Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

If you say that d is any integer then that is saying the amount of time in the past is finite.

No matter what integer you pick the amount will be finite.

No integer will indicate infinite time.

 

[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.

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.

Infinite time in the past would mean infinite time has passed.

There is no requirement when talking about the passage of time that the limit be finite. That is a figment of the imagination of the poster.

But to think the talk could be real is another thing entirely. That requires the ability to imagine how long you will have to wait for the infinite passage of time.

They say infinite time occurred before yesterday. That means right after infinite time passes yesterday will arrive.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Juma]

d is any integer. Not infinity.

If you say that d is any integer then that is saying the amount of time in the past is finite.

No matter what integer you pick the amount will be finite.

No integer will indicate infinite time.

For which N is it true that N > d for any integer d?

 

[untermensche]

If you say that d is any integer then that is saying the amount of time in the past is finite.

No matter what integer you pick the amount will be finite.

No integer will indicate infinite time.

For which N is it true that N > d for any integer d?

N = d + 1 or d + anything

If all we are going to do is discuss variables then we go nowhere.

 

[dx713]

For which N is it true that N > d for any integer d?

N = d + 1 or d + anything

If all we are going to do is discuss variables then we go nowhere.

Noticed the bolded part?
This is not a variable, this is a set. Your answer is "not even wrong".

 

[untermensche]

N = d + 1 or d + anything

If all we are going to do is discuss variables then we go nowhere.

Noticed the bolded part?
This is not a variable, this is a set. Your answer is "not even wrong".

My answer is correct.

d + 1 is always greater than d. You think otherwise?

But if we say a set with no highest number occurred before yesterday, what have we said? We haven't changed anything.

We have said a limitless set of time must occur before yesterday occurred.

It doesn't matter how you want to look at infinity. It is always something that continues without end.

 

[beero1000]

It was at around this point about 1200 posts ago that I realized it was turtles all the way down.

 

[untermensche]

It was at around this point about 1200 posts ago that I realized it was turtles all the way down.

I agree.

The people that talk about infinite time in the past might as well be talking about turtles all the way down.

It's just as imaginary.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Same problem. Change is a shift from one state to another. It always implies a beginning condition followed by an ending condition. There can be no change without an implicit assumption that something started in one position and ended up in another. So, again, to use the word "infinite" to describe change is nonsense language. You can talk about an infinite NUMBER of changes, but that resolves the same way as an infinite number of finite slices of time: the word "infinite" simply becomes a variable that says "put any positive value here and the statement will be true." But an infinite change, singular, is not a meaningful concept.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the problem you are having is a common one: many people imagine that infinity is a like a very large amount. It's not. It isn't actually an amount at all. It's simply a placeholder that encompasses all possible amounts.

 

[untermensche]

Same problem. Change is a shift from one state to another. It always implies a beginning condition followed by an ending condition.

That is why saying there is an infinite amount of it is troubling.

It is saying there never was a beginning condition.

The problem is not me using change to represent time. The problem is the idea of infinite time.

 

[PyramidHead]

Same problem. Change is a shift from one state to another. It always implies a beginning condition followed by an ending condition.

That is why saying there is an infinite amount of it is troubling.

It is saying there never was a beginning condition.

The problem is not me using change to represent time. The problem is the idea of infinite time.

I deal with that problem in the rest of my post. Once you stop thinking in terms of infinite "change" (singular) and start thinking in terms of infinite number of changes (plural), then there is nothing contradictory about saying an infinite number of changes happened before today. It just means that if I say 65 changes happened before today, it's true, just as 650 is true and 650 trillion million is true. Those changes happened in the past, and now they are done happening, so it's today. It just so happens that any number you can conceive will fit into that statement and it will still be true. What's contradictory about that?

ETA: to reiterate, the issue you are having is that something with infinite duration cannot end, so something with infinite duration could not have already happened. But it need not be the case that something with infinite duration happened in order for the past to be infinite. Everything that happened before today had a finite duration. It could simply be the case that the number of finite events that occurred has no upper bound. I'm not saying that's true or false, just that it is perfectly coherent from a logical standpoint and therefore not necessarily false.

 

[untermensche]

That is why saying there is an infinite amount of it is troubling.

