Conundrum: Infinite past & Clock

[Speakpigeon]

First, I'm of Danish-Swedish descent (the bridge). Think Bergman and Kierkegaard, not Quisling.

Close enough.

Sort of from der inside Norway.

We don't particularly like Norwegians. However we do like fish and chips at Crazy Norwegian, home of the - guess what - Uff da burger.

I'll make sure to stop there for a quick fish and ship if I ever visit there, however unlikely that seems from this particular here and now. Too bad I won't get to hear the proverbial "uff da" thing.

Second typo.

Enjoy you spleen work?

Last time the medical magic man checked on that, it seemed to work like a dream.

They don't know what could be wrong with me.
EB

 

[beero1000]

Seems like I got a bunch of citations while I was gone. Gotta go recalculate the ol' h-index.

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

I bought a cool old clock at an estate sale. It's still running, so it must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

Keep in mind that I can't determine the age of the clock. Who knows, it might have always existed!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Seems like I got a bunch of citations while I was gone. Gotta go recalculate the ol' h-index.

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

I bought a cool old clock at an estate sale. It's still running, so it must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

Keep in mind that I can't determine the age of the clock. Who knows, it might have always existed!

What's good in that is that I understand what you're saying.

What's not so very good is that you don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, what I am talking about.

Both are fine with me, though. You've already made the best of the contributions here so far, as far as I can tell, and maybe you could drop your dismissive attitude, or maybe it's just bad temper, and consider the problem for itself, on its own terms. I'm sure you can do it.

You seem to need a clue, though. So, here it is: it's not meant as an empirical question or a scientific problem.

Also, when I'm asking what time an infinite clock would read, I'm not asking you to give me a particular time, like, say, 4.34pm. That would be obviously idiotic. I'm asking how it could possibly get to read something definite and unique, like a clock should. Given that it is obvious that the line of pebbles I described does measure time, I think it's not too much to ask.

In your own time.
EB

 

[beero1000]

Seems like I got a bunch of citations while I was gone. Gotta go recalculate the ol' h-index.



I bought a cool old clock at an estate sale. It's still running, so it must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

Keep in mind that I can't determine the age of the clock. Who knows, it might have always existed!

What's good in that is that I understand what you're saying.

What's not so very good is that you don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, what I am talking about.

Both are fine with me, though. You've already made the best of the contributions here so far, as far as I can tell, and maybe you could drop your dismissive attitude, or maybe it's just bad temper, and consider the problem for itself, on its own terms. I'm sure you can do it.

You seem to need a clue, though. So, here it is: it's not meant as an empirical question or a scientific problem.

Also, when I'm asking what time an infinite clock would read, I'm not asking you to give me a particular time, like, say, 4.34pm. That would be obviously idiotic. I'm asking how it could possibly get to read something definite and unique, like a clock should. Given that it is obvious that the line of pebbles I described does measure time, I think it's not too much to ask.

In your own time.
EB

Well, then maybe someone can explain it to me, because it seems to me that the question that you keep trying to ask is just as idiotic. Clearly it seems reasonable to you though, so I'd be open to seeing an actual explanation of what you're trying to say instead of more of the same vague questions. Maybe you could start by explaining what you think a clock is, as you're saying that a clock should intrinsically read something definite and unique, which is something you think is paradoxical for an eternal clock.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll let time work it's magic through your brain and hope for the best.
EB

 

[Juma]

Seems like I got a bunch of citations while I was gone. Gotta go recalculate the ol' h-index.



I bought a cool old clock at an estate sale. It's still running, so it must be in a definite state and must show a definite reading. Which is it?

Keep in mind that I can't determine the age of the clock. Who knows, it might have always existed!

What's good in that is that I understand what you're saying.

What's not so very good is that you don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, what I am talking about.

Both are fine with me, though. You've already made the best of the contributions here so far, as far as I can tell, and maybe you could drop your dismissive attitude, or maybe it's just bad temper, and consider the problem for itself, on its own terms. I'm sure you can do it.

You seem to need a clue, though. So, here it is: it's not meant as an empirical question or a scientific problem.

Also, when I'm asking what time an infinite clock would read, I'm not asking you to give me a particular time, like, say, 4.34pm. That would be obviously idiotic. I'm asking how it could possibly get to read something definite and unique, like a clock should. Given that it is obvious that the line of pebbles I described does measure time, I think it's not too much to ask.

