## Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

CanMan » July 26th, 2020, 8:30 pm wrote:Positor, Serpent,

A cube and a sphere are both finite objects.

1. What separates the inside of a finite cube from the outside of the finite cube?

2. What separates the inside of a finite sphere from the outside of the finite sphere?

In both cases, the surface you refuse to admit is without recognizable boundaries, even though it's limited in size and thus finite. But you were not asked about the inside and the outside. you were asked about the boundaries of the surface.
Serpent
Resident Member

Posts: 4220
Joined: 24 Dec 2011

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

Serpent » July 27th, 2020, 3:43 am wrote:
There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

So why keep referring to to it?
In any case, you don't have the executive privilege of swapping out solid forms in somebody else's example of limited-but-unbounded. And you might run into problems with the rock and the mannequin.

OK, since you cannot conduct this discussion in a civil manner, I'm out. I thought I was in full agreement with you on this topic, so I am puzzled by the sudden hostility. I don't know how you can disagree with both me and CanMan, because he and I are expressing opposite views!

Anyway, I will leave you two to pursue your fruitless discussion.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1161
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

CanMan wrote:A cube and a sphere are both finite objects.

1. What separates the inside of a finite cube from the outside of the finite cube?

2. What separates the inside of a finite sphere from the outside of the finite sphere?

Answer -- It's BOUNDARY separates the inside from the outside. Its boundary defines its shape.

Serpent wrote:In both cases, the surface you refuse to admit is without recognizable boundaries, even though it's limited in size and thus finite.

The boundary is recognized by its shape.

Positor wrote:Contrast this with a cube, the 2D sides of which have boundaries; you can reach the edges of the sides. We are talking here about the boundaries between one side (surface) and another side (surface), not between the interior and exterior of the sphere.

The boundary of a 2D side of a cube is square. The boundaries of the square and the sphere define their shapes.

Positor wrote:There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

That which gives the sphere its finite-ness is its boundary. Its boundary separates the inside from the outside. It's boundary can be recognized by its shape.

******
"Finite" and "boundary" are inseparable. Therefore - "finite but unbounded" (a boundary-less boundary) is as impossible as the "beginning of time" (time before time), both are self-contradictory phrases.
CanMan

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

Positor » July 26th, 2020, 11:22 pm wrote:
Serpent » July 27th, 2020, 3:43 am wrote:
There are no equivalent boundaries on the 2D surface of a sphere; there is only the boundary between the interior and exterior of the sphere, which is not the point at issue.

So why keep referring to to it?
In any case, you don't have the executive privilege of swapping out solid forms in somebody else's example of limited-but-unbounded. And you might run into problems with the rock and the mannequin.

OK, since you cannot conduct this discussion in a civil manner, I'm out. I thought I was in full agreement with you on this topic, so I am puzzled by the sudden hostility. I don't know how you can disagree with both me and CanMan, because he and I are expressing opposite views!

Anyway, I will leave you two to pursue your fruitless discussion.

I'm sorry my persistent attempts to persuade CanMan to distinguish between the surface of an object and the object itself strikes you as hostile. I'm even sorrier that I got the two of you mixed up that last round - that was careless of me. I only realized my mistake when I went back a page to check just now.

On consideration, though, it seems even more confusing that you would bring in the cube. True, it has two-dimensional, easily definable surfaces. Why cut out a piece of the surface? You could do that to a sphere just as well: cut out easily definable triangles, but that wouldn't be the surface of the solid anymore. My objection still stands: it's not relevant.

Anyway, I did not intend to be uncivil. I bear no ill-will and hold no convictions on this topic. I neither agree nor disagree with either of you. My position is that we can't possibly know the limits of time or the universe. I was merely challenging CanMan to present a logically consistent defense of his theory.
Serpent
Resident Member

Posts: 4220
Joined: 24 Dec 2011

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

Can,

In the companion thread to this one,

"Finite objects are proof of an infinite universe "

DavidM explained how the concept of finite but unbounded is coherent and not contradictory. Please review his comments and links, thanks. We are not going to endlessly circle on the same dispute that was already covered there. If someone doesn't follow the reasoning and relevant aspects of General Relativity, then move on.

TheVat

Posts: 7704
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

TheVat, good idea. I will put together a sound response to the fallacy of "finite but unbounded", after re-reviewing davidm links and comments. I should be able to respond by tomorrow morning. I'm tied up with work issues today.
CanMan

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

CanMan -

The problem here is that you are viewing time as a 'measurement', and not as a 'dimension'.

You either haven't read what we were saying earlier, or didn't get it, or have forgotten it.

Forgive me, but your original question about time has been answered now. This current topic has nothing to do with time as far as I can see. Also, as Vat has said, it's been worn out and done to death.

The trouble with the conceptual mind is that it starts with concepts, and stays there, so any old answer is invariably seen as just another concept and therefore unsatisfactory. A mind like that will never find a true answer to anything.

Start with fact, reality, and go from fact to fact. You'll rarely go wrong and your only problem will be those who think your results are just more concepts to add to the pile :-)
charon
Resident Member

Posts: 2320
Joined: 02 Mar 2011

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

CanMan wrote:The problem here is that you are viewing time as a 'measurement', and not as a 'dimension'.

charon wrote:You either haven't read what we were saying earlier, or didn't get it, or have forgotten it.

It seems that you still do not understand the difference between 'time as a measurement' and 'Time as a dimension'. ...do you?

What's the answer? ...do you agree that Time is infinite? ...or do you believe Time existed before it existed?

charon wrote:This current topic has nothing to do with time as far as I can see.

Yes, agreed, we have veered off topic. Unless there are any more relevant comments, I think it is "time" to move on. I'll address the fallacy of "finite but unbounded" in another topic. Hopefully tomorrow.

charon wrote:The trouble with the conceptual mind is that it starts with concepts, and stays there, so any old answer is invariably seen as just another concept and therefore unsatisfactory. A mind like that will never find a true answer to anything.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Isn't this response also a concept from your mind? ...is this also not a "true answer to anything"?
CanMan

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

This is finished, CanMan. It was actually answered in my second post to you.

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=35955&p=351871#p351871

I'll leave you to check back whether I understand the difference between measurement and dimension. It's all there.

You spend a lot of time here, don't you? Why is that?
charon
Resident Member

Posts: 2320
Joined: 02 Mar 2011

### Re: Has Time Always (Infinitely) Existed?

Isn't this response also a concept from your mind?

See, every time :-)
charon
Resident Member

Posts: 2320
Joined: 02 Mar 2011

Previous