Question: If something exists repeatedly across Time's infinity, but with lacunae in between, can this, therefore, exist eternally? Answers on a postcard.
I don't think you can deny it exists eternally, for it will always exist in the future, but then obviously won't always exist in the future, but will always exist at some point in the future.
I think subjectively as an object with experience, it will experience eternity and exist eternally.
Objectively, the object would exist in a punctuated eternity. For example if you did exist eternally without the lacunae you would experience its non-existence.
I ask whether the object without the lacunae could ever be said to live for longer than the object with the punctuated existence. I do not know enough about infinities.
We need to discuss this. I am back in England, when are you back my long lost platonic lover? Tried to convert a Jehovah's witness the other day. Was a laugh.
Posted the debate on beating women from Qatar TV to my profile - am constantly arguing with Abigail about religion at the moment. Does Holly sufficiently drive you up the wall with her 'there is something' wishful thinking?
i feel that's an important distinction; it will always exist AT SOME POINT in the future. if, however, it exists intermittendly, i don't see how it would EXPERIENCE eternity. it would experience an infinte existence, but not the breaks in its existence. if you're still planning to take that course next year, i'll look forward to keeping this question alive.
well, i'm back in england at the end of June, likely on the 22nd. i'm swimming at the meet in Liverpool on the 10th July so i can't go too wild until then. but yes, i'm looking forward to seing you, mate. it's been too long. plus, i'm back for a good 7 or so weeks.
well, Holly seems to have adopted the deist position, which is somewhat admirable. a position taken up by the good Mr Jefferson, and, it appears, Mr Einstein. she tried to trudge through the god delusion but non-fiction can't hold her attention. i think she probably would become an athiest if she got through the book. there simply isn't enough evidence now to firmly support a deist position.
2 comments:
I don't think you can deny it exists eternally, for it will always exist in the future, but then obviously won't always exist in the future, but will always exist at some point in the future.
I think subjectively as an object with experience, it will experience eternity and exist eternally.
Objectively, the object would exist in a punctuated eternity. For example if you did exist eternally without the lacunae you would experience its non-existence.
I ask whether the object without the lacunae could ever be said to live for longer than the object with the punctuated existence. I do not know enough about infinities.
We need to discuss this. I am back in England, when are you back my long lost platonic lover? Tried to convert a Jehovah's witness the other day. Was a laugh.
Posted the debate on beating women from Qatar TV to my profile - am constantly arguing with Abigail about religion at the moment. Does Holly sufficiently drive you up the wall with her 'there is something' wishful thinking?
i feel that's an important distinction; it will always exist AT SOME POINT in the future. if, however, it exists intermittendly, i don't see how it would EXPERIENCE eternity. it would experience an infinte existence, but not the breaks in its existence. if you're still planning to take that course next year, i'll look forward to keeping this question alive.
well, i'm back in england at the end of June, likely on the 22nd. i'm swimming at the meet in Liverpool on the 10th July so i can't go too wild until then. but yes, i'm looking forward to seing you, mate. it's been too long. plus, i'm back for a good 7 or so weeks.
well, Holly seems to have adopted the deist position, which is somewhat admirable. a position taken up by the good Mr Jefferson, and, it appears, Mr Einstein. she tried to trudge through the god delusion but non-fiction can't hold her attention. i think she probably would become an athiest if she got through the book. there simply isn't enough evidence now to firmly support a deist position.
much love. x
Post a Comment