The idea of an infinite past

[DBT]

I just spied this post of yours, untermnesche, and I intend to get around to it, with your co-operation.


Cheers, Pops.

No rush, I'll be traveling for a couple of days. No time to post.

 

[DBT]

All of your objections have been addressed in this thread....

That is one big fucking lie.

Nobody has told me how a real completed infinity is a rational idea.

Nobody has told me how such a thing could possibly be possible?

Do infinities complete?

No lie. You don't want to face what what was said by numerous posters, including me. The link and quote I provided being an example of an alternative to your claim.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

 

[untermensche]

All of your objections have been addressed in this thread....

That is one big fucking lie.

Nobody has told me how a real completed infinity is a rational idea.

Nobody has told me how such a thing could possibly be possible?

Do infinities complete?

No lie. You don't want to face what what was said by numerous posters, including me. The link and quote I provided being an example of an alternative to your claim.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

You have not talked about real completed infinities.

You have not addressed my points.

We do not have to know anything beyond when there is time as we experience time there are changes as we observe change.

Infinite time just means infinite change.

And a completed infinity of change is not possible.

 

[untermensche]

And the set of the negative Real numbers ends at 0

First of all zero is not negative or part of the negative reals.

And the negative reals approach zero but never touch it.

Not like the past at all.

No series can be defined as starting from infinity. Infinity is not a value. Nothing can begin from it.

The past completes at every moment. It has all occurred. There is no more events that will take place in the past looking at the past from any present moment.

All the events in the past complete at every present moment.

Infinity is in conflict with completion.

Infinity is in conflict with the past.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

"Real" numbers are not real. They do not exist in the real world except as a symbol and as an arbitrary
definition or as an understood word and all that goes along with that.

You can search the universe, you will not find "three".
They have been labeled "real" based on arbitrary definitions that have no correspondence to the real world.
But lines are not real either.
You can have infinite so-called "real" numbers and even infinite lines, because they are not real.

Expressed means to be made real in some way.
So to express infinite numbers would be to make them real in some way. To say them. To write them out.
Expressed is used in contrast to merely imagining.
But the truth is an infinite series cannot even be imagined.

Let me take the last bit first. Scientists are adults, and some are better informed, and understand the
nature of physical reality much better
than me, (and I'd suggest better than you, untermnesche).

Bad attitude.
A lot of scientists are deluded and there is a lot of shared delusion in science.
I invite anyone who claims a real completed infinity is a rational idea to demonstrate it.
No takers here.

I'll repeat the process I used in my last post, untermensche.

---

{But the truth is an infinite series cannot even be imagined}

I cannot imagine the whole of an infinite series, my mind is not built for it. However, I can imagine the
beginning of such a series.

I can imagine jumping to later in the series. I can imagine jumping to even later in the series. I can imagine
that this can be carried out indefinitely. There really are an infinity of positive whole numbers, because by
definition that's how it is.

I can visualise the beginning of the series: 1, 2, 3. I can imagine that applied to real world items. One apple,
two oranges, three blind mice.

I can imagine jumping to later in the series: 2015, 2016, 2017. This year it's 2018, (that's years CE). What I can't
do is visualise the whole thing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we can't visualise a finite number of
real objects, like all the grains of sand in all the deserts, and on all the beaches in the world. So an inability to
visualise has no bearing on the possibility of the existence of an infinity - it can't even be done for a finite set
of real things in the real world.

I hope, untermensche, that you realise that what I've just written makes your comment redundant, and
of no value in our
discussion.
Some points of importance in our discussion, you seem to ignore, and I don't know why - I ask myself, is it
because untermensche can't recognise what's important, or is it becase untermensche refuses to
look at anything which might show him to be wrong in his declaration that infinites in the real world are
impossible, or is it something else ?

For example, I discussed how every event ought to have a cause, and how theists plug in "God" as their first
cause.

I asked you for what it is that you'd plug in as your first cause, untermensche. But you ignored that very
important point, and gave me no reply. So what is your first cause, untermensche, and just like you
want for the possibility of infinities, what is your evidence for that ? ? ?

