Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Jokodo]

One might as well talk of the gods when people talk about imaginary nonobservable magical "bubbles".

There is no evidence time is not unidirectional.

There is no evidence that it is. None other than, maybe "it feels that way to me". Which is a very poor guide to discerning reality, as most of us have learned when we ditched the idea of a flat, stationary earth.

There is nothing but unidirectional evidence.

All observed events move in one direction only.

The paper burnt NEVER unburns.

The human grows old. NEVER young.

Just saying total nonsense is not much of an argument.

"total nonsense is not much of an argument" could be exactly a flat-earthers words.

Are you a flat-earther?

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing but unidirectional evidence.

All observed events move in one direction only.

The paper burnt NEVER unburns.

The human grows old. NEVER young.

Just saying total nonsense is not much of an argument.

"total nonsense is not much of an argument" could be exactly a flat-earthers words.

Are you a flat-earther?

You have made no argument.

The paper NEVER unburns.

All events move in one direction.

 

[Jokodo]

There is nothing but unidirectional evidence.

All observed events move in one direction only.

The paper burnt NEVER unburns.

The human grows old. NEVER young.

Just saying total nonsense is not much of an argument.

"total nonsense is not much of an argument" could be exactly a flat-earthers words.

Are you a flat-earther?

You have made no argument.

The paper NEVER unburns.

All events move in one direction.

That's how we perceive it.

We also perceive the Earth to be flat.

 

[untermensche]

No infinity can exist.

Propose one and I will explain why it is physically impossible.

It is not possible that an infinite amount of time somehow passed in the past.

It is not possible for an infinite amount of time to pass under any circumstance.

That is the definition of infinite time.

Nathenatcally infinity is a term to descibe unbounded conditions.

You might try proofreading once in a while.

Infinity is ONLY a mathematical concept.

It exists in no other way.

And the idea of being boundless in terms of time means time that never ends.

If time never began it would not exist.

 

[steve_bank]

No infinity can exist.

Propose one and I will explain why it is physically impossible.

It is not possible that an infinite amount of time somehow passed in the past.

It is not possible for an infinite amount of time to pass under any circumstance.

That is the definition of infinite time.

Nathenatcally infinity is a term to descibe unbounded conditions.

You might try proofreading once in a while.

Infinity is ONLY a mathematical concept.

It exists in no other way.

And the idea of being boundless in terms of time means time that never ends.

If time never began it would not exist.

I can barely read even with glasses.

Does a true infinity exists experimentally? By definition no within our Earthbound macroscopic reality. In real physical systems it is called a singularity and other names. When a variable approaches zero such as 1/x in a part of a system equation a response begins to approach infinity limited by failure and available energy. I said this before. A mathematical singularity manifests in physical reality. This comes under the heading of stability theory in control systems.

On the scale of the universe it is impossible to demonstrate an infinite universe, or any model.

For me I see an infinite universe with no beginning and no end as the best choice. If there is a beginning one has to explain where it came from, something from nothing. Space, matter, and energy have no bounds. The universe is a perpetual motion machine.

I know it will not mean anything to you but anyway.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Control_Systems/Poles_and_Zeros

Effects of Poles and Zeros
As s approaches a zero, the numerator of the transfer function (and therefore the transfer function itself) approaches the value 0. When s approaches a pole, the denominator of the transfer function approaches zero, and the value of the transfer function approaches infinity. An output value of infinity should raise an alarm bell for people who are familiar with BIBO stability. We will discuss this later.

 

[Bomb#20]

Each of what "things"

You have described no "things".

Sure I have: infinitely many slices of space I own.

Show me a picture of these infinite slices?

You going to come meet me some place in real life so I can show you a picture? Any picture I send you over the web will have been pixelated, which would kind of defeat the purpose, no? If you want to see what infinite slices of real estate look like, take a look at any piece of real estate you please.

