This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Narrowly a B class. May be High importance to the WikiProject, maybe only Mid.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join
WikiProject Time or visit the
Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—
Yamara
✉
04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This strikes me as dubious. Could physicists attend to this? Michael Hardy 21:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is supposed to contain the most relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject [1]. I don't see how reference to scientific speculation that may have a following of one or two scientists fits into this category. Discussions of space-time theories of consciousness is not Wiki material and should be deleted. If a scientist publishes a book on astrology will that be acceptable material? I doubt it. Inthebeginning 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to note that none of this makes sense from a logical point of view.
While I'm willing to believe the above is what they say, and thus factually correct, the statement makes no sense. These people not being able to say how long their experience lasted does not mean there was no time. On the contrary them suggesting their experience lasted proves there was time. In fact without time there is no time to experience anything. Even if a timeless experience was possible, it should be completely static by it's nature. I repeat my point: not being able to estimate passed time does not mean time did not pass.
While this is also true, this belief does not make much sense either. I won't bother to argue whether a godlike being needs time to exist, because people do not seem to agree what godlike means. Instead I just point out that according to a Christian belief, God created man as his own image. The human mental functions require time. If God is supposed to resemble humans in that he plans things before doing them (as is suggested by the Bible) he needs time to do that. Planning in itself is a process and a process is a thing which happens over time. -- Lakefall 14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me add one thing. The article says: "And one need not believe in God in order to hold this concept of eternity: an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal." Show me an atheist mathematician, who says numbers or their relations think or are conscious. My point is we can have a God that thinks or a God that is timeless. Trying to have both is like saying God can create a rock, which is so heavy even he himself cannot lift it, and then lift it, because he's just such a bad-ass. Sure you can say so, but it doesn't make sense. -- Lakefall 2 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
why does this article about eternity has to have all those new agey concepts?? why not just leave it at maths and physics?
IT SEEMS AS IF AN OCCULTIST WROTE THIS? JEEZ! OURBOROS? DUDE, SCIENCE EXISTS FOR A REASON, DON'T MESS IT UP.
The entire paragraph starting with "It is also equally possible that God can choose not to exist as he is all powerful" is nonsensical, speculative, and not evidenced by any religious belief. That is to say, there is no philosophical argument, mathematical postulation or religious tenet that states what would happen if God willed himself into non-existence. I just can't see how that affects an encyclopedic entry for "eternity" at all! - me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.218.146 ( talk) 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I deleted that part about God theoretically destroying himself, since its not referenced anywhere that he could or would do that. Its a rather nonsensical argument if you ask me. -Tosc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.172 ( talk) 07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, yes, needs an edit here, for only that of contents, except what's next to it, of course.
I propose that the entire
Science and eternity section of this article should be deleted.
For one thing, it's got maybe a few
OR-like issues as it stands, IMO.
For another, and more importantly: none of its present content is actually about
Eternity, it's about
Time.
And, of course, that's because:
Science is concerned with "...knowledge [that] must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented [on] for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions."
... neither of which applies to "
eternity."
If, for some reason, the consensus is to keep this section, then I suggest it should make this point clearly.
Thoughts, comments, POVs...?
—
Wikiscient—
14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article, "the philosophical aspect seems still very much relevant" doesn't indicate to what the aspect is relevant. You can't have relevance to nothing. Unfree ( talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference for the quote in "eternity as a timeless existence"? I would be interested in using the quote; also, it should be referenced according to WP:CITE. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"[F]or example, an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal." (section 2)
Unless, of course, one accepts Borges's argument that numbers themselves can only be held to have an objective existence so long as one admits the existence of God. Cf. "Argumentum Ornithologicum" in Dreamtigers (1960). - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Two questions. First, just to make sure: have you actually read "Argumentum Ornithologicum", or are you guessing at what the argument must be from what I said above? Second, on what grounds do you call the assumption of esse is percipi a flaw in the argument? I'm not aware that the principle was ever specifically refuted; indeed, it seems to have been reinforced by modern physics. Or am I missing something? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In other words, it does not imply or amount to a statement like, "Perception (ie., 'conscious measurement') of a 'quantum' system fundamentally, ipso facto, changes the 'nature' of that system...". That sort of thing is a very common "mistranslation" from Science to Philosophy. All "modern physics" really says is that all interaction with a "quantum system" must cause some change to occur in that system (according to the rules governing that sort of thing). Deliberate measurement of it is only one way to "interact" with such a system. The same set of "changes" will occur whenever any other system interacts with it, whether or not that interaction results in any perception/awareness/knowledge of it having occurred! In other words, it says nothing about the relationship between "perception" per se and "existence." Specifically, it does not "reinforce" any notions of the variety " esse est percipi.""is not a statement about [...] a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics."
