
#19
Jul1111, 12:37 PM

P: 1

It began with motion. No motion = no time. When a “Single Something” separated creating motion that was the beginning of time.
Let that “ Single Something” = S S = No motion = No Speed = No Mc^2. = No Energy. S is outside the bun. It is not imaginary. The original motion, like all other motion cannot be duplicated, so S is not Divine, yet S can be moved. Wierd, huh? 



#20
Jul1111, 01:40 PM

P: 256

Can we please have a discussion about eternalism? Pretty please? Example. Here is a excerpt from the Penrose's Andromeda Paradox that seemingly supports fourdimensionalism (otherwise known as eternalism).




#21
Jul1111, 10:34 PM

PF Gold
P: 183





#22
Jul1311, 04:40 PM

P: 320

Well, to start with, let's think about definitions. How are you defining "amount" of time?




#23
Jul1311, 11:48 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,696

The main point here is that there has been a decision; we have decided that the "total length" of an infinite number or converging lengths is excactly the limit. We have given meaning to the notion of the total length of an infinite number of lengths. This could of course have been different. We might as well say that the "total length" of an infinite number of lengths is 0. This would have been a different decision, but doesn't contradict anything prior to it. We just didn't know beforehand what to make of the total length. My point is that Zeno's paradox is not solved by referring to convergence, as this is  in a naive way  an arbitrary solution. The notion of total length is however decided upon and incorporated into our logical machinery (to the point of which we take no notice...), but it is important to be aware of that there has been decisions all along. In my opinion, the paradox is just that we arrive upon a physical situation for which we have no answer. There are ways to an answer that would seem more "appropriate" than others, but there is no logical reason for deciding upon one or another. I must stress that this paradox is purely a logical one. It has nothing to do with the physics to it, nor the physical counterpart we would associate the situation with (though it is relevant when it comes to the point of deciding one way or another). 



#24
Jul1411, 12:50 AM

PF Gold
P: 183

Although a task can be broken up into an infinite number of steps, it may also be possible to accomplished in a finite number of steps. We have determined that a infinite sequence of measurements, when summed, can be equal to a finite number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum 



#25
Jul1411, 09:10 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,696

I fail to see any relevance at all in your other responses. 



#26
Jul1411, 03:22 PM

PF Gold
P: 183





#27
Jul1411, 04:13 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,696

(EDIT: The solution by using convergence is giving sense to the notion of completing an infinite number of tasks in this particular sense, a notion which was not present at the time the paradox was stated.) This has nothing to do with rigour nor integration. 



#28
Jul1811, 07:34 PM

P: 1,414





#29
Jul2211, 07:51 PM

P: 18

Isn't this one of those questions the greeks spent hundreds of years debating and never really making any grounds on???
Anyhow the way I figure it's the result of what happens when two paradox clash and only the stronger one wins. > Time has to have a starting point and yet time cannot have a starting point. Perhaps what you end up with is a mix of both that nobody can really make any sense of? 



#30
Jul2211, 11:47 PM

P: 2,454

Even if there has been an infinite mount of time, there is no reason why we cant add more time to it.




#31
Jul2211, 11:59 PM

P: 15,325

What on Earth makes you think there is an infinite amount of time in the past? As far as modern science can tell, the amount of time in the past is 13.7 billion years. [EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and ten seconds [EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and twenty seconds [EDIT] Sorry. 13.7 billion years and thirty seconds 



#32
Jul2311, 10:32 AM

P: 71

The block universe AKA eternalism doesn't address beginnings or ends, it is more a model of the shape of the universe. In my interpretation it leans towards determinalism philosophically. Unless a cyclic model of the universe 'eats its own tail' I can't see any way to have a 'beginning' or 'end'. Such a model would necessarily be deterministic. mathal 



#33
Jul2611, 01:26 PM

P: 30





#34
Jul2611, 11:11 PM

P: 2,454

yes infinity + infinity = infinity
and an infinite amount of time can be equal to part of that time interval. 



#35
Aug2111, 10:41 AM

P: 76




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Time paradox (?)  Special & General Relativity  7  
Time paradox?  Special & General Relativity  2  
[SOLVED] Infinite electric flux paradox  General Physics  4  
The ultimate physical paradox: infinite from infinitesimal cosmos  Special & General Relativity  0  
PrecessionTime Paradox  Astrophysics  7 