In your own time.
EB

Your lines of pebbles do not measure time. Since both lines of pebbles are infinite neither changhe size. There are always equal ”number” of pebbles in each line.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your lines of pebbles do not measure time. Since both lines of pebbles are infinite neither changhe size. There are always equal ”number” of pebbles in each line.

"Number"? Which number exactly?

How would you know they would have the same number of pebbles?

You're in a quandary here. If you admit to a specific number, then you'll have to admit the pebbles do measure time. If they don't measure time, then there's no number and you can't say there are equal numbers of pebbles in the two half-lines.

If there's an actual infinity, and the first pebble flipped on the first moment in time, then you'd have the past measured by one pebble and the future measured by an infinity of still unflipped pebbles.

Each second, one specific pebble flips over. That's a definite difference. That pebble marked a future time and now it marks the present. And in one second it will mark one second in the past.

The flipped pebbles correspond precisely to the time elapsed throughout the past. I think this is good enough to say it's a measure of time past.

From the present, you can count back the pebbles: one second in the past, two seconds in the past, etc. It's a measure. A measure of how many seconds there have been since the pebble flipped over.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sorry, but if there is an actually infinite past, then there has to be a point in time which is actually in the past and an infinitely long time away from now and from any other point in time.

Then, maybe, there's no actually infinite past, just no beginning, no first moment in time. Who would know?
EB

 

[beero1000]

I'll let time work it's magic through your brain and hope for the best.
EB

See, I was hoping you wouldn't keep doing that. Is it really so hard to explain yourself?

Let's try it this way: Do you think this is a good functional definition for a clock?

Def: A clock is something that continuously assigns numbers to the instants in a timespan (finite or infinite or 'actually infinite') so that later times correspond to larger numbers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll let time work it's magic through your brain and hope for the best.
EB

See, I was hoping you wouldn't keep doing that. Is it really so hard to explain yourself?

Let's try it this way: Do you think this is a good functional definition for a clock?

Def: A clock is something that continuously assigns numbers to the instants in a timespan (finite or infinite or 'actually infinite') so that later times correspond to larger numbers.

Same idea but clogged with an irrelevant consideration.

You are thinking like a scientist or an engineer as if you had to build an actual clock to solve a theoretical problem. You want to have actual numbers displayed somehow if it's to be a clock. Me, I'm thinking in the abstract because I won't build any actual clock, and nobody will. It's good enough the help people think about the problem by imagining a line of pebbles. And if I was able to tell you what an actual clock should read in that context, I wouldn't ask other people.

So, assume an infinite past, of whichever kind you like. Imagine some clock, any clock you like, except it has to be able to display definite readings characteristic of the time of display. Assume it's been running for ever. Can you conceive coherently of such a clock?
EB

 

[Juma]

Your lines of pebbles do not measure time. Since both lines of pebbles are infinite neither changhe size. There are always equal ”number” of pebbles in each line.

"Number"? Which number exactly?

How would you know they would have the same number of pebbles?

You're in a quandary here. If you admit to a specific number, then you'll have to admit the pebbles do measure time. If they don't measure time, then there's no number and you can't say there are equal numbers of pebbles in the two half-lines.

If there's an actual infinity, and the first pebble flipped on the first moment in time, then you'd have the past measured by one pebble and the future measured by an infinity of still unflipped pebbles.

Each second, one specific pebble flips over. That's a definite difference. That pebble marked a future time and now it marks the present. And in one second it will mark one second in the past.

The flipped pebbles correspond precisely to the time elapsed throughout the past. I think this is good enough to say it's a measure of time past.

From the present, you can count back the pebbles: one second in the past, two seconds in the past, etc. It's a measure. A measure of how many seconds there have been since the pebble flipped over.
EB

That is why I used quotes. I thought you would inderstand I meant the corresponinh concept for infinite sets: their cardinal number.

 

[Juma]

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

Sorry, but if there is an actually infinite past, then there has to be a point in time which is actually in the past and an infinitely long time away from now and from any other point in time.

Then, maybe, there's no actually infinite past, just no beginning, no first moment in time. Who would know?

EB

Then you have not understood how inifinity works.
The integers are a good example: there is no greatest number so the set is ttuly infinite.
And yet each number in the set is finite.

Its the same with infinite time: each timespan is finite but since there is always a greater timespan the set of timespans (=time) is infinite.

