Broken Circle

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: One can see why you might prefer to not address the issue. But I suggest yur answer is not an answer but an attempt to make the question vanish.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

There is a difference between not answering a question and giving an answer that you do not like.

In the "creationist" viewpoint, every effect requires a cause unconditionally. So there must be a First Cause, which requires a miracle. That is one of the two possible explanations for the origin of everything.

In the "eternist" viewpoint, every change requires a cause, but unchanging things such as existence are necessarily eternal (uncaused) by definition of "unchanging". This is the second of two possible explanations.

Take your choice. But denying that the second choice exists appears to be more emotion-based than logical. -|Tom|-

Maybe you can enlighten me on the subject of cardinality between integers and rationals, for example. The diagonal method was proposed by Cantor as a way to establish one-one correspondence
and thereby comparing the size between two infinite sets. How is it that one can ignore- i.e, take out- an element in one set because it has "repeated" itself? E.G, 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, etc. which are supposed to be elements in the rational set are ignored when attempting to establish one-to-one correspondence?

And in general, how can any set that has no upper or lower bounds be larger or smaller than any other infinite set? One to one correspondence itself is a concept applicable only to finite sets. Once you have defined a set as unlimited in size, it becomes self-contradictory
to attribute a property such as "size" (aka cardinality) to them.

At best, we can only say that one set approaches infinity faster than another set.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: In an eternal universe however, we have no starting point. So, if we wanted to describe time for this model, we would have to work with infinities. Time here would be <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> + - * /, etc. You are basically extending an infinite set- that makes no sense to me. Imagine if you were to start at negative infinity on the number line- you would never ever get out of negative infinity by adding according to infinity math.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You claim that the two cases are distinguishable, but I see only perfect parallelism.

The set of all integers goes to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> on the negative side, to +<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> on the positive side, and has all finite integers in between. The interval between any finite integer and -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> is infinite.

Time intervals go to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> on the negative side, to +<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> on the positive side, and have all finite time intervals in between. The interval between any finite times and -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> is infinite.

Clocks never measure absolute time, even if such a thing exists. They measure only time intervals from arbitrary starting points. Likewise, we can as easily measure the interval between any selected integer and any arbitrary starting integer.

Saying that, if a time interval goes back to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> then we can't get to "now", is equivalent to saying that if the set of all integers goes back to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> then we can't get to any finite integer, so the latter cannot exist.

-<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> is not itself an integer, nor is it a moment of time. That would presume that time had a starting point, even if it was at -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>. But in MM, time has no starting point. It simply is unbounded in both forward and reverse directions, and has always existed. The hypothesis that every moment of time is equivalent to "now" because existence never changes, only forms change, may be difficult to wrap your mind around; but it is a logically valid viewpoint. Experience with mathematical infinities in differentials and integrals, which have many applications to material, tangible forms, helps to gain an understanding of how this viewpoint really does make sense as an explanation for the universe.

I see no relevant way to distinguish these two sets, integers and time intervals. They have a one-to-one correspondence, which is how we deal with the concept of infinity. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


Saying that, if a time interval goes back to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> then we can't get to "now", is equivalent to saying that if the set of all integers goes back to -<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> then we can't get to any finite integer, so the latter cannot exist.

-|Tom|-


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, I was speaking in terms of making a time line for the universe. In a model that has a beginning, this is easily done. We define 0 as the starting point and keep adding 1 to it until we reach now. And keeping track of the passage of time is just as straightforward, we just subtract the finite time intervals.

How do you make a time line for an eternal model? Infinity +, no?
But according to infinity math, that is just infinity. So how do we keep track of time with a clock that keeps resetting itself?

I'm not saying that an eternal model isn't possible, just that infinity + 1 = infinity makes no sense.

Or in terms of the number line analogy, an eternal model
is like if the numberline was already generated and from each
moment on, we are adding 1 to it, whereas, in a finite model,
we started from 0, are now at the number 14 billion and are still
generating numbers in this set by adding 1 to a finite number.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: How do you make a time line for an eternal model? Infinity +, no?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No. That makes no sense. Infinity is not a point on a time line or on a space line, just as infinity is not an integer. So infinity is not a possible starting point.

The answer to your question would have occurred to you in another minute because it is obvious. To make a time line in an eternal universe, you start from any point in time and count time from there forward and backward without limit in both directions.

Just as there is no such thing as "absolute motion", there is likewise no such thing as "absolute time". But <i>any</i> moment of time, without exception, can be specified precisely using the above-described time line, and stating a time interval relative to now.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But according to infinity math, that is just infinity. So how do we keep track of time with a clock that keeps resetting itself?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Because infinity is not a point on the time line, this issue never arises. Time has no starting point. That is the nature of infinity. You are trying to force "minus infinity" into the role of a starting point, which it is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm not saying that an eternal model isn't possible, just that infinity + 1 = infinity makes no sense.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I would argue that it makes perfect sense if used as intended. Using infinity as a starting point is not valid, so the issue of adding one to infinity never arises for time. -|Tom|-