Conundrum: Infinite past & Clock

[untermensche]

So you don't know what a line is?

I agree that you don't understand what is meant by a line....

I know how a line is defined mathematically.

That is the tangent line you speak of.

Total fantasy.

You know, perfectly straight and infinitely divisible.

Lines that are perpendicular to tangents are straight, unless they go in a tangent, then they're gay.

However, I was talking about the amount of tangent lines on a curve in nature. So, a tangent line would have a line orthogonal to it, where it meets the curve. As long as we define the direction of the line as being away from the curve under the tangent line, we can say the orthogonal line points away from the curve.

You are talking about tangent lines in an imaginary situation.

Not the real world.

There is no curve in the real world.

There are no lines or points either.

 

[Juma]

Ehat do you mean with ”was no definite time when the clock was set”. It doesnt make sense. Ir the clock is set then it was set at a specific time. There is no other option.

The clock is assumed to have existed at any time throughout the infinite past. There's no beginning of time, so there's no definite time when the clock was set. It was always running.

Perhaps in the new conception of mathematicians, whereas the infinite would be taken as an actual infinite rather than just the limit of an unbounded series, you could say that the clock was set at this actual infinite time. But that wouldn't help because we would still not have a definite time span between the setting of the clock and the reading of the clock to impose a definite value on the reading.
EB

You cannot set the clock at a infinitely remote time since there are no infinitely remote timepoints.
But you can say that it has always been running.

 

[Kharakov]

Lines that are perpendicular to tangents are straight, unless they go in a tangent, then they're gay.

However, I was talking about the amount of tangent lines on a curve in nature. So, a tangent line would have a line orthogonal to it, where it meets the curve. As long as we define the direction of the line as being away from the curve under the tangent line, we can say the orthogonal line points away from the curve.

You are talking about tangent lines in an imaginary situation.

Not the real world.

There is no curve in the real world.

Orbits are zigzags, right?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ehat do you mean with ”was no definite time when the clock was set”. It doesnt make sense. Ir the clock is set then it was set at a specific time. There is no other option.

The clock is assumed to have existed at any time throughout the infinite past. There's no beginning of time, so there's no definite time when the clock was set. It was always running.

Perhaps in the new conception of mathematicians, whereas the infinite would be taken as an actual infinite rather than just the limit of an unbounded series, you could say that the clock was set at this actual infinite time. But that wouldn't help because we would still not have a definite time span between the setting of the clock and the reading of the clock to impose a definite value on the reading.
EB

You cannot set the clock at a infinitely remote time since there are no infinitely remote timepoints.
But you can say that it has always been running.

Good point, same problem. The clock must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

And, again, if we assume infinity as actual infinity, i.e. one point on the line, infinitely far from all other points, then you can also assume the clock to be set at that time, to read zero for example.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We could even imagine two lines of pebbles, both infinite but in only one direction, and going in exactly opposite directions from each other. They would also be separated by just the space necessary for one pebble. All the counter has to do is to shift one pebble from the supply line to the counter line. Easy do.

Or better still, there is just one infinite line of pebbles, each one marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" is flipped over to show "1" too. And so on.

Well, I guess that's all there is to say then.

It works. Thanks!
EB

Okay, no further candidate to comment on that.

Too difficult to get your head around?

______________

Let's make it real easy for you.

So, now, we assume that all there is in this thought-experiment universe is just this one infinite line of pebbles, going on and on in both directions, resting on a flat ground. Nothing else. Not even things like gravity except between each pebble and the ground. Just 3D-space, time, the flat ground and those pebbles.

Each pebble is as before marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" flips over, on it's own, to show "1" too.

Think of a chain-like reaction, for example. The one pebble to flip causes its neighbour to flip too after a short pause. And so on.

That line of pebbles is a clock. It ticks away each second, without a miss. Assume also it's absolutely accurate. The part of the line with all pebbles marked one corresponds to the past, i.e. to total elapsed time.

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?
EB

 

[bilby]

We could even imagine two lines of pebbles, both infinite but in only one direction, and going in exactly opposite directions from each other. They would also be separated by just the space necessary for one pebble. All the counter has to do is to shift one pebble from the supply line to the counter line. Easy do.

