Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Speakpigeon]

No.

Wanting to talk about infinite time without a model is fucking moronic.

Those that want to talk about infinite time but are unwilling to model it in any way are fucking morons.

No. This is just idiotic. There's no way to talk about infinity without using some model.

Your attitude is moronic because you're dead certain there's just one model possible, yours! This is just laughable. Remove your blinders, mate. And prove that your model is necessarily the only one possible.

That is my model for infinite time since just to say infinite time means nothing.

And your model is crap.

In what way?

Please be specific so I know you are not a fucking moron.

How exactly is infinite time different than the time needed to recite all the integers?

Very easy. Just start reciting integers. Go on, do it. Now, can't you see there's time in between two successive numbers being called out? See? Reciting numbers is just pathetically inadequate. Try to do it more quickly! Go on! Try! You won't succeed.

More generally, whatever we do, it's clear there's more time in between any two identifiable events. We've built clocks and clocks are exactly things designed to call out instants of time as if they were integers. We even have special clocks that measure very, very short time intervals. The shortest one to date is apparently the zeptosecond, a trillionth of a billionth of a second. And yet Quantum Physics says there can be much, much more than just one event inside a zeptosecond.

So, no, just counting integers won't do. Your model is crap.

I am demonstrating a positive which results in the negation of an idea.

Your so-called "demonstration" has failed to convince anyone here. You should reflect on that.

Not only that, but most people here see it as moronic. You should ask yourself why.

I am showing that infinity as defined is in conflict with something like time in the past.

As "defined"?!

But there are many different concepts of infinity. Even in our everyday experience, we all have three very different notions of infinity, at least that I can identify.

And how could you possibly know that a particular concept is in contradiction with what the actual past has been? You've been there?

And your continuous rant on the subject has never convinced anybody. Time to think about that.

Infinite time is the time it takes to recite all the positive integers. They are equivalent amounts of time.

No. Sorry, but this is moronic. Time is what it is and doesn't give a fuck about you counting any integers.

That is my model for infinite time since just to say infinite time means nothing.

And your model is crap.

You need a real world model. Reciting all the positive integers is the model for infinite time. It is arbitrary but accurate. Infinite time implies infinite events. Time without events is a contradiction.

How would you know it's accurate?

That there's an infinity of event doesn't mean they could be counted.

Reciting all the positive integers is not something that could have occurred in the past. It is a contradiction to say you have reached the last positive integer.

You can think of time as the set of integers. That's one model. And in this case, the past would have been infinite. Where's the contradiction in this model? That we're unable to count integers from the infinity end of them is completely irrelevant. We're finite beings. We can't count infinity.

And therefore neither could something equivalent to it, infinite time.

You've failed again to convince your reader.
EB

 

[Juma]

Then I have no clue [...]

Think of a case ewhere you have one single electron.
The current caused by this electron is linear to its speed.
Thus by changing the speed of the electron we csn get any current.
All values of current is possible, we just have to accelerate the electron to the corresponding speed.
all values of current is possible <=> current is not quanticized.
Q E D.

 

[untermensche]

No. This is just idiotic. There's no way to talk about infinity without using some model.

No shit!!!!

Your attitude is moronic because you're dead certain there's just one model possible, yours! This is just laughable. Remove your blinders, mate. And prove that your model is necessarily the only one possible.

I have said it is A model. It is an accurate model.

Not THE ONLY model.

You need to learn some English.

And your model is crap.

In what way?

Please be specific so I know you are not a fucking moron.

How exactly is infinite time different than the time needed to recite all the integers?

Very easy. Just start reciting integers. Go on, do it.

OK I have started.

Now, can't you see there's time in between two successive numbers being called out?

So fucking what? That is a meaningless point when you are modeling infinite time. When you are trying to model limitless time. Time that goes on without end.

I could wait a year between reciting integers and so fucking what?

It would still be a model of infinite time. No matter what pace you recited them in or how much time occurred between reciting them.

Infinite time is limitless time.

Your point is worthless.

You have not shown me a difference between infinite time and the time it takes to recite all the positive integers.

You have not come close to showing me you are not a fucking moron.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No shit!!!!



I have said it is A model. It is an accurate model.

Not THE ONLY model.

You need to learn some English.

And your model is crap.

In what way?

Please be specific so I know you are not a fucking moron.

