# A Crazy Idea About Time

Time is infinitely divisible, so a duration of one second contains an infinite amount of moments, so one second is an infinite duration, but, yet, compared to the rest of time it is finite. So a duration of one second is both finite and infinite in duration.

Now, at a certain point in time I begin my earthly existence, at this point I experience my first moment. In order to live to one second I have to go through an infinite amount of moments, in other words an infinite duration. To live for one second is impossible if the speed of the flow of time is finite, for at any finite speed it will take forever to live for one second, so that the only possibility left is that the speed of the flow of time is infinite, for only if it’s infinite can I reach one second in a finite amount of time, rather only if it’s infinite can I reach the one second mark in one second.

Since a duration of one second is both finite and infinite, when we compare two seconds to one second we realize that two seconds contains a larger infinity of moments than one second. What this equates to that the flow of time at the two second mark is faster than the flow of time at the one second mark, because I am going still going through an infinity of moments when I go through to the mark of two seconds even though two seconds is a duration larger than infinite, this is so because it is still infinite unless we proceed infinitely into the future (assuming time extends infinitely into the future) where we would truly go beyond infinite, because at such a time the speed of the flow of time is infinitely beyond infinite, in other words truly beyond infinite. Because of this we can say in a sense that two seconds is faster than one second. But in living through one second I experience one second, just as I in living through two seconds I experience two seconds, because in living through two seconds I have to pass through one second, so that gives me one second, but in living through two seconds I pass through only one second, so that gives me one second, because I lived through one second and two seconds in passing through time to the two second mark I experience two seconds of duration, although two seconds is faster than one second, and seemingly should be a shorter duration according to our view.

So as I go through time the speed of the flow of time is getting faster and faster but yet I do not experience it getting faster and faster, time appears to have a uniform speed but this is only an appearance, the reality is that it is getting faster and faster, in fact if time goes on infinitely into the future, the flow of time is progressing in such a way that it is getting infinitely larger than infinite in it’s speed. In an infinite amount of time it will literally go beyond infinite in it’s speed, because at this point it’s speed will be infinitely beyond infinite.

It seems a though this problem will take both an infinite amount of time and a finite amount of time to solve. I will get back to you either instantaneously or at infinity. So where should you put that on the calander?

A second doesn’t contain an infinite amount of ‘moments’. You will find that whatever size you define a moment as, there will be a finite quanity of them in a second. There is no limit to how many parts you can divide a second in to: but that in no way entails that a second (nor anything else) is divisible by infinity.

And whatever number you divide a second by - the composite of the parts will still last exactly one second.

Well said. Although I think Analytic Philosophy has been overapplied to explain away a lot of “real” problems, this is an example of why we should always keep it in our philosophy tool box. The imprecision in the use of the concept “moment” is a key item in exposing the fallacy.

brevel_monkey,

If a duration of one second consists of moments that are not infinitely short in duration, that is, if a duration of one second is not infinitely divisible into moments which although have a quantifiable duration (0.0…1) are without any duration which can be experienced*, then a moment would have not only a quantifiable duration but a duration which can be experienced. You would have a duration in which nothing is happening, because in such a time no change in possible, as change in only possible when one moment transitions into the next.To have moment which empirically speaking has a duration does not make any sense intuitively.

If we can, in our minds, think of time being divisible into smaller and smaller components, such that we can continue in this way without end, then intuitively it makes sense that time itself should be divisible into smaller and smaller components, that we can continue in this way without end in thought means that divisions of time itself can be be without end as well.

Why can I regard this intuiting as valid? Because time is a pure form of sensible intuition, and this intuiting nothing more than me intuiting time directly from an a priori source, thus it carries with it apodictic certainty.

*An infinitely short duration cannot have a duration which can be experienced because we cannot divide this duration into a shorter ones.

I’d just like to iterate that x/infinite=0, and that 0.0[bar]1 does not exist as the one in the end would run contrary to the definition of infinite so that may just null the entire following argument.
Anyways, aren’t you just writing an alteration of Zeno’s paradox?
Time is not a thing in itself; its passing depends on the occurence of events. If no events occur, there’s no time, so then time must be finite as there’s a limit to the rate at which things can occur. Hm.

this is false.

the smallest unit of time is approximately 5.4 x 10^-44 seconds, or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000054 seconds.

at this smallest rate-of-change (time is merely change over distance), there can be no further division; quantum energies on this level merely “jump” from one “Planck length” state to another.

Lycurgus, you are simply playing with words. A bit like Zeno’s paradox does. I was trying to show you where your reasoning was wrong because I thought it more apt than simply pointing out that your conclusion is ridiculous:

“Faster” is a measurement of time. It assumes a constant standard of time in the first place.

Infinity is generally about as large as things can get.

Your reasoning plays with words; your conclusion is senseless.

At any point in the process of division, the number being divided by will still be finite. It is impossible to imagine otherwise. We can imagine getting to smaller and smaller numbers but at no point does this number become “infintely small”. Simply to run the division, it must be the case that the number is finite.

Any moment that is quantifiable by a real number is not infinitely short.

A moment is simply a length of time. As such it is defineable in terms of other lengths of time (maybe one moment = 0.0000000001 x 1 second, for example).

Rasava:

“The imprecision in the use of the concept “moment” is a key item in exposing the fallacy.”

Precisely. To run a division, the moment has to be specified as a length of time. Once this has occured: the rest of the argument falls apart.

You’re tackling zeno’s paradox here. No offense, but your solution to it (or treatment at least) is not only unnecessary, but extremely semantically convoluted and confused. You’re saying things about ‘infinity’ that simply defy its definition.