Or better still, there is just one infinite line of pebbles, each one marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" is flipped over to show "1" too. And so on.

Well, I guess that's all there is to say then.

It works. Thanks!
EB

Okay, no further candidate to comment on that.

Too difficult to get your head around?

______________

Let's make it real easy for you.

So, now, we assume that all there is in this thought-experiment universe is just this one infinite line of pebbles, going on and on in both directions, resting on a flat ground. Nothing else. Not even things like gravity except between each pebble and the ground. Just 3D-space, time, the flat ground and those pebbles.

Each pebble is as before marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" flips over, on it's own, to show "1" too.

Think of a chain-like reaction, for example. The one pebble to flip causes its neighbour to flip too after a short pause. And so on.

That line of pebbles is a clock. It ticks away each second, without a miss. Assume also it's absolutely accurate. The part of the line with all pebbles marked one corresponds to the past, i.e. to total elapsed time.

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?
EB

Oh, that's easy:

∞

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, that's easy:

∞

Well done!

Yeah, it was easy.

But there's no essential difference with the previous presentation of it. Why did it take you so long?

Still, I was hoping for something else I don't know what.

Never mind, I'll keep hoping for something else for, like, ever.

Announcement: This thread just doesn't close.

Your contribution(s) will be appreciated.

Thanks to all.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The rest of us know math, so understand wave functions.

 

[4321lynx]

We could even imagine two lines of pebbles, both infinite but in only one direction, and going in exactly opposite directions from each other. They would also be separated by just the space necessary for one pebble. All the counter has to do is to shift one pebble from the supply line to the counter line. Easy do.

Or better still, there is just one infinite line of pebbles, each one marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" is flipped over to show "1" too. And so on.

Well, I guess that's all there is to say then.

It works. Thanks!
EB

Okay, no further candidate to comment on that.

Too difficult to get your head around?

______________

Let's make it real easy for you.

So, now, we assume that all there is in this thought-experiment universe is just this one infinite line of pebbles, going on and on in both directions, resting on a flat ground. Nothing else. Not even things like gravity except between each pebble and the ground. Just 3D-space, time, the flat ground and those pebbles.

Each pebble is as before marked "0" on one side and "1" on the other. All the pebbles in one direction show a "1" (the past). All the pebbles in the other direction (the future) show a "0". Every second, the one pebble among those showing "0" which is also next to one showing "1" flips over, on it's own, to show "1" too.

Think of a chain-like reaction, for example. The one pebble to flip causes its neighbour to flip too after a short pause. And so on.

That line of pebbles is a clock. It ticks away each second, without a miss. Assume also it's absolutely accurate. The part of the line with all pebbles marked one corresponds to the past, i.e. to total elapsed time.

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?
EB

Oh, that's easy:

∞

If infinity is cyclical, a circle would do, and that would make this maths sign two infinities. But maybe it's an elipse, or a wobbly ciircle or even a square, triangle, any polygon, or even afigure-of-eight lying on its side, or a Möbius strip. Any of these infinitr figures would be infinite, and that should give us a hint of what infinity might be like. You couid not measure it with a line or two lines of pebbles. You,re making a virtual infinite calendar, not a clock.

I agree with UM that infinity is a construct of the human brain, of mathematics. (Never thought I'd say that!!) Anyway, play with it if you like, although you all seem to be going round in circles here, and likely to continue thus for an infinite time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ehat do you mean with ”was no definite time when the clock was set”. It doesnt make sense. Ir the clock is set then it was set at a specific time. There is no other option.

The clock is assumed to have existed at any time throughout the infinite past. There's no beginning of time, so there's no definite time when the clock was set. It was always running.

Perhaps in the new conception of mathematicians, whereas the infinite would be taken as an actual infinite rather than just the limit of an unbounded series, you could say that the clock was set at this actual infinite time. But that wouldn't help because we would still not have a definite time span between the setting of the clock and the reading of the clock to impose a definite value on the reading.
EB

You cannot set the clock at a infinitely remote time since there are no infinitely remote timepoints.
But you can say that it has always been running.

