Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[DBT]

An infinite past does not appear to exclude the existence of a present moment. If Eternity of events exist, there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Many vacuous discussions stem from just taking everything literally.

And since none of us can experience infinity, I don't see how we could possibly exclude any such operation. Rather, it's just a matter of definition.

I would say that we rarher often experience things without end. As in the wast endless sea. The height of the sky etc. it is really just causedby not being able to see the end (except in case of heigth the sky) but nevertheless provides us with the experience of something without end.

No.

You experience things, yes, but whether these are with or without end you just don't know.

And having a finite experience of the infinite?! Come on! You're not even making sense.

You're just guilty of the same sin as Lion IRC, i.e. taking things literally.

You should know better.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

An infinite past does not appear to exclude the existence of a present moment. If Eternity of events exist, there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now.

Tautological.
EB

 

[Juma]

No.

You experience things, yes, but whether these are with or without end you just don't know.

And having a finite experience of the infinite?! Come on! You're not even making sense.

You're just guilty of the same sin as Lion IRC, i.e. taking things literally.

EB

Sering things that you cannot see the end of is seeing something possible infinite.
Infinite doesnt mean ” extremly many”. it means that the quantity is unbounded.

Laugh and ridicule as much as you want. It just makes you seem smaller.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No.

You experience things, yes, but whether these are with or without end you just don't know.

And having a finite experience of the infinite?! Come on! You're not even making sense.

You're just guilty of the same sin as Lion IRC, i.e. taking things literally.

EB

Sering things that you cannot see the end of is seeing something possible infinite.

Ah, excellent. I agree wholeheartedly. I consider the present moment and all the past moments I remember experiencing and think that the past may well have been infinite.

Infinite doesnt mean ” extremly many”. it means that the quantity is unbounded.

Absolutely. See? We agree on plenty of things.

Laugh and ridicule as much as you want. It just makes you seem smaller.

Yes, that's true, but I'm in no illusion about me being some kind of larger than life character. What you can see here is my actual size in life. Just sorry you should be at all disappointed. We're not going to marry, you know.
EB

 

[bilby]

If you can add 1 then it wasn't infinite to start with.

It was defined as infinite to start with. Why can't you add 1?

And I agree - it's not a number.
1 is a number.
Can you add a non-number to a number?

Yes; It's called 'algebra'. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

Does truth become 15% more truthful if you multiply it by 1.15 ?
Does God live an extra few years by not smoking? No. He exists for a past and future eternity.

Like I said. It's an oxymoron to give an abstraction like infinity a finite quality like the ability to ADD it to something.

Your incoherent ramblings are unconvincing. As is your bald assertion.

 

[Random Person]

It was defined as infinite to start with. Why can't you add 1?

Yes; It's called 'algebra'. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

Does truth become 15% more truthful if you multiply it by 1.15 ?
Does God live an extra few years by not smoking? No. He exists for a past and future eternity.

Like I said. It's an oxymoron to give an abstraction like infinity a finite quality like the ability to ADD it to something.

Your incoherent ramblings are unconvincing. As is your bald assertion.

You can't add a number to a non-number. Algebra uses letters to denote variables.

 

[steve_bank]

Infinity is not a number. Ancient Zog would count mastodons using toes and fingers to communicate to the tribe a herd. Greater than 20 was 'many', to Zog uncountable.

To us today infinity applied to objects or variables like distance and time is similar.

1,2,3...infinity.

To some it is a stumbling block when thinking of an infinite universe in (x,y,z,t). It is not a conundrum or paradox. An infinite universe simply means numerically uncountable or quantifiable parameter's. In an infinite universe the size of the universe has no meaning, as with age. Distance is only a local measurement relative to a reference point. Time is measure from reference point.

The reference point for the BB is the theoretical event, not the start of the universe. When I took astronomy in the 70s the question was the apparent missing mass in the universe. Depending on the amount the universe was forever expanding, oscillatory, or one shot out and back.

And that boys and girls is relativity. If the universe is finite or infinite we have no way of knowing, we have no absolute reference point.

 

[DBT]

Tautological.
EB

Could be, but not necessarily. Consider the example of someone suffering a misfortune, ''why me?'' they cry....but if suffering and misfortune exists in the world, it must necessarily be someone, and that someone, feeling sort of unique, cries ''why me?'' when in fact it is inevitable.

