Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Juma]

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

To measure something real you need to agree on a measurement unit. For time that is the second.
So the question wether time has been going on for ever or not is a question of wether there is a finite number of seconds since the first second. (Or equivalent: if there was a first second).
Not wether the timedimension can be divided into infinitesimal points...

 

[Random Person]

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.

If you take a segment out of an infinite amount of time your segment is a finite amount of time.

 

[Random Person]

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

To measure something real you need to agree on a measurement unit. For time that is the second.
So the question wether time has been going on for ever or not is a question of wether there is a finite number of seconds since the first second. (Or equivalent: if there was a first second).
Not wether the timedimension can be divided into infinitesimal points...

I'm not dividing time into infinitesimal points, that was somebody else.

If there was a first second then there is a finite amount of time. In an infinite amount of time there would be no first second.

 

[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.

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.

Sure it matters. In fact that is the central point. If an infinite amount of time has to elapse before we get to "now" then this moment would never arrive. Even if you can't wrap your mind around that, we know that the universe would have subject to a heat death by now.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

To measure something real you need to agree on a measurement unit. For time that is the second.

Why should we go into the question of measurement? The OP's question is about whether there's a logical contradiction in the idea of an infinite past. Nobody is going to measure any infinite past any time soon.

So the question wether time has been going on for ever or not is a question of wether there is a finite number of seconds since the first second. (Or equivalent: if there was a first second).

No.

Whatever you'll be able to measure you won't be able to tell if it's the first second. Witness the Big Bang. It's as good as measured, sort of, and yet, can you tell whether it's the first second of time? I don't think anyone can.

Not wether the timedimension can be divided into infinitesimal points...

???

Where did I have to talk about "infinitesimals points"?! Sorry, but that's entirely irrelevant.

My point is that normal intelligent people can conceive of an interval containing an infinity of Real numbers in between two endpoints and that therefore we can similarly conceive of time as an interval containing an infinity of moments in between two endpoint moments.

It's a logical question. Why do you feel you need to bring in the question of measurement?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

???

"compartmentalize time"?!

"nullifying the infinite component"?!

You're definitely not making sense.

I think at this point I would need you to prove your sanity before I'll try to use logic with you. You must be right, somewhere. Using logic talking to you, I guess you must feel like being tortured. Sorry, I didn't know!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Humans can only experience time in the present.

Tautological. We just call "present" whatever we experience.

For us there is only an eternal "now",

Contradiction in terms. And, personally, I don't think there's anything eternal about my experience of time.

Fuzziness in expressing your "ideas" doesn't help. I'm still looking for you expressing one sensible idea. No luck, yet.

but time operates in sequential moments.

Who would know except as a tautological truth? We think of time as the sequence of moments (we think) we experience. Big deal.

Basically, all you're ever doing here is repeating (very, very badly) all the conventionally trite notions that people believe about time. And you appear to take these as the sacred truths that might as well have been revealed to you by some benevolent God. And worst of all, you take these pathetic dregs to be an expression of your logical acumen, something you may have had a long time ago. No longer, obviously.
EB

 

[Juma]

Why should we go into the question of measurement? The OP's question is about whether there's a logical contradiction in the idea of an infinite past. Nobody is going to measure any infinite past any time soon.

So the question wether time has been going on for ever or not is a question of wether there is a finite number of seconds since the first second. (Or equivalent: if there was a first second).

No.

Whatever you'll be able to measure you won't be able to tell if it's the first second. Witness the Big Bang. It's as good as measured, sort of, and yet, can you tell whether it's the first second of time? I don't think anyone can.

Not wether the timedimension can be divided into infinitesimal points...

???

Where did I have to talk about "infinitesimals points"?! Sorry, but that's entirely irrelevant.

My point is that normal intelligent people can conceive of an interval containing an infinity of Real numbers in between two endpoints and that therefore we can similarly conceive of time as an interval containing an infinity of moments in between two endpoint moments.

It's a logical question. Why do you feel you need to bring in the question of measurement?
EB

because that is what its all about. all this talk about ”moments” is misleading. a moment has no size, its like a point.
the issue here isnt about the number of sizeless points, its about the length/distance to the beginning of time.
without a unit (as seconds) there is no well define measure of that ”distance”.

And no, I do not say that the question is about a specific value on that measure, but wether that it must be a finite number or not.

