Infinte Regress Timeline...

[PyramidHead]

untermensche:

You are stuck in a loop caused by a misuse of language. The culprit, I think, is the verb "has passed."

To say that a century has passed is to say that 100 years have gone by since a point in time 100 years ago. Every time you say x amount of time has passed, you are implicitly identifying a span of time with a beginning x amount of time ago. There is simply no other way to parse its meaning. It makes no sense to say that 10 years have passed, without implying that the point of reference to that statement is 10 years ago. When you talk about the passage of time, it is always bounded by a beginning and an end. In other words, whether you say it or not, every utterance of "has passed" really means "has passed [since... ago]."

Therefore, it's not an error of logic to say that an infinite amount of time has passed, it's an error of language. It's literally a meaningless statement; the reference point is undefined, so there is no way to interpret it. There is no coherent concept to which the proposition refers. Just as a square cannot be said to have circumference, an infinite amount of time cannot be said to pass or not.

So, the argument that time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, an infinite amount of time has passed before today, contains a string of nonsense masquerading as a meaningful phrase. It would be the same as saying time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, scarecrow funk explosion without falafel administrator.

By trying to shoehorn the concept of infinity into the terminology of "has passed," you are implicitly assuming that time has a beginning, because without a beginning, "has passed" is not an applicable verb. This is both a category error and a circular argument, because one of your premises depends upon your conclusion being true: the idea of an infinite amount of time passing before now is contradictory BECAUSE anything that passes before now has to have a beginning (which is what you are setting out to prove in the first place!). Good arguments do not contain the conclusion in any of their premises.

We don't have the vocabulary to accurately describe the relationship between the present moment and an infinite past, and based on that linguistic inadequacy you are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily true. If the past were truly infinite, it would simply be a brute fact that no countable amount of time, bounded by a beginning, encompasses the entire history of the universe until now. If true, it would NOT mean an infinite amount of time has passed before today, as that clause is a misuse of language and has no meaning. It would mean that "x amount of time has passed before today" is true for any conceivable positive integer value of x, no matter how high. There is nothing logically contradictory about that statement, so your claim is rebutted.

 

[beero1000]

untermensche:

You are stuck in a loop caused by a misuse of language. The culprit, I think, is the verb "has passed."

To say that a century has passed is to say that 100 years have gone by since a point in time 100 years ago. Every time you say x amount of time has passed, you are implicitly identifying a span of time with a beginning x amount of time ago. There is simply no other way to parse its meaning. It makes no sense to say that 10 years have passed, without implying that the point of reference to that statement is 10 years ago. When you talk about the passage of time, it is always bounded by a beginning and an end. In other words, whether you say it or not, every utterance of "has passed" really means "has passed [since... ago]."

Therefore, it's not an error of logic to say that an infinite amount of time has passed, it's an error of language. It's literally a meaningless statement; the reference point is undefined, so there is no way to interpret it. There is no coherent concept to which the proposition refers. Just as a square cannot be said to have circumference, an infinite amount of time cannot be said to pass or not.

So, the argument that time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, an infinite amount of time has passed before today, contains a string of nonsense masquerading as a meaningful phrase. It would be the same as saying time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, scarecrow funk explosion without falafel administrator.

By trying to shoehorn the concept of infinity into the terminology of "has passed," you are implicitly assuming that time has a beginning, because without a beginning, "has passed" is not an applicable verb. This is both a category error and a circular argument, because one of your premises depends upon your conclusion being true: the idea of an infinite amount of time passing before now is contradictory BECAUSE anything that passes before now has to have a beginning (which is what you are setting out to prove in the first place!). Good arguments do not contain the conclusion in any of their premises.

We don't have the vocabulary to accurately describe the relationship between the present moment and an infinite past, and based on that linguistic inadequacy you are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily true. If the past were truly infinite, it would simply be a brute fact that no countable amount of time, bounded by a beginning, encompasses the entire history of the universe until now. If true, it would NOT mean an infinite amount of time has passed before today, as that clause is a misuse of language and has no meaning. It would mean that "x amount of time has passed before today" is true for any conceivable positive integer value of x, no matter how high. There is nothing logically contradictory about that statement, so your claim is rebutted.