Good. Let's stick to that here.


____________________

Still, I have to point out to you that beero1000, in this same thread, may be seen as disagreeing with your assertion here that there could be no "infinitely remote timepoints".

I'm unsure myself as to how to interpret this oracle, so I'll leave to you to interpret

S/he says "Mathematicians actually see being 'infinite' as a property of objects".

As I see it, if a property of objects is something real, then the 'infinite' is something real, which would seem to allow for the possibility of infinity being a (real) property of time. Which I would not know how to conceive of without accepting that there would be an actual point in the past infinitely away from every other point in time. And then the clock could have been set at that point.
EB

I guess the inherent limitation with our mathematical concept of infinity is that it is broadly speaking algorithmic in nature. Infinity is conceived by mathematicians as the purely notional limit of an unbounded series of terms. In this sense, infinity is not thought of, conceived, as anything like an ontological reality.

Not really. That idea is outdated by 100+ years, and persists because the first (and usually only) time most people see infinity in math classes is usually in the context of precalculus or calculus, where it is used as a shorthand for a version of the epsilon-delta limit definitions, which don't formally require the infinite at all. Mathematicians actually see being 'infinite' as a property of objects, where the infinite numbers are sizes (or orders) like any other. It would be like saying the concept of 3 is algorithmic because it is the algorithmic notion of the counting process 1, 2, 3. Technically, you could view it that way, but that's a little stilted, and not how most people think of the property '3'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well, the first pebble in the line would be when the clock was set, infinitely away in the past from today, or from any other day for that matter.

I can't see how anybody human could have been there to set this clock, or "throw the first stone" in the particular style of runes you're affecting to use now.

So, either "being without sin" is your rune for being infinitely away in the past.

Or, you are effectively rune-talking of GOD!!!!

This has to be a new proof of the existence of this almighty time-setter/pebble-thrower. Somebody had to set this clock, and only God could have done it!

Jolly good, that! Well done, Mr. K.!

The rest of us know math, so understand wave functions.

Oh, well, I've rune out of sins to thay here.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

uffta.

 

[Speakpigeon]

that should give us a hint of what infinity might be like. You couid not measure it with a line or two lines of pebbles.

Why not?

One pebble every second for example, or every millisecond, whatever.

Every second or millisecond would therefore be accounted for. It's a measure.

You,re making a virtual infinite calendar, not a clock.

What would be the substantive difference? A calendar is a clock ticking every day rather than every second.

Could you explain?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

uffta.

You could try harder!

Look here how it's done properly.
https://oofta.wordpress.com/tag/uffta/


So, you're of Norwegian descent?

Uff da
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uff_da



Uff da (sometimes also spelled huffda, uff-da, uffda, uff-dah, oofda, ufda, ufdah, oofta, or uf daa) is an exclamation or interjection expressing bafflement, surprise, or dismay. Of Norwegian origin, the phrase was brought by Scandinavian Americans in the Upper Midwest, New England, and Pacific Northwest regions of the United States during the 19th century. The Swedish exclamation usch då is similar in meaning and usage.

I say, know who you are.

Yeah, I know, you'll say, "uffta".
EB

 

[Kharakov]

How could we represent this line of pebble to make it a meaningful clock to us?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The rest of us know math, so understand wave functions.

I can't see how anybody human could have been there to set this clock, or "throw the first stone" in the particular style of runes you're affecting to use now. So, either "being without sin" is your rune for being infinitely away in the past. Or, you are effectively rune-talking of GOD!!!!

This has to be a new proof of the existence of this almighty time-setter/pebble-thrower. Somebody had to set this clock, and only God could have done it! Jolly good, that! Well done, Mr. K.!

The rest of us know math, so understand wave functions.

Oh, well, I've rune out of sins to thay here.

Sin, pronounced like it has a "G" in it, waves.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, well, I've rune out of sins to thay here.

Sin, pronounced like it has a "G" in it, waves.

Yeah, I tried to find a way to have that, but failed.

That's the same tune.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

that should give us a hint of what infinity might be like. You couid not measure it with a line or two lines of pebbles.

Why not?

