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