Time - for an IQ Test

[Image_of_God]

Emm… I asked for an “example” for a reason. I read your explanation the first time and it didn’t seem to be making any sense. Please provide an example. It need not be anything real, just something to visualize. …please.

I thought I had already done that. I’ll try again though.

Suppose that a ball changed colors for an infinite amount of time. In other words, the ball constantly changed over and over again for infinity. The ball is the only thing that is and time is know because of the changes in color. How can there be any change in the ball do to the fact that time is infinite, since the very change of color requires a finite amount of time?

 

[sidbrown]

OK, so how do you know that it is the path of the light that bends and not the universe around it warping?

Light can also change direction in other ways such as bouncing off a mirror.

 

[sidbrown]

I’ll try.

We understand in physics that v=d/t. If t were infinite, no matter the size of d, v would always be 0. Not that that when we say t is infinite it implies that the object always existed.

In order for any movement to occur in the universe there has to be a speed, which means that there would have to be a certain amount of time for it occur. Movement is the basis of time. If there is no movement, there is no time.

I used the small object to demonstrate that if there were no beginning to time, no object would ever move. Just try to conceive of movement without a beginning and you will quickly realize that you cannot. If movement cannot occur without a beginning then neither can time because motion and time are dependent on one another.

Note: By arguing that time is eternal you are arguing that time is timeless which is logically contradictory.

Not true, as I have shown above, since d can move along with t.

 

[Image_of_God]

Not true, as I have shown above, since d can move along with t.

Yes, I responded to your statement. I said that I didn’t understand what you were arguing. How exactly can something moving a distance of infinity in a infinite time and retain a speed of 2 m/s? In the case you mentioned both distance and time would become infinite in virtue of being multiplied by infinity. Note that an infinite distance is an oxymoron and is physically impossible because distance is the length traveled between two locations.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, I responded to your statement. I said that I didn’t understand what you were arguing. How exactly can something moving a distance of infinity in a infinite time and retain a speed of 2 m/s? In the case you mentioned both distance and time would become infinite in virtue of being multiplied by infinity. Note that an infinite distance is an oxymoron and is physically impossible because distance is the length traveled between two locations.

The same can be said of infinite time. This is why I gave the explanation as stated.

 

[Image_of_God]

The same can be said of infinite time. This is why I gave the explanation as stated.

That’s also what I’ve been trying to prove this whole time.

Infinite time does not exist unless nothing would move. Furthermore, time, like distance, is the measurement of a beginning moment to an end moment. Time has a beginning and an end.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I thought I had already done that. I’ll try again though.

Suppose that a ball changed colors for an infinite amount of time. In other words, the ball constantly changed over and over again for infinity. The ball is the only thing that is and time is know because of the changes in color.

I followed you up through that much (I think).

How can there be any change in the ball do to the fact that time is infinite, since the very change of color requires a finite amount of time?

This is where I think your concept definitions are different than ours.

I am picturing a ball that is cycling over the range of colors over and over ad infinitum. But then “due to the fact that time is infinite” loses me. What does the cycling of color have to do with time being infinite or finite? If time were finite, how would the example be any different?

{{I think we’re getting close}}

 

[James_S_Saint]

And sid, a photon travels in only one direction so fast at a time. It doesn’t matter if the path bends or reflects. A photon has no inertia in one of its axes. That is why it behaves much like a wave in that axis.

 

[sidbrown]

And sid, a photon travels in only one direction at a time. It doesn’t matter if the path bends or reflects. A photon has no inertia in one of its axes. That is why it behaves much like a wave in that axis.

Above in post #30, you say that light travels only in one direction. This is not true. However, you now say that it travels in only one direction at a time. This is true.

 

[Image_of_God]

I followed you up through that much (I think).

This is where I think your concept definitions are different than ours.

I am picturing a ball that is cycling over the range of colors over and over ad infinitum. But then “due to the fact that time is infinite” loses me. What does the cycling of color have to do with time being infinite or finite? If time were finite, how would the example be any different?

{{I think we’re getting close}}

I’m glad to here that.

Change is measured by time. A change that is logically unmeasurable is not a change at all. For the ball to change color, a certain amount of time would have to pass. When we measure a certain amount of time, we are actually measuring a fraction of time as a whole. If time were infinite, measuring a fraction of it would be impossible because every fraction would itself be infinite. Basically, the ball would never change color.