With regard to the physics issue, I yield to your expertise without discussion. I might point out, however, that you haven't exactly answered the esse is percipi question; you've just corrected a fallacious (but frankly extraneous) reinforcement of it. So I'll ask again: on what philosophic grounds do you base your axiom that matter exists independent of perception?
The Borges issue, however, is another can of worms entirely. "Argumentum Ornithologicum" has nothing to do with physical existence; the "flock of birds" of the argument are a purely psychological event. Borges's argument - which, it should be observed, he did not necessary believe himself (I strongly suspect that his character of Pierre Menard, who had a "resigned or ironic habit of putting forth ideas that were the exact opposite of those he actually held", was at least partially a self-portrait), but which I think deserves consideration nonetheless - is as follows:
"I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no-one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer - not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. - is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.
The point is precisely that the figures in the imaginary vision cannot be said to have an independent existence of their own, but that the concept of number must, to be universal, apply to them as well as to any real flock of birds. But, if they only exist within Borges's brain, and Borges's brain never contained any record of their number - only that they had one, and that it was greater than one and less than ten - then one is forced to either assert that they never had any number, which they clearly did (since the vision could have lasted long enough for him to count them, it simply happened not to), or confess that there is an omniscient mind in which their number was recorded. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, when you put it that way, I have to admit - not exactly that the argument is invalid (as you correctly point out, that depends on whether you accept the premise that "all facts are known by some mind", which, despite your axiomatic rejection of it, is not entirely indefensible) - but certainly that it doesn't apply to this page. So sorry to waste everyone's time. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I just created an "Aevum" page to discuss the Scholastic concept of aeviternity. Would it be possible to change the redirection link so that "aeviternity" now redirects to that page instead of to this one? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit warring over symbols is ridiculous - among other things, it's unlikely that any really ancient symbol can be described as either exclusively Armenian or exclusively Georgian given the geographical realities. Dougweller ( talk) 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, I see now that both versions have some things that aren't in the other. I've come up with a compromise version, which should cover everything from both versions. How does the following look to you?
Eternity (or forever) is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Eternity is an important concept in many religions, especially with regards to the immortality, or eternal life, of deities or of souls. The theological idea of eternity can mean either that which is outside of time, or that which exist simultaneously through all of time.
The concept of eternity is also significant in philosophy. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that the natural cosmos endures eternally in the past and future. In these contexts, eternity is often tied to the notion of immutability, as in the immutable Platonic forms. In reality, however, it is impossible for an eternity to actually pass. [1]
Cheers, ∴ ZX95 [ discuss 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Eternity (or forever) is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Philosophically, eternity has been defined as either that which is outside of time, or that which exist simultaneously through all of time. The concept of eternity is important to many religions, especially as it relates to the idea of God. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that the natural cosmos endures eternally in the past and future. In these contexts, eternity is often tied to the notion of immutability, as in the immutable Platonic Forms. In reality, however, it is impossible for an eternity to actually pass. [1]
Hi. I am user from Georgian Wiki. Just discovered, that our ancient symbol is recognized here as Armenian. Enough already this Armenian thefts. It`s ordinary, that Armenians always try to appropriate everything Georgian-history, culture, territories and also here-in Wikipedia. So, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borjgali. Via link even in Armenian Wiki you can found that this is Georgian: -- Achiko-84 ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cwobeel and the user at 89.110.17.156. You both are close to edit warring by reverting each others' edits too many times. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent edit warring by multiple reverts of the edits of others. Please engage in discussion and seek agreement between both of you and other users instead of engaging in repeated reverts or edit warring. Special:Contributions/89.110.17.15689.110.17.156, I agree with Cwobeel on this. Even though your edits might sound reasonable, your edits consist of original research as they seem to be put together by you, and you didn't list the sources where you got the information from. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and original research is unacceptable. I hope that you'll be able to find sources for the information you are adding, otherwise other users may be inclined to remove it. Optakeover (Talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. The anon user removed content and inserted his own original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ 89.110.17.156: Minimum total potential energy principle does not describe "eternity" at all. Please become familiar with our core policies of WP:OR and WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This material, which was sourced was removed without explanation, and replaced with unsourced WP:OR.
