The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Sure, but there's no real disagreement here.

I accept I can't personally count up to the infinite and I even believe nobody could, ever. Yet, this in itself doesn't mean much. It just means we ourselves are very limited, as all human beings are. We're finite, so to speak. Sad but no big news, I guess. But from the fact that we are (or even seem) finite we can't deduce that there's nothing infinite in the universe. If space-time is continuous then it is infinitely divisible. If so, we also wouldn't know it, and yet we would be literally wallowing in the infinite!

Still, there's two ways I know of to do the infinite. One is the conventional way. You start to count and you never stop.

The second one is very different. It's not commensurate with the Integers, so you can't get to it just by counting. That's a fact of life. Still, if space-time is continuous, then we're all actually moving through an infinite number of points both in space and in time every second, every millisecond, every billionth of a second. That's the second way. Not bad!

And think about the future. If the future is actually infinite, so to speak, then you could say that reality itself has really started to count and it won't ever stop, which is the conventional definition of the infinite, i.e. no bound. QED.

So, I do agree with you, but not quite.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

It is not possible to know objectivily and scientioficaly. The BB Theiry is a good model based on observation extrapolating back to a theoretical event which can not be priven.

In general cosmology there are limited options.

1. God created it without explaining where god came from.
2. Matter can spontaneously appear from nothing.,

I go with 3. It can be supported by Earthbound extra[olation of the :Laws Of Thermodynamics. Matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.
3. The universe has always existed and always will. The forms of matter and energy change.

 

[untermensche]

Like what exactly?

You think an infinite series can be somehow defined as beginning from that which does not exist and ending at negative one.

You think the negatives integers can somehow end at negative one.

Again, where the hell did you get your education?

If all you're going to do is say ridiculous unsupportable nonsense pulled from your ass there is no reason to engage.

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

It is a set of a series. Calling it a set changes nothing. The series still has to be defined rationally.

Where do you imagine the series begins?

Please give me a specific value.

No series can begin from something that does not exist.

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.

There is no greatest number in the whole universe. That is my point.

No matter how far you move along any infinite series you are no nearer the end.

Infinity and completion are in conflict with one another.

Infinity time and the past is in conflict.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

You think an infinite series can be somehow defined as beginning from that which does not exist and ending at negative one.

You think the negatives integers can somehow end at negative one.

Again, where the hell did you get your education?

If all you're going to do is say ridiculous unsupportable nonsense pulled from your ass there is no reason to engage.

Alright, so it appears you don't understand even very basic questions. All that you say here is just more of the usual gobbledygook.

I asked you for a fact. But there's nothing like what people would call a fact in what you say here.

Most strikingly, I wasn't talking about any series but about the set of Integers.

Learn to read English. Otherwise, there's really no discussion possible.

And, clearly, I won't loose anything.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

It is a set of a series. Calling it a set changes nothing. The series still has to be defined rationally.

Where do you imagine the series begins?

You're contradicting yourself here. Talking about a set rather than a series does seem to change something after all. Otherwise, you'd be asking me where the set begins, but that would be such an obviously idiotic question even you can't quite risk it.

So, sorry, strictly speaking, the set of negative Integers doesn't begin anywhere. Wrong question.

Please give me a specific value.

No series can begin from something that does not exist.

Not talking about series. Try it with the set of Integers. It's just meaningless.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

There is no greatest number in the whole universe.

Good. It's just the conventional definition of infinity.

There's no number greater than all the other numbers, that's just what it means to say that the set of Integers is infinite.

That is my point.

Yes? You've just admitted to the existence of infinities!

Unless it's just another case of you poor skill in English. More likely, yes.

No matter how far you move along any infinite series you are no nearer the end.

Sure, but it's good enough that you should admit to the existence of infinite series.

Infinity and completion are in conflict with one another.

Infinity time and the past is in conflict.

Yeah, you sure like to repeat the mantra, but so far you've failed to provide any rational argument to support your point.

And there's no good reason that we should think in terms of series. I'm talking in terms of sets. Infinite sets. Can you talk about that?

