Infinte Regress Timeline...

[none]

I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, not an argument.
Just Troy dismissing any argument that doesn't lead directly to his favorite skybuddy.

He appears to think that if the universe is eternal, just collapsing and banging back out over and over, that it must be set on infinite repeat, somehow. So that each time there's a big bang, eventually there will be a Troy Brooks each time.
Exactly how this is part of the definition of infinite regress is left to the reader's imagination.
Exactly how this is a problem for the idea of infinite regression is just lost in Troy's smug self-regard.

 

[dockeen]

Using a term like "infinite regress" just makes a person feel so.....smart inside

 

[ryan]

I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

Now isn't the problem. The problem is that the 14 billion year old universe becomes an infinitesimal point in time. It's a good argument for quantified time in a universe of finite time.

Basic calculus would confirm this.

Actually, on second thought, it is way more complicated than what I said in this post. We could have space in infinity, but our space becomes an infinitesimal observed from someone infinitely far away.

And it also probably depends on how large the infinity being considered is.

 

[Mageth]

There are an infinite number of integers, yet 127 is defined.

 

[Juma]

The problem is that the 14 billion year old universe becomes an infinitesimal point in time.

No. That is not a problem. Due to the physics of this universe, different time scales looks different. There is no need for a discrete time.

 

[untermensche]

Just because god apologists talk about infinite regress doesn't mean the problem is solved. If time stretches back infinitely then the day I was born can be pushed infinitely backward, and it will never occur.

But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress. That is how we are here. Time doesn't stretch infinitely into the past.

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?

 

[dystopian]

If time stretches back infinitely then the day I was born can be pushed infinitely backward, and it will never occur.

I don't see why. Yes, it *could* be pushed infinitely backward; but that doesn't really mean anything since could is not the same as would; you *were* born, it happened; this has no impact whatsoever on whether or not time can be infinite in both directions because with infinite time it is entirely possible that a version of you; a perfect copy in every sense including your experiences; is born multiple times over the infinite eons. In fact, if we have infinite time but only a finite number of possible states that all the matter/energy in the universe can be organized in, this is inevitable. On the other hand, if we also have an infinite number of possibilities, then the original argument about your birth being infinitely pushed backward becomes even less of a problem.

But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress.

No, they don't really say that, and is a gross oversimplification in any case. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that some physicists say that our *spacetime* began with the big bang, although that still isn't really a given; and which would in any case not mean that either space or time began with the big bang but rather just our universe (which could very well just be a black hole in another universe, or could in fact just refer to a small section of an infinitely large space in which big bang events are constantly spawning new "universe" that we could in theory reach by travelling in their direction if we could achieve the impossible speeds necessary to reach them.)

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?

Who says space is an entity in the way you're using the word? You're getting stuck on definitions. Space is not fundamentally like other 'entities'. An entity is defined as something having real existence, just like space sure. Space, however, is a concept we use to describe the real existence of entities. Putting space on the same footing as the entities that inhabit space is akin to arguing that points on a graph and the graph itself are the same thing: they're not, one is just the means by which we can define and understand the other.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see why. Yes, it *could* be pushed infinitely backward; but that doesn't really mean anything since could is not the same as would; you *were* born, it happened; this has no impact whatsoever on whether or not time can be infinite in both directions because with infinite time it is entirely possible that a version of you; a perfect copy in every sense including your experiences; is born multiple times over the infinite eons. In fact, if we have infinite time but only a finite number of possible states that all the matter/energy in the universe can be organized in, this is inevitable. On the other hand, if we also have an infinite number of possibilities, then the original argument about your birth being infinitely pushed backward becomes even less of a problem.

I think you're missing the implications of "pushing" time infinitely backward.

That's the same as pushing yesterday infinitely forward. Yesterday will never occur because infinite time has to pass before it does.

The idea is illogical.

But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress.

No, they don't really say that, and is a gross oversimplification in any case. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that some physicists say that our *spacetime* began with the big bang, although that still isn't really a given; and which would in any case not mean that either space or time began with the big bang but rather just our universe (which could very well just be a black hole in another universe, or could in fact just refer to a small section of an infinitely large space in which big bang events are constantly spawning new "universe" that we could in theory reach by travelling in their direction if we could achieve the impossible speeds necessary to reach them.)

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know. And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space. As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?

Who says space is an entity in the way you're using the word? You're getting stuck on definitions. Space is not fundamentally like other 'entities'. An entity is defined as something having real existence, just like space sure. Space, however, is a concept we use to describe the real existence of entities. Putting space on the same footing as the entities that inhabit space is akin to arguing that points on a graph and the graph itself are the same thing: they're not, one is just the means by which we can define and understand the other.

This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

Just as a planet is a discreet entity. So no matter how many exist it is a discreet amount, not infinity.

 

[dystopian]

I think you're missing the implications of "pushing" time infinitely backward.

That's the same as pushing yesterday infinitely forward. Yesterday will never occur because infinite time has to pass before it does.

