Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

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.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?

Oh. My. God! The resident atheists are talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo and ryan is being the voice of reason and skepticism!?! Now I have officially seen everything!

Well done, sir!

 

[Kharakov]

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.

So, you're saying there is a finite number of subatomic particles in the universe?

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.
.....as above so blow.....
I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.

You don't see any overlap?

In addition, do you have a logical argument that supports the statement "any real entity can (in theory) be counted"?

 

[untermensche]

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.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?

It's impossible for there to be an infinite number of cubic meters of space.

Space is an entity. It's impossible for there to be an infinite amount of any real entity. The amount of any real entities is always a discrete amount.

That's the difference between reality and the imagination.

 

[untermensche]

So, you're saying there is a finite number of subatomic particles in the universe?

At any given moment in time the number of subatomic particles in the universe is a discrete amount. If they can pop in and out of existence then obviously that amount can change, but it is never this imaginary concept called infinity.

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.
.....as above so blow.....
I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.

You don't see any overlap?

No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.

In addition, do you have a logical argument that supports the statement "any real entity can (in theory) be counted"?

If something is real and perceived then it can be counted. So in theory every real thing could be counted.

In reality to count every real thing is logistically impossible but that doesn't change anything.

 

[Kharakov]

At any given moment in time the number of subatomic particles in the universe is a discrete amount. If they can pop in and out of existence then obviously that amount can change, but it is never this imaginary concept called infinity.

Yeah... I find it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state the above as factual.

No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.

So the number of particles in a system in the "real world" does not have an effect upon the system? Numbers come from our experience of reality, and are used for precise descriptions, mappings, and predictions of certain real behaviors that are described by mathematical rules (or so I've been told...).

If something is real and perceived then it can be counted.

This position is totally different from "if something is real it can be counted".

 

[untermensche]

Yeah... I find it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state the above as factual.

I only have logic.

Where is the problem with the logic?

A subatomic particle as a discrete entity is no different than a baseball.

Do you think it is possible for there to be infinite baseballs in the universe? Wouldn't it require infinite universes to contain them?

What is so special about a subatomic particle? It is small?

Imagine a room. Now fill it with sand. It is certainly possible to count every grain of sand. The amount in the room is a discrete amount. If it were possible to count subatomic particles the same would be true of them. There would be a discrete amount in the room.

So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?

If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.

No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.

So the number of particles in a system in the "real world" does not have an effect upon the system?

The particles have an effect, and the amount of particles have an effect. But a particle is not a number. Numbers have no effects on anything. They are imaginary concepts.

Numbers come from our experience of reality, and are used for precise descriptions, mappings, and predictions of certain real behaviors that are described by mathematical rules (or so I've been told...).

They are used for modeling reality. But the model is not reality. Reality is not a bunch of equations on paper. Reality is reality. It is completely distinct from human mathematics although human mathematics is a part of reality.

If something is real and perceived then it can be counted.

This position is totally different from "if something is real it can be counted".

True enough, but that is only a limitation of the ability to perceive. It doesn't change the logic.

 

[Kharakov]

Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?

 

[untermensche]

Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?

That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.

 

[Kharakov]

Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?

That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.

In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.

 

[ryan]

Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?

That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.

 

[untermensche]

That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.

In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.

As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.

The only thing you've presented so far is this horrible conclusion that mathematics is the same thing as reality.

 

[untermensche]

That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.

Infinite time can't pass. It can never pass. That is what infinite time means. Time that never ends, or begins.

Time is something real, so there are limitations on what infinity can mean for it, it can only mean an unending supply, unlike unreal things like numbers that do not have as many limitations. There are many kinds of infinities for numbers since they are not real and do not the limitations that real things have.

There is no logic in stating there is no difference between time and numbers.

 

[ryan]

Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.

Infinite time can't pass. It can never pass. That is what infinite time means. Time that never ends, or begins.

How do you know that time or existence for that matter began?

 

[Bomb#20]

I only have logic.

Where is the problem with the logic?

Ryan already told you where the problem is with the logic: you're making a circular argument. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise.

So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?

You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.

If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.

No, no, no, no, no. You're trying to shift burden of proof. Kharakov is proposing the amount might be infinite. Why is that so? Because anything might be true, unless it's been proven false. "Why is that so?" is no argument. You're the one making a specific claim about how the universe is; he just finds it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state as factual that the amount is finite. Burden of proof is always on the person making the is claim, never on the person making the might be claim.

 

[beero1000]

The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

 

[dystopian]

I still haven't seen a solid reason why time can't be infinite. Time isn't absolute; it's relative. Since perception of time is dependent upon one's relative viewpoint; it makes no sense to say that time can't be infinite for the reason that yesterday would never happen in that case (even apart from the other reasons why said argument doesn't ring true)

- - - Updated - - -

The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

Damn, I made the same basic argument earlier in the thread; just a lot more awkwardly and less clear so...

 

[untermensche]

Ryan already told you where the problem is with the logic: you're making a circular argument. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise.

So you say, yet don't demonstrate.

Without a demonstration this comment is not worth anything. I don't agree in the least.

So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?

You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.

You can't have infinite rooms. If there is a room it can in theory be counted, since rooms can be perceived. If an amount of something can be counted it isn't infinite. It is finite.

If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.

No, no, no, no, no. You're trying to shift burden of proof. Kharakov is proposing the amount might be infinite. Why is that so? Because anything might be true, unless it's been proven false. "Why is that so?" is no argument. You're the one making a specific claim about how the universe is; he just finds it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state as factual that the amount is finite. Burden of proof is always on the person making the is claim, never on the person making the might be claim.

No, no, no, no, no.

Everybody must demonstrate their claims or provide some logic why they are true, not just me.

If somebody claims that it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of any real entity they have to demonstrate what that means and how it is so. It is not a given.

 

[untermensche]

The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

As far as we know the universe did have a beginning.

What do you mean by infinite time?

Time is something real. How is it possible for there to be an infinite amount of it?

If something is real it can in theory be counted. If things can be counted they are finite not infinite.

 

[beero1000]

The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

As far as we know the universe did have a beginning.

You are arguing logical impossibility. Current physical theory is irrelevant.

What do you mean by infinite time?

I mean that the amount of time in the past is unbounded.

Time is something real. How is it possible for there to be an infinite amount of it?

Why wouldn't it be possible?

If something is real it can in theory be counted. If things can be counted they are finite not infinite.

Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.