# Argument from Motion

182 posts / 0 new

RadicalWhiggery: Why just one Prime Mover? Why not a pantheon of gods?

I never said it just had to be one.

Would you be satisfied with empty space and quantum fluctuations?

Chimp. You referenced a pantheon of gods... but why gods? Please consider my idea about a herd of magical, invisible universe farting unicorns. And before you criticize this, let me explain that we need a herd of them in order to address the whole multiverse thing... you know... to make this idea all sciency-like...

Justin here seems to be indifferent to the idea of gods ... and he seems instead to prefer the prime mover thing, so I think your pantheon in the sky and my paddock in the sky ideas are okay as long as we can change prime mover to prime moverS.

MCD:

A lot more colorful than my cold "space and quantum fluctuations"!

Hi Everyone. New here. Please don't eat me alive... :/

I think Radical is right when he talks about actual infinities not existing, since they create various logical paradoxes...

1) First, that A != A+B ( where A,B are real numbers and "!=" denotes " not equal to " ) unless if B=0.
2) If the number of events that have occurred, when measured by any unit of our choice ( say seconds ), are infinite ( I ), then how many events would exist after two seconds?
If we say I, then that means:
I+2=I
If we say I+2, then it is consistent with (1), but is logically invalid by the very understanding of infinity.

Though as Greensnake said, if we measure from a specific point in this infinite past, however, we would only get a finite number of events to the future... but the problem still remains is that what happens to the total number of events as we move in time...?

skd6348:

There is no total number of events! Without a beginning, you can't tally up a total number of events. Keep in mind that infinity is not a number in the sense that 6 or a million is. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily follow all the rules that apply to numbers. In mathematics, infinities are handled all the time.

Yes, infinity isn't a number.

But my question is, if we go two steps ahead into the future, then by definition we have added something into the " category of events that already occurred" . And since this category size was infinite before, how do we deal with our new size?

Time is quantitative. You can measure it, and we do measure it. And the principles of mathematics apply to it as we deal with it so... So how can the past being infinite, or endless, deal with the idea of a finite amount being added to it?

If the previous events have no beginning, then no number can give the "size" of that group. You can call it a "class one" infinity, but that label applies no matter how many finite steps you take into the future. You could treat it as a set where all its members are described. The description for the second set would simply add the new, finite amount.

skd63482) If the number of events that have occurred, when measured by any unit of our choice ( say seconds )

You can stop right there as you just assigned the dimension of time to a variable used to count events. Consider the following:

Person A: Dude I'm totally stoked, my favourite band just booked some gigs on the west coast, I'm going to get to see them live this year!
Person B: How many did they book?
Person A: 3 seconds
Person B: Can I have some of that shit you are smoking?

Ummm... "Seconds" is a valid unit of for measuring a duration of event, i.e., "time". The example you gave is using a unit of time to measure something else...

I DID assign the unit " second " to measure a duration in time...

One may select any other unit, and the problem would still persist. BUT it has to be a valid unit for measuring time...

skd6348 - "Seconds" is a valid unit of for measuring a duration of event

Right but you didn't use it to represent duration, you used it to represent the number of events:

skd6348 - If the number of events that have occurred, when measured by any unit of our choice

I'm sure you can fix this quickly and just repost the argument again, but it needs to be addressed.

Oh I see. By " number of events " I meant the number of units, whether it be integer or not. If our unit is second, this would mean the number of seconds...

But yeah, not the best choice of words.

OK let me ask you this, is this what you are trying to say a summary of your argument:

MathJax.Hub.Config({tex2jax: {inlineMath: [['$','$'], ['\$','\$']]}});

$$\\\infty + 2 = \infty\\ 2 = \infty - \infty\\ 2 = 0$$

Some [ Math Processing Error ].

Let I represent infinity.

I + 2 = I is a paradox. It contradicts: [ A+B is never equal to A unless if B = 0 ]

I + 2 = ( I + 2) is a paradox. The idea of having 2 MORE than infinity contradicts the definitive understanding of infinity...

What I mean is, if the duration of time that has elapsed till now is infinite, what would be the duration of time 50,000 seconds after now?

"I + 2 = I is a paradox. It contradicts: [ A+B is never equal to A unless if B = 0 ]"

This isn't a paradox because infinity isn't a number. I think the more pressing question is why time exists at all if it was never created. Is time necessary? If so, did the big bang occur within time?

Exactly. Infinity isn't. The reason I'm treating it like one initially is to show that using infinity in such equations leads to contradictions...

As far as why time exists, what are your views?

I think an intellect of some sorts created time and space. Time itself is not eternal. It must have a starting point.

Starting point in what? I mean if there was no time, even as a concept, so there can't be any concept of beginning or end, temporally???

I mean, what sort of " creation " occurs outside a time frame?

Maybe if you'd define " creation " as used here, that'd help.

One interesting option that is often overlooked is a finite amount of time (in the past) with no starting point.

finite, or infinite?

skd6348 - finite, or infinite?

Here I'll make it easier for you:

Nyarlathotep - One interesting option that is often overlooked is a finite amount of time (in the past) with no starting point.

But if there is no starting point, why is it here?

@RadicalWhiggery: Why not more than one intellect? Why not a pantheon of intellects?

Yet you have only spoken of this intellect in the singular? Do you agree there could be more tban one?

Yes I said it is certainly plausible.

A universe created by committee would explain many things. Take the platypus for example.

LOL