I don't think I am. You seem to be appealing to something akin to Zeno's paradox; which isn't really applicable to begin with. What you're saying is not really any different than saying that because we can divide any given space into two equal spaces, you can never cross the distance between yourself and me. However, you clearly can. The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that infinite time means our current timeline expanding in much the same way; but this is of course not the case. Infinite time does NOT imply that yesterday will never occur, since time can still be divided into discrete and finite sections. Even with infinite time, the sun will still rise and set, meaning that days will still go by and so today will still turn into tomorrow. Now is still now; yesterday is still yesterday, and tomorrow is still tomorrow. There's just an infinite number of days past and future; but that has no impact on the contents of neither yesterday nor tomorrow.

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know.

The distinction is that time as we understand it is just the time that is *relative* to us. Even if we say that said time began with the big bang, that does not mean that some of time did not exist before then. That's why what you're saying doesn't serve as an argument against infinite regress.

And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space.

Eh... not exactly? Time is just one of the 4 dimensions we use to define spacetime, which is an abstract concept; and which can be used to define points within said spacetime. Whether time itself even exists in any classical sense remains a matter of controversy among physicists.

As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.

Which tells us nothing about whether or not that is actually true. There are credible models in which it does; and there is really no reason for us to assume that there is no such existence outside of our universe, as doing so causes more problems than it solves.

This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

You're misunderstanding the distinction there; he's talking about "space" as in a vacuum, not "space" as in spatial dimensions. There's absolutely no reason to describe the spatial dimensions we inhabit as a discrete entity. Incidentally, the fact that a vacuum itself has energy within it does not mean the vacuum itself is an entity, just that it has entities *within* it, so even accepting space as meaning vacuum, we're still not left with the conclusion that space = discrete.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think I am. You seem to be appealing to something akin to Zeno's paradox; which isn't really applicable to begin with. What you're saying is not really any different than saying that because we can divide any given space into two equal spaces, you can never cross the distance between yourself and me. However, you clearly can. The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that infinite time means our current timeline expanding in much the same way; but this is of course not the case. Infinite time does NOT imply that yesterday will never occur, since time can still be divided into discrete and finite sections. Even with infinite time, the sun will still rise and set, meaning that days will still go by and so today will still turn into tomorrow. Now is still now; yesterday is still yesterday, and tomorrow is still tomorrow. There's just an infinite number of days past and future; but that has no impact on the contents of neither yesterday nor tomorrow.

This is not similar to that paradox. An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch. But the idea of infinite space is illogical so the analogy is worthless. It assumes the impossible.

Again I don't think you appreciate the situation.

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

Just like infinite space the situation is absurd.

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know.

The distinction is that time as we understand it is just the time that is *relative* to us. Even if we say that said time began with the big bang, that does not mean that some of time did not exist before then. That's why what you're saying doesn't serve as an argument against infinite regress.

We can't assume there is anything beyond this universe, even if it is possible. We can only know things if there is evidence for them. If evidence for time before the big bang is beyond us then we can not assume it exists.

I don't think the problems are with the logical conclusions of infinite regress, none of which are "god did it". The problem is with the idea of infinite time itself. It's an illogical idea.

And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space.

Eh... not exactly? Time is just one of the 4 dimensions we use to define spacetime, which is an abstract concept; and which can be used to define points within said spacetime. Whether time itself even exists in any classical sense remains a matter of controversy among physicists.

The problem again is the evidence.

We have no evidence of space or time existing before the big bang.

And if time is something that can be distorted in some way, it can be different to two different people, then it must be something real. You can't perceive the distortions of unreal things.

As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.

Which tells us nothing about whether or not that is actually true. There are credible models in which it does; and there is really no reason for us to assume that there is no such existence outside of our universe, as doing so causes more problems than it solves.

If we can't find evidence we can't assume anything exists beyond this universe. What people who propose something like the multiverse are doing is looking for evidence within this universe of universes beyond it. They know they need evidence or the hypothesis goes nowhere.

This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

You're misunderstanding the distinction there; he's talking about "space" as in a vacuum, not "space" as in spatial dimensions. There's absolutely no reason to describe the spatial dimensions we inhabit as a discrete entity. Incidentally, the fact that a vacuum itself has energy within it does not mean the vacuum itself is an entity, just that it has entities *within* it, so even accepting space as meaning vacuum, we're still not left with the conclusion that space = discrete.

He's talking about good old space. The space that is out there. What is meant by space in a vacuum is good old space that is out there and can be bent by gravity minus all the energy that normally travels through space. So you remove all the external energy and all the matter and space still has energy. Space is something. It is an entity.

And if something is made up of entities it is by definition an entity also. The entity made up of the other entities.

 

[Kharakov]

An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch.

Unless they move infinite distances. You guys need the hyperreals...

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

Not if time passes at an infinite rate.

 

[untermensche]

Unless they move infinite distances. You guys need the hyperreals...