Eternity is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Eternity is an important concept in many religions, where the immortality of God or the gods is said to endure eternally. Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic Forms, immutability was considered essential. [1]
The metaphysics of eternity studies that which necessarily exists outside or independently of space and time. Another important question is whether " information" or Form is separable from mind and matter. Aristotle established a distinction between actual infinity and a potentially infinite count: a future span of time must be a potential infinity, because another element can always be added to a series that is inexhaustible. [2] Aristotle likewise argued that the cosmos has no beginning. Euclid invoked this distinction instead of saying that there are an infinity of primes, rather that the primes outnumber those contained in any given collection thereof. [3]
References
- Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And the current lede is sourced to a single opinion, but stated in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the material. The lede is not representative of the article's content, per WP:LEDE, and lacks attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Optakeover: Please assist here if you can. As you can see, this anon editor does not seem to be aware of our content policies. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
22:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eternity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Narrowly a B class. May be High importance to the WikiProject, maybe only Mid.
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join
WikiProject Time or visit the
Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—
Yamara
✉
04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This strikes me as dubious. Could physicists attend to this? Michael Hardy 21:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is supposed to contain the most relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject [1]. I don't see how reference to scientific speculation that may have a following of one or two scientists fits into this category. Discussions of space-time theories of consciousness is not Wiki material and should be deleted. If a scientist publishes a book on astrology will that be acceptable material? I doubt it. Inthebeginning 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I want to note that none of this makes sense from a logical point of view.
While I'm willing to believe the above is what they say, and thus factually correct, the statement makes no sense. These people not being able to say how long their experience lasted does not mean there was no time. On the contrary them suggesting their experience lasted proves there was time. In fact without time there is no time to experience anything. Even if a timeless experience was possible, it should be completely static by it's nature. I repeat my point: not being able to estimate passed time does not mean time did not pass.
While this is also true, this belief does not make much sense either. I won't bother to argue whether a godlike being needs time to exist, because people do not seem to agree what godlike means. Instead I just point out that according to a Christian belief, God created man as his own image. The human mental functions require time. If God is supposed to resemble humans in that he plans things before doing them (as is suggested by the Bible) he needs time to do that. Planning in itself is a process and a process is a thing which happens over time. -- Lakefall 14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Let me add one thing. The article says: "And one need not believe in God in order to hold this concept of eternity: an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal." Show me an atheist mathematician, who says numbers or their relations think or are conscious. My point is we can have a God that thinks or a God that is timeless. Trying to have both is like saying God can create a rock, which is so heavy even he himself cannot lift it, and then lift it, because he's just such a bad-ass. Sure you can say so, but it doesn't make sense. -- Lakefall 2 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
why does this article about eternity has to have all those new agey concepts?? why not just leave it at maths and physics?
IT SEEMS AS IF AN OCCULTIST WROTE THIS? JEEZ! OURBOROS? DUDE, SCIENCE EXISTS FOR A REASON, DON'T MESS IT UP.
The entire paragraph starting with "It is also equally possible that God can choose not to exist as he is all powerful" is nonsensical, speculative, and not evidenced by any religious belief. That is to say, there is no philosophical argument, mathematical postulation or religious tenet that states what would happen if God willed himself into non-existence. I just can't see how that affects an encyclopedic entry for "eternity" at all! - me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.218.146 ( talk) 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I deleted that part about God theoretically destroying himself, since its not referenced anywhere that he could or would do that. Its a rather nonsensical argument if you ask me. -Tosc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.172 ( talk) 07:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oops, yes, needs an edit here, for only that of contents, except what's next to it, of course.
