Conundrum: Infinite past & Clock

[Juma]

Here it is:

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 That idea is outdated by 100+ years, and persists because the first (and usually only) time most people see infinity in math classes is usually in the context of precalculus or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.

Yes, I now about the cardinal numbers. What I was asking for was a mention of ”actual infinity” because you uses it like a point (like the point of infinity on the riemann sphere).

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

To explain that there are many sorts of infinities.

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

Now you begin to sound like untermensche. There is no contradiction in say that a clock process has been running for ever. There is no contradiction in assigning a number to each timepoint in past time.

Its your notion of ”setting the clock at an infinitely remote time” that is making you say weird things.

Then I'm too confused to pursue your education.

My education? You Bitch. I have a MSc in engineering physics.
I may make mistakes but this is not a new subject to me.
You really are an arrogant prick.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, I now about the cardinal numbers. What I was asking for was a mention of ”actual infinity” because you uses it like a point (like the point of infinity on the riemann sphere).

S/he didn't use the expression. But the existence of actual infinities seems to me to follow from the idea of infinity being a property of objects.

Your point about me talking of an actual infinity as a point in time is a good point. I give you one point for that. Keep the good work. I only talked of one point in time because it is the simplest of all the possibilities. But I don't see what would be incoherent a priori to the idea of, for example, several, or even infinitely many, points in the past all infinitely away from now. But I'm trying to conceive of an infinite past and it's already hard work so I don't want to make it harder than necessary. One actual infinity in time shall be good enough.

To explain that there are many sorts of infinities.

I didn't come out that 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.

Now you begin to sound like untermensche.

Not really, no. UM seems unable to articulate two ideas together.

So, just give me an example of a clock such that if it had already run forever would still give finite and definite time readings at every moment in time.

There is no contradiction in say that a clock process has been running for ever.

That's right and I never said there was a contradiction. You're just boring.

There is no contradiction in assigning a number to each timepoint in past time.

That's right and I never said there was a contradiction. You're extremely boring.

Where it seems to me that there is a contradiction is in the idea of a clock that has already run forever giving finite and definite time readings at every moment in time.

I already said that three times now. So, if you don't want to look like a nitwit you'd need to address the point I made rather than points I never made. Can you do that?

Its your notion of ”setting the clock at an infinitely remote time” that is making you say weird things.

No. You're really thick. So, let me repeat it again: any clock that has already run forever can't give any finite and definite time reading.

See, there's no notion of setting the clock at an infinitely remote point in time. You're still inventing things. Please keep to what I really said.

Now, of course, if the clock is never actually set at any point, then of course it won't ever read any definite value (any definite reading is equivalent the clock being set at that time). So, we have to assume it is set at some point. Setting the clock at any definite point in time won't make it read any definite value before that point in time so it's not a good answer to my question. Now, do you have any alternative other than the clock being set at an actual infinity in the past?

Then I'm too confused to pursue your education.

My education? You Bitch. I have a MSc in engineering physics.

That's not in itself what I would call an education. You're a good example of that.

I may make mistakes but this is not a new subject to me.
You really are an arrogant prick.

I try my best.

Prick
4. A pointed object, such as an ice pick, goad, or thorn.

I'll stop being a prick if you stop responding to my posts or if you make sure yours comply with my standard of intelligibility, relevance, rationality and logical coherence.

I'm prepared to give you some slack as to style.
EB

 

[beero1000]

Where it seems to me that there is a contradiction is in the idea of a clock that has already run forever giving finite and definite time readings at every moment in time.

Why? If I can assign a finite number to every point in time (even if there exist points in time infinitely far from now), why is it impossible for a clock to have displayed those numbers at those times?

 

[Juma]

this is hilarious...

There is no contradiction in say that a clock process has been running for ever.

That's right and I never said there was a contradiction.

There is no contradiction in assigning a number to each timepoint in past time.

That's right and I never said there was a contradiction. You're extremely boring.

Where it seems to me that there is a contradiction is in the idea of a clock that has already run forever giving finite and definite time readings at every moment in time.