Well said.

Here's to hoping this one sticks.

 

[Kharakov]

The culprit, I think, is the verb "has passed."

PyramidHead- I really want you to close this down, but at the same time I can't agree with your defining "has passed" as only applying to finite amounts of time. An immeasurable quantity of time could have passed, although it could not have passed from any point on the timeline. Like you imply, any finite measurement does not encompass the infinite.

If there is an infinite amount of time (time is eternal) that means at any point in the timeline, there is an infinite amount of time that has passed (an immeasurable amount- because there is no beginning), and an infinite amount of time that will pass in the future.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche:

You are stuck in a loop caused by a misuse of language. The culprit, I think, is the verb "has passed."

To say that a century has passed is to say that 100 years have gone by since a point in time 100 years ago. Every time you say x amount of time has passed, you are implicitly identifying a span of time with a beginning x amount of time ago. There is simply no other way to parse its meaning. It makes no sense to say that 10 years have passed, without implying that the point of reference to that statement is 10 years ago. When you talk about the passage of time, it is always bounded by a beginning and an end. In other words, whether you say it or not, every utterance of "has passed" really means "has passed [since... ago]."

Therefore, it's not an error of logic to say that an infinite amount of time has passed, it's an error of language. It's literally a meaningless statement; the reference point is undefined, so there is no way to interpret it. There is no coherent concept to which the proposition refers. Just as a square cannot be said to have circumference, an infinite amount of time cannot be said to pass or not.

So, the argument that time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, an infinite amount of time has passed before today, contains a string of nonsense masquerading as a meaningful phrase. It would be the same as saying time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, scarecrow funk explosion without falafel administrator.

By trying to shoehorn the concept of infinity into the terminology of "has passed," you are implicitly assuming that time has a beginning, because without a beginning, "has passed" is not an applicable verb. This is both a category error and a circular argument, because one of your premises depends upon your conclusion being true: the idea of an infinite amount of time passing before now is contradictory BECAUSE anything that passes before now has to have a beginning (which is what you are setting out to prove in the first place!). Good arguments do not contain the conclusion in any of their premises.

We don't have the vocabulary to accurately describe the relationship between the present moment and an infinite past, and based on that linguistic inadequacy you are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily true. If the past were truly infinite, it would simply be a brute fact that no countable amount of time, bounded by a beginning, encompasses the entire history of the universe until now. If true, it would NOT mean an infinite amount of time has passed before today, as that clause is a misuse of language and has no meaning. It would mean that "x amount of time has passed before today" is true for any conceivable positive integer value of x, no matter how high. There is nothing logically contradictory about that statement, so your claim is rebutted.

This has been dealt with before.

To say time has passed is simply a metaphor to mean that change has taken place.

You are stuck on a metaphor and not examining the argument at all.

The argument could include change instead of time, since if there is no change there is no time.

So if one claims that there was infinite time in the past that means there was infinite change in the past.

So if there was infinite change before yesterday then yesterday can only occur after infinite change takes place first. But infinite change does not take place. It goes on without end. This is the definition of infinite change.

Your argument is nothing but a commentary on the use of a metaphor that points to something real. It is a non sequitur and has nothing to say about the logic of the underlying argument.

 

[ryan]

You can't do that. The point is that you can keep looking further back (or forwards) from position now- you can't look from negative infinity or positive infinity. In fact there is no specific "position" negative infinity or positive infinity. Position implies a finite distance (within the cardinality of this timeline).

Isn't an infinite number of intervals each with an infinite number of subintervals still an infinite number of subintervals?

If so, then a reference frame could have passed an infinite number of subintervals by dilating its time to zero from, say, the beginning of interval A to the end of interval A.

However, this does seem like it would imply another dimension of time. So, for example, for some interval of t', an infinite number of intervals go by in our t.

This is the only way I can see how your argument can work.