Apparently, not.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Consider the infinite number line of rational numbers. As being infinite the plus and minus endpoints are not quantifiable. Pick a point, say 2.7. There are an infinite number of points before and after the point.

Infinite is a word for not quantifiable. Whatever conundrum that may exist is not in reality, it is in the way our brains are wired.

 

[Underseer]

Why is it necessary? You have not explained the necessity. If something from absolute nothingness is possible, why not eternal something?

Two completely different topics

It's not unrelated. If as you claim, eternity/infinity is impossible, what then is the alternative? There must be an alternative because here we are, we exist.

Of course it could not arise from nothingness. Nobody is making that claim.

If not from nothingness....from what? If from something, how did this causal agent appear? Itself from nothing? A series of somethings? An eternal something?

How does this work?

Can you explain?

First of all, time dilates as you go backwards in time, so from our point of view the "origin" of the universe would be infinitely in the past. If you went backwards in time, the universe/spacetime would get more and more dense and so time would slow down (the same way it would as you approached the event horizon of a black hole) as you moved backwards in time until time stopped moving at all.

But how can you say that there was nothing before there was something? When we talk about the beginning of the universe, we're talking about the beginning of spacetime, not the beginning of the stuff in the universe. We can't honestly say that the phrase "before the universe" has any meaning whatsoever any more than we can say "outside the universe" has any meaning, because that would be like saying "before time" and "outside of space." The word "before" is meaningless without time and the word "outside" is meaningless without space.

Lastly, even if there was such a thing as "before time," then what do you mean by "nothing"? The more physics learns about "nothing," the more we find out that the kind of "nothing" that philosophers and theologians have been talking about all these centuries might be impossible. It turns out that nothing isn't really nothing and nothing is inherently unstable.

To sum up: if you insist that there was nothing before there was something, the words "before" and "nothing" in that sentence are probably without meaning.

 

[Speakpigeon]

First of all, time dilates as you go backwards in time, so from our point of view the "origin" of the universe would be infinitely in the past. If you went backwards in time, the universe/spacetime would get more and more dense and so time would slow down (the same way it would as you approached the event horizon of a black hole) as you moved backwards in time until time stopped moving at all.

Time dilates relative to what?

For the guy who is there, on location so to speak, does it mean he can do more work than us within the same amount of time? Or less? Or exactly the same amount?

Me, I would expect that the same number of events would take place in the same amount of time, meaning that people at the time would feel no difference. They would live the same number of years as us and wait in queues for the same amount of time. The difference would be from the point of view of an outside observer. Yet, there's no outside observer possible. Only us, but we don't get to observe from outside. We observe from inside, only now. I'm not sure what the result of that could be.

If from our point of view, i.e. us, now, the origin of the universe was infinitely away from us in the past, as you claim, why is it scientists say the universe is 13.7 billion years old?

If space-time was more dense closer to the origine than it is now, I would rather say that space-time contracts, not dilates, but again it won't mean anything until you specify relative to what.

But how can you say that there was nothing before there was something? When we talk about the beginning of the universe, we're talking about the beginning of spacetime, not the beginning of the stuff in the universe. We can't honestly say that the phrase "before the universe" has any meaning whatsoever any more than we can say "outside the universe" has any meaning, because that would be like saying "before time" and "outside of space." The word "before" is meaningless without time and the word "outside" is meaningless without space.

Wait, if you admit in Relativity different observers each with their own local time, then we can think of our universe having its own "local" time, or rather its own time dimension, and then the same universe somehow appearing at some point within another time dimension, completely different and unrelated to the local time of our universe. That sounds at least logically possible. In which case, the "before" could refer to a before existing within this other time dimension, not within ours.

Lastly, even if there was such a thing as "before time," then what do you mean by "nothing"? The more physics learns about "nothing," the more we find out that the kind of "nothing" that philosophers and theologians have been talking about all these centuries might be impossible. It turns out that nothing isn't really nothing and nothing is inherently unstable.