No. You're really thick. So, let me repeat it again: any clock that has already run forever can't give any finite and definite time reading.

as I said. hilarious.

 

[Speakpigeon]

this is hilarious...
as I said. hilarious.

I knew you didn't understand English too well, but here this appears to be much worse than I thought given that my post is very clear and explicit.

What's fascinating is that you don't seem to even suspect that I should have a point worth your consideration, in that you just don't try to justify whatever point you might have.

Many of your posts are evidence of your inability to moderate your temper and this one is an example of that. I think you should try to control your emotions.

Bad English and bad temper, that seems a bit much to hope to get anywhere.

Unless you're here to just waste your time?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Where it seems to me that there is a contradiction is in the idea of a clock that has already run forever giving finite and definite time readings at every moment in time.

Why? If I can assign a finite number to every point in time (even if there exist points in time infinitely far from now), why is it impossible for a clock to have displayed those numbers at those times?

Sure, we can conceive for example of assigning zero to the present moment and working backward in time subtracting 1 for every second, and, if we don't assume an actual infinity in the past, we would in this way assign, at least in principle, one definite and finite value to every second of time in the past. This may look exactly like the outcome I asked for from the beginning, except that I've always talked of "setting the clock", never of "assigning" values. That's also why I talked of "a clock" as well as "readings" to begin with. The notion of notionally assigning values to moments in time doesn't require to think in terms of a clock.

That distinction comes out pretty clear in my post:

Now, of course, if the clock is never actually set at any point, then of course it won't ever read any definite value (any definite reading is equivalent the clock being set at that time). So, we have to assume it is set at some point. Setting the clock at any definite point in time won't make it read any definite value before that point in time so it's not a good answer to my question. Now, do you have any alternative other than the clock being set at an actual infinity in the past?
EB

See the difference?

You can notionally assign values to past moments but setting the clock at zero now won't make the clock to somehow have displayed finite and definite reading before being set.



The clock is here for a reason in this conundrum. It's a proxy for a physical universe. If we think our universe may, or even might, have existed for ever, we should be able to explain how a simple clock would work. More precisely, we would need to produce a concept of clock (we're free to choose what it would be) such that the clock could display definite and finite readings throughout an infinite past. With two variant scenarios: either the clock would have been set for the first time at an actual infinite point in the past, if we think there could have been one, or, short of that, it has always been running and was never set for the first time (again, taking any reading of a definite and finite value as tantamount to the clock being set).
EB

 

[Juma]

this is hilarious...
as I said. hilarious.

I knew you didn't understand English too well, but here this appears to be much worse than I thought given that my post is very clear and explicit.

What's fascinating is that you don't seem to even suspect that I should have a point worth your consideration, in that you just don't try to justify whatever point you might have.

Many of your posts are evidence of your inability to moderate your temper and this one is an example of that. I think you should try to control your emotions.

Bad English and bad temper, that seems a bit much to hope to get anywhere.

Unless you're here to just waste your time?
EB

you are obviousöy totally able to waste your own time...

you seem totally incapable of seeing the connection between what I say and your point.

probably that arrogance that gets in the way.

I dont have bad temper but I recognice an arrogant ass when I see one.

 

[Juma]

Sure, we can conceive for example of assigning zero to the present moment and working backward in time subtracting 1 for every second, and, if we don't assume an actual infinity in the past, we would in this way assign, at least in principle, one definite and finite value to every second of time in the past. This may look exactly like the outcome I asked for from the beginning, except that I've always talked of "setting the clock", never of "assigning" values. That's also why I talked of "a clock" as well as "readings" to begin with. The notion of notionally assigning values to moments in time doesn't require to think in terms of a clock.

That distinction comes out pretty clear in my post:

Now, of course, if the clock is never actually set at any point, then of course it won't ever read any definite value (any definite reading is equivalent the clock being set at that time). So, we have to assume it is set at some point. Setting the clock at any definite point in time won't make it read any definite value before that point in time so it's not a good answer to my question. Now, do you have any alternative other than the clock being set at an actual infinity in the past?
EB

See the difference?

