of living tissue, artifacts of current emergence.

To come to mutual definition of terms is essential to communication. As far as your dexterity with words or concepts, I find you delightful but by no means exceptional.

 

OK---?Now, back to the original point,occam may be disputed, ridiculed, laughed at, lauded, taunted, prodded, and challenged--but only a fool ignores him.His original asseration that "Time, duration. Has no beginning or end." Stands RESONABLY AND LOGICALLY in dispute-- by me alone.Duration-- the 4th demension-- is a seemingly paradoxical product of the other three spatial demension. It is a variable and not a constant.That is MY assertion-- And I have stated the basis of my reasoning..Where lies the challenge?-----CLUE: like myself, occam is not a preacher--What do YOU bring to the game?

 

I beg your pardon.
Time has both a beginning and an end. Eternity is not a measurement of time.
I agree with occam that reality is eternal but I find time to be borrowed from eternity. All divisions are mental constructs.

 

Geckopeli--you give me way too much credit with your questions. I'm not an educated man and I can deal only with concepts. How far could one go if one were to have at one's disposal ,the method of traveling forever into space? No answer.Why is existance? No answer.Entropy will end ours,as you averred,if scientific propositions are meaningfull. Possible answer. There are some questions that will remain ineffable unless---a huge unless--a seemingly imposible unless----something we have no idea exists-turns out to exist ,shows up and deigns to enlighten humanity regarding the mystery of IT ALL. Meanwhile, carry on with the hypothisizing.

 

Your claim that eternity is not a product of time flies in the face of the accepted meaning of the words.
???????
Non-sequiter. Your facts are un-coordinated.

 

of course there's an answer; THINK!

that's it. that's the answer!

which brings us to the Nature of Time.

My assesment of the known and reasonably suspected facts seems to indicate that Time is insepersble from Space, and, therfore, the generally accepted concept of "the Time/Space Continum" is relatively correct.
Why not?

That implies Duration is an aspect of Distance (and/or the other way around).
And, since the Universe is expanding, (which is the same as saying that Time is slowing down) than some type of inverse square (I'll guess and say "Inverse cube") law is operating, which in turn implies that there is a limit to the Time/Space Continum.
Which, in a very real way, is the opposite of the Speed of Light Liimt.

All of this indicates that Duration begins at the Begining of the Universe, and endAs when Entropy reaches totality, which is the End of the Universe.

Well?

 

One of the conjugations of the word eternity is timelessness.
One of the conjugations for the word eternal is, unchanging, unaffected by the passage of time. Another is seemingly everlasting: seeming to go on forever or recur incessantly.