I just proved that time is made up of indivisible parts of time in pic related (the picture attached to this post). Which is just one proof/deductions in a series of proof/deductions. with each getting more impressive, important, and relevant than the previous one.
>>7959547
>an infinite amount of sequentially passing parts f time can not finish happening
sup Zeno
>>7959547
What reason do we have to believe 2-5?
>>7959552
Xeno* of Elea.
Kidding.
But is that all you have to say? Com'n now, I put a lot of thought and effort into making this. It was the hardest proof until you get to figuring out what the first few indivisible parts of time were.
You finally moved on from shitposting about how 0.9999999 =/= 1 ?
>>7959554
I'm in starbucks now but i'll head back home now, give me 20 mins to respond.
Actually I'll try to give a quick response now.
An infinite amount of sequentially passing parts of time can not finish happening because an infinite amount of sequentially passing parts of time is an unlimited/never-ending amount of sequentially (one after the other) passing parts of time.
If you have an never ending amount of things going one after the other and you start somewhere you will never finish because the amount of things is never ending so there will never be an end to the amount of things that are passing one after the other.
Now that I've typed it that actually is just about as good of an explanation as I've got to give. I'm interested to hear your response though so 'please respond', lol.
>>7959558
.999... (infinitely repeating nines) doesn't exist.
1 does exist. So .999... != 1.
Now do you have something of more relevancy and value to say about what I've posted please sir?
I know you can curse me out but entertain the situation and I'll try not to disappoint.
Ok walking home now since the starbucks is closing.
>>7959559
But we have clear counterexamples to this. An infinite series of events doesn't have to diverge to infinity. One example that was already brought up is Zeno's paradox, where in order for a runner to run a full distance, he must first run half the distance, and then run half of the remaining distance, and so on. The distances are equivalent to an infinite sequential series. If an infinite series couldn't converge to a finite value, the runner would never be able to run the full distance, but we know this is false we know a real runner is capable of running a full distance in a finite amount of time.
>>7959585
You can't prove that because the runner might move a little over half no matter how hard he tries.
Try moving forward by a trillionth of a pico meter and see where that gets you idiot.
>>7959547
While your proof on this subject might be original in a sense, the idea that time is comprised of divisible pieces is nothing new, Terrence McKenna proposed a time particle in his book The Invisible Landscape, the Tibetan Buddhists talk about Bardo time and everyone else divides time up into seconds and minutes anyway. So nothing new.
>>7959585
[email protected] is my e-mail
make an spare e-mail to e-mail me with and copy and paste your post here and have the subject "sci" so it gets past my filter
i'm too tired now to show you the nuanced way in which your misconception is wrong (hint: it has to do with the fact that a runner runs in the real world, which is made up of indivisible parts of space) but perhaps i'll respond if you e-mail me.
Chances of me responding are much higher if I see a 'please respond' in there somewhere or something to that effect.
>>7959559
>An infinite amount of sequentially passing parts of time can not finish happening because an infinite amount of sequentially passing parts of time is an unlimited/never-ending amount of sequentially (one after the other) passing parts of time.
Whether or not a sequence finishes is not simply a function of how many parts it has, but also of how much time each part takes to complete. It doesn't matter how you split up 1 second, it still takes 1 second. An infinite amount of fractions of 1 second add up to 1 second. The only way an infinite sequence would not finish is if it took infinite time, but we are talking about fractions of finite amounts of time. So you are contradicting yourself and your argument fails.
>>7959560
>.999... (infinitely repeating nines) doesn't exist.
Prove it.
Why the fuck is this thread getting serious replies
What the fuck is happening
>>7959547
unfortunately time is a physical phenomenon. you will need proof in the form of experimental data rather than a logical deduction, mr paul hunter
also, there's literally no point whether things exist between chronons or not. people got over the quantum mechanics weirdness a few decades ago. relevant my ass
>>7959620
because most of /sci/ is shit and avoids discussion on hypothetical concepts for fear of being wrong. Being a sheep is one thing, being a sheep on an anonymous board is another entirely.
>>7959558
I'm still here. I moved on to [math]0.999...i = -1[/math]
>>7959547
Time is relative my friend.
If time is composed of discrete parts then we could ask if those parts are also temporal. We normally think of time as being a continuum, but isn't there some theory that suggests that each moment is recreating itself? This idea of continuous destruction and creation is interesting from a philosophical point of view, because if true it requires a Creator, not just for the moment at the beginning of the universe, but for all moments everywhere along the chain. This is the fundamental misconception I think between the atheistic scientific point of view and that of the theistic one. Creation is a continual process in this model that needs to be explained now and not just at one point billions of years ago.
>>7959547
>An infinite amount of sequantially passing parts of time can not finish happening
Oh boy, so you are still dumbed by zeno's paradox?
Here is a hint, you retard: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +... = 2
That's right, 2, not infinity. Now please kill yourself.
I mean, the greeks had this figured this out 3000 years ago. You are obviously too retarded that even in modern society you can't comprehend 3000 year old problems.
>>7959547
OP confirmed for dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between countably infinite and uncountably infinte
>>7962519
you confirmed for dumbass who learned some new words and feels compelled to spew them in places they have no relevance
>>7962521
2-1, 2-2, and 2-5 hinge on the concept of uncountable infinity.
We can do summations in uncountable infinity. It's literally the first thing they will teach you in Calculus.
Go fuck yourself.
>>7959547
So, OP, how is your Pre-Calculus class going?
time is countable.
>>7959547
>a series of proof/deductions. with each getting more impressive, important, and relevant than the previous one.
>getting more impressive, important, and relevant
>impressive, important
>>7959559
>starbucks
OP, you're really giving this "Smug Idiot Freshman" RP your all huh?
The infinite divisions become infinitely small. They will still always add up to the same amount, no matter how many fractions you break a period of time into.
Lol this can be disproven with a lesson on series and convergence.
>>7962908
I'm at starbucksn too ayy lamo