You say you understand the ball as cycling over the range of colors over and over for infinity. Those changes take a certain amount of time to occur, no matter how instantaneous they may be. To measure the length of that change one would have to take a fraction of time. But it is impossible to take a fraction of infinity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m glad to here that.

Change is measured by time. A change that is logically unmeasurable is not a change at all. For the ball to change color, a certain amount of time would have to pass. When we measure a certain amount of time, we are actually measuring a fraction of time as a whole. If time were infinite, measuring a fraction of it would be impossible because every fraction would itself be infinite. Basically, the ball would never change color.

You say you understand the ball as cycling over the range of colors over and over for infinity. Those changes take a certain amount of time to occur, no matter how instantaneous they may be. To measure the length of that change one would have to take a fraction of time. But it is impossible to take a fraction of infinity.

Ok, now I see what is going on in that lil mind of yourn.

You are picturing a finite number of cycles being stretched out over an infinite length of time and thus not being able to discern any change when looking at any finite length.

The problem is that you are mentally assuming your conclusion that time must be finite and then stretching your mental image. That is the wrong idea, the same for distance and length.

The idea of infinite time is that the ball takes perhaps 10 seconds to cycle through all colors and starts over again, but it never stops that pattern. The cycle is always 10 seconds, but there are an infinite number of cycles. The process of cycling never ends. The process of change is eternal, not any set number of changes.

---

Now as far as how did it get to here if it had no beginning…

To understand an infinite time issue properly requires some understanding of the details of calculus, but perhaps a simpler way to see it is;

Just for an example, lets say that time “began” 10infinity years ago. But 5infinity years have passed up until now. And perhaps there are still another 10*infinity years for the future.

In such a case, because infinity is boundless, there could be no actual beginning to the time line, but an infinite amount of time has already passed which is what brought us to here. And there is still an infinite amount of time left.

Does that clear the mud any?

 

[sidbrown]

Just for an example, lets say that time “began” 10infinity years ago. But 5infinity years have passed up until now. And perhaps there are still another 10*infinity years for the future.

Not true and not well defined. Since you are counting years, you would appropriately use countable infinity. And assuming countable infinity, 10infinity and 5infinity refer to the same amount of countable infinity.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not true and not well defined. Since you are counting years, you would appropriately use countable infinity. And assuming countable infinity, 10infinity and 5infinity refer to the same amount of countable infinity.

Not True.

10 times infinity is infinite, but not the same as 5 times infinity. One boundless entity is not necessarily equal to another boundless entity.

Take for example a line off to your right and 2 lines off to your left. Count the number of points on each line. Count each point off to your right, but as you count each one off to your right, count 2 points off to your left, one from each line to your left. You will have a boundless, infinite, number off to your right, but you will always have twice that number off to your left. Both numbers will be infinite, but one is always twice as large as the other.

 

[sidbrown]

Not True.

10 times infinity is infinite, but not the same as 5 times infinity. One boundless entity is not necessarily equal to another boundless entity.

Take for example a line off to your right and 2 lines off to your left. Count the number of points on each line. Count each point off to your right, but as you count each one off to your right, count 2 points off to your left, one from each line to your left. You will have a boundless, infinite, number off to your right, but you will always have twice that number off to your left. Both numbers will be infinite, but one is always twice as large as the other.

Nope.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Nope.

Well, I knew that your next post would be negative, but I thought you would at least come up with some excuse. :dts:

 

[sidbrown]

Well, I knew that your next post would be negative, but I thought you would at least come up with some excuse. :dts:

It would be helpful to take a high school course in the mathematics of set theory and study what is meant by one to one correspondence. The natural numbers are in one to one correspondence with the integers or with the even integers for example.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Normally an IQ test measures intelligence from a “bottom-up” perspective (not that IQ could ever be accurately represented by a 3 digit number - absurdly ridicules). It shows you a picture or scenario with an error or deviation and asks for you to find the error. The more you find, the more points you get.

This test presumes a highest score and shows a picture without an error and asks for you to find the error (top-down). The more you respond with anything other than “I don’t see an error” or “It makes sense to me”, the more points you lose.