That's bad epistemology. You can't assume that whatever you've learnt about our universe ipso facto applies to anything that might have existed outside our universe. What we know about our universe can't possibly invalidate any option as to what might exist or have existed outside.

Further, it seems to me that what science really says is that there's no real or perfect vacuum in space. We're not talking about nothingness. A perfect vacuum in space is something, not nothing. Vacuum is at least basic space (and possibly time). Nothingness isn't supposed to include anything, not even space or time.

And, further, we may also want to think in terms of a different dimension of time, and possibly no dimension of space (for example).

To sum up: if you insist that there was nothing before there was something, the words "before" and "nothing" in that sentence are probably without meaning.

That's a bit too harsh.

A word has the meaning the speaker gives to it. It's basically the idea or thought he readily associates with the word. So, usually, words mean something to the speaker. They may not mean anything to other people, though.

Then the word may or may not refer to something real out there. Yet, how is that supposed to work in the case of nothingness?

It seems to me an extraordinary feat of the human mind that it should be able to conceive even of that which not only doesn't exist at all, but sort of wouldn't even exist if it existed!

Something we should celebrate, I think.
EB

 

[Learner]

I suppose you could throw in another angle (perhaps not a good one) to the idea and ponder on the thought : just like anti-matter is to matter, there is anti-time or rather "time" going in the opposite direction. Of course in the physical universe of something/matter. Time as we see it, is seemingly obvious an observation to be linear. I wonder (in laymans terms)... Should it be neccessary to mean there should be a "no time" or no space-time at all before there was "something" when there could still be "time" going in all directions perhaps (for lack of better wording and giving myself a headache) ..a non-linear time of of sorts?

(Opposiing directions of time ... not neccessarily meaning reverse as one is walking backwards in rewind motion but a forward motion using two train tracks for example. Trains on two cosmic-thingy tracks but going in opposite directions but to the individuals onboard both trains would be still experiencing time moving forward. )

(better leave it before I confuse myself)

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, good point.

I guess you could think in two very different ways: either in terms of time going in the opposite direction, or distinct time dimensions, all starting or not from the same point.

If you want to think in terms of time going in the opposite direction from ours, it would suggest something more complicated such as time existing within a larger, non-time frame, relative to which our time could flow in one direction and then some other time could flow in the opposite direction.

If no larger frame, then you're back to just different dimensions of time and then the notion of different times going in opposite directions doesn't mean much.

And then, it's arguable that the notion of dimension may not be adapted to the reality of time as it's more obvious that it is for space (space-time notwithstanding). We might have to think in terms of an entirely abstract notion of time dimension rather than anything actual. A pure representation, convenient but ultimately misleading.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You're contradicting yourself here. Talking about a set rather than a series does seem to change something after all. Otherwise, you'd be asking me where the set begins, but that would be such an obviously idiotic question even you can't quite risk it.

Fine. Call it one set. I don't care. It's a set that grows and grows. Calling it a set does not by magic make it complete.

And sets don't begin or end anywhere.

So once again you have no point.

The series of the negative integers begins at negative one. It does not end there. It has no ending point. It cannot complete.

No series can begin at that which does not exist.

 

[untermensche]

Good. It's just the conventional definition of infinity.

It's not a definition of anything.

It is something that does not exist.

Saying something does not exist is saying it has no definition beyond it is something that does not exist.

Reaching the highest integer is as possible as infinite time completing in the past.

Yes? You've just admitted to the existence of infinities!

I've admitted they do not exist.

Once again you have no point.

The idea of infinity and completion are in conflict.

I can keep saying this over and over because it is true and cannot be shown to not be true.

No infinite series completes.

The idea of a completed infinity of time having already happened is just stupidity. Severe stupidity.

 

[untermensche]

Consider the infinite number line of rational numbers. As being infinite the plus and minus endpoints are not quantifiable. Pick a point, say 2.7. There are an infinite number of points before and after the point.

Infinite is a word for not quantifiable. Whatever conundrum that may exist is not in reality, it is in the way our brains are wired.

You say quantifiable I say complete. Same idea.

