Infinite Past

[Speakpigeon]

The idea of an infinite past is that of time without beginning, that is, no starting point in the distant past.

Yes. It is an irrational idea.

It is the idea that something (time) exists but it had no beginning.

Yet we have no evidence of anything existing without a beginning. We can't conceive of such a thing. And such a thing could not be shown to be possible.

So it is an irrational idea not supported by any evidence.

Sure, I'll buy it.

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.

Every idiocy you say here is already contradicted in my post:

The idea of an infinite past is that of time without beginning, that is, no starting point in the distant past.

We can conceive of an infinite series of points in time going back from now. Each point in time in the series is defined by subtracting the same strictly positive interval Δt to the preceding point in the series. So Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, with T0 the present time. Δt can be as small as you want as long as it is not zero, and as large as you want as long as it is finite.

This is a formal expression of the intuitive notion of time we all have in common.

This series has no upper bound and is therefore infinite. It is also a sample of the past, with all Tn spaced regularly across the entire past. Each Tn is further back in the past than its predecessor in the series. The bigger n is, the further back in the past Tn will be. So, if the series is infinite, then the past is infinite also.

All we need is to be able to conceive of such a series. But it is easy because it is our default description. It subsumes all our ordinary alternative descriptions of time either as a succession of seconds, years, centuries, or millennia. There is nothing difficult or vague in that conception. It is so much a part of our everyday notion of time as being completely intuitive for all of us. It also applies whether time is continuous or discrete, or even a mix of the two.

If time is infinite but discrete, then the infinity of the past is commensurable to that of N (or Q but that amount to the same thing).

If we conceive of the past as continuous, we can conceive of time as analogous to R for example, the past being R-, and the future R+, the present moment being 0. In this case, the infinity of the past is commensurable to than of R.

Keep in mind that this is just a conception of time. We don’t know whether this conception is the reality of time. The question asked of posters is whether they think this conception is logically impossible or not. The question is not whether it is true of time.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Yes. It is an irrational idea.

It is the idea that something (time) exists but it had no beginning.

Yet we have no evidence of anything existing without a beginning. We can't conceive of such a thing. And such a thing could not be shown to be possible.

So it is an irrational idea not supported by any evidence.

Sure, I'll buy it.

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.

Every idiocy you say here is already contradicted in my post:

Your post is nothing but not understanding the difference between imaginary things like points and something real like time.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

The absurdity of the process is clear.

And it is not even an understanding of calculus. Calculus says lets chop up this line more and more and make the segments smaller and smaller. And since the size of the segments is approaching zero and after a while they are so small they are insignificant in terms of something in the world lets pretend the size actually gets to zero and we will label that an infinitely small slice. Never does the slice actually get to zero. You can chop and chop and chop and it never will actually get there. Saying an infinite slice is of value 0 is just a definition. It is not something that can be proven. It is a mathematical tool. That is all infinity is. It is not something real.

Time is in no way infinite.

It can not be divided infinitely.

An infinite slice of time, even if we say such a thing is possible, would be by definition, not rational process, time of 0 duration.

In other words nothing.

You are making the incredible argument of saying nothing = something.

That really is idiocy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Every idiocy you say here is already contradicted in my post:

Your post is nothing but not understanding the difference between imaginary things like points and something real like time.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

The absurdity of the process is clear.

And it is not even an understanding of calculus. Calculus says lets chop up this line more and more and make the segments smaller and smaller. And since the size of the segments is approaching zero and after a while they are so small they are insignificant in terms of something in the world lets pretend the size actually gets to zero and we will label that an infinitely small slice. Never does the slice actually get to zero. You can chop and chop and chop and it never will actually get there. Saying an infinite slice is of value 0 is just a definition. It is not something that can be proven. It is a mathematical tool. That is all infinity is. It is not something real.

Time is in no way infinite.

It can not be divided infinitely.

An infinite slice of time, even if we say such a thing is possible, would be by definition, not rational process, time of 0 duration.

In other words nothing.

You are making the incredible argument of saying nothing = something.

That really is idiocy.

Your posts, all of them, show you don't even understand the OP. And you keep at it like a madman. You are a complete waste of time.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your post is nothing but not understanding the difference between imaginary things like points and something real like time.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

The absurdity of the process is clear.

And it is not even an understanding of calculus. Calculus says lets chop up this line more and more and make the segments smaller and smaller. And since the size of the segments is approaching zero and after a while they are so small they are insignificant in terms of something in the world lets pretend the size actually gets to zero and we will label that an infinitely small slice. Never does the slice actually get to zero. You can chop and chop and chop and it never will actually get there. Saying an infinite slice is of value 0 is just a definition. It is not something that can be proven. It is a mathematical tool. That is all infinity is. It is not something real.

