How Would You Answer This?

[inquiringmind]

Proof that Time Cannot be Infinite

Here is a simple proof, slightly modified from Kalam, that suggests time cannot be infinite.

1. An infinite amount of time has no end.

2. But now is an end in time.

3. Therefore, time is not infinite.

Looking at this from another angle, it is illogical to think that if an infinite past exists, that the present could ever occur. If the past is infinite, there isn't enough time to ever arrive at a present!

http://wiki.answers....s_time_infinite

I think he means that if an infinite past exists, there's too much time to ever arrive at the present, but either way, how do you answer this.

I mean if you don't believe that God is the ultimate Cause of time, and space, and everything, but see Him as a part of it (as I think most Mormons do), wouldn't you have to believe in an infinite past?

And if there's an infinite past, how would we have arrived at the present?

Edited January 11, 2013 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

Proof that Time Cannot be Infinite

I agree; time is what we make "it" of rather, make of "it."

"It" on the other hand, is not time, but is gnolaum--"it" existed before, now, and will exist after.

[inquiringmind]

I agree; time is what we make "it" of rather, make of "it."

"It" on the other hand, is not time, but is gnolaum--"it" existed before, now, and will exist after.

And what of Abraham 3:18-19?

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

And isn't there a passage somewhere (in the standard works) that says God found Himself surrounded by intelligences, and because He was more intelligent, organized them, or gave them laws, or something like that?

Aren't passages like these saying that God, and these intelligences, and time, and space always existed (in an infinite past) before God became God and we began to progress?

Wouldn't that involve existing through an infinite past before we ever arrived at the present, and doesn't that seem like a contradiction of some kind?

Edited January 11, 2013 by inquiringmind

[bu11fr0g]

Silliness. The numberline is infinite points and goes on infinitely in both directions but still has discrete points.

[inquiringmind]

delete

Edited January 11, 2013 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

And what of Abraham 3:18-19?

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

And isn't there a passage somewhere (in the standard works) that says God found Himself surrounded by intelligences, and because He was more intelligent, organized them, or gave them laws, or something like that?

Aren't passages like these saying that God, and these intelligences, and time, and space always existed (in an infinite past) before God became God and we began to progress?

Wouldn't that involve existing through an infinite past before we ever arrived at the present, and doesn't that seem like a contradiction of some kind?

The “God and His Finite Creations” thread touches on these questions. Here’s my take:

“Gnolaum” evidently describes what we are, but it means something we can’t fully relate to yet. We use time and space and to relate to and manage it to the best of our capacity. God obviously has greater capacity than we do.

I don’t think “gnolaum” means “existed in an infinite past.” I think it means existence, period, which is something we generally can’t fully relate to except in terms of time and space. There are other dimensions we can use (or claim to use) to relate to it, such as spirituality, but we are woefully inept in comparison to God.

The contradiction, I think, is in saying that “gnolaum” is a function of time and space (infinite or not), since it is the other way around. Time and space are functions of our kingdom in relation to “gnolaum” and of our reckoning of “gnolaum.”

To paraphrase D&C 88:37 (And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.): And there are many ways to reckon; for there is no time in the which there is no way to reckon; and there is no way to reckon in which there is no time, either a greater or a lesser way to reckon. (See D&C 130:4; Abraham 3:5-9).

Edited January 11, 2013 by CV75

[TAO]

bullfrog pretty much nailed it. You can have an end to a 'partition' of time (that is a line segment), but not have an end to the full thing (that is the line itself).

[cdowis]

That's right.

If you have a river, and put your finger randomly into one location, you cannot properly say "The river ends right here." It just keeps on going. "Now" is just one point in an infinite number of points.

As others have pointed out, infinity is like a ring -- no beginning, no end.

Edited January 11, 2013 by cdowis

[CV75]

Another way to look at it:

In the scriptures, time and eternity are two distinct estates, so I wouldn’t think that one is a subset of the other. They are only two ways of reckoning that which is “gnolaum,” one being from a temporal perspective and the other from an eternal perspective. "Infinity" as a "count" can be a subset of either time or eternity and is more a descriptor than an actual state of being ("infinite"), and as a count may better be described as "indeterminate." We can't count what God can.

