Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Speakpigeon]

Some folks seem to be happy with other definitions of Eternity or Infinity, but I am using the ''without beginning or end'' definition.

An infinite past with a beginning is just a past that has an infinite number of moments (e.g. seconds), in the sense that if you had to count them, you wouldn't get to the end of it. So, it's still unbounded in this sense even though it's bounded n the other sense that there's a lower bound.

Those are two very different bounds. The first kind of bound is just a point in the past, the beginning of time. The second kind of bound I'm talking about is just a number, i.e. the number of moments in the past (counting backward from the present or counting forward from the beginning, same result).
EB

Sure, but given the OP issue, is this definition suitable?

''If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.
Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.''

The idea of an infinite past with a beginning is perfectly appropriate for the OP's question.

But if you can get yourself to articulate an objection, I'd be prepared to look at it.

Some would argue that (...)

As long as you're not prepared to argue the same thing, you're safe.

Some would argue that if time had a beginning, there must be a finite number of minutes from the beginning till now.

Argue?! I would really like to hear that!

More likely, they would, like only Random Person can, just claim, assert, and in essence express their irrational belief that an infinite past could not have a beginning, and this without realising that they would just be revealing their pathetically narrow-minded preconception of time. Argue? Come on, you can't event bring yourself to do it.

Of course, there may be a potentially infinite number of minutes in the future, given an open ended system.

And there may be an end-of-time point to an infinite future.
EB

 

[Random Person]

Sure, but given the OP issue, is this definition suitable?

''If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.
Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.''

The idea of an infinite past with a beginning is perfectly appropriate for the OP's question.

But if you can get yourself to articulate an objection, I'd be prepared to look at it.

Some would argue that (...)

As long as you're not prepared to argue the same thing, you're safe.

Some would argue that if time had a beginning, there must be a finite number of minutes from the beginning till now.

Argue?! I would really like to hear that!

More likely, they would, like only Random Person can, just claim, assert, and in essence express their irrational belief that an infinite past could not have a beginning, and this without realising that they would just be revealing their pathetically narrow-minded preconception of time. Argue? Come on, you can't event bring yourself to do it.

Of course, there may be a potentially infinite number of minutes in the future, given an open ended system.

And there may be an end-of-time point to an infinite future.
EB

Truth isn't discerned by consensus or possessed by the most acerbic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Truth isn't discerned by consensus or possessed by the most acerbic.

I have to give you that that you have beliefs.
EB

 

[Juma]

Every point in time is finite distance from another point in time.

Sorry, doesn't work. How could you possibly know that? You may want to assume that but I don't see how anybody could possibly establish this as a fact.

it is obvious because of how time is defined and measured.

That is why we can use seconds to mesure it.

???

I think that's totally irrelevant.

yes, you do. but it isnt.

If the past was infinite and had a beginning, you could still perform exactly the same measures as with a finite time or an infinite time without a beginning.

eh... try to prove that.

.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Every point in time is finite distance from another point in time.

Sorry, doesn't work. How could you possibly know that? You may want to assume that but I don't see how anybody could possibly establish this as a fact.

it is obvious because of how time is defined and measured.

Yeah? Which one exactly?

time
n.1.
a. A non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 am.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

So, no, I don't think your point is obvious. If you can't articulate your arguments then there's no need to have this conversation.

I'm talking here about "a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future". If you're talking about something else, then again we have no reason to have this conversation.

Moreover, the kind of time I am talking about fits the OP's question, where time is considered like this:

If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.
Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

So, as far as I can see, your point is a derail.

That is why we can use seconds to mesure it.

???

I think that's totally irrelevant.

If the past was infinite and had a beginning, you could still perform exactly the same measures as with a finite time or an infinite time without a beginning.

eh... try to prove that.

???

Given the OP, nobody is going to prove anything conclusively. This thread is about a speculative question so your point here is a derail. If you only want to discuss SI units, just send a private message to Steve_Bank.
EB

 

[DBT]

Sure, but given the OP issue, is this definition suitable?

''If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.
Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.''

The idea of an infinite past with a beginning is perfectly appropriate for the OP's question.

But if you can get yourself to articulate an objection, I'd be prepared to look at it.

Nah, too much trouble, couldn't be bothered dealing with this type of attitude. Someone else can have the pleasure...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nah, too much trouble, couldn't be bothered dealing with this type of attitude. Someone else can have the pleasure...

I understand you. I really do.
EB

 

[DBT]

That's doubtful. You'd probably be better off trying to understand yourself and what makes you the way you are.

 

[Juma]

it is obvious because of how time is defined and measured.

Yeah? Which one exactly?

time
n.1.
a. A non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 am.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

So, no, I don't think your point is obvious. If you can't articulate your arguments then there's no need to have this conversation.

I'm talking here about "a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future". If you're talking about something else, then again we have no reason to have this conversation.

Moreover, the kind of time I am talking about fits the OP's question, where time is considered like this:

If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.
Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

So, as far as I can see, your point is a derail.

That is why we can use seconds to mesure it.

???

I think that's totally irrelevant.

If the past was infinite and had a beginning, you could still perform exactly the same measures as with a finite time or an infinite time without a beginning.

eh... try to prove that.

???

Given the OP, nobody is going to prove anything conclusively. This thread is about a speculative question so your point here is a derail. If you only want to discuss SI units, just send a private message to Steve_Bank.
EB

come on... we measure time using the vibrations in cesium atoms. that is the only definition of time useful in this discussion.
time is modelled as a real number.
get it?

 

[Speakpigeon]

come on... we measure time using the vibrations in cesium atoms. that is the only definition of time useful in this discussion.
time is modelled as a real number.
get it?