Time is in no way infinite.

It can not be divided infinitely.

An infinite slice of time, even if we say such a thing is possible, would be by definition, not rational process, time of 0 duration.

In other words nothing.

You are making the incredible argument of saying nothing = something.

That really is idiocy.

Your posts, all of them, show you don't even understand the OP. And you keep at it like a madman. You are a complete waste of time.
EB

That you have no specifics to me just means cognitive dissonance.

The words make no sense to you because you can't relate them to things you think are true.

How about just responding to one point.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

Do you think it is rational to do that?

 

[fromderinside]

Do you think that the idea that the past might be infinite is a logical contradiction because by definition the past ends with the present moment?
EB

No. Because, as humans, we are products of what has taken place since our world began.

So I raise two objections to the idea that time is not infinite because it ends with now.

First, is definition. Infinite can be a line of time or it can be the line of time re human existence given it is humans who are making claims here. If it is true that time began with the big bang it can be said time is not infinite since we can calculate in time the occurrence of the big bang. But that point may be moot given those asking the question are humans a product produced after the time humans allege time began. Al;so man has evidence of existence before big bang which implies time unknown extended time. So time may be infinite even in the world.

The second objection is with the idea that now ends the past. Since humans are products of evolution and genetics determine the human time for one may be since birth or since the time it is possible to trace back one's genetic origins out of the infinite number pf possibilities produced since man began. Even there one can argue time is relevant for any genetic code produced since life began that is extant in man or a man. Also, if we use the genetic approach it can be said that now comes when no genetic material from your current existence remains in traceable progeny.

 

[untermensche]

The real question is: Is infinity something real or merely an invented fiction?

I say it is nothing but an invented fiction to help humans do mathematical problems. It is a tool, like a spoon.

And trying to apply it to real things like time makes as much sense as trying to eat time with a spoon.

Just because we can invent some mathematical device that in no way means we can apply it to reality.

 

[ryan]

If there is no past, how do we know that a change occurred?

As I said, we experience and measure change and call the rate of change being experienced and/or measured ''time'' - sun and moon and stars in different positions, tides, seasons, animals and people coming and going, etc....all being rates of change, not in the past, not in the future, but here and now. always here and now.

But I am wondering how change could even exist with nothing in the past to compare it to.

 

[ryan]

This problem does not exist if you read from a couple posts ago. Here it is again

That doesn't address the problem unless you can demonstrate it addresses the problem.

Not one bit of relativity or quantum theory explains how something could arise out of nothing. Not fake nothing like Krauss's fake nothing that was really all of quantum theory existing but nothing else.

So let's just think about a finite universe that begins and ends. It will exist completely bounded in 4 dimensions. There is no true beginning. Any edge could be the beginning or the end. It would just be.

 

[untermensche]

As I said, we experience and measure change and call the rate of change being experienced and/or measured ''time'' - sun and moon and stars in different positions, tides, seasons, animals and people coming and going, etc....all being rates of change, not in the past, not in the future, but here and now. always here and now.

But I am wondering how change could even exist with nothing in the past to compare it to.

Things change in relation to other things.

And this cannot be made to go away by saying there is a rate to this change.

 

[untermensche]

That doesn't address the problem unless you can demonstrate it addresses the problem.

Not one bit of relativity or quantum theory explains how something could arise out of nothing. Not fake nothing like Krauss's fake nothing that was really all of quantum theory existing but nothing else.

So let's just think about a finite universe that begins and ends. It will exist completely bounded in 4 dimensions. There is no true beginning. Any edge could be the beginning or the end. It would just be.

Saying the words "bounded in 4 dimensions" is not an explanation of anything. It doesn't make any sense.

Things are not bounded by dimensions. They are made free by them.

The point can freely become a line if we have two dimensions. The circular line can become a sphere if we add another to make 3 dimensions.

And the sphere can move around if we add a fourth (spacetime).

You are standing things on their head if you say dimensions bind things. They set things free.

 

[ryan]

So let's just think about a finite universe that begins and ends. It will exist completely bounded in 4 dimensions. There is no true beginning. Any edge could be the beginning or the end. It would just be.

Saying the words "bounded in 4 dimensions" is not an explanation of anything. It doesn't make any sense.

Things are not bounded by dimensions. They are made free by them.