To move infinite distance implies infinite space to move in, but it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity. The amount of any real entity is always a discreet amount. We now look at space itself as an entity. Not just a container. So you can't move infinite distances because there isn't infinite space to move in.

Not if time passes at an infinite rate.

If time has an infinite rate then there would be no way to measure it. It's like asking; how fast is a car traveling at an infinite speed going? The question is illogical. If a car is real it can't travel at an infinite rate. As far as we know it can't even travel the speed of light.

And time is just as real, so it too can't pass at an infinite rate. The concept is irrational.

 

[Kharakov]

To move infinite distance implies infinite space to move in, but it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity.

I couldn't find that rule in my reality handbook. Where does it say "it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity."?

The amount of any real entity is always a discreet amount. We now look at space itself as an entity. Not just a container. So you can't move infinite distances because there isn't infinite space to move in.

Perhaps with these words, I can create an indiscreet terminus between what is above and what is below.

An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch.

If time has an infinite rate then there would be no way to measure it. It's like asking; how fast is a car traveling at an infinite speed going? The question is illogical. If a car is real it can't travel at an infinite rate. As far as we know it can't even travel the speed of light.

And time is just as real, so it too can't pass at an infinite rate. The concept is irrational.

hehe... Or  hyperreal. We've got an infinite distance between each of many points on an infinite line segment. It ends after 10 infinite distances. I can travel one infinite distance a second, and reach the end of the line in 10 seconds.

You can do the same thing with time.

 

[dystopian]

This is not similar to that paradox. An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects.

Which *is* (one of) zeno's paradox.

So no matter how far they move they will never touch. But the idea of infinite space is illogical so the analogy is worthless. It assumes the impossible.

Again I don't think you appreciate the situation.

Again, I think I do. I think you're not understanding the problem with your reasoning.

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

No.

Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.

Regardless of how long the timeline is, yesterday will still happen because while time itself may be infinite, our perception of the timeline is relative and the time between any two relative points on the timeline is NOT infinite.

We can't assume there is anything beyond this universe, even if it is possible. We can only know things if there is evidence for them. If evidence for time before the big bang is beyond us then we can not assume it exists.

I don't think you understand what it means to assume something. It does not mean saying "this is true"; it means "let's say this is true, what then?"

We have no evidence of space or time existing before the big bang.

We have mathematical models suggesting that it did; that constitutes evidence. Not sufficient evidence to arrive at even a fraction of certainty as to what happened; but it most certainly is evidence.

And if time is something that can be distorted in some way, it can be different to two different people, then it must be something real. You can't perceive the distortions of unreal things.

Tell that to a schizophrenic.

If we can't find evidence we can't assume anything exists beyond this universe. What people who propose something like the multiverse are doing is looking for evidence within this universe of universes beyond it. They know they need evidence or the hypothesis goes nowhere.

We *must* make these kind of assumptions in order to advance our understanding and investigate.

He's talking about good old space. The space that is out there. What is meant by space in a vacuum is good old space that is out there and can be bent by gravity minus all the energy that normally travels through space. So you remove all the external energy and all the matter and space still has energy. Space is something. It is an entity.

...Sigh.

Yes. That's what I said. He's talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT thing than I am. He is not talking about space in the true sense; which is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.

You can fill up said space with stuff, but that doesn't mean space (the three dimensional extent in which objects/events have position) itself is "stuff"; space is an abstract concept.

 

[ryan]

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

Just as a planet is a discreet entity. So no matter how many exist it is a discreet amount, not infinity.

Can you explain why there can't be an infinite number of discrete entities?

 

[untermensche]

I couldn't find that rule in my reality handbook. Where does it say "it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity."?

It's called logic.

If something exists it can be counted, in theory. So no matter how many of some entity exists they too can be counted, in theory.

Nowhere in the REAL world are there entities that exist that can't in theory be counted.

Therefore in the real world at any given moment there are never infinite amounts of any countable entity, only a discreet amount. Since any real entity can in theory be counted.

hehe... Or  hyperreal. We've got an infinite distance between each of many points on an infinite line segment. It ends after 10 infinite distances. I can travel one infinite distance a second, and reach the end of the line in 10 seconds.

You can do the same thing with time.

I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.

 

[ryan]

Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.

They have not quantified space yet. It is still assumed to be a continuum.

 

[untermensche]

Can you explain why there can't be an infinite number of discrete entities?

If something is a discreet entity it has existence it can be counted. It isn't an imaginary concept like a number or infinity.

So it doesn't matter how many of any real entity exists it is always an exact sum. They can all in theory be counted since they can be perceived. Even if we can't possibly count every one of them. It is never an imaginary concept.

There is a huge difference between the imaginary world of mathematics and the real world. They are not the same thing. Many things can take place in imaginary worlds that can't take place in real ones.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.

They have not quantified space yet. It is still assumed to be a continuum.

Space has structure, so just like anything with structure it can only be broken apart or divided so much before the structure is destroyed and you don't have space anymore.