I propose that the entire
Science and eternity section of this article should be deleted.
For one thing, it's got maybe a few
OR-like issues as it stands, IMO.
For another, and more importantly: none of its present content is actually about
Eternity, it's about
Time.
And, of course, that's because:
Science is concerned with "...knowledge [that] must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented [on] for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions."
... neither of which applies to "
eternity."
If, for some reason, the consensus is to keep this section, then I suggest it should make this point clearly.
Thoughts, comments, POVs...?
—
Wikiscient—
14:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
In the article, "the philosophical aspect seems still very much relevant" doesn't indicate to what the aspect is relevant. You can't have relevance to nothing. Unfree ( talk) 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference for the quote in "eternity as a timeless existence"? I would be interested in using the quote; also, it should be referenced according to WP:CITE. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr ( talk) 03:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
"[F]or example, an atheist mathematician can maintain the philosophical tenet that numbers and the relationships among them exist outside of time, and so are in that sense eternal." (section 2)
Unless, of course, one accepts Borges's argument that numbers themselves can only be held to have an objective existence so long as one admits the existence of God. Cf. "Argumentum Ornithologicum" in Dreamtigers (1960). - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Two questions. First, just to make sure: have you actually read "Argumentum Ornithologicum", or are you guessing at what the argument must be from what I said above? Second, on what grounds do you call the assumption of esse is percipi a flaw in the argument? I'm not aware that the principle was ever specifically refuted; indeed, it seems to have been reinforced by modern physics. Or am I missing something? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In other words, it does not imply or amount to a statement like, "Perception (ie., 'conscious measurement') of a 'quantum' system fundamentally, ipso facto, changes the 'nature' of that system...". That sort of thing is a very common "mistranslation" from Science to Philosophy. All "modern physics" really says is that all interaction with a "quantum system" must cause some change to occur in that system (according to the rules governing that sort of thing). Deliberate measurement of it is only one way to "interact" with such a system. The same set of "changes" will occur whenever any other system interacts with it, whether or not that interaction results in any perception/awareness/knowledge of it having occurred! In other words, it says nothing about the relationship between "perception" per se and "existence." Specifically, it does not "reinforce" any notions of the variety " esse est percipi.""is not a statement about [...] a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics."
With regard to the physics issue, I yield to your expertise without discussion. I might point out, however, that you haven't exactly answered the esse is percipi question; you've just corrected a fallacious (but frankly extraneous) reinforcement of it. So I'll ask again: on what philosophic grounds do you base your axiom that matter exists independent of perception?
The Borges issue, however, is another can of worms entirely. "Argumentum Ornithologicum" has nothing to do with physical existence; the "flock of birds" of the argument are a purely psychological event. Borges's argument - which, it should be observed, he did not necessary believe himself (I strongly suspect that his character of Pierre Menard, who had a "resigned or ironic habit of putting forth ideas that were the exact opposite of those he actually held", was at least partially a self-portrait), but which I think deserves consideration nonetheless - is as follows:
"I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second, or perhaps less; I am not sure how many birds I saw. Was the number of birds definite or indefinite? The problem involves the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because God knows how many birds I saw. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because no-one can have counted. In this case I saw fewer than ten birds (let us say) and more than one, but did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, which was not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That integer - not-nine, not-eight, not-seven, not-six, not-five, etc. - is inconceivable. Ergo, God exists.
