The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think anyone could possibly know for a fact that the past hasn't been going on for an infinitely long time.

I also don't think there is any contradiction in the idea of an infinite past.

So, on that basis, I would say that it seems possible to me that the past has been an infinite past, i.e. a past without a beginning.

If anyone disagrees here, please explain why.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Is it possible for there to be an infinite number of changes?

Is that an amount of changes that can possibly take place? Is that something that can be physcially achieved?

If infinite changes are impossible then of course it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

If the number of changes in the past were finite how was time infinite?

Time without change is not time as we understand it.

 

[bilby]

Is it possible for there to be an infinite number of changes?

Sure, if the past is infinite, why not?

Is that an amount of changes that can possibly take place? Is that something that can be physcially achieved?

Only if an infinite amount of time is available. Is there a reason to assume that there is not an infinite amount of time available in an infinite past? You appear to be assuming your conclusion. Again.

If infinite changes are impossible then of course it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

Perhaps. But as you haven't shown (or even hinted at) why infinite changes would be impossible in an infinite past, why would we care?

If the number of changes in the past were finite how was time infinite?

Why would we assume that the number of changes in the (possibly infinite) past was finite?

Time without change is not time as we understand it.

If you say so.



Is it possible to have an infinite number of threads in which untermensche employs logical fallacies to attempt to 'prove' his belief that the past cannot be infinite?

Is it possible for untermensche to make a post on the topic that does not include any logical fallacies; And if so, why hasn't he done so, given the very large (but admittedly still finite) number of opportunities he has had to do so?

 

[Elixir]

Sure, if the past is infinite, why not?

Or if "Multiverse theory" is correct.
But Unter's infinite wisdom has already determined that nothing is infinite - not even human stupidity.

 

[untermensche]

Sure, if the past is infinite, why not?...

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke.

"How can you have a million dollars and not pay taxes?"

"How can you have a million dollars and not pay taxes?!!!"

"First thing."

"Get a million dollars."

And the joke goes on.

The issue is whether or not it is possible for the past to be infinite.

To merely assume it is possible is a joke.

Exactly how is it possible there were infinite changes in the past?

Do you think it is possible for infinite changes to have occurred? How would you prove it is possible?

 

[Kharakov]

Sure, if the past is infinite, why not?...

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke.

No it doesn't.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think anyone could possibly know for a fact that the past hasn't been going on for an infinitely long time.

I also don't think there is any contradiction in the idea of an infinite past.

So, on that basis, I would say that it seems possible to me that the past has been an infinite past, i.e. a past without a beginning.

If anyone disagrees here, please explain why.
EB

I don't know what you said yet, except for the last sentence, that really popped out at me. So yes, I disagree, and I'm not going to give you a nice, neat little syllogistic explanation of why I do, suffice to say... you know why EB!! YOU KNOW!


The infantile past is infinite for some of us. I'd say the one color blue never grew up, but some of us have an issue with that.

 

[bilby]

Sure, if the past is infinite, why not?...

This reminds me of an old Steve Martin joke.

"How can you have a million dollars and not pay taxes?"

"How can you have a million dollars and not pay taxes?!!!"

"First thing."

"Get a million dollars."

And the joke goes on.

The issue is whether or not it is possible for the past to be infinite.

To merely assume it is possible is a joke.

Exactly how is it possible there were infinite changes in the past?

Do you think it is possible for infinite changes to have occurred? How would you prove it is possible?

See, I shouldn't need to explain the basics of how thinking works to an adult. But obviously I do, so try to follow closely:

To demonstrate that something is impossible, you need to show that IF you assume that it IS possible, this necessitates a contradiction.

In order to TEST whether something is possible you MUST first ASSUME that it IS. You THEN look for any contradictions that arise as the result of your assumption. IF you find one (or more) THEN you have shown that the assumption is impossible.

So, we MUST, as a starting point, assume an infinite past. And then YOU, as the person who says it is impossible, must show how THAT ASSUMPTION leads necessarily and inevitably to a CONTRADICTION.

But you must be CONSISTENT - you must use the same set of assumptions throughout your demonstration.

And you must be LOGICAL - no fallacies are permitted.

Your initial objection in this thread was based on assuming your conclusion - the logical fallacy of question begging, or circular reasoning. That's not going to work. If we assume that the past is infinite, then it is incorrect to assume that the past cannot contain an infinite amount of changes - that second assumption only holds if we have concluded that our first assumption is false, and we hadn't got there yet.