---

{"Real" numbers are not real. They do not exist in the real world except as a symbol and as an arbitrary
definition or as an understood word and all that goes along with that}.

I've already agreed with that, untermnesche, no problem. But note also that I explained that they are
descriptive of things in the real world, as to the count or magnitude of those things. And on the point of
imaginary numbers, we need to get outr meanings clear, don't we?

---

{Expressed means to be made real in some way}

Thanks for the clarification, untermnesche, that is what I thought you meant, and if you read my earlier
post, I took it that way.

---

{Bad attitude.
A lot of scientists are deluded and there is a lot of shared delusion in science.
I invite anyone who claims a real completed infinity is a rational idea to demonstrate it.
No takers here}.

Your words here express your opinion of some scientists. I note that you swapped from calling them not adult,
to "bad attitude". I don't want to be insulting to you, untermensche, but to me you seem to have a bad
attitude as well, (maybe I'm wrong). But you do miss important points which go to debunking your notions on
infinities. Note that your wok in this thread is all philosophy, and not evidence. You can't produce evidence of
no real infinities, you are extrapolating from the evidence that you are willing to look at, and concluding that
your point is made.

You said, that you don't qualify numbers as real because no one can show you 3, {You can search the universe,
you will not find "three"}.

But 3 is part of an infinite series of numbers, your objection is that although there are an infinity of
positive whole numbers, they don't qualify for consideration, because nobody can show you "3". So the whole
numbers are an exception to the no infinity rule ~ there are an infinity of them I pointed out that nobody can
show you a second, a minute or an hour. If your argument is valid, then since no one can show you a second, a
minute or an hour etc, then so too does time qualify as an exception to the no infinity rule. In other words, by
your logic, time can be infinite. You can search the universe, you will not find "a second, a minute or an hour", etc.

Warm regards from Pops.
Again, let me know of anything erroneous in this post.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Post for consideration by untermensche.

To investigate the idea of a possible infinity, I understand that you do not accept numbers as qualified for
things in the real world, untermensche, and I'm happy with that, they don't qualify as real things or
real events that can show up in the real world or universe. I'd like your indulgence in considering a scenario,
which I have set up.

THE SCENARIO

DAY 1.

There is a patch of waste land. It is littered with small rocks, and somewhere in the middle lays the lid from a
can of paint. A person, (let's say it's a man), walks into the plot of land, notices the paint can lid, and stands
on it. To the north he sees a tree. He faces north, picks up three rocks, and makes a single pile from them.
That's it.

DAY 2.

In the meantime, the man has gone about his normal life, but it's two days later on from the first excursion. The
man again walks into the patch of land, notices the tree to the north, and a power pole off to the side. The lid of
the paint can is still in the same place, so the man stands on it again. The power pole is now off to the east, so
the man turns to face the power pole. He picks up six rocks, and makes a single pile from them. That's it.
The end.

Below is a list of the elements in the whole scenario. What I'd like to know from you, untermensche, is which
of the elements do not qualify as real things, events or whatever, as we might be able to identify in the real world
or universe ?

For the thing, event or element, can you explain why you will not allow it to be up for consideration in our discussion
of the possibility or impossibility of infinity in our evidently real universe ?

On day 1 . . .

1. The man walking from the boundary, to stand on the lid of the paint can.
2. The man seeing the tree to the north.
3. The man facing the north.
4. The man imagining the number 3.
5. The man imagining what 3 rocks will look like.
6. The man gathering up 3 rocks.
7. The man making 1 pile from the rocks.
8. The fact that the pile of rocks is 3 high.

On day 2 . . .

1. The man turning to his right.
2. The man facing the east.
3. The man locating rocks, and making a pile of 6.
4. The man using thought processes to achieve everything in the whole scenario.

There's no need to list all these elements, untermensche, I'd only like to know if any of them don't qualify and why.
It would be best if you simply stick to what I've asked for, because otherwise it'll makes things more complicated than necessary.

Thanks, Pops.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How is the infinite series of the integers not in conflict with completion?

Where do they complete?

At what number?

That is the idea behind infinity. No completion.

The whole set of the Integers is not a good analogue of an infinite past. A better one would be the set of negative Integers, or even better the negative Reals.

