The religion of "no beginning".

[bilby]

If the past is infinite, then it always was infinite and always will be infinite.

To object that it couldn't be infinite because it cannot be counted is to completely miss the point - nothing and nobody ever needs to count it, as it is the same (infinite) duration no matter where you finish.

This is not very easy to grasp, but it's no stranger than many of the other realities we find when we take an honest and evidence based look at reality. What humans find strange is a very poor guide to what is or is not true, outside the very narrow field of things about our size operating on a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere and gravity.

If you refuse to use the bits of mathematics that don't feel intuitive, then you are doomed to be forever ignorant of how the real universe works.

 

[Kharakov]

I have said infinity is an imaginary concept that has no connection to the real world.

That's particularly brilliant when describing how many times one changes direction as they walk a curved path. Without infinity, there are no smooth curves.

 

[Juma]

If the past is infinite, then it always was infinite and always will be infinite.

To object that it couldn't be infinite because it cannot be counted is to completely miss the point - nothing and nobody ever needs to count it, as it is the same (infinite) duration no matter where you finish.

This is not very easy to grasp, but it's no stranger than many of the other realities we find when we take an honest and evidence based look at reality. What humans find strange is a very poor guide to what is or is not true, outside the very narrow field of things about our size operating on a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere and gravity.

If you refuse to use the bits of mathematics that don't feel intuitive, then you are doomed to be forever ignorant of how the real universe works.

The distinction that I think untermensche misses is this:
Even if time itself has been for ever, there are no inifinite timespans.
In other words: any timepoint is a finite distance frim any other timepoint.
Thus there are no inifinite timspans to ”traverse”.

 

[untermensche]

I have said infinity is an imaginary concept that has no connection to the real world.

That's particularly brilliant when describing how many times one changes direction as they walk a curved path. Without infinity, there are no smooth curves.

You make a finite amount of movements in this world.

Always.

Infinity is not an amount.

Nothing can make infinite moves in the real world.

How would you prove you have made infinite moves? What is the length of the smallest move? (real world length)

 

[untermensche]

If the past is infinite, then it always was infinite and always will be infinite.

To object that it couldn't be infinite because it cannot be counted is to completely miss the point - nothing and nobody ever needs to count it, as it is the same (infinite) duration no matter where you finish.

This is not very easy to grasp, but it's no stranger than many of the other realities we find when we take an honest and evidence based look at reality. What humans find strange is a very poor guide to what is or is not true, outside the very narrow field of things about our size operating on a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere and gravity.

If you refuse to use the bits of mathematics that don't feel intuitive, then you are doomed to be forever ignorant of how the real universe works.

The distinction that I think untermensche misses is this:
Even if time itself has been for ever, there are no inifinite timespans.
In other words: any timepoint is a finite distance frim any other timepoint.
Thus there are no inifinite timspans to ”traverse”.

Time could not "have been forever".

The phrase "could have been forever" is a nonsensical phrase.

It has no real world meaning. It is gibberish.

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

 

[Kharakov]

I have said infinity is an imaginary concept that has no connection to the real world.

That's particularly brilliant when describing how many times one changes direction as they walk a curved path. Without infinity, there are no smooth curves.

You make a finite amount of movements in this world.

Yes. The illusion of smoothness and continuity doesn't exist, because it's imaginary, and things that are imaginary don't exist in reality, because imaginations don't exist. I think the velocity of my eyeroll exceeded the speed of light, created a black hole, and created another universe.

Beware, unter, for wizards are often soggy and hard to light.

 

[Jobar]

U., you can always add one to any number- no matter how mind-bogglingly large that number might be. In fact you can double that huge number, or raise it to the power of itself- and it's possible to do that over, and over, and over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Of course you can't actually count to infinity; you'd soon enough run out of energy to do the counting, and of particles to count. But do you see that we can still name numbers so vast that they could never be counted to in the lifetime of the observed universe? A googol is a one followed by 100 zeroes; a googolplex is that number raised to the power of itself. Numbers like that are as uncountable as infinity, but we still can conceive of them. They are abstractions, not concretions. Yet mathematicians deal with them all the time. Even engineers have to do that, to solve plenty of real-world problems.