In any event, this is about your unsupported assertion, "If you have any amount of things that take up a finite space the amount of those things are also finite.". I.e., this is about what exists, not about what you can see a picture of. The world is full of things we can't take a picture of, from quarks and black holes to wave functions.

How long did it take you to make infinite slices?

I'm sorry, did I claim to have made these slices? Each slice is simply the portion of the whole piece of real estate whose latitude is greater than x degrees north and less than x + epsilon. Those portions existed long before any people were around to make them.

You confuse your fantasy with reality.

Hint: In the real world all things are finite.

Proof by blatant assertion is not much of an argument.

 

[Juma]

Hm. I dont buy that you have infinitely many finite areas.
To me a infinitisemal area is not finite.

It certainly isn't; but none of the real estate slices I described are infinitesimal. Every one has a finite size, greater than zero by a finite amount. The first one is 1 meter wide, the second one is 1/2 meter wide, and so forth. The Nth slice is 1/2^N meter wide, a finite nonzero amount for all N. If you disagree, point one out that you think is infinitesimal.

There is no such thing as a real infinitesimal.

All real objects are finite.

We don't know that. So far there's no evidence one way or the other as to whether there's anything in physics corresponding to, say, the infinitesimals of hyperreal arithmetic. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume you're correct. Let's take for granted that the ordinary real numbers are sufficient to describe the real world. That doesn't help your case. There are infinitely many ordinary real numbers; and I didn't rely on infinitesimals in my argument.

Arrgh.. sorry. I forgot how you divided the areas.... its too hot here....

 

[Juma]

Which statement I made says this?



Is it possible to count all the positive integers?

That is the definition of infinite time. An amount of time that never completes.

No. The definition of ”inifinite time” is
is that there isnt a biggest timespan: for any interval of time you can specify a longer interval.
Or do you want to state that there set of negative numbers isnt infinite?

You are saying the exact same thing but don't even know it.

Like the positive integers never complete. That is what infinity means. To never end. To go on and on without the possibility of ending. No infinity ends.

The negative integers are also infinite... just saying...

What about them? They are merely a mirror of the positives. The negative integers begin at -1 and never complete. Just like infinite time.

There is no largest positive integer just like there is no end to infinite time.

There is no smallest negative integer just like there s no beginning of infinite time.

There is a beginning to the negative integers.

Just like time.

Numbers are ordinals, they define what comes before and what comes after.
The lesser numbers comes before bigger numbers.
1 is before 2
-2 comes before -1.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We can debate issues related to an infinite universe but there is nothing that precludes an infinite universe.

Or maybe there is but it would be infinitely small.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Arrgh.. sorry. I forgot how you divided the areas.... its too hot here....

Just divide the Celsius.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

One might as well talk of the gods when people talk about imaginary nonobservable magical "bubbles".

There is no evidence time is not unidirectional.

Events occur only in one direction. The human grows old. They never get younger.

Except in the movies.

Seconds and meters are units of measure used to describe observation of change. The right question is whether observed change can run backwards. Time is a dimension like meters. The idea that time is an independent reality is scifi, starting with HG Wells and The Time Machine.

Nice pair, here... Not going anywhere but nice pair.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I can barely read even with glasses.

That makes me feel sorry for you.

But if you can't read accurately how exactly are you doing this?

Does a true infinity exists experimentally?

No.

 

[untermensche]

Show me a picture of these infinite slices?

You going to come meet me some place in real life so I can show you a picture?

?

You can post pictures here.

But the mere request for one should have made you think about it.

There could be no picture. There could be no infinite slices.

How small would the smallest slice be?

How long did it take you to make infinite slices?

I'm sorry, did I claim to have made these slices? Each slice is simply the portion of the whole piece of real estate whose latitude is greater than x degrees north and less than x + epsilon. Those portions existed long before any people were around to make them.

There is no way to make you think about this is there?

If you actually thought about an infinite operation like slicing something you would understand there is no amount of time in which that could be accomplished.