 

[ryan]

untermensche:

You are stuck in a loop caused by a misuse of language. The culprit, I think, is the verb "has passed."

To say that a century has passed is to say that 100 years have gone by since a point in time 100 years ago. Every time you say x amount of time has passed, you are implicitly identifying a span of time with a beginning x amount of time ago. There is simply no other way to parse its meaning. It makes no sense to say that 10 years have passed, without implying that the point of reference to that statement is 10 years ago. When you talk about the passage of time, it is always bounded by a beginning and an end. In other words, whether you say it or not, every utterance of "has passed" really means "has passed [since... ago]."

Therefore, it's not an error of logic to say that an infinite amount of time has passed, it's an error of language. It's literally a meaningless statement; the reference point is undefined, so there is no way to interpret it. There is no coherent concept to which the proposition refers. Just as a square cannot be said to have circumference, an infinite amount of time cannot be said to pass or not.

So, the argument that time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, an infinite amount of time has passed before today, contains a string of nonsense masquerading as a meaningful phrase. It would be the same as saying time cannot extend infinitely into the past because if it did, scarecrow funk explosion without falafel administrator.

This seems to agree with untermensche's argument. Untermensche has mentioned already that an infinite regress of time is self-contradictory if it implies that an infinite amount of time has passed.

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

 

[Juma]

Untermensche has mentioned already that an infinite regress of time is self-contradictory if it implies that an infinite amount of time has passed.

Yes, he has mentioned that, but never been able to show that there really is a contradiction.

There are a lot of hidden assumptions and murky concepts in unters argument. He has to make these come out in the light. He has to be concise and complete, every step in the deduction must be shown and found sound. Apparently he has no idea what it means.

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

Time is passing all the time.... Wether it also was passing indefinitely long ago, or not, is of no logical consequence for its passing now.

 

[ryan]

Yes, he has mentioned that, but never been able to show that there really is a contradiction.

So then why is the post meant for untermensche? Shouldn't it be for the arguments that oppose untermensche's argument?

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

Time is passing all the time.... Wether it also was passing indefinitely long ago, or not, is of no logical consequence for its passing now.

Do you agree that all of the time before now has passed?

 

[skepticalbip]

So then why is the post meant for untermensche? Shouldn't it be for the arguments that oppose untermensche's argument?

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

Time is passing all the time.... Wether it also was passing indefinitely long ago, or not, is of no logical consequence for its passing now.

Do you agree that all of the time before now has passed?

I think maybe Unter's wording is misleading you.

Forget our NOW for now and just think of an infinite time line from -infinity to +infinity. That should be no problem unless you start with the assumption that there is no such thing as infinity.

How many events could occur along this time line? An infinite number of events, right?

Would all the infinite number of events have occurred at the same time? Certain not, there should be events occurring all along the time line, right?

O.K. if you agree to this point then think of one of those events somewhere along the infinite time line. So we have some particular event that we are focusing on somewhere along this infinite time line. How much time is there before this particular event and how much after this particular event? There should be an infinite amount of time (and events) both prior to and after the particular event, right?

Now imagine that our NOW is that particular event.

 

[ryan]

So then why is the post meant for untermensche? Shouldn't it be for the arguments that oppose untermensche's argument?

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

Time is passing all the time.... Wether it also was passing indefinitely long ago, or not, is of no logical consequence for its passing now.

Do you agree that all of the time before now has passed?

I think maybe Unter's wording is misleading you.

The answer to the question, "Has all of the time before today passed?" is vital for there to be a mutual understanding on this thread. If the answer can somehow be "no", then I think untermensche and I are screwed. If the answer is yes, then it seems to contradict the typical definition of infinity.

Forget our NOW for now and think of an infinite time line from -infinity to +infinity. That should be no problem.

A timeline "from -infinity to +infinity" is the main issue. This is what doesn't seem to make sense in the first place.

O.K. if you agree to this point then think of one of those events somewhere along the infinite time line. So we have some event somewhere along this infinite time. How much time is there before the event and how much after the event? There should be an infinite amount of time both prior to and after the event, right?