One pebble every second for example, or every millisecond, whatever.

Every second or millisecond would therefore be accounted for. It's a measure.

You,re making a virtual infinite calendar, not a clock.

What would be the substantive difference? A calendar is a clock ticking every day rather than every second.

Could you explain?
EB

A calendar is a linear measure A clock is an indicator, it does not measure time, it indicates it. It counts to, say, 12 or 24 hours as on Earth, it could be 1000 or n seconds, hours, centuries, whatever, but then begins to count again 1, 2, 3.... It is cyclical. Even hourglasses filled with sand and waterclocks become "cyclical" as they have to be inverted or refilled, and sundials with no moving parts are cyclical and last "forever" if forever = as long as the sun lasts.

I suppose you could include a counter in the clock to count how many times it restarted, but then was there a time when the reading of that was zero? You are back at the question what is infinity. It seems the human brain at present, without further evolution, can only say I don't know. It invented the concept and does not know what it is. Same for "What is Time" and "Before the Big Bang".
But counting an infinity of pebbles -- the very idea repels me.
The idea of an infinite future seems easier to accept by humans, by this human anyway, than the idea of an infinite past and its consequences. Unless time and its infinity are cyclical, like a clock. But it is not a case of deja vu, the events of the past do not persist in this time, they disappear, entropy continues, etc Time goes on and on and on...

 

[fromderinside]

uffta.[/QUOTE


So, you're of Norwegian descent?

.

I say, know who you are.

Yeah, I know, you'll say, "uffta".
EB

First, I'm of Danish-Swedish descent (the bridge). Think Bergman and Kierkegaard, not Quisling. We don't particularly like Norwegians. However we do like fish and chips at Crazy Norwegian, home of the - guess what - Uff da burger.

Second typo.

Enjoy you spleen work?

 

[Juma]

You cannot set the clock at a infinitely remote time since there are no infinitely remote timepoints.
But you can say that it has always been running.

Good point, same problem. The clock must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

And, again, if we assume infinity as actual infinity, i.e. one point on the line, infinitely far from all other points, then you can also assume the clock to be set at that time, to read zero for example.
EB

”actual infinity” is not a point on the line. you seem to have misunderstood something.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A calendar is a linear measure A clock is an indicator, it does not measure time, it indicates it.

calendar
n.
1. Any of various systems of reckoning time in which the beginning, length, and divisions of a year are defined, sometimes along with multiyear cycles.

clock
n.
1. An instrument other than a watch for measuring or indicating time, especially a mechanical or electronic device having a numbered dial and moving hands or a digital display.

Sure, we wouldn't build a clock not going through cycles.

But it would be easy to make the kind of line-of-pebble clock I described. We would need workers to add one pebble every minute for example. Or we could build machines to add one pebble every second.Or something equivalent in its principle and less physically cumbersome. What we couldn't do would be to go back in time to start the clock before the machines could be built. And definitely not go back in time to the actual first moment of an infinite past to set the clock.

But the line of pebble, if it could exist at all, would obviously be a measure of time, hence a clock.

But counting an infinity of pebbles -- the very idea repels me.

We don't have to imagine somebody, or even some mechanism, counting the pebbles. The line of pebbles could be the mechanism. It would be easy to imagine how each pebble could get to read +1 compared to the previous pebble. I'm not saying it could be done. But the more fundamental problem is the one that's really problematic to me, that we can't even conceive of what the pebbles would read in this case. I guess the main difficulty is that if the clock is set at zero, which seem sensible, at the point in the past which would be the first moment in the past, and therefore in time, which would be an actual infinite time away from every other point in time, I don't see how we could have a second pebble in the line to read "1". This is where the problem would be. Assuming an actual infinite past, when the clock is set to zero (for convenience), there couldn't possibly be a second moment in time, which would have to be marked by a pebble reading "1", i.e. zero + 1, even though the second moment in time, if it could even exist, would have to come an infinite time after the first moment in time, and therefore shouldn't be pebble-measured by a "1" reading. There couldn't be, strictly speaking, a second moment in time, even if we assume there had been a first moment. That's a bit awkward for a clock.
EB