The point is precisely that the figures in the imaginary vision cannot be said to have an independent existence of their own, but that the concept of number must, to be universal, apply to them as well as to any real flock of birds. But, if they only exist within Borges's brain, and Borges's brain never contained any record of their number - only that they had one, and that it was greater than one and less than ten - then one is forced to either assert that they never had any number, which they clearly did (since the vision could have lasted long enough for him to count them, it simply happened not to), or confess that there is an omniscient mind in which their number was recorded. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, when you put it that way, I have to admit - not exactly that the argument is invalid (as you correctly point out, that depends on whether you accept the premise that "all facts are known by some mind", which, despite your axiomatic rejection of it, is not entirely indefensible) - but certainly that it doesn't apply to this page. So sorry to waste everyone's time. - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 22:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I just created an "Aevum" page to discuss the Scholastic concept of aeviternity. Would it be possible to change the redirection link so that "aeviternity" now redirects to that page instead of to this one? - Agur bar Jacé ( talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit warring over symbols is ridiculous - among other things, it's unlikely that any really ancient symbol can be described as either exclusively Armenian or exclusively Georgian given the geographical realities. Dougweller ( talk) 15:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, I see now that both versions have some things that aren't in the other. I've come up with a compromise version, which should cover everything from both versions. How does the following look to you?
Eternity (or forever) is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Eternity is an important concept in many religions, especially with regards to the immortality, or eternal life, of deities or of souls. The theological idea of eternity can mean either that which is outside of time, or that which exist simultaneously through all of time.
The concept of eternity is also significant in philosophy. For example, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that the natural cosmos endures eternally in the past and future. In these contexts, eternity is often tied to the notion of immutability, as in the immutable Platonic forms. In reality, however, it is impossible for an eternity to actually pass. [1]
Cheers, ∴ ZX95 [ discuss 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Eternity (or forever) is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Philosophically, eternity has been defined as either that which is outside of time, or that which exist simultaneously through all of time. The concept of eternity is important to many religions, especially as it relates to the idea of God. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that the natural cosmos endures eternally in the past and future. In these contexts, eternity is often tied to the notion of immutability, as in the immutable Platonic Forms. In reality, however, it is impossible for an eternity to actually pass. [1]
Hi. I am user from Georgian Wiki. Just discovered, that our ancient symbol is recognized here as Armenian. Enough already this Armenian thefts. It`s ordinary, that Armenians always try to appropriate everything Georgian-history, culture, territories and also here-in Wikipedia. So, there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borjgali. Via link even in Armenian Wiki you can found that this is Georgian: -- Achiko-84 ( talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cwobeel and the user at 89.110.17.156. You both are close to edit warring by reverting each others' edits too many times. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent edit warring by multiple reverts of the edits of others. Please engage in discussion and seek agreement between both of you and other users instead of engaging in repeated reverts or edit warring. Special:Contributions/89.110.17.15689.110.17.156, I agree with Cwobeel on this. Even though your edits might sound reasonable, your edits consist of original research as they seem to be put together by you, and you didn't list the sources where you got the information from. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and original research is unacceptable. I hope that you'll be able to find sources for the information you are adding, otherwise other users may be inclined to remove it. Optakeover (Talk) 15:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. The anon user removed content and inserted his own original research. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ 89.110.17.156: Minimum total potential energy principle does not describe "eternity" at all. Please become familiar with our core policies of WP:OR and WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This material, which was sourced was removed without explanation, and replaced with unsourced WP:OR.
Eternity is endless time. In philosophy and mathematics, an infinite duration is also called sempiternity, or everlasting. Eternity is an important concept in many religions, where the immortality of God or the gods is said to endure eternally. Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic Forms, immutability was considered essential. [1]
The metaphysics of eternity studies that which necessarily exists outside or independently of space and time. Another important question is whether " information" or Form is separable from mind and matter. Aristotle established a distinction between actual infinity and a potentially infinite count: a future span of time must be a potential infinity, because another element can always be added to a series that is inexhaustible. [2] Aristotle likewise argued that the cosmos has no beginning. Euclid invoked this distinction instead of saying that there are an infinity of primes, rather that the primes outnumber those contained in any given collection thereof. [3]
References
- Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
And the current lede is sourced to a single opinion, but stated in Wikipedia's voice. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I have restored the material. The lede is not representative of the article's content, per WP:LEDE, and lacks attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@
Optakeover: Please assist here if you can. As you can see, this anon editor does not seem to be aware of our content policies. -
Cwobeel
(talk)
22:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)