 

[steve_bank]

When tyou start using the real numbrt linr as a talking point consider one of Zeno's paradoxes.

Take steps one half the distance to a wall and you never get there.

If you try to quantize subjective moments you will eventually run into something like Zeno. At any given moment the next moment becomes impossible by an infinite number in-between moments. Reality says otherwise.

BTW I can imagine a lot, like an eternal infinite afterlife serviced by beautiful women.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Why should we go into the question of measurement? The OP's question is about whether there's a logical contradiction in the idea of an infinite past. Nobody is going to measure any infinite past any time soon.



No.

Whatever you'll be able to measure you won't be able to tell if it's the first second. Witness the Big Bang. It's as good as measured, sort of, and yet, can you tell whether it's the first second of time? I don't think anyone can.



???

Where did I have to talk about "infinitesimals points"?! Sorry, but that's entirely irrelevant.

My point is that normal intelligent people can conceive of an interval containing an infinity of Real numbers in between two endpoints and that therefore we can similarly conceive of time as an interval containing an infinity of moments in between two endpoint moments.

It's a logical question. Why do you feel you need to bring in the question of measurement?
EB

because that is what its all about. all this talk about ”moments” is misleading. a moment has no size, its like a point.

Sorry but I didn't talk about "moments" in my first post you commented on. Replace "moments" here by "dimensionless points in time" or by "minutes", "years", whatever. Doesn't matter because it depends on your conception of time. It's a logical question, remember?

the issue here isnt about the number of sizeless points, its about the length/distance to the beginning of time.

without a unit (as seconds) there is no well define measure of that ”distance”.

I didn't talk about "sizeless points" in time. I said there was a bijection between the interval between 0 and 1 that contains an infinity of Real numbers, and an infinite line, and by implication between any of these to things and an infinite past.

This remains true whether you choose to conceive of time as made of dimensionless points (or moments), or of seconds, minutes, days, years, it doesn't matter.

And no, I do not say that the question is about a specific value on that measure, but wether that it must be a finite number or not.

???
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When tyou start using the real numbrt linr as a talking point consider one of Zeno's paradoxes.

Take steps one half the distance to a wall and you never get there.

If you try to quantize subjective moments you will eventually run into something like Zeno. At any given moment the next moment becomes impossible by an infinite number in-between moments. Reality says otherwise.

Vacuous claim.

You can't infer anything about the fine structure of time from the fact that we would live in a quantified world. We don't even know that we do. And from the last conversation on this subject in this forum I seem to have understood that there wasn't any identified quantum of time.

And by your own admission you will never get to Zeno. You'd have to cover half the remaining distance and then again half the remaining distance. You'd never get to Zeno.

BTW I can imagine a lot, like an eternal infinite afterlife serviced by beautiful women.

Nah, it won't happen. No even in your wildest dreams.
EB

 

[Random Person]

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.

???

"compartmentalize time"?!

"nullifying the infinite component"?!

You're definitely not making sense.

I think at this point I would need you to prove your sanity before I'll try to use logic with you. You must be right, somewhere. Using logic talking to you, I guess you must feel like being tortured. Sorry, I didn't know!
EB

Insane? Maybe take some cleansing breaths and see if you can't connect with a rational perspective.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Sure it matters. In fact that is the central point. If an infinite amount of time has to elapse before we get to "now" then this moment would never arrive.

That's merely a reassertion of your conclusion; it's not a counterargument to Juma's rebuttal. He drew the obvious analogy with infinite space. So deal with his objection. Either (1) claim that space has to be finite too because if space were infinite we couldn't possibly be "here", or (2) explain what it is about time that makes the logic of time different from the logic of space, or (3) admit you don't have a justification for your assertion.

Even if you can't wrap your mind around that, we know that the universe would have subject to a heat death by now.

"Heat death" is an 1800s concept, based on an 1800s understanding of thermodynamics. Physicists at that time thought it was a fundamental law of physics that entropy always increases. And yet you can watch entropy decrease all by itself any time you please -- all you need is a drop of water, a bit of dust, and a microscope. It's called "Brownian motion" -- a dust particle that has been brought to rest by friction from a viscous fluid suddenly starts moving, in contravention of every principle of 1800s physics. Welcome to 1902. Thermodynamics is now understood to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the statistics of large numbers of particles moving mostly independently of one another. Entropy decreases aren't impossible; it's just that a transition from a low-entropy state to a neighboring high-entropy state is more probable than the reverse transition; and big entropy decreases are vastly more improbable than tiny little entropy decreases, such as a dust particle accelerating.