Now imagine that our NOW is that event.

I would agree with this if we were able to warp through an infinite amount of time; and maybe we can. But if we assume that all of the time before now must have passed in every frame of reference, then now should never have come for any frame of reference.

 

[skepticalbip]

So then why is the post meant for untermensche? Shouldn't it be for the arguments that oppose untermensche's argument?

And I generally agree because I don't know how time can exist in the past without passing.

Time is passing all the time.... Wether it also was passing indefinitely long ago, or not, is of no logical consequence for its passing now.

Do you agree that all of the time before now has passed?

I think maybe Unter's wording is misleading you.

The answer to the question, "Has all of the time before today passed?" is vital for there to be a mutual understanding on this thread. If the answer can somehow be "no", then I think untermensche and I are screwed. If the answer is yes, then it seems to contradict the typical definition of infinity.

That is part of the misleading that I was talking about. The question is really a nonsense question. The answer is that there is an infinite amount of time between our NOW (or any other point along the time line) and an infinite past. Look at the time line I asked you to imagine.

Forget our NOW for now and think of an infinite time line from -infinity to +infinity. That should be no problem.

A timeline "from -infinity to +infinity" is the main issue. This is what doesn't seem to make sense in the first place.

If this is the "main issue" then you are starting with the assumption that such an infinity is impossible. You are presupposing a start to time. If this is the presupposition then the problem you have is offering some physics explanation of how it is possible for time to start. Appealing to I just believe it or goddidit isn't a physics explanation.

There are only two possiblities. Either time had a beginning or time is infinite. We don't really know which. Both have their problem. Infinite time has the burden of explaining how it is possible given that it appears that entropy only goes one way. Finite time has the burden of explaining how it is possible given that it appears that all events are a result of a previous event. Neither of these can be resolved with our current physics understanding so we don't know, although infinite time seems to have a lead now in current theories.

O.K. if you agree to this point then think of one of those events somewhere along the infinite time line. So we have some event somewhere along this infinite time. How much time is there before the event and how much after the event? There should be an infinite amount of time both prior to and after the event, right?

Now imagine that our NOW is that event.

I would agree with this if we were able to warp through an infinite amount of time; and maybe we can. But if we assume that all of the time before now must have passed in every frame of reference, then now should never have come for any frame of reference.

No warp needed. You are still hung up on "passing time". Just think of the time line. If you can not even imagine a timeline from -infinity to +infinity then you will never understand what everyone has been trying to explain to Unter.

 

[ryan]

The answer to the question, "Has all of the time before today passed?" is vital for there to be a mutual understanding on this thread. If the answer can somehow be "no", then I think untermensche and I are screwed. If the answer is yes, then it seems to contradict the typical definition of infinity.

That is part of the misleading that I was talking about. The question is really a nonsense question.

I don't see why it's nonsense. My support for untermensche's argument is based on the assumption that time only has one direction. So it must pass in one direction; and most importantly, all negative time (time before the present) must have passed.

Forget our NOW for now and think of an infinite time line from -infinity to +infinity. That should be no problem.

But because I am basing the argument on a time with one direction, starting at some point after -infinity is really asking me to accept that an infinite amount of time can pass.

 

[bilby]

That is part of the misleading that I was talking about. The question is really a nonsense question.

I don't see why it's nonsense. My support for untermensche's argument is based on the assumption that time only has one direction. So it must pass in one direction; and most importantly, all negative time (time before the present) must have passed.

Forget our NOW for now and think of an infinite time line from -infinity to +infinity. That should be no problem.

But because I am basing the argument on a time with one direction, starting at some point after -infinity is really asking me to accept that an infinite amount of time can pass.

Why do you assume that time has only one direction?

Humans perceive their motion through time as being in one direction, true; but direct human experience is not the sum of all things. You could as well assume that 'down' is fundamental, and that all things fall down, making an infinite amount of 'up' impossible. Of course, this would be wrong; but it would be an understandable error for a person who has only ever experienced falling towards the Earth.