 

[Juma]

From the present, you can count back the pebbles: one second in the past, two seconds in the past, etc. It's a measure. A measure of how many seconds there have been since the pebble flipped over.
EB

yes. It is a measure of time since a SPECIFIC pebble was turned over. But if you doesnt specify which pebble you should count to then it isnt a measure. So to be a measurr o time you need to have a startpoint.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Sorry, but if there is an actually infinite past, then there has to be a point in time which is actually in the past and an infinitely long time away from now and from any other point in time.

Then, maybe, there's no actually infinite past, just no beginning, no first moment in time. Who would know?

EB

Then you have not understood how inifinity works.
The integers are a good example: there is no greatest number so the set is ttuly infinite.
And yet each number in the set is finite.

Its the same with infinite time: each timespan is finite but since there is always a greater timespan the set of timespans (=time) is infinite.

Infinite just means "not bounded".

So, yes, of course, "there is no greatest number so the set is ttuly infinite". And please, here, you don't need to add "truly". It's just noise. "Infinite" is good enough on its own for what you mean.

See, nothing new to me here.

Me, I was talking of "actual infinity", not merely of infinite sets, i.e. simply unbounded. I take it it's an operational distinction used by mathematicians nowadays, according to beero1000's post, if I interpret it correctly.

Still, it doesn't really matter. Either way, any clock that has already run forever can't give any finite, and definite, time reading.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

From the present, you can count back the pebbles: one second in the past, two seconds in the past, etc. It's a measure. A measure of how many seconds there have been since the pebble flipped over.
EB

yes. It is a measure of time since a SPECIFIC pebble was turned over. But if you doesnt specify which pebble you should count to then it isnt a measure. So to be a measurr o time you need to have a startpoint.

What is it you don't understand about a clock that has been running for ever?
EB

 

[Juma]

Then you have not understood how inifinity works.
The integers are a good example: there is no greatest number so the set is ttuly infinite.
And yet each number in the set is finite.

Its the same with infinite time: each timespan is finite but since there is always a greater timespan the set of timespans (=time) is infinite.

Infinite just means "not bounded".

So, yes, of course, "there is no greatest number so the set is ttuly infinite". And please, here, you don't need to add "truly". It's just noise. "Infinite" is good enough on its own for what you mean.

See, nothing new to me here.

Me, I was talking of "actual infinity", not merely of infinite sets, i.e. simply unbounded. I take it it's an operational distinction used by mathematicians nowadays, according to beero1000's post, if I interpret it correctly.

Still, it doesn't really matter. Either way, any clock that has already run forever can't give any finite, and definite, time reading.
EB

Then point to where you believe that post, because I only find posts where beero1000 says the same thing as I do.

- - - Updated - - -

From the present, you can count back the pebbles: one second in the past, two seconds in the past, etc. It's a measure. A measure of how many seconds there have been since the pebble flipped over.
EB

yes. It is a measure of time since a SPECIFIC pebble was turned over. But if you doesnt specify which pebble you should count to then it isnt a measure. So to be a measurr o time you need to have a startpoint.

What is it you don't understand about a clock that has been running for ever?
EB

Nothing. I understands it completely. You seem a bit confused though.

 

[untermensche]

A clock that is running but never has a specific beginning to It's running is not a thing a human can comprehend.

That would be called a miracle.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then point to where you believe that post, because I only find posts where beero1000 says the same thing as I do.

Here it is:

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.

I interpret this as saying that mathematicians nowadays are considering concepts of actual infinity, i.e. not just unbounded sets, but actual and definite infinities, i.e. actual infinite values.

Otherwise, I just don't see why s/he replied in this way.

Still, it doesn't really matter. Either way, any clock that has already run forever can't give any finite, and definite, time reading.

What is it you don't understand about a clock that has been running for ever?
EB

Nothing. I understands it completely. You seem a bit confused though.

Then I'm too confused to pursue your education.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A clock that is running but never has a specific beginning to It's running is not a thing a human can comprehend.

That would be called a miracle.

Mount of Olives, Jerusalem
https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Mt...68e71535c!8m2!3d31.7779317!4d35.2456983?hl=en
EB

 

[untermensche]

A clock that is running but never has a specific beginning to It's running is not a thing a human can comprehend.

That would be called a miracle.

Mount of Olives, Jerusalem
https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Mt...68e71535c!8m2!3d31.7779317!4d35.2456983?hl=en
EB

Yeah. It wasn't interesting the first time you spewed it.

But feel free to talk of miraculous things.

Like entities that exist but never had a beginning to their existence.