Welcome to Gaia! ::

It is logically impossible for a running man to be hit with an arrow going in the same direction.

In order for things to move, or even change, there must be a smallest increment of time. This increment would be dictated by the amount of time for the smallest thing possible to happen TO happen. Since nothing can move any more or any less than any other object in this increment of time, everything must therefore move at the same rate. And therefore, things travelling in the same direction must be travelling at precisely the same speed. But things don't work that way.

It can be further construed from this that if things do not work in the way described above, there can be no movement, or time. And now, my brain hurts. According to this, all of existance must be the dream of some incomprehensibly complex being. A lot of thought has gone into this, through the ancient greek philosophers, to today. Until someone can come up with a better explanation for the existance of Time itself, it stands that there is, in fact, a God.

There is where you logic breaks. Who says that? The smallest unit we use is going to be at the time, that doesn't mean you can't continue to break that down into infinity. If you know what the properties of infinities (be it bounded or not) are, then you know that they don't exactly work like regular numbers since they are not numbers at all, rather an infinite progression or digression of something. On top of that, you are refering to math which though it be very very useful in describing the universe is contained in an abstract universe that doesn't really exist except as thought (although though is a physical thing in a since, that's beyond the point). So, your logic is talking about the abstract realm which is supposed to mimic reality, but is not reality and no matter how good it is at measuring it is still not reality. I'm not sure where you got a being out of all of this except another abstract reality called your imagination...

Dude, that had to be one of the screwiest things I have ever heard. BUT, I think you have a definite point. Or at least something I can add to. If there is no change in speed or rate, then for the arrow to catch the running man, then it has to start before him. We patently know that the arrow is faster in reality but perhaps the arrow just jumps back in time a second and that would provide more than enough leeway in the time and speed ratio to kill the running man. We also know that no two actions are truly instantaneous, so if we make the assumption that the arrow always starts first then your theory would hold water. But among the many wars and murders in mans history we also know that this is not always the case and the man still dies, so that wiil not support it. But perhaps the man stopped or slowed for the slightest instant, perhaps to look over his shoulder, and the arrow patently did not. My head is buzzzing now so I'm going to quit.

No. There HAS to be a limit. It may be small unto infinity, but the smallest possible increment of time must have a finite duration. Otherwise it would not be an increment. Besides, there are some things that just don't split in nature.

You will note that I didn't say that we couldn't split it. I said that there are some things that dont split IN NATURE.

If I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying, then you are saying that time is divided into increments.
Time is not, in fact, divided into increments.
Our conception of time involving increments is simply a system to simplify our lives.
I'm not sure if time exists as we know it or not - but I do know that everything is simply a series of events - one thing after another.

-Alezunde

So you're saying that you believe in an infinite universe, but not infinite time?

-Alezunde

By this, would you also be saying that: while the universe has always been changing, time has not?

-Alezunde