You can notionally assign values to past moments but setting the clock at zero now won't make the clock to somehow have displayed finite and definite reading before being set.



The clock is here for a reason in this conundrum. It's a proxy for a physical universe. If we think our universe may, or even might, have existed for ever, we should be able to explain how a simple clock would work. More precisely, we would need to produce a concept of clock (we're free to choose what it would be) such that the clock could display definite and finite readings throughout an infinite past. With two variant scenarios: either the clock would have been set for the first time at an actual infinite point in the past, if we think there could have been one, or, short of that, it has always been running and was never set for the first time (again, taking any reading of a definite and finite value as tantamount to the clock being set).
EB

your fix idee about the need of setting the clock is EXACTLY as foolish as untermensches ”traversing infinity”
a process ( for example a clock) can perfectly run forever with definitive states at each time point without ever being set.
the process that your clock represents simply has the values it has. it doesnt have to be set.
in fact, that is exactly what is meant by ”it has run forever”: that is always has been and never been set.

 

[bilby]

There is absolutely no reason why your thought experiment changes if we reverse the direction of time.

If a clock displays a definite and specific time right now, and then runs forever, that doesn't imply that we can sensibly talk of the time it will display once it has existed for an infinite period.

Equally, if a clock has been running forever, that does not imply that there is anything remarkable about it displaying a definite and specific time right now; Nor does knowing what time it shows tell us anything about the infinite past.

I am thinking of a very large integer. You cannot possibly guess what that number is - as there are an infinity of integers, then for a sufficiently large integer, your chance of doing so approaches 1 in infinity, or zero. Now, if I tell you that the last digit is 6, you are no closer to knowing what my number is. So it is with your infinite clock - whatever time it displays now is equivalent to knowing the last digit of an integer with an infinite number of digits - it carries no information.

 

[beero1000]

Sure, we can conceive for example of assigning zero to the present moment and working backward in time subtracting 1 for every second, and, if we don't assume an actual infinity in the past, we would in this way assign, at least in principle, one definite and finite value to every second of time in the past. This may look exactly like the outcome I asked for from the beginning, except that I've always talked of "setting the clock", never of "assigning" values. That's also why I talked of "a clock" as well as "readings" to begin with. The notion of notionally assigning values to moments in time doesn't require to think in terms of a clock.

That distinction comes out pretty clear in my post:

Now, of course, if the clock is never actually set at any point, then of course it won't ever read any definite value (any definite reading is equivalent the clock being set at that time). So, we have to assume it is set at some point. Setting the clock at any definite point in time won't make it read any definite value before that point in time so it's not a good answer to my question. Now, do you have any alternative other than the clock being set at an actual infinity in the past?
EB

See the difference?

You can notionally assign values to past moments but setting the clock at zero now won't make the clock to somehow have displayed finite and definite reading before being set.



The clock is here for a reason in this conundrum. It's a proxy for a physical universe. If we think our universe may, or even might, have existed for ever, we should be able to explain how a simple clock would work. More precisely, we would need to produce a concept of clock (we're free to choose what it would be) such that the clock could display definite and finite readings throughout an infinite past. With two variant scenarios: either the clock would have been set for the first time at an actual infinite point in the past, if we think there could have been one, or, short of that, it has always been running and was never set for the first time (again, taking any reading of a definite and finite value as tantamount to the clock being set).
EB

I think you just haven't formally thought it through carefully enough, and are concerned about infinities that aren't intrinsically a problem. I can assign a number between 0 and 1 to every moment in time, eternal past and infinite future. If you specifically wanted an 'actual infinity' of points infinitely far in the past/future, you could even include 0 being the time infinitely far into the past and 1 to be the time of an instant infinitely far in the future. Why couldn't my clock work like that?

 

[DBT]

If time is a measurement of change and clock relates to and is calibrated for rate of change, a clock that runs forever gives a definite time reading in any instance in time in relation to the rate of change that is represented by that clock in any given instance in time....