The point is, vastly improbable is an entirely different beast from impossible. It just means a ridiculously long time can be expected to pass between one occurrence and the next. A ridiculously long time is a finite amount. So if time was infinite, then there has been enough time for arbitrarily large entropy decreases to have already happened, infinitely many times. Thermodynamics is therefore no obstacle to an eternal universe. If something resembling a "heat death" occurs, it will eventually reverse itself. Patience is a virtue.

 

[Random Person]

That's merely a reassertion of your conclusion; it's not a counterargument to Juma's rebuttal. He drew the obvious analogy with infinite space. So deal with his objection. Either (1) claim that space has to be finite too because if space were infinite we couldn't possibly be "here", or (2) explain what it is about time that makes the logic of time different from the logic of space, or (3) admit you don't have a justification for your assertion.

Even if you can't wrap your mind around that, we know that the universe would have subject to a heat death by now.

"Heat death" is an 1800s concept, based on an 1800s understanding of thermodynamics. Physicists at that time thought it was a fundamental law of physics that entropy always increases. And yet you can watch entropy decrease all by itself any time you please -- all you need is a drop of water, a bit of dust, and a microscope. It's called "Brownian motion" -- a dust particle that has been brought to rest by friction from a viscous fluid suddenly starts moving, in contravention of every principle of 1800s physics. Welcome to 1902. Thermodynamics is now understood to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the statistics of large numbers of particles moving mostly independently of one another. Entropy decreases aren't impossible; it's just that a transition from a low-entropy state to a neighboring high-entropy state is more probable than the reverse transition; and big entropy decreases are vastly more improbable than tiny little entropy decreases, such as a dust particle accelerating.

The point is, vastly improbable is an entirely different beast from impossible. It just means a ridiculously long time can be expected to pass between one occurrence and the next. A ridiculously long time is a finite amount. So if time was infinite, then there has been enough time for arbitrarily large entropy decreases to have already happened, infinitely many times. Thermodynamics is therefore no obstacle to an eternal universe. If something resembling a "heat death" occurs, it will eventually reverse itself. Patience is a virtue.

You're still faced with an infinite amount of time to transpire before you get to now. Can't happen no matter how hard you dance.

 

[steve_bank]

Thermodynamics apply to a system with a boundary, like a refrigerator.

What you are descubing sounds like Brownian Motion. It is powered by forces which consume energy. Thermal energy in the environment comes from the Sun, tectonic motion, and the core. Local entropy left to itself is always increasing, running down hill. A refridgerator is an entropy reverser in the refrdgerator, entropy outside must inecrease. The problem occurs when the boundary is increased to the scale of the universe.

As to the problem of entropy reversing itself, gas molcules have a probability in a bottle of returning to exact positions, but not with the same emergy unless there is an energy input.

 

[bilby]

Thermodynamics apply to a system with a boundary, like a refrigerator.

What you are descubing sounds like Brownian Motion. It is powered by forces which consume energy. Thermal energy in the environment comes from the Sun, tectonic motion, and the core. Local entropy left to itself is always increasing, running down hill. A refridgerator is an entropy reverser in the refrdgerator, entropy outside must inecrease. The problem occurs when the boundary is increased to the scale of the universe.

As to the problem of entropy reversing itself, gas molcules have a probability in a bottle of returning to exact positions, but not with the same emergy unless there is an energy input.

Wait, what?

Did they repeal the first law of thermodynamics and not tell me? If there is no energy input or output, then the total energy of the system MUST be the same.

If you are treating the 'bottle' as an open system, then a) Why have a bottle at all; and b) Why assume an energy output from the system during the motion of the gas molecules?

 

[DBT]

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.

If you take a segment out of an infinite amount of time your segment is a finite amount of time.