It is the difference between assuming the positive verses assuming the negative or innocent until proven guilty verses guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Image_of_God]

Ok, now I see what is going on in that lil mind of yourn.

You are picturing a finite number of cycles being stretched out over an infinite length of time and thus not being able to discern any change when looking at any finite length.

The problem is that you are mentally assuming your conclusion that time must be finite and then stretching your mental image. That is the wrong idea, the same for distance and length.

That is by no means what I’m doing.
I start by assuming that time is infinite. Then I assume that the ball changes colors for all infinity. Then I assume that that ball must take time to change (how could something change in no time?). Next I assume that time is measurable (it has to be if any change is to occur). I acknowledge that when I measure this time, I am actually dividing the infinite quantity by a certain number to give me the measurement. But I realize, that infinity divided by any number, still yields infinity. If the time for the ball to change from one color to the next takes an infinite amount of time, then it would never reach the time for the change to occur. The only thing I envisioned was the most instantaneous switch of colors I could, in order to realize that even that took a certain amount of time. Everything else is purely mathematics.

The idea of infinite time is that the ball takes perhaps 10 seconds to cycle through all colors and starts over again, but it never stops that pattern. The cycle is always 10 seconds, but there are an infinite number of cycles. The process of cycling never ends. The process of change is eternal, not any set number of changes.

This is exactly the problem. How do you divide infinity in such a manner as to get n equal amounts of 10 seconds? Every time you measure time, you are implicitly dividing all of time into equal parts of which have the same exact measurement which you measured. Following this, if time were infinite, the time for each change would also have to be infinite, which means that the change would never occur.

Now as far as how did it get to here if it had no beginning…

To understand an infinite time issue properly requires some understanding of the details of calculus, but perhaps a simpler way to see it is;

Just for an example, lets say that time “began” 10infinity years ago. But 5infinity years have passed up until now. And perhaps there are still another 10*infinity years for the future.

In such a case, because infinity is boundless, there could be no actual beginning to the time line, but an infinite amount of time has already passed which is what brought us to here. And there is still an infinite amount of time left.

Does that clear the mud any?

There are certain things in math that are present for idealistic simplification. For example, negative numbers do exist in math, but they don’t physically exist. The same could be said of infinity in a sense. But still, let us assume that infinity with certainty exists in the physical world. The distance between 10 infinity (which is simply infinity) and 5 infinity (which is also simply infinity) is infinity. If the distance between 10 infinity and 5 infinity is infinite, how do you get from one to the other?

 

[sidbrown]

That is by no means what I’m doing.
I start by assuming that time is infinite. Then I assume that the ball changes colors for all infinity. Then I assume that that ball must take time to change (how could something change in no time?). Next I assume that time is measurable (it has to be if any change is to occur). I acknowledge that when I measure this time, I am actually dividing the infinite quantity by a certain number to give me the measurement. But I realize, that infinity divided by any number, still yields infinity. If the time for the ball to change from one color to the next takes an infinite amount of time, then it would never reach the time for the change to occur. The only thing I envisioned was the most instantaneous switch of colors I could, in order to realize that even that took a certain amount of time. Everything else is purely mathematics.

This is exactly the problem. How do you divide infinity in such a manner as to get n equal amounts of 10 seconds? Every time you measure time, you are implicitly dividing all of time into equal parts of which have the same exact measurement which you measured. Following this, if time were infinite, the time for each change would also have to be infinite, which means that the change would never occur.

There are certain things in math that are present for idealistic simplification. For example, negative numbers do exist in math, but they don’t physically exist. The same could be said of infinity in a sense. But still, let us assume that infinity with certainty exists in the physical world. The distance between 10 infinity (which is simply infinity) and 5 infinity (which is also simply infinity) is infinity. If the distance between 10 infinity and 5 infinity is infinite, how do you get from one to the other?

On your credit card statement, if the balance is a positive number, it means you have a credit. If the balance is a negative number, it means you owe money. So in the financial world, it is easy to see what is meant by positive and negative numbers.

 

[Image_of_God]

On your credit card statement, if the balance is a positive number, it means you have a credit. If the balance is a negative number, it means you owe money. So in the financial world, it is easy to see what is meant by positive and negative numbers.

If you put this here to add to my point, I say:

Exactly. The negative numbers used are only for idealistic simplification. Negative quantities don’t physical world.