In Abraham 3, the Lord is planning to organize a new estate for testing purposes. Planning entails a frame of reference for what one was doing, what one is doing, and what one will be doing (“we will go down… we will take… we will make… we will prove them…” etc.). In this sense, time is a tool for planning purposes.

He speaks of space and materials, which can refer to both time and space, or what are to be made into time and space (“an earth”), as we consider them. There would be no “earth” if no one was on it to say it was here. In this sense, time is a tool for testing purposes.

[Ahab]

Proof that Time Cannot be Infinite

Here is a simple proof, slightly modified from Kalam, that suggests time cannot be infinite.

1. An infinite amount of time has no end.

Unless you're talking about the infinite past, or the infinite future, in which both have an end at the beginning, where you begin counting in one of those directions.

2. But now is an end in time.

No, because now keeps moving along into the past, forever.

3. Therefore, time is not infinite.

Unless you're talking about all 3 phases of time, collectively, in which case it is.

Looking at this from another angle, it is illogical to think that if an infinite past exists, that the present could ever occur. If the past is infinite, there isn't enough time to ever arrive at a present!

The present is fleeting. It never sticks around for very long when it's here, and when it's gone it always goes straight into the past after getting here from the future. There is always enough of the future for more of the present even though all of it goes into the past.

http://wiki.answers....s_time_infinite

I think he means that if an infinite past exists, there's too much time to ever arrive at the present, but either way, how do you answer this.

Answer what? Please give me a specific question to answer, so I can be sure of what you're asking.

I mean if you don't believe that God is the ultimate Cause of time, and space, and everything, but see Him as a part of it (as I think most Mormons do), wouldn't you have to believe in an infinite past?

Yes, as well as an infinite future and a present that is always gone as fast as it gets here.

And if there's an infinite past, how would we have arrived at the present?

We arrive from the past even though the present gets here from the future.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ahab

[DavidB]

"time" is just an abstract construct of human creation.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DavidB

[Ahab]

"time" is just an abstract construct of human creation.

The word, maybe, but what we're referring to by the use of that word has always existed, and will always exist.

[The Nehor]

This also assumes time is linear, only goes in one direction, and that infinite just refers to one line of time.

[Ahab]

This also assumes time is linear, only goes in one direction, and that infinite just refers to one line of time.

Not necessarily. You could think of time in levels too, instead of all on a line. I usually associate it with a line though because that's what I was taught in a public school system, which granted may not have been the best education available.

We all move to each level or point in the same order, though. We get the present from the future and then it moves on along into the past. That's the only way it has ever been done, regardless of what some people may imagine or think of in fantasy land.

[The Nehor]

Not necessarily. You could think of time in levels too, instead of all on a line. I usually associate it with a line though because that's what I was taught in a public school system, which granted may not have been the best education available.

We all move to each level or point in the same order, though. We get the present from the future and then it moves on along into the past. That's the only way it has ever been done, regardless of what some people may imagine or think of in fantasy land.

I would argue that our sample size is too small to conclude that that is the only way it has ever been done.

[Ahab]

I would argue that our sample size is too small to conclude that that is the only way it has ever been done.

Yes, I know you like to argue, but you can't point to any time in reality when it ever worked in any other way.

So there.

[The Nehor]

Yes, I know you like to argue, but you can't point to any time in reality when it ever worked in any other way.

So there.

And your claiming that thismis the only way it can be because it is the only thing we have seen is like coral claiming all of existence is salt water because that is all it has ever observed so there.

[Ahab]

And your claiming that this is the only way it can be because it is the only thing we have seen is like coral claiming all of existence is salt water because that is all it has ever observed so there.

No, not the same type of analogy. I'm not talking about everything in existence. I'm talking about time, and time travel.

If coral were to claim that all of existence is salt water then we could point to something else in existence that isn't salt water, but there isn't anybody who can point to another kind of time or time travel than the kind we can see in reality. We can have visions or dreams of the future but otherwise we have to wait until it gets here before it moves along to the past.