An infinite series is a series that does not end, has no end, continues to grow and grow and never can complete.

It is an imaginary thing that has no connection whatsoever to reality.

No problem with our minds understanding that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're contradicting yourself here. Talking about a set rather than a series does seem to change something after all. Otherwise, you'd be asking me where the set begins, but that would be such an obviously idiotic question even you can't quite risk it.

Fine. Call it one set. I don't care. It's a set that grows and grows. Calling it a set does not by magic make it complete.

And sets don't begin or end anywhere.

So once again you have no point.

Yes I have.

As we commonly conceive of it, the negative Integers is an infinite set of numbers and there's no negative integers superior to -1, i.e. -1 is the upper bound to the set. And there's no lower bound.

So, what would be logically wrong with this notion?

The series of the negative integers begins at negative one. It does not end there. It has no ending point. It cannot complete.

No series can begin at that which does not exist.

I'm not talking about the series of negative Integers. How many times do I have to say that?!

I don't care something I'm not talking about "completes" or not, whatever that means.

Just answer that simple question: What would be logically wrong with the set of negative Integers being an infinite set?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Good. It's just the conventional definition of infinity.

It's not a definition of anything.

Yes it is:

Definition
1. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

That's the most usual definition of the word "definition" and that's the one I'm using here.

So, I take your claim that "there is no greatest number in the whole universe" as a good working definition of the word "infinite".

And, surely, a word is something.

I'm not discussing whether infinities exist or not in the universe. I am discussing whether the concept of infinity is logically consistent and whether we know of any specific fact that would invalidate the possibility of there being infinities in the universe.

So far, you've failed to prove otherwise.

Still, it seems you also failed to even understand the question, and yours is post No. 433! Time to wake up, Buddy.

That is my point.

Sure, but you've abysmally failed to prove infinities don't exist.

Although, me, I can't see how that could be done, anyway. That's a goose chase, if you want my opinion.

It is something that does not exist.

Prove it, then.

Saying something does not exist is saying it has no definition beyond it is something that does not exist.

See above. All will be made clear. Hallelujah.

Reaching the highest integer is as possible as infinite time completing in the past.

I never claimed that "reaching the highest integer" was possible. You really have a problem with basic English sentences.

I'm not sure why you keep talking about something nobody is arguing about. Me, it's good enough that you accept that the definition of infinity is logically consistent and not contradicted by any known fact.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The idea of infinity and completion are in conflict.

I can keep saying this over and over because it is true and cannot be shown to not be true.

No infinite series completes.

The idea of a completed infinity of time having already happened is just stupidity. Severe stupidity.

I'd rather not take your word for it, thank you.

Well, since you're here, can you explain in a rational way and normal English what you mean when you say that a "series does not complete"?
EB

 

[untermensche]

The idea of infinity and completion are in conflict.

I can keep saying this over and over because it is true and cannot be shown to not be true.

No infinite series completes.

The idea of a completed infinity of time having already happened is just stupidity. Severe stupidity.

I'd rather not take your word for it, thank you.

Well, since you're here, can you explain in a rational way and normal English what you mean when you say that a "series does not complete"?
EB

The ideas stand unless you have some reasonable objection.

All I see from you is nonsense.

You call an infinite series a set and think it is by magic completed. That is the kind of delusional thinking I am opposed to.

 

[fast]

Space-time is a dimension.

Even a physical dimension like length is not itself something that's physical. This is similar in form to a rolling ball example I've given before. Take away the rolling, you're left with a ball, something that's physical. If instead, you take away the ball, you're not left with anything--anything at all. A box can have a length. Take away the box, you're not left with anything that's physical.

At any rate, using a dimension (or even worse, space-time) as an instantiation of something physical is a highly problematic.

 

[untermensche]

It is something that does not exist.

Prove it, then.

There can be no highest, no greatest integer. Any integer you can give me I can give you one that is greater. This process will never change.

It is positive claims like an infinity can complete and has completed in the past that needs proof.

Otherwise nothing is needed.

The idea is dismissed with the wave of a hand.

Pure nonsense.