Bounded in 4 dimensions, not bounded by 4 dimensions. A tree is bounded in 3 dimensions. Its whole existence, being finite, is bounded in 4 dimensions.

The point can freely become a line if we have two dimensions. The circular line can become a sphere if we add another to make 3 dimensions.

And the sphere can move around if we add a fourth (spacetime).

Again, things don't actually move in spacetime. If you are going to bring up spacetime, you must start thinking about it as a 4 dimensional fabric. The space and the time are perpendicular just like the other spatial dimensions are perpendicular to each other.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How about just responding to one point.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

Do you think it is rational to do that?

And you keep going at it like a madman.




I can't reply to your question because it is idiotic and you are the one asking this idiotic question.




Your question is idiotic since I just don't do what it assumes.

For a start, I don't apply what I say to real time. The premise of your question is therefore false.

I don't apply what I say to real time because I understand that what I perceive of time is most likely but a minor aspect of it and likely misleading as to the reality of time.

This I already explained in a previous post and yet you keep going at it like a madman.

Second, your question is idiotic because it falsely assumes that the concept of an infinite past is essentially about "dimensionless points". This again is idiotic since I represent time as a one-dimensional space, which by definition has one dimension, not zero like dimensionless points. Why you can make such basic mistakes shows you are as dumb as a cow.

Third, the concept of infinite past is used to help us consider alternative possibilities, given that, again, we don't know the reality of time. Being able to conceive logical possibilities is our only avenue for making progress. The whole history of science has been made possible by this simple mechanism. Only idiots fail to understand something so basic

So your idiotic suggestion that I would want to apply the concept of an infinite past to real time makes no sense. We use the concepts we invent to decide and help our actions, not to "apply" to the real world. If I knew the reality of time, do you think I would waste my time to conceive of the various logical possibilities? No, I would just describe time and yet this is not what I offered. You're so dumb you can't understand the situation even though it's completely trivial.

Fourth, all your posts shows you are the one who thinks he knows something substantial about time, for example that the concept of infinite past is false. You keep going on about this like a madman. I am discussing the logical validity of a concept. You reply by making claims about the reality of time. You are such an idiot.

So you are the perfect idiot. You read without understanding or you attack without reading, like a madman.

This is what I could comment on your idiotic "question". More waste of my time. You won't understand my response or more likely you won't even try to understand it.
EB

 

[Bronzeage]

Your posts, all of them, show you don't even understand the OP. And you keep at it like a madman. You are a complete waste of time.
EB

That you have no specifics to me just means cognitive dissonance.

The words make no sense to you because you can't relate them to things you think are true.

How about just responding to one point.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

Do you think it is rational to do that?

When did time become real? Does time have mass and occupy space? There is nothing "real" about time.

As for what is allowed, or not, get real.

 

[untermensche]

That you have no specifics to me just means cognitive dissonance.

The words make no sense to you because you can't relate them to things you think are true.

How about just responding to one point.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

Do you think it is rational to do that?

When did time become real? Does time have mass and occupy space? There is nothing "real" about time.

As for what is allowed, or not, get real.

Does gravity have mass or occupy space?

You do understand that our current understandings are that space and time are inseparable? It is really spacetime, not time.

So if space is real so is time.

And saying "get real" is perhaps the worst argument ever written.

 

[untermensche]

Saying the words "bounded in 4 dimensions" is not an explanation of anything. It doesn't make any sense.

Things are not bounded by dimensions. They are made free by them.

Bounded in 4 dimensions, not bounded by 4 dimensions. A tree is bounded in 3 dimensions. Its whole existence, being finite, is bounded in 4 dimensions.

No it is expressing it's freedom in 4 dimensions.

Time does not bind a tree in any way. It is bounded by it's genetics.

It is an added freedom beyond the freedom to have length width and height.

Your understandings are upside-down.

Again, things don't actually move in spacetime....

I find this claim absurd.

And you have never supported it with anything. All you seem to be able to do is claim it.

If you can't explain it my guess is you don't understand it.

 

[untermensche]

How about just responding to one point.

You think you are allowed to apply everything you can say about imaginary dimensionless points to something real like time.

Do you think it is rational to do that?

And you keep going at it like a madman.




I can't reply to your question because it is idiotic and you are the one asking this idiotic question.




Your question is idiotic since I just don't do what it assumes.

For a start, I don't apply what I say to real time. The premise of your question is therefore false.

I don't apply what I say to real time because I understand that what I perceive of time is most likely but a minor aspect of it and likely misleading as to the reality of time.