An infinite past could be thought of as exactly like the negative Reals, and 0 would stand for the present moment. That's indeed the conventional representation very nearly everybody would use.

And the set of the negative Real numbers ends at 0.

Just like an infinite past would end at the present moment.

So, where do you think would be the problem with that?
EB

____________________________

And the set of the negative Real numbers ends at 0

First of all zero is not negative or part of the negative reals.

And the negative reals approach zero but never touch it.

Not like the past at all.

So, if we assume a finite past, what's the end of it? Say the past started 6,000 years ago, when exactly would be the end of such a past?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I can imagine jumping to later in the series: 2015, 2016, 2017. This year it's 2018, (that's years CE). What I can't do is visualise the whole thing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we can't visualise a finite number of real objects, like all the grains of sand in all the deserts, and on all the beaches in the world. So an inability to visualise has no bearing on the possibility of the existence of an infinity - it can't even be done for a finite set of real things in the real world.

It is more than visualizing the whole. You cannot imagine starting anywhere on an infinite series and moving to the end of that series. You cannot even approach the end. You cannot move towards it. It can't be done because infinite series do not complete and no matter how far you move you still have infinitely further to move. That should be a clue to anyone we are not talking about something that could even possibly be real.

But given enough time you can visualize any finite series and any amount of grains of sand.

Since at given moment the past represents a completed series of changes it is clear it was not infinite.

I asked you for what it is that you'd plug in as your first cause...

That is a separate issue. I would rather just look at one issue and not pollute the discussion with a bunch of irrelevant side issues.

All that could be said about the initiation of time is that it had to arise from conditions that we cannot understand. A state that does not include time.

All we can say is that time needed a beginning because it could not possibly have been infinite in the past. An infinite series never completes.

I note that you swapped from calling them not adult, to "bad attitude".

What I label as not an adult attitude is the magical belief in real completed infinities. In other words a magical belief that things as we can observe them could have existed for infinite time in the past.

Being highly skeptical of the claims of all scientists is a very adult attitude. Scientific delusions can last a long time. The history of science is full of them.

You can't produce evidence of no real infinities...

I can't produce evidence of no real fire breathing dragons either.

A negative cannot be proven.

since no one can show you a second, a minute or an hour etc...

I think what you mean is nobody can show you "time". There is nothing anyone can point out and say "This is time."

But that is no different from the other three dimensions.

Nobody can point out something and say "This is width". They can measure the width of some thing but not "width" itself.

Dimensions are just freedoms. If the dimension of width exists that mean there is the freedom for something to have a width.

If the dimensions of height, length and width exist then there is the freedom for things to have height, length and width.

What time allows is change. It is the freedom that allows things with height, length and width to move and change.

So while we can't see time we can see change and we can measure change.

Change exists, "three" does not.

 

[untermensche]

Post for consideration by untermensche.

To investigate the idea of a possible infinity, I understand that you do not accept numbers as qualified for
things in the real world, untermensche, and I'm happy with that, they don't qualify as real things or
real events that can show up in the real world or universe. I'd like your indulgence in considering a scenario,
which I have set up.

THE SCENARIO

DAY 1.

There is a patch of waste land. It is littered with small rocks, and somewhere in the middle lays the lid from a
can of paint. A person, (let's say it's a man), walks into the plot of land, notices the paint can lid, and stands
on it. To the north he sees a tree. He faces north, picks up three rocks, and makes a single pile from them.
That's it.

DAY 2.

In the meantime, the man has gone about his normal life, but it's two days later on from the first excursion. The
man again walks into the patch of land, notices the tree to the north, and a power pole off to the side. The lid of
the paint can is still in the same place, so the man stands on it again. The power pole is now off to the east, so
the man turns to face the power pole. He picks up six rocks, and makes a single pile from them. That's it.
The end.

Below is a list of the elements in the whole scenario. What I'd like to know from you, untermensche, is which
of the elements do not qualify as real things, events or whatever, as we might be able to identify in the real world
or universe ?

For the thing, event or element, can you explain why you will not allow it to be up for consideration in our discussion
of the possibility or impossibility of infinity in our evidently real universe ?