How exactly is infinite time different than the time needed to recite all the integers?

Very easy. Just start reciting integers. Go on, do it.

OK I have started.

Now, can't you see there's time in between two successive numbers being called out?

So fucking what? That is a meaningless point when you are modeling infinite time. When you are trying to model limitless time. Time that goes on without end.

I could wait a year between reciting integers and so fucking what?

It would still be a model of infinite time. No matter what pace you recited them in or how much time occurred between reciting them.

Infinite time is limitless time.

Your point is worthless.

You have not shown me a difference between infinite time and the time it takes to recite all the positive integers.

You have not come close to showing me you are not a fucking moron.

I can't show you the difference because you cannot conceive of an actual infinity. I can. You can't.

I can conceive of infinities that "complete", like an infinite past or the decimals for example. I can conceive of infinities that do not, like the integers and the future. Big deal.

I'm sorry you can't conceive of the infinite. It seems like a kind of blindness. A blindness of the mind. An inability to conceive of things beyond our little parochial experience of life.

I can read Leibnitz and Newton and understand what they're talking about. You can't. I can read Cantor and understand his mistake. You can't. You will very probably never be able to do it.

There's something fascinating about your case. You're not the only person affected. There's quite a few like you out there. They're all invariably adamant that infinity could not possibly exist and are usually very cross that normal people should talk about infinities at all. Your attitude very much looks like a religious thing. You seem to be in a position very similar to a sort of ayatollah of the impossibility of infinities, condemning people to hell if they persist in their perverted ways.

The mere fact that you are going on and on about it and so vehemently should be of concerned to you. You'd need to take a step back. What does it matter, really? Assumptions about infinities don't have any material consequence. Our lives remain very much finite, I'm afraid. We're not asking you to cross an infinity of points every time you move. We just assume you do, anyway. No skin off your back. Just relax. Watch videos of Chomsky and purr. There's somebody who understands you.

You won't stop us normal people talking about the possibility of infinities. We couldn't stop ourselves if we wanted to. It's part of the fabric of how we conceive of the world. We're different from you, that's all. Almost a different species, you could say. Like Cro-magnons and Neanderthals.

Your idea of time is to count on your fingers!!! Well, move on, mate. Yeah, I know, you can't. You're stuck inside your dark grotto, grumbling, unable to conceive of the infinity outside.
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

I can conceive of infinities that "complete", like an infinite past or the decimals for example. I can conceive of infinities that do not, like the integers and the future. Big deal.

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the function at n is the nth digit in the decimal.

That you formalise enumerations this way is why Cantor's diagonal argument about listing the reals is actually an argument about the absence of maps onto the reals whose domain is the naturals, and so a proof that N < R.

If the integers (and presumably naturals) aren't complete, then I can't see why functions from the naturals would be. Can you explain?

I can read Cantor and understand his mistake.

Maybe this is a memory lapse on my part. What mistake did Cantor make?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I can conceive of infinities that "complete", like an infinite past or the decimals for example. I can conceive of infinities that do not, like the integers and the future. Big deal.

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the function at n is the nth digit in the decimal.

That you formalise enumerations this way is why Cantor's diagonal argument about listing the reals is actually an argument about the absence of maps onto the reals whose domain is the naturals, and so a proof that N < R.

If the integers (and presumably naturals) aren't complete, then I can't see why functions from the naturals would be. Can you explain?

I usually make sure what I explain is pretty clear for most people to understand. You'll have to do with what I said.

Still, if that can reassure you, what I can conceive is neither here nor there as far as mathematical theories are concerned.

You can take what I say to UM as a derail or a PM.

I can read Cantor and understand his mistake.

Maybe this is a memory lapse on my part. What mistake did Cantor make?

Sorry, nothing for publication.

Still, I'm pleased you should read my posts and so carefully.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No shit!!!!



I have said it is A model. It is an accurate model.

Not THE ONLY model.

You need to learn some English.

Very easy. Just start reciting integers. Go on, do it.

OK I have started.

Now, can't you see there's time in between two successive numbers being called out?

So fucking what? That is a meaningless point when you are modeling infinite time. When you are trying to model limitless time. Time that goes on without end.

I could wait a year between reciting integers and so fucking what?

It would still be a model of infinite time. No matter what pace you recited them in or how much time occurred between reciting them.