 

[Speakpigeon]

If time is a measurement of change and clock relates to and is calibrated for rate of change, a clock that runs forever gives a definite time reading in any instance in time in relation to the rate of change that is represented by that clock in any given instance in time....

Yes, exactly, and that's why I reduced the problem to one about a simple clock.

However, it seems we cannot even conceive of an actual clock that would do the job.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is absolutely no reason why your thought experiment changes if we reverse the direction of time.

If a clock displays a definite and specific time right now, and then runs forever, that doesn't imply that we can sensibly talk of the time it will display once it has existed for an infinite period.

Equally, if a clock has been running forever, that does not imply that there is anything remarkable about it displaying a definite and specific time right now; Nor does knowing what time it shows tell us anything about the infinite past.

I think you're taking this problem as an empirical one. I'm asking about a possible theory, not if we could ever find the necessary evidence for it.

I am thinking of a very large integer. You cannot possibly guess what that number is - as there are an infinity of integers, then for a sufficiently large integer, your chance of doing so approaches 1 in infinity, or zero. Now, if I tell you that the last digit is 6, you are no closer to knowing what my number is. So it is with your infinite clock - whatever time it displays now is equivalent to knowing the last digit of an integer with an infinite number of digits - it carries no information.

I don't see how it would follow.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think you just haven't formally thought it through carefully enough, and are concerned about infinities that aren't intrinsically a problem.

Very possibly but I have yet to be shown there's no problem.

I can assign a number between 0 and 1 to every moment in time, eternal past and infinite future. If you specifically wanted an 'actual infinity' of points infinitely far in the past/future, you could even include 0 being the time infinitely far into the past and 1 to be the time of an instant infinitely far in the future.

You keep thinking in terms of "assigning" values or numbers to moments in time. I already agreed you can do that but it's not a "measure".

Why couldn't my clock work like that?

You would have to explain how it would work, if only in principle.

There's no unique correspondance between [0,1] and time. There's even an infinite number of possible time functions of [0,1]. We don't even need to think in terms of continuous functions. So, how would you go about selecting which correspondance would do?

So, how would such a clock work in principle? Me, I don't know.

But that's definitely an interesting angle.
EB

 

[Juma]

I have yet to be shown there's no problem.

No, it is up to you to show that there is a problem. It is you that states that there are a problem.
(This is another similarity with untermensche.)

You keep thinking in terms of "assigning" values or numbers to moments in time. I already agreed you can do that but it's not a "measure".

Au contraire.
That is very much the definition of a measure: a mapping of numbers to what you want to measure.

 

[Kharakov]

EB- All clocks are defined by their relationships to other clocks. Since clocks are modular (see  modular arithmetic), and time is part of a smooth continuum, clock measurements correspond to some form of wave function over time.

If you don't have a specific date to start from, you would define clocks by comparing their peaks and troughs to another clock's peaks and troughs. I can do a graphic or animation later, if you'd like, but literally have plans to literally run to my friend's house now. I mean figuratively by literally. Or something.


Hey time, what are you running from?

untermensche

 

[Speakpigeon]

You keep thinking in terms of "assigning" values or numbers to moments in time. I already agreed you can do that but it's not a "measure".

Au contraire.
That is very much the definition of a measure: a mapping of numbers to what you want to measure.

I'd be so fascinated if you could just exhibit one dictionary definition. An actual dictionary definition.

In English, please.



Me, I give you here all I could find, and there's no "mapping of numbers" in there:

measure
n
1. the extent, quantity, amount, or degree of something, as determined by measurement or calculation

measure
v.
1. to determine the size, amount, etc, of by measurement

size
n.
1. The physical dimensions, proportions, magnitude, or extent of an object.

amount
n
1. extent; quantity; supply

Come on, I'm in a good mood, I will actually copy out the definition given by my personal exemplar of the Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary (1991):

measure
v. 1. tr. ascertain the extent or quantity of (a thing) by comparison with a fixed unit or with an object of know size

The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, an actual paper thing, from 1991 for God sake, before the invention of the Internet and all that jazz!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

(This is another similarity with untermensche.)