It is saying there never was a beginning condition.

The problem is not me using change to represent time. The problem is the idea of infinite time.

I deal with that problem in the rest of my post. Once you stop thinking in terms of infinite "change" (singular) and start thinking in terms of infinite number of changes (plural), then there is nothing contradictory about saying an infinite number of changes happened before today.

Saying infinite change is the same as saying an infinite number of changes. As you say, change represents the movement from one state to another. So infinite change is just an infinite number of movements from one state to another.

If I have to wait for an infinite numbers of changes to occur then I wait forever.

You are pointing out problems with the idea of infinite change. Not with the idea of using change to represent time.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Can you imagine an infinite time line? The direction toward -infinity from any event on the time line is what has already happened in the past, history. Looking back is just examining the sequence of events in history from today back through history. The direction toward +infinity is what will happen in the future. Surely you have seen historic time lines in your history calsses and had no problem grasping that it showed a series of events separated by time intervals in our past.

I don't understand what you have in mind when you say an infinite amount of time passing. The past is history. Everything that happened on a day last year happened last year. Everything that happened on a day a thousand years ago happened a thousand years ago. Same for a billion years ago or a trillion years ago. How far back in time is it that it becomes impossible for everything that happened on that day to have happened? The past is history. History is what happened. If you can imagine an infinite time line then all history (our past) happened along that time line between NOW and the infinite past.

 

[PyramidHead]

I deal with that problem in the rest of my post. Once you stop thinking in terms of infinite "change" (singular) and start thinking in terms of infinite number of changes (plural), then there is nothing contradictory about saying an infinite number of changes happened before today.

Saying infinite change is the same as saying an infinite number of changes. As you say, change represents the movement from one state to another. So infinite change is just an infinite number of movements from one state to another.

If I have to wait for an infinite numbers of changes to occur then I wait forever.

You are pointing out problems with the idea of infinite change. Not with the idea of using change to represent time.

Who is doing the waiting, and when did they start waiting?

Suppose the past is infinite. Now, pick any point on the timeline stretching backwards from right now. No matter what point you pick, it will be located a finite distance from the present. So, in what sense does anybody have to "wait" for an infinite number of events to occur? Beginning from when?

 

[skepticalbip]

Saying infinite change is the same as saying an infinite number of changes. As you say, change represents the movement from one state to another. So infinite change is just an infinite number of movements from one state to another.

If I have to wait for an infinite numbers of changes to occur then I wait forever.

You are pointing out problems with the idea of infinite change. Not with the idea of using change to represent time.

Who is doing the waiting, and when did they start waiting?

Suppose the past is infinite. Now, pick any point on the timeline stretching backwards from right now. No matter what point you pick, it will be located a finite distance from the present. So, in what sense does anybody have to "wait" for an infinite number of events to occur? Beginning from when?

The best I can figure is that he is assuming that time had a beginning and is apparently incapable of even imagining an infinite past. So since he assumes a beginning then there could not be an infinite amount of time between the beginning and now.

At least that is being generous in giving him credit for having the capability to understand that from any point to infinity is infinite. Though that may be an unearned credit.

 

[ryan]

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.

I agree, but there are different theories on time. I am just using the one that seems tacitly agreed upon. I don't necessarily think that time must have only one direction; that would be an argument about what time actually is. So if someone wants to use a different theory of what time is, then my arguments will probably change.

 

[ryan]

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?

We are saying that time could not have started an infinite number of days ago.

 

[skepticalbip]

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?

We are saying that time could not have started an infinite number of days ago.

Then what is the maximum number of days prior to today that it would be possible for time to have existed?

And you could add a description of what physical process allowed for time to start at that particular time.

ETA:
An infinite past would mean that there was no start, that it always was. So in a way (though not the way you intended) time would have not have started an infinite number of days ago because it always was so didn't start.

 

[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?

We are saying that time could not have started an infinite number of days ago.

You say so, but then give a fucking reason for why not! Describe clearly and concise how you deduce a logical contradiction from the assumption that time has been going on for ever.

 

[Mageth]

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?

We are saying that time could not have started an infinite number of days ago.

So then time didn't start. What's the problem?