You confuse your fantasy with reality.

Hint: In the real world all things are finite.

Proof by blatant assertion is not much of an argument.

It is an assertion. That is true.

It is a true assertion.

Which is why you can't dispute it in any way.

 

[untermensche]

Numbers are ordinals, they define what comes before and what comes after.
The lesser numbers comes before bigger numbers.
1 is before 2
-2 comes before -1.

To have a series the first element must be defined.

The negative integers begin at -1 and progress from there. There is no last negative integer so it is impossible to start anything from that.

To not know this is pretty amazing.

It is as possible there was infinite time in the past as it is to count all the negative integers.

Real infinities are impossible. Not unlikely, logically impossible.

 

[skepticalbip]

Numbers are ordinals, they define what comes before and what comes after.
The lesser numbers comes before bigger numbers.
1 is before 2
-2 comes before -1.

To have a series the first element must be defined.

The negative integers begin at -1 and progress from there. There is no last negative integer so it is impossible to start anything from that.[/B]

Exactly. Though I would say the negative and positive integers begin at zero. Applied to time, this means that now is the starting point for any future looking forward and the starting point for any past looking back.

To not know this is pretty amazing.

It is as possible there was infinite time in the past as it is to count all the negative integers.

Real infinities are impossible. Not unlikely, logically impossible.

This is a real shame. You have reverted to gibberish.

 

[untermensche]

No you have resorted to calling something you don't understand "gibberish".

That is perfectly clear to people that understand even basic English.

If a real infinity occurred in the past that would mean you could recite ALL the negative integers within it.

But it is impossible to recite ALL the negative integers. No matter how many you recited there would always be infinite more you didn't.

So in terms of time, if an infinity of time actually occurred, no matter how much time passed before yesterday an infinity more of time would have to pass for yesterday to occur.

Therefore it is clear that a real infinity of time could not have occurred in the past.

An infinity of time has no end.

The past ends at the present.

 

[Juma]

Numbers are ordinals, they define what comes before and what comes after.
The lesser numbers comes before bigger numbers.
1 is before 2
-2 comes before -1.

To have a series the first element must be defined.

The negative integers begin at -1 and progress from there. There is no last negative integer so it is impossible to start anything from that.

To not know this is pretty amazing.

It is as possible there was infinite time in the past as it is to count all the negative integers.

Real infinities are impossible. Not unlikely, logically impossible.

So you admit you dont know what ordinals are.. well, well..

If you want to set up a serie then that is fine but it has nothing to do with time.
We, including you, dont know what time is.
There is nothing that confirms your model of time as a process. There is nothing that confirms that there must be a first moment.
There is nothing that contradicts that time can have been going on for ever.
Your silly model with series dont say us anything.
Time goes on without anyone.

 

[Juma]

No you have resorted to calling something you don't understand "gibberish".

That is perfectly clear to people that understand even basic English.

If a real infinity occurred in the past that would mean you could recite ALL the negative integers within it.

But it is impossible to recite ALL the negative integers. No matter how many you recited there would always be infinite more you didn't.

So in terms of time, if an infinity of time actually occurred, no matter how much time passed before yesterday an infinity more of time would have to pass for yesterday to occur.

Therefore it is clear that a real infinity of time could not have occurred in the past.

An infinity of time has no end.

The past ends at the present.

To recite all positive integers you need to start at a point in time.
Time doesnt need to start, it can have been going on forever.
Thus is reciting integers not a valid model of time.
You lose.

 

[untermensche]

If time has always existed how much time passed before yesterday?

If you claim infinite time already passed you have stated an impossibility.

Infinite time is time that can never finish passing.

Just like you can never state all the positive integers.

 

[untermensche]

[Time doesnt need to start, it can have been going on forever.

Any directional progression, like time, needs to have begun.

If it never began it does not exist.

If the progression never begins it cannot go anywhere.