dg wrote:
Infinity is only a math concept.   
I must disagree. The philosophical possibility of eternity, or infinity, far preceeds conventional mathematics. As I am sure you know, the concept of 'nothingness' also far preceeds the mathematical acceptance of the number zero. And to be honest, I find great logic in the late acceptance of 'zero.'

To explains this concept, we are told:
5 divided by 1 equals 5.
5 divided by 0 equals 0.

This is based on a convention, not fact. It assumes that for value to exist, it must be distributed (even if only to 1). Yet, if not distributed (division by zero) then the value is considered to be zero. It makes sense as a convention to adopt, but it could be argued to be philosophically false. A given 'value' exists, in theory, wether it is distributed or not, so we could just as easily say 5 /  0 = 5 (undistributed).

This becomes even more logically true if you forego a certain convention and demonstrate that 0 = 1. By definition, any number divided by itself equals one. As such, it logically follows that zero divided by zero also equals one, and so zero is equal to one. But a convention forbids this last equation (which further explains the lateness of adding the number zero to mathematics). Zero, as a number, would create many mathematical flaws and inconsistencies unless 'regulated' by multiple conventions.

Mathematics is a language, and as such, it is coded (made up of conventions). This explains why math is the only science which allows for 'proof.' But some mathematical conventions are unprovable. For example, there is no mathematical proof that multypling two negatives equates to a positive result, of that the multiplication of a positive and a negative results in a negative (proof only exists to demonstrate two poitives create a positive when multiplied with each other). This cannot be mathematically proven, but the convention to this effect is based on physical observation and logical deduction based on the interaction of magnetic devices. Two positively or negatively charged magnets 'push each other away' (same result) A positively charged magnet is drawn to a negatively charged one (opposite result). 
  
It is the defined limit of a forever increasing function. It is not excluded in any way. It is especially important in limit functions and in series equations. Eternity, on the other hand, is a philosophical concept. Its meaning is to suggest no end to time.


Specifically by placing a limit, infinity is disregarded.

How many understand, for example, that 0.9999... = 1? Many see 0.9999... as getting ever closer to 1 without ever reaching it.
This is false, and it can be proven false.

1 divided by 3 = 1/3 or 0.3333...
1/3 x 3 = 1.
1/3 = 0.3333...
so 0..3333.... x 3 = 3/3 = 1.
hence 0.9999... = 1.

In math, "infinity" is always made into a finite number to make equations workable.


I am well aware that you were arguing against an infinite age universe; but you did attempt a logical deduction using it. Yet the flaw of your deduction is precisely that if you claim the present to be real, you must then concede that you got to that point somehow, regardless of how old the universe actually is. An eternal past does not preclude the present; nor would it preclude an eternal future.

I disagree - The present, in this Univere, exists thanks to this Universe's finite existence. My logical deduction is this: The present exists because the past is not infinite. The only logical explanation for the existence of this present, assuming an eternal timeline, would be the co-existence of all timelines in a circular, versus a linear motion.

If the past was eternal,  then it would also be, for all intents and purposes, timeless.

Per my perspective you have the mass/energy thing backwards. Everything is made of energy in space time. In special circumstances where energy is slowed such that most of its velocity is in the time dimension (versus the three space dimensions), we arrive at what we refer to as "matter." According to relativity theory, all that exists is energy and everything travels at the speed of light in the combined 4 dimensional space time of our universe. I'm not picking at straws; you will find this in any modern physics book that deals with relativity and string theory.

True, but this doe not exclude matter. The string theory is interesting, but it remains a hypothesis at this time.

IMHO, your most recent post sure looks a lot like debating to me. Perhaps it would be wise to end this here. I feel I have explained my perspective adequately.
In my own opinion, this debate began when you directly replied to one of my posts,  and went on to state "Your logic sucks" which is both a dismissive and openly confrontative statement to make. I have responded to your views, but I have made no derogatory statement towards them.

BTW, do we need this kind of sarcasm in discussions of spirituality and religion? ("And I am smilling broadly at the moment.") 
Do we need 'Your logic sucks' then? I was not being sarcastic, I do enjoy these discussions with you, but yes, from my point of view, you are sort of picking at straws here. You state, as a fact, that an eternal past does not exclude the present, but I have yet to see you provide an actual explanation to this effect.  

As to the age of the universe, sue me; I missed correcting a typo. I agree that the universe is believed to be approximately 13 billion years old from theoretical time of the big bang. Of course we have nothing to deduce about the time or multiverse existences prior to that. So actually 13 + ? =

I don't sue... I can't afford a good lawyer. smiley: frown

I think we still have a very poor understanding of time and its function, to be honest. All I do know is that this concept we put the word "time" on is only significant when considered in regards to this Universe.


Edited 2 times by May 13 11 7:50 PM.