Nothing is taken out. These are the inseparable parts of the whole of reality. We only happen to experience the finite, discrete objects, units and their relationships....which our brains - being wired as they are - call time and events,

 

[Juma]

That's merely a reassertion of your conclusion; it's not a counterargument to Juma's rebuttal. He drew the obvious analogy with infinite space. So deal with his objection. Either (1) claim that space has to be finite too because if space were infinite we couldn't possibly be "here", or (2) explain what it is about time that makes the logic of time different from the logic of space, or (3) admit you don't have a justification for your assertion.

Even if you can't wrap your mind around that, we know that the universe would have subject to a heat death by now.

"Heat death" is an 1800s concept, based on an 1800s understanding of thermodynamics. Physicists at that time thought it was a fundamental law of physics that entropy always increases. And yet you can watch entropy decrease all by itself any time you please -- all you need is a drop of water, a bit of dust, and a microscope. It's called "Brownian motion" -- a dust particle that has been brought to rest by friction from a viscous fluid suddenly starts moving, in contravention of every principle of 1800s physics. Welcome to 1902. Thermodynamics is now understood to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the statistics of large numbers of particles moving mostly independently of one another. Entropy decreases aren't impossible; it's just that a transition from a low-entropy state to a neighboring high-entropy state is more probable than the reverse transition; and big entropy decreases are vastly more improbable than tiny little entropy decreases, such as a dust particle accelerating.

The point is, vastly improbable is an entirely different beast from impossible. It just means a ridiculously long time can be expected to pass between one occurrence and the next. A ridiculously long time is a finite amount. So if time was infinite, then there has been enough time for arbitrarily large entropy decreases to have already happened, infinitely many times. Thermodynamics is therefore no obstacle to an eternal universe. If something resembling a "heat death" occurs, it will eventually reverse itself. Patience is a virtue.

You're still faced with an infinite amount of time to transpire before you get to now.

No. Then that amount of time is in the past. that amount of time has already transpired.
Stop this now, it is obvious that you have argument. You just spew up the same unsupported claim again and again.
(Exactly like untermensch... and u has stopped... aha...)

 

[Speakpigeon]

"Heat death" is an 1800s concept, based on an 1800s understanding of thermodynamics. Physicists at that time thought it was a fundamental law of physics that entropy always increases. And yet you can watch entropy decrease all by itself any time you please -- all you need is a drop of water, a bit of dust, and a microscope. It's called "Brownian motion" -- a dust particle that has been brought to rest by friction from a viscous fluid suddenly starts moving, in contravention of every principle of 1800s physics. Welcome to 1902. Thermodynamics is now understood to be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the statistics of large numbers of particles moving mostly independently of one another. Entropy decreases aren't impossible; it's just that a transition from a low-entropy state to a neighboring high-entropy state is more probable than the reverse transition; and big entropy decreases are vastly more improbable than tiny little entropy decreases, such as a dust particle accelerating.

The point is, vastly improbable is an entirely different beast from impossible. It just means a ridiculously long time can be expected to pass between one occurrence and the next. A ridiculously long time is a finite amount. So if time was infinite, then there has been enough time for arbitrarily large entropy decreases to have already happened, infinitely many times. Thermodynamics is therefore no obstacle to an eternal universe. If something resembling a "heat death" occurs, it will eventually reverse itself. Patience is a virtue.

Very good point!

I wonder how it pans out if space is infinite, too? I would assume the possibility of local increases over any finite area of space, however large, but the possibility of an overall increase, over the entire infinite space, would depend on the relation between the two kinds of infinity of space and time. Any idea?

And could space be finite if time is infinite, or the reverse, given that we're supposed to have something called space-time?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thermodynamics apply to a system with a boundary, like a refrigerator.

What you are descubing sounds like Brownian Motion. It is powered by forces which consume energy. Thermal energy in the environment comes from the Sun, tectonic motion, and the core. Local entropy left to itself is always increasing, running down hill. A refridgerator is an entropy reverser in the refrdgerator, entropy outside must inecrease. The problem occurs when the boundary is increased to the scale of the universe.

As to the problem of entropy reversing itself, gas molcules have a probability in a bottle of returning to exact positions, but not with the same emergy unless there is an energy input.

Wait, what?

Did they repeal the first law of thermodynamics and not tell me? If there is no energy input or output, then the total energy of the system MUST be the same.

If you are treating the 'bottle' as an open system, then a) Why have a bottle at all; and b) Why assume an energy output from the system during the motion of the gas molecules?

Give the man a break, for God's sake.
EB