If something exists, it exists at the point that it is being experienced, right here and now. By us, as it happens.....why us? Well, ...

 

[Random Person]

Infinity is not a number. Ancient Zog would count mastodons using toes and fingers to communicate to the tribe a herd. Greater than 20 was 'many', to Zog uncountable.

To us today infinity applied to objects or variables like distance and time is similar.

1,2,3...infinity.

To some it is a stumbling block when thinking of an infinite universe in (x,y,z,t). It is not a conundrum or paradox. An infinite universe simply means numerically uncountable or quantifiable parameter's. In an infinite universe the size of the universe has no meaning, as with age. Distance is only a local measurement relative to a reference point. Time is measure from reference point.

The reference point for the BB is the theoretical event, not the start of the universe. When I took astronomy in the 70s the question was the apparent missing mass in the universe. Depending on the amount the universe was forever expanding, oscillatory, or one shot out and back.

And that boys and girls is relativity. If the universe is finite or infinite we have no way of knowing, we have no absolute reference point.

We couldn't have a reference point with an infinite universe.

 

[DBT]

Discrete units within a greater system provide reference points.

 

[Random Person]

Discrete units within a greater system provide reference points.

A discrete unit would have two end points. Infinite time would not.

 

[Juma]

Infinity is not a number. Ancient Zog would count mastodons using toes and fingers to communicate to the tribe a herd. Greater than 20 was 'many', to Zog uncountable.

To us today infinity applied to objects or variables like distance and time is similar.

1,2,3...infinity.

To some it is a stumbling block when thinking of an infinite universe in (x,y,z,t). It is not a conundrum or paradox. An infinite universe simply means numerically uncountable or quantifiable parameter's. In an infinite universe the size of the universe has no meaning, as with age. Distance is only a local measurement relative to a reference point. Time is measure from reference point.

The reference point for the BB is the theoretical event, not the start of the universe. When I took astronomy in the 70s the question was the apparent missing mass in the universe. Depending on the amount the universe was forever expanding, oscillatory, or one shot out and back.

And that boys and girls is relativity. If the universe is finite or infinite we have no way of knowing, we have no absolute reference point.

We couldn't have a reference point with an infinite universe.

Dear Assert-A-Lot whay are you doing this?
You wont convince anyone here that you are right as you doesnt provide any support for it.

If space was infinite we still would be at some point in space. If time was infinite we still would be at now.
Whether there are inifinite amount of time before doesnt matter.

 

[DBT]

Discrete units within a greater system provide reference points.

A discrete unit would have two end points. Infinite time would not.

A discrete unit is not the whole of eternity or infinity, only a finite part. Hence it has reference points in relation to other discrete, finite, units.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Tautological.
EB

Could be, but not necessarily. Consider the example of someone suffering a misfortune, ''why me?'' they cry....but if suffering and misfortune exists in the world, it must necessarily be someone, and that someone, feeling sort of unique, cries ''why me?'' when in fact it is inevitable.

If something exists, it exists at the point that it is being experienced, right here and now. By us, as it happens.....why us? Well, ...

So you don't understand my English?

Your bit about infinity was tautological because you start with assuming an infinite past:

An infinite past does not appear to exclude the existence of a present moment. If Eternity of events exist, there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now.

So, you argument is, well, if we assume the past was infinite, since we experience the present then it's possible both that we experience the present and for the past to be infinite. See?

Or, possibly, you're doing an extreme form of non-sequitur. That you are assuming an infinite past, it doesn't follow that the past was infinite.
EB

 

[DBT]

So you don't understand my English?

Your bit about infinity was tautological because you start with assuming an infinite past:

An infinite past does not appear to exclude the existence of a present moment. If Eternity of events exist, there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now.

So, you argument is, well, if we assume the past was infinite, since we experience the present then it's possible both that we experience the present and for the past to be infinite. See?

Or, possibly, you're doing an extreme form of non-sequitur. That you are assuming an infinite past, it doesn't follow that the past was infinite.
EB

Same old arrogant manner. An apparent Infinite and unchanging display of attitude.

As the subject of discussion happens to be infinity/eternity, an infinite/eternal past is being assumed for the sake of argument.

The rest of your objections do not relate to what I said. I doubt if you understood what I was getting at.

Don't bother trying. It's a waste of your time and mine.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Discrete units within a greater system provide reference points.