That hurt real bad. You know me so well.

I have yet to be shown there's no problem.

No, it is up to you to show that there is a problem. It is you that states that there are a problem.

The name of the game here is that people start threads with an OP and other people try to respond to what the OP actually says. So, just look here what the OP says:

The idea of an infinite future doesn't require any new notion of the infinite because we think of the future as something happening one step at a time, much like we can only think of an unbounded series of terms one step at a time, one term coming after another. And we get away with it by imagining that we could continue considering the following terms of the series, one after the other, one at a time, ad infinitum, without ever getting to infinity itself.

Now, the idea of an infinite past seems something different altogether in this respect. The concept of the past as something already done with, seems to require that in the case of an infinite past, infinity has already happened, and therefore that infinity is a full-blown ontological reality, not just a pure abstraction. At any moment in time, including now, there's been an infinity of seconds, and an infinity of millennia, that have already gone by.

This may be something of a problem to get our heads around it. Think of a simple clock. If we try to assume that such a simple clock had always existed, what time would this clock display right now? I'm sure we're all going to be stuck here, like, forever.

Still, I trust this forum packs more brain power within fewer skulls than the current U.S. administration, so despite my own personal limitations in not seeing any way out of this conundrum, I will wait to see if someone else here can come up with an imaginative solution, hopefully one not involving the impossibility of having a clock at every moment in the past.


I'll be waiting for your answers. The clock is already ticking. Don't make me wait till the end of time.
EB

Now, you try to respond to that and everyone will make up their own mind as to whether you're making sense.

And you're not going to impress anyone with some mindless, bad-English, home-brewed ukase* from the Cold.
EB

Note - That will be ukas for you. So I'm sure you'll understand. Especially by being so close to Vladimir Vladimirovich up there in Sweden

 

[Juma]

I'd be so fascinated if you could just exhibit one dictionary definition. An actual dictionary definition.

In English, please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)

There you go.

 

[Juma]

That hurt real bad. You know me so well.

No, it is up to you to show that there is a problem. It is you that states that there are a problem.

The name of the game here is that people start threads with an OP and other people try to respond to what the OP actually says. So, just look here what the OP says:

The idea of an infinite future doesn't require any new notion of the infinite because we think of the future as something happening one step at a time, much like we can only think of an unbounded series of terms one step at a time, one term coming after another. And we get away with it by imagining that we could continue considering the following terms of the series, one after the other, one at a time, ad infinitum, without ever getting to infinity itself.

Now, the idea of an infinite past seems something different altogether in this respect. The concept of the past as something already done with, seems to require that in the case of an infinite past, infinity has already happened, and therefore that infinity is a full-blown ontological reality, not just a pure abstraction. At any moment in time, including now, there's been an infinity of seconds, and an infinity of millennia, that have already gone by.

This may be something of a problem to get our heads around it. Think of a simple clock. If we try to assume that such a simple clock had always existed, what time would this clock display right now? I'm sure we're all going to be stuck here, like, forever.

Still, I trust this forum packs more brain power within fewer skulls than the current U.S. administration, so despite my own personal limitations in not seeing any way out of this conundrum, I will wait to see if someone else here can come up with an imaginative solution, hopefully one not involving the impossibility of having a clock at every moment in the past.


I'll be waiting for your answers. The clock is already ticking. Don't make me wait till the end of time.
EB

Now, you try to respond to that and everyone will make up their own mind as to whether you're making sense.

And you're not going to impress anyone with some mindless, bad-English, home-brewed ukase* from the Cold.
EB

Note - That will be ukas for you. So I'm sure you'll understand. Especially by being so close to Vladimir Vladimirovich up there in Sweden

Easy: the answer is that the clock is one hour more than what it was an hour ago modulus the period of the clock.

The clock can be anything (within its period) as long it it is conformant with its earlier values.

why is that a problem?

And why is my bad english such a problem for you?