On day 1 . . .

1. The man walking from the boundary, to stand on the lid of the paint can.
2. The man seeing the tree to the north.
3. The man facing the north.
4. The man imagining the number 3.
5. The man imagining what 3 rocks will look like.
6. The man gathering up 3 rocks.
7. The man making 1 pile from the rocks.
8. The fact that the pile of rocks is 3 high.

On day 2 . . .

1. The man turning to his right.
2. The man facing the east.
3. The man locating rocks, and making a pile of 6.
4. The man using thought processes to achieve everything in the whole scenario.

There's no need to list all these elements, untermensche, I'd only like to know if any of them don't qualify and why.
It would be best if you simply stick to what I've asked for, because otherwise it'll makes things more complicated than necessary.

Thanks, Pops.

I don't think a person imagines the number three. They just know what the word means. Like knowing what the word rock means.

But knowing what a word means is a very complicated subject. A rock is many many things.

Anyway, "three" is an easy word to know and easy to apply to all things.

Numbers actually are not even involved, just an understanding of a word.

People used and understood quantities before they had formal symbols or even more removed formal arbitrary schemes to define those symbols.

 

[untermensche]

So, if we assume a finite past, what's the end of it? Say the past started 6,000 years ago, when exactly would be the end of such a past?
EB

I'm not assuming anything.

I am concluding that a real completed infinity of time could not possibly have occurred. A real completed infinity is not a thing that could ever occur.

And it is just a truth.

People can do with it what they want.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, if we assume a finite past, what's the end of it? Say the past started 6,000 years ago, when exactly would be the end of such a past?
EB

I'm not assuming anything.

I am concluding that a real completed infinity of time could not possibly have occurred. A real completed infinity is not a thing that could ever occur.

And it is just a truth.

People can do with it what they want.

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

 

[fast]

So, if we assume a finite past, what's the end of it? Say the past started 6,000 years ago, when exactly would be the end of such a past?
EB

I'm not assuming anything.

I am concluding that a real completed infinity of time could not possibly have occurred. A real completed infinity is not a thing that could ever occur.

And it is just a truth.

People can do with it what they want.

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

It's not bounded. If -6 were it's start and -6 was itself infinity, we'd be on our way if not for it being finite. It's like a race with both a beginning and an end. You highlighted the end, but that's not a complete race. You said nothing of its beginning.

Curious, wouldn't -1 be the beginning and -2 be closer to the end? Well, not that there's an end.

 

[untermensche]

So, if we assume a finite past, what's the end of it? Say the past started 6,000 years ago, when exactly would be the end of such a past?
EB

I'm not assuming anything.

I am concluding that a real completed infinity of time could not possibly have occurred. A real completed infinity is not a thing that could ever occur.

And it is just a truth.

People can do with it what they want.

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

The first negative integer is -1.

Not the last.

There is no last negative integer and no possible way to define the start of a progression from something that does not exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ooops.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

The first negative integer is -1.

Not the last.

Bravo! Literal-mindedness at its worst.

There's no discussion possible if you don't understand the basic concepts like everybody else does.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

The first negative integer is -1.

Not the last.

There is no last negative integer and no possible way to define the start of a progression from something that does not exist.

But we've learnt recently from the more mathematically literate here about infinite series that would include an actual infinite term, i.e. a term infinitely away from all finite terms. So, loosely speaking, that would be an actual "beginning". So, all is well, after all.

Hallelujah, come join us and rejoice!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

It's not bounded. If -6 were it's start and -6 was itself infinity, we'd be on our way if not for it being finite. It's like a race with both a beginning and an end. You highlighted the end, but that's not a complete race. You said nothing of its beginning.

Curious, wouldn't -1 be the beginning and -2 be closer to the end? Well, not that there's an end.