Oh, I do get your meaning alright, it's just that it's crap.

We're talking here about time as possibly infinite. Not whether it is or isn't, since all sensible people will be aware there's no conceivable way we will ever know. So, your insistence on limiting this discussion to the only kind of time we are able to experience, and indeed measure, is just a derail. As I already pointed out, you just need to look at the OP to realise this.

So, look at the OP carefully, there's no notion of any "useful" definition of time. Instead, the question asked is this: What are the mathematical principles that make this argument true or untrue? See?

You're claiming your "useful" definition is how time is defined but, sorry, no. It's just one way to define time. I've given you a number of definitions and, not surprisingly, you prefer to just ignore the fact that there's a definition of time that doesn't support your claim. Ignoring the argument of other people is a terrible way to argue your case.

So, basically, your argument comes down to asserting that since we don't have any measure of an infinite past, the notion of an infinite past is nonsense because it can't possibly fit your "useful" definition. What a brilliant claim that is!

And, you see, we're here in the mathematics subforum. In case you don't know, there are a lot of mathematical notions that we're unable to measure. Wait! The various mathematical notions of the infinite! Seems you didn't realise this but I'm not sure how you could possibly come to the conclusion that the notion of the infinite, and not just the ordinary notion of the infinite with "no bound", but also notions of the infinite with bounds, would make no sense. You come here in the temple of the religion of the Infinite and claim the Infinite doesn't make sense?!

So, I suggest you try to post on science and mathematics forums and ask them to stop doing whatever they're doing that's not provably "useful", and see what happens. Hey, I just got banned from one such just for just asking a sensible question about the usefulness of logic in science!

I think your post is just pathetic.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

come on... we measure time using the vibrations in cesium atoms. that is the only definition of time useful in this discussion.
time is modelled as a real number.
get it?

Not really all that useful -- it wasn't until about 200 million years after the Big Bang that the first cesium formed.

 

[Kharakov]

Anything that is "still" anything is happening right now, and the past is not happening right now.
...
Copernicus and Galileo disabused us of a privileged "here", Einstein exposed the lie of a special "now".

I tend to think of the past as existing now, in our minds, like the potential future. Hell, considering that people lie and bullshit, and our brains do as well, the past is as "potential" as the future... unless you have multiple reliable witnesses, like the time Jesus levitated a flying submarine from an Amazon tributary at Yoda's urging.

It's always now. I just wonder if the amount of information increases or not...... and how much information is in blue, sweet, and other qualia, whether they can be replicated, etc.... ohh yeah. you bots?

 

[phands]

There's been a lot of references to infinity in this thread, but what kind of infinity? Countable or uncountable?

As an old maths tutor I used to know said "Infinity is not a number, and mostly doesn't behave like one". This being a maths forum, we ought to be rigorous.

 

[Kharakov]

So, you're old?

 

[phands]

So, you're old?

Nicely done sir! <rim shot>

I wish I could take the credit for it, but I was quoting someone else.

 

[steve_bank]

There's been a lot of references to infinity in this thread, but what kind of infinity? Countable or uncountable?

As an old maths tutor I used to know said "Infinity is not a number, and mostly doesn't behave like one". This being a maths forum, we ought to be rigorous.

I second the motion that we be rigorous. All in favor say aye! Ahh...but what exactly does rigorous mean for those of us who are mathematically unsophisticated.

 

[bilby]

There's been a lot of references to infinity in this thread, but what kind of infinity? Countable or uncountable?

As an old maths tutor I used to know said "Infinity is not a number, and mostly doesn't behave like one". This being a maths forum, we ought to be rigorous.

I second the motion that we be rigorous. All in favor say aye! Ahh...but what exactly does rigorous mean for those of us who are mathematically unsophisticated.

Perhaps it means "Shut up and let those who know what they are on about speak"?

If you are mathematically unsophisticated, the smart move would be to observe, in the hope of learning enough to one day be mathematically sophisticated enough to contribute something of value.

 

[phands]

Perhaps it means "Shut up and let those who know what they are on about speak"?

If you are mathematically unsophisticated, the smart move would be to observe, in the hope of learning enough to one day be mathematically sophisticated enough to contribute something of value.

I wouldn't be so rude as to say that**....and mathematically sophisticated is a long scale, which I am nowhere near the top of. Or even the middle.

I also think steve_bank's question is a good one. The notion of mathematical rigour is a complicated topic in itself, but in this forum, I'd expect that the use of infinities to be somewhat mathematically correct, even if the thread topic itself is gibberish. I suspect that this thread should really be in a WOOOO forum.

** Not here, anyway, but religioinsts and racists and other wooo-peddlars will get both barrels of the derision-gun.

 

[untermensche]

There's been a lot of references to infinity in this thread, but what kind of infinity? Countable or uncountable?

As an old maths tutor I used to know said "Infinity is not a number, and mostly doesn't behave like one". This being a maths forum, we ought to be rigorous.

What is a countable infinity?

And perhaps a stupid question.

What is the definition of infinity?

I have seen none in this thread about the logical consequences that flow from the definition of infinity.

What is infinity?

Hard to move one step until the main term of the discussion is vigorously defined.

Does the concept of infinite time include an amount of time that has completed?

 

[phands]

What is a countable infinity?

And perhaps a stupid question.

What is the definition of infinity?

I have seen none in this thread about the logical consequences that flow from the definition of infinity.

What is infinity?

Hard to move one step until the main term of the discussion is vigorously defined.

Does the concept of infinite time include an amount of time that has completed?

Not a stupid question at all.

There's a tutorial on types of infinity here..... I think your "amount of time that has completed" may be a countable infinity, but other parts of the discussion may be uncountable.