ManWithAPlan

It isn't a question of NEED to be measured, or measuring as an act. It's potential to be measured we're talking about.

Teleology is concerned with the notion that everything has a reason. I'm not saying that there's a reason for the universe to be finite or infinite. My argument was that regardless, time is infinite. I'm not saying time doesn't exist if we dont' measure it, because we can currently meaure the passage of time back at a place in time before time measurement was invented (By humans).

If we use time not in the human-constructed sense, but in the relativistic sense on which physics rests, then time is relative to a frame, and it has nothing to do with teleology at all, implicitly or otherwise.

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

filtherton

The teleology comment was directed solely at your assumption that finite things must be contained.

I'm not quite sure how you can make the claim that time in the "relativistic sense" isn't constructed by humans. All science is a human construct.

Perhaps it has been too long since I took physics, but if I recall correctly, a frame of reference is nothing more than the point from which observations are made. I'm not certain how this concept leads to infinite time.

ManWithAPlan

"Science" is a human construct, but before we discovered what gravity was, assuming we know now, it still existed didn't it? "Science" is simply giving phenomena a name.

WORDS are a human construct. This whole thread is questioning whether or not what HUMANS call INFINITY exists. So I don't see where you're going with this. That goes for your last commend on frame of reference too. Sure, that's just what we call it, but that doesn't change the fact, does it? A rose by any other name, right? How we think of things doesn't change their nature.

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

filtherton

Yes, gravity probably existed. No, science isn't simply giving phenomena names. Science is about modeling the interactions between phenomena.

I'm just trying to understand your proof that time is infinite, because it doesn't make sense to me. Your claim is that time must be infinite because if it wasn't then there would have to be some sort of "frame of reference" to "admit" it, and since there are an infinite number of frames of reference, then... ?

It doesn't make sense to me, and it's possible that's because language can be the limiting factor in transmitting ideas. It could also be because your proof doesn't actually make sense, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

ManWithAPlan

It's a question of what happens when we reach the end of the universe. You either have to wrap around because space and time is bent, or breach it. If you breach it, then where are you? What is "non-universe"?

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

Tor_Hershman

No