I see no reason why time should be considered unidirectional, and there are good reasons to accept that time is no more unidirectional than spatial dimensions.

The terminator always moves West across the Earth's surface, but this does not mean that there is something inherently illogical about the boundary of a shadow moving eastwards.

Just because something is, does not imply it must always be.

 

[untermensche]

Why do you assume that time has only one direction?

It is the only way time has ever been observed. To talk about time not moving forward is to talk about some fantasy.

To think that the time that passed in the past is infinite is to look back at time and see no beginning.

It is to imagine that the amount of time that occurred already has no limit.

If it has no limit how exactly did it occur already?

That is like saying a planet of infinite size was measured.

 

[Juma]

I don't see why it's nonsense. My support for untermensche's argument is based on the assumption that time only has one direction. So it must pass in one direction; and most importantly, all negative time (time before the present) must have passed.
.

Yes. So what? If time started 1 days ago then 1 day has passed. If time started N days ago then N days has passed.

Why would it be a problem if N > d for all d?

 

[untermensche]

I don't see why it's nonsense. My support for untermensche's argument is based on the assumption that time only has one direction. So it must pass in one direction; and most importantly, all negative time (time before the present) must have passed.
.

Yes. So what? If time started 1 days ago then 1 day has passed. If time started N days ago then N days has passed.

Why would it be a problem if N > d for all d?

If d is infinity then N can be infinity plus one.

So time started infinity plus one days ago?

So before yesterday infinity plus one days passed?

How do you think it's possible for that amount of time to pass? It is an amount of time that never finishes.

 

[bilby]

Why do you assume that time has only one direction?

It is the only way time has ever been observed. To talk about time not moving forward is to talk about some fantasy.

To think that the time that passed in the past is infinite is to look back at time and see no beginning.

It is to imagine that the amount of time that occurred already has no limit.

If it has no limit how exactly did it occur already?

That is like saying a planet of infinite size was measured.

The idea of things moving backwards in time is not fantasy; QFT can be used to predict the properties of an electron that is going backward in time, and the resulting particle has been observed - the positron. Feynman certainly required freedom for particles to move in either direction on the t axis; I am not about to take your word over his on the matter (pun intended).

 

[untermensche]

It is the only way time has ever been observed. To talk about time not moving forward is to talk about some fantasy.

To think that the time that passed in the past is infinite is to look back at time and see no beginning.

It is to imagine that the amount of time that occurred already has no limit.

If it has no limit how exactly did it occur already?

That is like saying a planet of infinite size was measured.

The idea of things moving backwards in time is not fantasy; QFT can be used to predict the properties of an electron that is going backward in time, and the resulting particle has been observed - the positron. Feynman certainly required freedom for particles to move in either direction on the t axis; I am not about to take your word over his on the matter (pun intended).

If something moves "backward" in time it means it moves against the forward movement of time.

It does not mean time itself is moving backwards.

 

[Juma]

Yes. So what? If time started 1 days ago then 1 day has passed. If time started N days ago then N days has passed.

Why would it be a problem if N > d for all d?

If d is infinity then N can be infinity plus one.

So time started infinity plus one days ago?

So before yesterday infinity plus one days passed?

How do you think it's possible for that amount of time to pass? It is an amount of time that never finishes.

d is any integer. Not infinity.

 

[bilby]

The idea of things moving backwards in time is not fantasy; QFT can be used to predict the properties of an electron that is going backward in time, and the resulting particle has been observed - the positron. Feynman certainly required freedom for particles to move in either direction on the t axis; I am not about to take your word over his on the matter (pun intended).

If something moves "backward" in time it means it moves against the forward movement of time.

It does not mean time itself is moving backwards.

Time doesn't move at all. It is a dimension. Objects move around. If I move east, and you move west, to me you are moving backwards in longitude, and to you I am moving backwards in longitude. But longitude doesn't move at all.

There is no eastward movement of longitude against which to move. In the same way, there is no forward movement of time.