You new objection is based on reversal of the burden of proof - you are asking me to prove that the assumption that the past is infinite is a statement of fact; But I need not do this. You are claiming that it is false, so YOU must demonstrate that it entails a contradiction.

And you must do so without the use of fallacious logic.

How would I prove it is possible? I wouldn't. I would simply point out that the basic principles of logic and reason indicate that I need not do so. YOU need to EITHER show that it is impossible - that it entails a contradiction - OR withdraw your claim that it is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

To demonstrate that something is impossible, you need to show that IF you assume that it IS possible, this necessitates a contradiction.

Is assuming an infinity has somehow completed a contradiction to the concept of infinity?

Can an infinity complete?

I know an imaginary infinity can be bounded but that is not saying it can ever complete.

The fractions between zero and one are bounded but if you tried to list them you would understand they never complete.

If completion is a contradiction to the concept of infinity we are done.

 

[bilby]

To demonstrate that something is impossible, you need to show that IF you assume that it IS possible, this necessitates a contradiction.

Is assuming an infinity has somehow completed a contradiction to the concept of infinity?

No, because an infinity by definition must exist if a continuum is unbounded at EITHER end; AND may exist even where a continuum is bounded at BOTH ends.

Can an infinity complete?

Yes. See above.

I know an imaginary infinity can be bounded but that is not saying it can ever complete.

What you do or do not know is of little import. The question is, can you demonstrate that an infinite past necessarily entails a contradiction?

If you can, then you have proven it to be impossible, and your claim must be accepted by all reasonable people. Until you do, your claim remains unproven, and no reasonable person need give it any credence.

The fractions between zero and one are bounded but if you tried to list them you would understand they never complete.

True.

Not in the slightest way relevant to your task of demonstrating a contradiction inherent in the concept of an infinite past; But true, nonetheless.

If completion is a contradiction to the concept of infinity we are done.

But it isn't. So we aren't. However we can now add the 'non-sequitur' and the 'red herring' to your tally of logical fallacies.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The fractions between zero and one are bounded but if you tried to list them you would understand they never complete.

True.

Not in the slightest way relevant to your task of demonstrating a contradiction inherent in the concept of an infinite past; But true, nonetheless.

If completion is a contradiction to the concept of infinity we are done.

But it isn't. So we aren't. However we can now add the 'non-sequitur' and the 'red herring' to your tally of logical fallacies.

This very much depends on what is meant here by "complete".

Fractions is only a subset of the Real interval [0,1]. For example, the square root of 0.02 is not a fraction of integers. So, obviously, you're not going to get all the Reals by listing all fractions.

However, the Rational interval [0,1] also contains an infinite number of numbers. Sure, nobody is going to list them all but we know how to do that in principle, and we understand we would list every rational number between zero and one using this principle if we had an infinite time to do it.

And of course, that we cannot possibly list an infinity of things doesn't prove an infinity of things doesn't exist.

I'm sure you understand all that. But I don't think we know what UM means by "complete".

Still, whatever he means, you're right, he's wrong.
EB

 

[bilby]

True.

Not in the slightest way relevant to your task of demonstrating a contradiction inherent in the concept of an infinite past; But true, nonetheless.


But it isn't. So we aren't. However we can now add the 'non-sequitur' and the 'red herring' to your tally of logical fallacies.

This very much depends on what is meant here by "complete".

Fractions is only a subset of the Real interval [0,1]. For example, the square root of 0.02 is not a fraction of integers. So, obviously, you're not going to get all the Reals by listing all fractions.

However, the Rational interval [0,1] also contains an infinite number of numbers. Sure, nobody is going to list them all but we know how to do that in principle, and we understand we would list every rational number between zero and one using this principle if we had an infinite time to do it.

And of course, that we cannot possibly list an infinity of things doesn't prove an infinity of things doesn't exist.

I'm sure you understand all that. But I don't think we know what UM means by "complete".

Still, whatever he means, you're right, he's wrong.
EB

Hence 'red herring' or non-sequitur fallacy. The whole concept is irrelevant to the demonstration that an infinite past necessarily entails a contradiction, which is his task (and his ONLY task), if he is to demonstrate the truth of his claim that an infinite past is impossible.

 

[Lion IRC]

Is it possible for there to be an infinite number of changes?

Is that an amount of changes that can possibly take place? Is that something that can be physcially achieved?

If infinite changes are impossible then of course it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

If the number of changes in the past were finite how was time infinite?

Time without change is not time as we understand it.

Why is change a relevant or necessary factor here?