Infinite time is limitless time.

Your point is worthless.

You have not shown me a difference between infinite time and the time it takes to recite all the positive integers.

You have not come close to showing me you are not a fucking moron.

I can't show you the difference because you cannot conceive of an actual infinity. I can. You can't.

You are an incredible waste of my time.

You have delusions you are trying to sell.

Take it to the religion sections.

They claim to be able to conceive of the infinite there as well.

Infinite time completes because you can conceive of it.

Got you.

You are fucking done. Your load has been shot.

Thanks for the nothingness.

 

[untermensche]

I can conceive of infinities that "complete", like an infinite past or the decimals for example. I can conceive of infinities that do not, like the integers and the future. Big deal.

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the function at n is the nth digit in the decimal.

That you formalise enumerations this way is why Cantor's diagonal argument about listing the reals is actually an argument about the absence of maps onto the reals whose domain is the naturals, and so a proof that N < R.

If the integers (and presumably naturals) aren't complete, then I can't see why functions from the naturals would be. Can you explain?

I can read Cantor and understand his mistake.

Maybe this is a memory lapse on my part. What mistake did Cantor make?

The word "formalize" means "transform to have some utility from it".

0.999... is not a value. It has no final value.

If you transform it into something else then that something else might have a final value.

It only takes an infinitely small amount of rounding to transform it into something else.

 

[Juma]

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the function at n is the nth digit in the decimal.

That you formalise enumerations this way is why Cantor's diagonal argument about listing the reals is actually an argument about the absence of maps onto the reals whose domain is the naturals, and so a proof that N < R.

If the integers (and presumably naturals) aren't complete, then I can't see why functions from the naturals would be. Can you explain?

Maybe this is a memory lapse on my part. What mistake did Cantor make?

The word "formalize" means "transform to have some utility from it".

0.999... is not a value. It has no final value.

If you transform it into something else then that something else might have a final value.

It only takes an infinitely small amount of rounding to transform it into something else.

0.999... is not a process in time, its a description of an infinite structure. As is 1.000 ... 2.000 ....
The value of the structure 0.999... is the same as of the structure 1.000...
There is no need to talk about a ”final” value.

 

[untermensche]

As I said in the other thread, the way you formalise an infinite decimal is the same way you formalise any infinite enumeration or ending list: you talk about a function whose domain is the naturals. In the case of decimals, the codomain is the integers between 0 and 9, and the value of the function at n is the nth digit in the decimal.

That you formalise enumerations this way is why Cantor's diagonal argument about listing the reals is actually an argument about the absence of maps onto the reals whose domain is the naturals, and so a proof that N < R.

If the integers (and presumably naturals) aren't complete, then I can't see why functions from the naturals would be. Can you explain?

Maybe this is a memory lapse on my part. What mistake did Cantor make?

The word "formalize" means "transform to have some utility from it".

0.999... is not a value. It has no final value.

If you transform it into something else then that something else might have a final value.

It only takes an infinitely small amount of rounding to transform it into something else.

0.999... is not a process in time, its a description of an infinite structure. As is 1.000 ... 2.000 ....
The value of the structure 0.999... is the same as of the structure 1.000...
There is no need to talk about a ”final” value.

By calling it "an infinite structure" you have merely pretended it is a structure.

A structure has a final value.

What is it's final value?

Without transforming it into something else where does the string of 9's end?

At what final value?

An asymptote is not the thing it approaches.

You want to turn the idea of an infinite asymptote on it's head.

 

[Phil Scott]

The word "formalize" means "transform to have some utility from it".

Where the hell did you get that definition from?

"Formalise" means to render it in the rigorous language of set theory so that it can be used as part of rigorous proofs. At the most extreme, "formalise" means to render something into a symbolic form where it can be parsed and processed by a machine designed to verify proofs.

We formalise expressions like "0.999..." precisely because it's initially unclear mathematically what that ellipsis is supposed to be saying.

 

[untermensche]

Reducing something to set theory is a capricious act.

Formalized mathematics is not to understand something.

It does not explain what infinity is.

It merely looks for ways to use it.

This case is so simple it is ridiculous.

When a difference is infinite it is not much of a problem to see it as insignificant.

For the sake of use.

Not for the sake of explanation.

 

[Phil Scott]

Reducing something to set theory is a capricious act.