The notions of beginning and end are irrelevant. You're thinking in algorithmic terms, i.e. how you would go about counting the set of the negative Integers if you had to. But we don't have to go through this pinhead hole at all. We can go straight to the concept of an infinite set, i.e. any set with an infinite number of elements. If you had to count them, sure, it would be physically impossible, except if you had an infinite amount of time. So, yes, we cannot count, and we can't even imagine, but we are perfectly able to conceive logically of infinity. We just posit properties and see if there's any contradiction. So, just think of a set which you would find has an infinite number of elements if you had an infinite amount of time to count them. So, where is the problem with that? Any logical contradiction? Personally, I can't see any.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1.

So, again, can you explain how, in this idea of infinity of the negative Integers, infinity is somehow not completed, to use your jargon, even though it clearly ends at -1?
EB

The first negative integer is -1.

Not the last.

Bravo! Literal-mindedness at its worst.

There's no discussion possible if you don't understand the basic concepts like everybody else does.
EB

You struggle with facts.

The negative integers are merely a mirror of the positives.

Both series begin at one.

For the negatives it is negative one.

I have no idea where you got your education.

A series cannot begin at that which does not exist and end at the defined.

But we've learnt recently from the more mathematically literate here about infinite series that would include an actual infinite term, i.e. a term infinitely away from all finite terms.

You can pretend to define anything. The more interaction I have with these people who have spent a lifetime studying math the more I see some have trouble with simple reasoning. They have trouble understanding the difference between their pretend world where infinity is real and the real world where it is not.

Let me see somebody start at one and get to the last integer.

Let me see something traverse infinite moments.

 

[fast]

So, where is the problem with that? Any logical contradiction? Personally, I can't see any.

There is no logical contradiction. You and I are on the same page.

When I turn the page, I am able to be on his page, however.

The two pages are not consistent, from any one perspective, but I can reconcile the difference through translation. Thing is, what I say to you will be interpreted one way while the very same said to him would be interpreted another way.

For example, I meant what I said: there is no logical contradiction, but I would be reluctant to espouse that position with his understanding of logical possibilities. How absurd, from his view, it is to seriously entertain such a seemingly unsupported notion.

To get at the heart of his view, I would encourage entertaining the notion he has without invoking the meaning of logical possibility. Stick to things that are purely physical. Like the grains of sand in the entire universe. If the number is more than X but less than Y, then there is no infinite number of grains of sand. So, move on to something else. Continue as you will but stick to that which is quite physical.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Bravo! Literal-mindedness at its worst.

There's no discussion possible if you don't understand the basic concepts like everybody else does.
EB

You struggle with facts.

Like what exactly?

I hope you realise a fact isn't just anything you can think up?

Come on, give me one fact you suppose I would "struggle" with.

The negative integers are merely a mirror of the positives.

Not so fast, you know I'm "struggling", I'm really learning too much here.

Both series begin at one.

For the negatives it is negative one.

I see you like facts, so fact No. 1 for you: I wasn't talking about any "series", I was talking about a set. I said, "The negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and yet it ends at -1".

Sets can be given any number of relations of order, but given the usual such relation, then -1 is superior to all other elements of the set, i.e. to all negative numbers. As such, -1 is the upper bound of the ordered set of negative Integers. Which I expressed casually by saying that negative Integers end at -1.

So, we're not talking of any series here.

I have no idea where you got your education.

Life.

A series cannot begin at that which does not exist and end at the defined.

Sorry to repeat myself here, but we're not talking about series here.

But we've learnt recently from the more mathematically literate here about infinite series that would include an actual infinite term, i.e. a term infinitely away from all finite terms.

You can pretend to define anything. The more interaction I have with these people who have spent a lifetime studying math the more I see some have trouble with simple reasoning. They have trouble understanding the difference between their pretend world where infinity is real and the real world where it is not.

Can you provide specific quotes? You know, I'm like that. I just learnt that from you. I like facts now. Give me facts. You can't expect me to take your word for it.

Let me see somebody start at one and get to the last integer.

So true!

Likewise, I'd like you to tell me what you think is the greatest number in the whole universe, and then to count from 1 to this number.

Do it here to let me see you start at one and get to this last integer.

I won't believe you otherwise. I like facts so much now.

Let me see something traverse infinite moments.

Just look at yourself in the mirror, for one second.

Be careful not to over-indulge. One second should be enough. Infinities can be tough to look straight in the eyes.
EB