I’m not sure what the going solution to zeno’s paradox is now-a-days, but the way I’ve always approached it is to recognize that geometrical points (whether in space or time) are only ideals - mental constructs that we seem compelled to bring to bear on our treatments of space and time and the question of their fundamental building blocks. These things don’t really exist. There is no such thing as a geometrical point - they are just useful mental models for handling mathematical problems. Therefore, there is hardly an infinity of them mediating 1 second of time. We cannot say conclusively that we pass through an infinity of temporal points for any given duration.

Of course, this leaves something to be desired when the question comes right back to the forefront of our minds: what then is the fundamental building blocks of space and time? Even if we dismiss the existence of any such building blocks, it seems we can’t escape the self-evident notion that intervals of time or space are divisible, and infinitely so. Does this mean that, at the end of the day, there exist an infinity of such divisions within any spatial or temporal interval? In a sense, yes, but it is important to understand precisely this sense - namely, the realm of ideals. From the very start of this analysis - that is, of breaking space and time down into divisions - we are inevitably dealing in ideals. What then is the “real” constitution of space and time? What is its “real” nature? Of course, I have no answer to this - not because my reasoning is flawed but because, as I said, the human mind can only work with the ideals it is natural bestowed with, and when I am asked for an answer to these questions, I have no other recourse but these ideals. Geometric points are not only ideals, but the inevitable ideals we have to deal with.

Rouzbeh,

x/infinity=0, only if x=infinity.

As to 0.0…1 not existing. If I literally divide time itself, then this dividing would be non-temporal, not in the sense that the division would not involve time at all, but only in the sense that the flow of time would not affect this dividing.Thus, it would take no time at all to divide time infinitely, thus I could divide time infinitely and reach an end. Therefore, after an infinite set of zero’s there could be a one that follows. Of course if I divide a time just in my mind it would take an infinite amount of time, and in this case infinity would have no end. It is the case that I can only divide time in my mind, but if I am do it I must pretend that I am literally dividing time, and thus I will come up with the conclusion that a moment has a duration of 0.0…1 units of time.

It is true time is not a thing-in-itself, but this is because it is a pure form of sensible intuition. Since it is a pure form of sensible intuition, then time is not dependent upon events, because events are nothing more than representations, where as time is a priori. Thus time operates independently of events (time keeps going whether or not there are events), but events are dependent on time (events can only occur if there is a succession of moments).

Three Times Great,

All beginning’s are only possible in time, so it is impossible that causality begins before time or begins simultaneously with time. This means that time operates independently of causality (therefore independently of change) because time has always existed and causality has only begun at some point in time.

but how do you move at all ?

No. Apply lhopital’s to the equation and see if it still equals 0. It doesn’t. x/x, sinx/x, x/sinx etc where x->0 has a limit of 1. Similarly, if you apply lhopital’s to k/x as x->0, you will get 0/1=0.

It still doesn’t address the fact that 0.0[bar]1 is non-existent. There’s a long retarded thread on here that discusses the 0.99[bar]=1 issue. As per the logic in that equation, 0.00[bar]1 doesn’t exist unless you think a smallest possible number is in fact possible. The smallest frame of time is pause aka 0. Sorry I’m not writing long answers but the solutions are quite simple.

Yeah, I don’t get why people think they can tac a 1 (or any digit) to the end of an infinit series. Doesn’t ‘infinit’ mean ‘no end’? So where could you possibly tac on the 1?

Rouzbeh,

If I stop the flow of time, if I could do this, would not I arrive at a time without a duration, and would not this be a moment.

The smallest unit of time cannot be zero. If indeed zero is a unit of time, then it should be that if I two of these units of time together, that I should get a larger unit of time, but mathematically this is impossible. It is only if, with such addition, I get a larger unit of time, that this unit of time (zero) can be considered a unit of time, otherwise it is not a unit of time. What zero relative to time is, is a measurement of something outside time, that is, it represents no time.

0.0…1 maybe a non-existent number so far as mathematics is concerned, but it represents the duration of a moment nonetheless.

Ah, the next number up from 0

If it ain’t 0 itself, there can’t be an infinity of them between 0 and 1.

Take it from me (who studies the nature of concepts), the mind is built to utilize certain ideals with relatively efficient functionality… but nothing is perfect. Zeno’s paradox and other such quandries are examples of the fringe cases where our ideals, our tools for survival, don’t work so well, and in fact break down.

I’m assuming you’re not familiar with Zeno’s paradox. What is the smallest amount of distance you can travel? Take one measure, and half it. And half that. And half that. So on. It would then seem that movement is impossible. But it’s not.
Same applies to your time theory. The smallest possible time frame in theory is indeed 0 but we know that time progresses, therefore it’s false.
Gib is more adept at actual philosophy than my curiosities but so far as I know, Zeno’s paradox was explained away with relativity making motion possible whereas an absolute world would be static.
I can however help with the math. If 10^-x is your smallest number, what about 10^-2x? 10^-5x? Am I going to fractions of your definition of moment or am I defining a more precise “moment”? The smallest number is 0.
Problem is that your definition of a moment ranges from the smallest possible absolute time frame, being zero, to the smallest time frame that can be experienced, which is obviously limited by your physical attributes i.e. reaction time.
The best way to visualize it is to think of all the time that we’ve lost by clocks not counting that “moment” that the minute goes from 59 to 60 where a clock actually resets to 0. We haven’t lost any time.
But it’s hard to let go of ideas.

There is no such thing as time. The belief that time exists and that there is a flow of time. is the cause of the paradox. “The past” the dinosaurs, the wild west , breakfast this morning is happening right now. The history is also qunatum information that collapses right now.

If there were, how long would it be? What would you get if you divided it by 2? Would it also be an amount of time, or would we get something else entirely after that point?