I had a calculus professor back in 1974 who would say "as X becomes arbitrarily large", instead of "as X approaches infinity". But they mean the same thing.

 

[Kharakov]

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

From those that live finite lives. Mortals don't fear eternity, like eternals don't fear mortality.... but they will (said in Yoda voice).

 

[DBT]

Your transverse an infinite line requirement is bogus. Nothing needs to transverse infinity for infinity to be real.

Infinity is not real. It is not a real concept. It cannot possibly exist in any form.

This is just a way to demonstrate it and get some to understand.

That is your assertion. Your objection not being able to ''transverse infinity'' does not prove your proposition because it is a bogus necessity. It is not a necessity for infinity that something must transverse it. This is just something you made up.

It's just silly. something like saying real elephants must be able to touch their tails with their trunks or they cannot exist. If elephants cannot touch their tails with their trunks, they are not real elephants, they do not exist. It's ridiculous.

 

[Juma]

If the past is infinite, then it always was infinite and always will be infinite.

To object that it couldn't be infinite because it cannot be counted is to completely miss the point - nothing and nobody ever needs to count it, as it is the same (infinite) duration no matter where you finish.

This is not very easy to grasp, but it's no stranger than many of the other realities we find when we take an honest and evidence based look at reality. What humans find strange is a very poor guide to what is or is not true, outside the very narrow field of things about our size operating on a planet with an Earth-like atmosphere and gravity.

If you refuse to use the bits of mathematics that don't feel intuitive, then you are doomed to be forever ignorant of how the real universe works.

The distinction that I think untermensche misses is this:
Even if time itself has been for ever, there are no inifinite timespans.
In other words: any timepoint is a finite distance frim any other timepoint.
Thus there are no inifinite timspans to ”traverse”.

Time could not "have been forever".

The phrase "could have been forever" is a nonsensical phrase.

It has no real world meaning. It is gibberish.

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

I think its meaning is clear to everyone, even you since you actually use it in your response.
Wether something can have existed forever is what is debated in this thread...
it is totally OK to to make an hypotetical assumption that it is possible until it is shown that it is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

You make a finite amount of movements in this world.

Yes. The illusion of smoothness and continuity doesn't exist, because it's imaginary, and things that are imaginary don't exist in reality, because imaginations don't exist. I think the velocity of my eyeroll exceeded the speed of light, created a black hole, and created another universe.

Beware, unter, for wizards are often soggy and hard to light.

The illusion of smoothness does exist.

We can look at the frames of a movie and see they are all static and finite.

But when we run the movie we get the illusion of smooth movement.

 

[untermensche]

U., you can always add one to any number- no matter how mind-bogglingly large that number might be. In fact you can double that huge number, or raise it to the power of itself- and it's possible to do that over, and over, and over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem

Of course you can't actually count to infinity; you'd soon enough run out of energy to do the counting, and of particles to count. But do you see that we can still name numbers so vast that they could never be counted to in the lifetime of the observed universe? A googol is a one followed by 100 zeroes; a googolplex is that number raised to the power of itself. Numbers like that are as uncountable as infinity, but we still can conceive of them. They are abstractions, not concretions. Yet mathematicians deal with them all the time. Even engineers have to do that, to solve plenty of real-world problems.

I had a calculus professor back in 1974 who would say "as X becomes arbitrarily large", instead of "as X approaches infinity". But they mean the same thing.

It does not matter how large the finite amount.

In the real world all amounts are finite amounts.

The idea of an infinite amount is absurd.

Infinity is not any kind of amount. It is that which does not have an amount. A totally imaginary idea.

 

[untermensche]

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

From those that live finite lives. Mortals don't fear eternity, like eternals don't fear mortality.... but they will (said in Yoda voice).

Just because you don't fear your imaginary friend you call infinity doesn't make him real.

 

[untermensche]

Your transverse an infinite line requirement is bogus. Nothing needs to transverse infinity for infinity to be real.

Infinity is not real. It is not a real concept. It cannot possibly exist in any form.

