there is an end to time? a beginning?

Is there? Hmm.

personally, im waiting for the universe to reveal it's mobius sensibilities... like a game of Asteroids (go play it in our DF Arcade!), folding back in on itself... a closed system of constantly colliding matter and energy.

Has anyone else noticed that physical time is measured by expenditures of energy? We measure time by the birth and death of stars, the rotation of planets and other phenomenon. So time is not actually percieved as a force but as a measurment. So what then is time? if anything?

The nature in which we are consumed.

Cryptic, mildly poetic, but altogether too vague to be a useful definition.

Try again, if you don't mind.

It's no constant, and an integral part of creation.

Nature is held by time, time is held by nature. Outside of this nature is found infinity, inside this nature is found time.

but there is no boundary... simply the extension of what is into what wasn't.

There is no "wasn't" when it involves a time line. It's not is and wasn't. It's is and isn't.

empirically there is no proof....empiricism isn't correct....empiricism implies it must be "known/learned" through the senses...but by this definition, the sun is a lil' orange circle in the sky that circles the earth...and the world is flat....both are wrong)....




Wow . Someone completely misunderstands empiricism. The eye is a device by which we see , not a distortion unit. I could elaborate all night , but Im at work. Basicly , without senses there is no experimentation.

What is meant by infinity in comparison with time is that there is, in fact, no proof to an infinite existence and so we have is and is not and if we know what is and is not then what is not is in existence of what is not which does not exist, as I said before, but does set existence for non-existence. We must have both in order to set any proof of existent and non-existent.

Holy bump!

Sectre that would work except as you have decided, nothing is forever -- anything we know ourselves isn't forever, for we aren't forever to find out if anything might perhaps be for forever. Knowledge would seem to be forever. Shape shifting in form perhaps, but definitely forever. And as well, for every end there is a new beginning which could easily enough lead us to conclude that the end was perhaps not really an end at all, thus defining infinity.

See Sin, you don't understand what was said.
That would be nature which does begin and end with time.
Infinity, however, has no beginning or end because it is not bound by time. If we aren't forever then the existence of what is must be present in order to know we're not forever. Otherwise we would not have such a concept.

You seem to have "never" confused with "forever" actually.

Can never be forever and forever be never? Yes. So actually, no.

Wrong. Never can be forever, however that does not mean never "is" forever, it simply means that a theoretical something can never "be" ...forever. Forever, on the other hand, has to have an existance to "be" forever, therefore it cannot be "never" for it already "is" to be forever.

Plus Never doesnt mean forever all the time. Usually never is limited to events. For example you will NEVER be president of the USA Sin because youre Canadian. See? its confined to the years of your life and the years of this countrys life.

Usually and can but is under circumstances, therefore, I haven't confused never and forever.

my definition was kept vague and rough on purpose.....i'm not confused by the principles of empiricism......to say that knowledge is limited to experience and observations denies certain metaphysical theories i tend to agree with.....although i'm not a huge fan of classic philosophy, i don't deny the possibility that perhaps the mind is generated with certain types of knowledge already built in (although i'm skeptical)........but moreover, i agree with the priciple of subjective idealism, in that the objects we see, what knowledge we know of them, is simply contributed by our own perceptions

but you made me wonder something......yes, indeed the eye is the device by which we see, but (in accordance to Aquinas), "seeing" is in itself the metaphysical aspect of the "eye".........the eye is the device, but the eye doesn't see; for, it's possible to have an eye and not see (now, sure, science and doctors would say blah, blah, blah.....but hey, i like the idea)........therefore, in as much as the eye allows an object to be seen, to actually see the object requires sight (which is the metaphysical aspect of the physical eye).....thus, perhaps it isn't unjust to proclaim that a physical object isn't in some way distorted via the eye? the physical object we perceive passes through the metaphysical aspects before knowledge can be acquired...........i don't really know where i'm going with this, but it's food for thought....