This I already explained in a previous post and yet you keep going at it like a madman.

Second, your question is idiotic because it falsely assumes that the concept of an infinite past is essentially about "dimensionless points". This again is idiotic since I represent time as a one-dimensional space, which by definition has one dimension, not zero like dimensionless points. Why you can make such basic mistakes shows you are as dumb as a cow.

Third, the concept of infinite past is used to help us consider alternative possibilities, given that, again, we don't know the reality of time. Being able to conceive logical possibilities is our only avenue for making progress. The whole history of science has been made possible by this simple mechanism. Only idiots fail to understand something so basic

So your idiotic suggestion that I would want to apply the concept of an infinite past to real time makes no sense. We use the concepts we invent to decide and help our actions, not to "apply" to the real world. If I knew the reality of time, do you think I would waste my time to conceive of the various logical possibilities? No, I would just describe time and yet this is not what I offered. You're so dumb you can't understand the situation even though it's completely trivial.

Fourth, all your posts shows you are the one who thinks he knows something substantial about time, for example that the concept of infinite past is false. You keep going on about this like a madman. I am discussing the logical validity of a concept. You reply by making claims about the reality of time. You are such an idiot.

So you are the perfect idiot. You read without understanding or you attack without reading, like a madman.

This is what I could comment on your idiotic "question". More waste of my time. You won't understand my response or more likely you won't even try to understand it.
EB

All you are doing is desperately trying to apply this imaginary made-up concept (infinity) to time.

All you are doing is trying to apply something imaginary to something real. It won't work. It won't ever work. Because it is a fundamentally flawed endeavor from the start.

It is absurd and worthless. It is ignorant folly.

There is no possible way to apply imaginary made-up concepts that have no real existence to the universe. To think you can shows an incredible flaw in reasoning.

Unfortunately this is what I see over and over. People that don't understand the difference between imaginary mathematics and the real universe. And many people that don't know the difference between abstract man-made models of the universe and the real thing.

Join the club.

 

[bilby]

When did time become real? Does time have mass and occupy space? There is nothing "real" about time.

As for what is allowed, or not, get real.

Does gravity have mass or occupy space?

You do understand that our current understandings are that space and time are inseparable? It is really spacetime, not time.

So if space is real so is time.

And saying "get real" is perhaps the worst argument ever written.

Awww. That's so cute, that you think people are still interested in making good arguments against your unsupported bald assertions.

We all gave up some time ago, when it became apparent that you have no actual argument to make, and that absolutely nothing will change your mind one iota.

 

[untermensche]

Does gravity have mass or occupy space?

You do understand that our current understandings are that space and time are inseparable? It is really spacetime, not time.

So if space is real so is time.

And saying "get real" is perhaps the worst argument ever written.

Awww. That's so cute, that you think people are still interested in making good arguments against your unsupported bald assertions.

We all gave up some time ago, when it became apparent that you have no actual argument to make, and that absolutely nothing will change your mind one iota.

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.

 

[ryan]

Bounded in 4 dimensions, not bounded by 4 dimensions. A tree is bounded in 3 dimensions. Its whole existence, being finite, is bounded in 4 dimensions.

No it is expressing it's freedom in 4 dimensions.

Time does not bind a tree in any way. It is bounded by it's genetics.

It is an added freedom beyond the freedom to have length width and height.

Your understandings are upside-down.

Again, things don't actually move in spacetime....

I find this claim absurd.

And you have never supported it with anything. All you seem to be able to do is claim it.

If you can't explain it my guess is you don't understand it.

That is not true. I have tried to explain it to you twice using a 2 dimensional square, and I tried to explain it to you in the post that you just replied to.

In relativity (space-time), the time dimension is like the spatial dimensions. In other words, an object has a position in x,y,z and t dimensions. Objects even have direction in the time dimension just like in the other 3 dimensions.

A 2d picture hanging on your wall is actually 3 dimensional. You can't see the 3rd time dimension because it is literally behind the picture on either side of the picture. Something that appears to move from point A to point B is actually connecting point A and point B with its "temporal length".

 

[bilby]

Awww. That's so cute, that you think people are still interested in making good arguments against your unsupported bald assertions.

We all gave up some time ago, when it became apparent that you have no actual argument to make, and that absolutely nothing will change your mind one iota.

You have never had a good argument. As we see here.

You wouldn't know a good argument if one slapped you in the face.

If you had any kind of argument you would make one instead of merely leaving little piles of feces around.

As we see here.