This is just a way to demonstrate it and get some to understand.

That is your assertion. Your objection not being able to ''transverse infinity'' does not prove your proposition because it is a bogus necessity. It is not a necessity for infinity that something must transverse it. This is just something you made up.

It's just silly. something like saying real elephants must be able to touch their tails with their trunks or they cannot exist. If elephants cannot touch their tails with their trunks, they are not real elephants, they do not exist. It's ridiculous.

So asking if it is possible to traverse any infinity has nothing to do with whether infinite time has been traversed?

You have done nothing but deflect and avoid. You have not answered one question put to you.

Is infinity a real or imaginary concept?

How exactly is it possible to have a real infinity? Please be specific.

 

[untermensche]

Time could not "have been forever".

The phrase "could have been forever" is a nonsensical phrase.

It has no real world meaning. It is gibberish.

From where does the claim that something could have been forever arise?

I think its meaning is clear to everyone, even you since you actually use it in your response.
Wether something can have existed forever is what is debated in this thread...
it is totally OK to to make an hypotetical assumption that it is possible until it is shown that it is impossible.

The Christians all say the Trinity makes perfect sense too.

The idea of "always existing" is an imaginary idea that is not given weight because it can somewhat be imagined.

The question you ask could be posed differently.

We could just ask: Is it possible to traverse an infinity?

 

[DBT]

That is your assertion. Your objection not being able to ''transverse infinity'' does not prove your proposition because it is a bogus necessity. It is not a necessity for infinity that something must transverse it. This is just something you made up.

It's just silly. something like saying real elephants must be able to touch their tails with their trunks or they cannot exist. If elephants cannot touch their tails with their trunks, they are not real elephants, they do not exist. It's ridiculous.

So asking if it is possible to traverse any infinity has nothing to do with whether infinite time has been traversed?

You have done nothing but deflect and avoid. You have not answered one question put to you.

Is infinity a real or imaginary concept?

How exactly is it possible to have a real infinity? Please be specific.

I don't know whether infinity is a reality or not - which I have already stated several times - I am merely pointing out that your condition that something must be able to transverse infinity is bogus.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Even if time itself has been for ever, there are no inifinite timespans.
In other words: any timepoint is a finite distance frim any other timepoint.
Thus there are no inifinite timspans to ”traverse”.

Thanks for articulating this particular idea. It shows even UM's buncombe has its usefulness, you see.

____________________

Still, me, I would disagree with it. I can't find any good reason that an infinity of time in the past couldn't have come with something existing at every one moment along that time span.

And, here, I have to remind everybody that I'm still waiting for people to tell me by private message what that some obvious thing could possibly be.

There's more to say but I don't want to derail this thread so I'll open a new one.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That is your assertion. Your objection not being able to ''transverse infinity'' does not prove your proposition because it is a bogus necessity. It is not a necessity for infinity that something must transverse it. This is just something you made up.

It's just silly. something like saying real elephants must be able to touch their tails with their trunks or they cannot exist. If elephants cannot touch their tails with their trunks, they are not real elephants, they do not exist. It's ridiculous.

So asking if it is possible to traverse any infinity has nothing to do with whether infinite time has been traversed?

You have done nothing but deflect and avoid. You have not answered one question put to you.

Is infinity a real or imaginary concept?

How exactly is it possible to have a real infinity? Please be specific.

I don't know whether infinity is a reality or not - which I have already stated several times - I am merely pointing out that your condition that something must be able to transverse infinity is bogus.

I do know it is not real.

It is not something that could be real.

If you think it might be real tell me how.

How could you have an infinity of some item? Infinity is not an amount.

If there are items, no matter how many, there are a finite amount of them.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Everybody agrees you can't reach the finish line. Why the need to quibble about where the hamster is going?

View attachment 14678

Which one is unter?

UM is spinning the wheel and you guys are those who are going round and round and round.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It is only an endless wheel because the religious believers that an infinity could be real refuse to even try to prove it.

They make the same unsupported claim over and over, an infinity is possible, yet have not once proven it is possible.

No infinity is possible. It is not an achievable amount.