I don't really care what you think of it. Reduction to set theory has been the definition of mathematical rigour for the last century, and it's what mathematicians care about still today. Bourbaki stated it exactly, and independence results in set theory have been sufficient to get mathematicians to abandon whole problems, precisely because they believe that if those problems cannot be proven in formal set theory, then they cannot be proven. It's currently the gold standard for what mathematicians think their subject is about.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to give a damn about modern mathematics. You don't have to take any of this seriously beyond it's humble practicalities. But please fuck off back to the philosophy forum.

 

[untermensche]

I don't really care what you think of it.

That is really your only position.

Nothing rational.

Just a refusal to even look at the matter.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are an incredible waste of my time.

You have delusions you are trying to sell.

Take it to the religion sections.

They claim to be able to conceive of the infinite there as well.

Infinite time completes because you can conceive of it.

Infinite time?! What are you preaching about? You constantly misread. Buy yourself a pair of eyeglasses.

I said an infinite future would not "complete". An infinite past would.

And I'm not saying that it does or it doesn't. How would I know? I'm not a fucking moron choking in his own oracular vomit.

All I'm saying is that I can conceive of it and you can't.

Got you.

You are fucking done. Your load has been shot.

Thanks for the nothingness.

Your begin rude here deeply hurts. I would counsel if I could but it hurts too much.

I'll talk to Noam. See if he can do something soothing for you.

All I'm saying is that I can conceive of infinities you can't except for the very basic one that's countable, the one you can count on your own little fingers, one, two, three... Up to ten?

Still, it's already something. That's how humanity started it. But it was all a long time ago. Maybe about 200,000 years ago. Time to get an upgrade, dude.

You're not wasting your time. There's nothing in what you say that's remotely looking like a rational argument. You won't convince people just by repeating infinities can't "complete". You don't even realise you're using a private language that means shit to other people. You should discuss this specifically with Noam. You're not wasting your time because you have nothing better to do. You're just obsessed with the fact that people keep talking of things you can't even conceive. You want them to stop. Hey, cool, Man! It's a free country. Go talk to your little pinky. You should get along just fine.

All I'm saying is that I can conceive of infinities you can't. End of the discussion.
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

I don't really care what you think of it.

That is really your only position.

Nothing rational.

Just a refusal to even look at the matter.

Look at what? Have you got any new maths to show us? Have you got a new foundation for calculus? Have you got anything apart from some whining about stuff about which you clearly have zero formal education?

No. Then please, again, fuck off.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time?! What are you preaching about? You constantly misread. Buy yourself a pair of eyeglasses.

I said an infinite future would not "complete". An infinite past would.

You are so lost you are spinning like a top.

An infinite past means infinite time which means infinite events.

Infinite time does not complete, ever. It is like the positive integers. There is no end to it.

Something with no end to it could not have ended.

 

[untermensche]

I don't really care what you think of it.

That is really your only position.

Nothing rational.

Just a refusal to even look at the matter.

Look at what? Have you got any new maths to show us? Have you got a new foundation for calculus? Have you got anything apart from some whining about stuff about which you clearly have zero formal education?

No. Then please, again, fuck off.

You won't even look at the notation before you.

You won't actually examine the creature defined as [0.9999...]

It is not 1. It is undefined. It has no final value.

All you will look at are what has been capriciously done to it to make it useful.

Calculus does not say any infinity completes.

It uses limits to disregard differences that are infinitely small.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Infinite time?! What are you preaching about? You constantly misread. Buy yourself a pair of eyeglasses.

I said an infinite future would not "complete". An infinite past would.

You are so lost you are spinning like a top.

An infinite past means infinite time which means infinite events.

Infinite time does not complete, ever. It is like the positive integers. There is no end to it.

Something with no end to it could not have ended.

End of the discussion, dude.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time?! What are you preaching about? You constantly misread. Buy yourself a pair of eyeglasses.

I said an infinite future would not "complete". An infinite past would.

You are so lost you are spinning like a top.

An infinite past means infinite time which means infinite events.

Infinite time does not complete, ever. It is like the positive integers. There is no end to it.

Something with no end to it could not have ended.

End of the discussion, dude.
EB

There never was one.

I have a position I will defend all day and you have nothing of any value to say about it.

And you have no rational position.

Just a claim you know what the last positive integer is.