You could have a past eternal, perpetual motion coin-flipping machine which never does anything other than toss heads or tails. It would be the most monotonous thing you can imagine and yet still have no metaphysical impediment to its existence.

Our universe could be a perpetual motion machine that just keeps on expanding and contracting like a swinging pendulum. And we really don't need to worry about how long it will take for someone to invent a Tardis because that plot development isn't necessary.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't even think motion is a necessary element.
It might be a necessary datum for measuring segments of time but not for the mere reality of a past-eternal thing.

 

[untermensche]

Is assuming an infinity has somehow completed a contradiction to the concept of infinity?

No, because an infinity by definition must exist if a continuum is unbounded at EITHER end; AND may exist even where a continuum is bounded at BOTH ends.

An infinity does not exist.

It is not assumed to exist.

An infinity is defined. It is not discovered or observed in any way.

And as it is defined, as it is imagined, it does not have the ability to ever be completed. The elements within an infinite series could never all be expressed.

If you had to actually express every fraction between zero and one it could not be done.

But you can draw a line, pretend it is imaginary, and then pretend all the fractions exist within the finite space.

You have not demonstrated that there is no contradiction between the definition of an infinity and a completed infinity.

So since a clear contradiction exists we are done.

 

[untermensche]

True.

Not in the slightest way relevant to your task of demonstrating a contradiction inherent in the concept of an infinite past; But true, nonetheless.


But it isn't. So we aren't. However we can now add the 'non-sequitur' and the 'red herring' to your tally of logical fallacies.

This very much depends on what is meant here by "complete"....

We are talking about the difference between that which is merely imagined and that which could possibly exist.

To exist means to be expressed as opposed to be merely imagined. And to be "completed" means to be fully expressed. We know all the time in the past has been fully expressed at every present moment.

An easy example to understand this, and it should convince most, is trying to express all the fractions between zero and one. We understand it can't be done. The infinity cannot be expressed. It cannot exist for real.

And no matter which infinite series we tried to express, tried to make real as opposed to just imagined, we could not do it.

An infinity is not something that could be completed in the real world.

And of course, that we cannot possibly list an infinity of things doesn't prove an infinity of things doesn't exist.

It shows that an infinity cannot be fully expressed. It cannot be completed in the real world.

 

[untermensche]

Is it possible for there to be an infinite number of changes?

Is that an amount of changes that can possibly take place? Is that something that can be physcially achieved?

If infinite changes are impossible then of course it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

If the number of changes in the past were finite how was time infinite?

Time without change is not time as we understand it.

Why is change a relevant or necessary factor here?

Do you know of a situation where you have time but have no change?

Time is the "dimension" that allows change.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't even think motion is a necessary element.
It might be a necessary datum for measuring segments of time but not for the mere reality of a past-eternal thing.

One could argue that change is the necessary element, whether change is achieved through motion or something else. Without change, what would make two moments different moments? And without different moments, would time itself exists at all?

Well, time might be just one moment and nothing else. Yes, boring. Even time wouldn't have much time to be itself.

Or, maybe, there would be the first moment, the second moment, the third moment and so on. Being the first is different from being the second etc. That should be enough. This would be change in time itself.

And even without a first moment, we could have a succession of moments. One moment would be different from the previous moment just by coming after it. Works for infinity.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

Is it possible for there to be an infinite number of changes?

Is that an amount of changes that can possibly take place? Is that something that can be physcially achieved?

If infinite changes are impossible then of course it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

If the number of changes in the past were finite how was time infinite?

Time without change is not time as we understand it.

Why is change a relevant or necessary factor here?

Do you know of a situation where you have time but have no change?

Time is the "dimension" that allows change.

The thread title isnt "the idea of time" it's about the idea of perpetual past-eternal time.
A static, unmoving (unmoved) object could hypothetically exist forever without changing - notwithstanding the fact that Lion IRC hasn't personally observed it throughout it's eternity.

I'm intrigued by all the spate of eternity/infinity themed threads going on at the moment. And nobody has mentioned the Kalam argument - change without cause????

 

[Juma]

Do you know of a situation where you have time but have no change?

Time is the "dimension" that allows change.

The thread title isnt "the idea of time" it's about the idea of perpetual past-eternal time.
A static, unmoving (unmoved) object could hypothetically exist forever without changing - notwithstanding the fact that Lion IRC hasn't personally observed it throughout it's eternity.

I'm intrigued by all the spate of eternity/infinity themed threads going on at the moment. And nobody has mentioned the Kalam argument - change without cause????

Why would snyone want to use kalam???? It’s broken.