A discrete unit would have two end points. Infinite time would not.

Why not? I can conceive of an infinite line with two end points. It would just stop at two end points with still an infinity of points in between, just like the interval of real number between 0 and 1. There in effect a bijection between the two. There's no contradiction in that idea.

The reality is that you have assumed a particular model for your notion of the past and you are apparently unable or somehow unwilling to understand that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your model would be correct.

And you can even get yourself to explain and justify your weird position.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you don't understand my English?

Your bit about infinity was tautological because you start with assuming an infinite past:

An infinite past does not appear to exclude the existence of a present moment. If Eternity of events exist, there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now.

So, you argument is, well, if we assume the past was infinite, since we experience the present then it's possible both that we experience the present and for the past to be infinite. See?

Or, possibly, you're doing an extreme form of non-sequitur. That you are assuming an infinite past, it doesn't follow that the past was infinite.
EB

Same old arrogant manner. An apparent Infinite and unchanging display of attitude.

As the subject of discussion happens to be infinity/eternity, an infinite/eternal past is being assumed for the sake of argument.

The rest of your objections do not relate to what I said. I doubt if you understood what I was getting at.

Don't bother trying. It's a waste of your time and mine.

So you're going to do the RP gig. Make claims and assume it's good enough?!

So, OK, let's assume there's an infinite past. It's made up of moments and each moment is the present for the things that are there at that moment. So far so good as long as you remember it all depends on your initial assumption. Now, could you explain how that would have to say anything at all about the reality of an infinite past? Because that's what is strongly suggested by your conclusion that "there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now". Not much room for interpretation there, I think.
EB

 

[DBT]

Same old arrogant manner. An apparent Infinite and unchanging display of attitude.

As the subject of discussion happens to be infinity/eternity, an infinite/eternal past is being assumed for the sake of argument.

The rest of your objections do not relate to what I said. I doubt if you understood what I was getting at.

Don't bother trying. It's a waste of your time and mine.

So you're going to do the RP gig. Make claims and assume it's good enough?!

No, I made a remark. You then responded with your typical obnoxious manner. Rather than addressing my comment, you trotted out your usual innuendo and snide remarks....'understanding English' yada, yada, which can get tiresome.

So, OK, let's assume there's an infinite past. It's made up of moments and each moment is the present for the things that are there at that moment. So far so good as long as you remember it all depends on your initial assumption. Now, could you explain how that would have to say anything at all about the reality of an infinite past? Because that's what is strongly suggested by your conclusion that "there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now". Not much room for interpretation there, I think.
EB

It doesn't say anything whatsoever about the reality, or not, of an Infinite past. It just relates to the OP point - ''If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now'' - that's all.

 

[Random Person]

Discrete units within a greater system provide reference points.

A discrete unit would have two end points. Infinite time would not.

Why not? I can conceive of an infinite line with two end points. It would just stop at two end points with still an infinity of points in between, just like the interval of real number between 0 and 1. There in effect a bijection between the two. There's no contradiction in that idea.

The reality is that you have assumed a particular model for your notion of the past and you are apparently unable or somehow unwilling to understand that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that your model would be correct.

And you can even get yourself to explain and justify your weird position.
EB

If you compartmentalize time you have given it a beginning and end nullifying the infinite component you are claiming.

Credit the weirdness to the idea of an infinite universe that you can't explain or defend. If you try to torture logic you'll only end up torturing yourself.

 

[Random Person]

Same old arrogant manner. An apparent Infinite and unchanging display of attitude.

As the subject of discussion happens to be infinity/eternity, an infinite/eternal past is being assumed for the sake of argument.

The rest of your objections do not relate to what I said. I doubt if you understood what I was getting at.

Don't bother trying. It's a waste of your time and mine.

So you're going to do the RP gig. Make claims and assume it's good enough?!

So, OK, let's assume there's an infinite past. It's made up of moments and each moment is the present for the things that are there at that moment. So far so good as long as you remember it all depends on your initial assumption. Now, could you explain how that would have to say anything at all about the reality of an infinite past? Because that's what is strongly suggested by your conclusion that "there has to be a point at which something is happening, that point being Now". Not much room for interpretation there, I think.
EB

Humans can only experience time in the present. For us there is only an eternal "now", but time operates in sequential moments.