There is no scientific proof of it being any other way, because there can't be. It works only in the way that it works.

[The Nehor]

No, not the same type of analogy. I'm not talking about everything in existence. I'm talking about time, and time travel.

If coral were to claim that all of existence is salt water then we could point to something else in existence that isn't salt water, but there isn't anybody who can point to another kind of time or time travel than the kind we can see in reality. We can have visions or dreams of the future but otherwise we have to wait until it gets here before it moves along to the past.

There is no scientific proof of it being any other way, because there can't be. It works only in the way that it works.

The analogy holds assuming it is coral arguing woth coral. Your argument is the same one the coral would use. Point out that all they know is salt water so that is all there is. No one on the reef has found anything but salt water so that is all there is. That coral cannot find air or vaccuum does not prove it does not exist. In the same way we, living on a tiny planet in one solar system in one unremarkable galaxy in one Universe, do not have enough experience to say, "This is all there is or can be."

You are trying to prove a negative. You cannot.

[Ahab]

The analogy holds assuming it is coral arguing woth coral. Your argument is the same one the coral would use. Point out that all they know is salt water so that is all there is. No one on the reef has found anything but salt water so that is all there is.

Why do you assume the water is the only thing they know? What about food or minerals delivered either from or outside of the water? What about fish rubbing up against them? What about the rocks they are on, or wood if they're on a pier? Your argument is flawed because you are saying salt water is the only thing they know. They are exposed to a lot more than only salt water.

That coral cannot find air or vaccuum does not prove it does not exist.

What about when the water subsides and they're left exposed to the air Sheesh. You don't seem to know how much coral know and experience.

In the same way we, living on a tiny planet in one solar system in one unremarkable galaxy in one Universe, do not have enough experience to say, "This is all there is or can be."

How about if I say "as far as we know" that is the only way time is... as far as we know from all of our observations of reality, including what God has revealed to the masses. Better now?

It's possible that I'm just taking a leap of faith here based on all known observations of time in reality and my own inspiration from God, and if I am I don't believe that's bad. Sometimes we need to use our own mind and the inspiration God gives us to see how things really are in reality, rather than thinking things are some other way than we can observe.

You are trying to prove a negative. You cannot.

You are trying ot make the point that time operates in some way other than the way we can all observe. Why? Why go out on a limb like that? Why not just stick with what you can see or hear or taste in reality, including anything you get from God. Or are you trying to tell me that God has told you time works in some way other than the way we can see, while it also works the way we can see? Where are you getting your ideas? Reality, or only in your imagination?

[ERayR]

"time" is just an abstract construct of human creation.

What makes you think so. God's creation happened in a sequence which is time. First , second, third etc etc.

[ERayR]

This also assumes time is linear, only goes in one direction, and that infinite just refers to one line of time.

Time is linear but it can go in any direction.

[Ahab]

Time is linear but it can go in any direction.

Really? How so?

I can see how we can look at records of time in any direction, or at least several, but I see time flowing only from the future into the past. Time past or present doesn't go forward, although the things that are in them usually do.

How do you see time moving from the past or present into the future? Or are you referring only to records of time?

[ERayR]

Really? How so?

I can see how we can look at records of time in any direction, or at least several, but I see time flowing only from the future into the past. Time past or present doesn't go forward, although the things that are in them usually do.

How do you see time moving from the past or present into the future? Or are you referring only to records of time?

We have a misunderstanding I was referring to direction of travel not the direction of the time. To me time does not flow but is a measurement. One can point in any direction up, down side to side or any variation of those directions and travel as long or as short a time as one chooses. Time is infinite when taken as a whole but can be divided into short segments with beginnings and ends.

[theplains]

And what of Abraham 3:18-19?

Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning;

If spirits have no beginning, how is Jesus the first spirit born to Heavenly Parents? Was spirit A1

(without a father) transferred into spirit A2 (now with a father and mother)?

Thanks,

Jim