Infinite Past

[untermensche]

There is no evidence to be found to support either a finite or infinite universe.

But infinity is a made-up concept, like god.

To apply it to the universe is an act of faith, not reason.

It has yet to be determined whether time had a beginning or not. It may have or may be that our 'universe' is a part of greater system which is eternal, nobody knows.

As it stands, we have the concept of eternity and there is nothing to exclude the possibility of the reality of eternity even if we currently lack the means to prove it. There's nothing that intrinsically eliminates the possibility of eternal time.

So you also think we can apply imaginary concepts to the real universe?

Tell me how that is rational.

What do we say next? The universe has a soul? You can't prove it doesn't.

 

[abaddon]

So you also think we can apply imaginary concepts to the real universe?

The "real" universe?

Didn't this thread start with a question of logic?

The whole discussion requires playing with If's without worrying how the If's relate with reality. Logic has to do with conceptual possibilities; it merely has to be consistent with the terms that are input, and that's all.

So, reality's actually off-topic here. Play the game of words.

You might also consider that once your stance is plain to people, you're done. There's no need to be adamant, to repeat anything, to convince anyone, to save face or "win" or even be right. Unless there's a neurosis that forces any of that onto you.

 

[untermensche]

So you also think we can apply imaginary concepts to the real universe?

The "real" universe?

Didn't this thread start with a question of logic?

The whole discussion requires playing with If's without worrying how the If's relate with reality. Logic has to do with conceptual possibilities; it merely has to be consistent with the terms that are input, and that's all.

So, reality's actually off-topic here. Play the game of words.

You might also consider that once your stance is plain to people, you're done. There's no need to be adamant, to repeat anything, to convince anyone, to save face or "win" or even be right. Unless there's a neurosis that forces any of that onto you.

I'm done when no idiot again tries to apply an imaginary concept to a real entity.

Real meaning being able to detect in some way either directly or by it's effects.

Real entities, like the universe, fall into one category, and imaginary concepts, like infinity, fall into another.

It is insanity to try to apply an imaginary concept to a real entity.

Again, what is next? We try to determine if the universe has a soul?

When some enterprise is absolute folly, like trying to apply an imaginary concept to real entities, pointing out the absolute folly cannot be done enough.

Wanting to continue folly when it is has been shown to be nothing but folly is childishness.

 

[4321lynx]

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

OK . I accept that my previous post was a derail, because it tried to deal with or point out the reality of time and did not deal with the thought or semantic experiment/exercise in human logic, which maybe fun for some, boring to some. and infuriating to unter . I am guessing, but I think that is the general idea, underlying his posts, especially the idea of mixing the reality of time with a theoretical problem of logic, a view I can sympathise with to a certain extent as only the utter senselessness and uselessness (except as an exercise in logic) of the said experiment is obvious to me.
But in the end it is no more harmful, if no more sensible than a game of chess, or bridge, or solitaire, or going to watch a game of baseball or of hockey, all of them "killing time" whilst sharpening some skills, although that last sport in its recurrent flareups of violence on ice somewhat resembles this thread.

So I will join in and say only that the past does not end at the present moment, it begins at that moment, the present being that moment when the future becomes the past, a moment that is constantly changing and yet constantly continuing for all of us, at least for now, and, one hopes, for a little longer.

 

[ryan]

For the second time, can you support your claim here?
EB

All you have to do is demonstrate that infinity is something real to show it is wrong.

If you can't demonstrate in any way that infinity is real, yet you believe it is, that is called religion.

You are taking the negative stance that infinity does not exist, correct? To say something doesn't exist when we don't know all that exists is an unjustified claim. You have put yourself in an impossible position.

If it is logic that you are worried about, it's logical to use infinity in an imaginary mathematical universe. Imaginary, sure, but this imaginary universe is not ruled out from the one we live in. And so far, math has been a pretty good reflection of the real universe and even a predictor. So how do you know that we don't live in the universe according to mathematics?

 

[untermensche]

All you have to do is demonstrate that infinity is something real to show it is wrong.

If you can't demonstrate in any way that infinity is real, yet you believe it is, that is called religion.

You are taking the negative stance that infinity does not exist, correct? To say something doesn't exist when we don't know all that exists is an unjustified claim. You have put yourself in an impossible position.

If it is logic that you are worried about, it's logical to use infinity in an imaginary mathematical universe. Imaginary, sure, but this imaginary universe is not ruled out from the one we live in. And so far, math has been a pretty good reflection of the real universe and even a predictor. So how do you know that we don't live in the universe according to mathematics?

I am taking the rational stance.

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

The rational default position with something that cannot be shown in any way to be real, like a god, or a fairy, or infinity, is that the thing is purely imaginary.

 

[untermensche]

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

OK . I accept that my previous post was a derail, because it tried to deal with or point out the reality of time and did not deal with the thought or semantic experiment/exercise in human logic, which maybe fun for some, boring to some. and infuriating to unter . I am guessing, but I think that is the general idea, underlying his posts, especially the idea of mixing the reality of time with a theoretical problem of logic, a view I can sympathise with to a certain extent as only the utter senselessness and uselessness (except as an exercise in logic) of the said experiment is obvious to me.
But in the end it is no more harmful, if no more sensible than a game of chess, or bridge, or solitaire, or going to watch a game of baseball or of hockey, all of them "killing time" whilst sharpening some skills, although that last sport in its recurrent flareups of violence on ice somewhat resembles this thread.

So I will join in and say only that the past does not end at the present moment, it begins at that moment, the present being that moment when the future becomes the past, a moment that is constantly changing and yet constantly continuing for all of us, at least for now, and, one hopes, for a little longer.

The past is as imaginary as infinity.

All that is real is the ever changing present moment.

The past is not nothing. It is all the previous arrangements of the universe that did exist but do not exist anymore. An imaginary concept.

Since the past is imaginary trying to apply concepts like beginning and end to it is as irrational as trying to attach the concept of infinity to time.

One can try to attach the concept of beginning and end to time, but not to the "past".

But talking about the beginning of time with the evidence at hand is a very short conversation.

 

[ryan]

You are taking the negative stance that infinity does not exist, correct? To say something doesn't exist when we don't know all that exists is an unjustified claim. You have put yourself in an impossible position.

If it is logic that you are worried about, it's logical to use infinity in an imaginary mathematical universe. Imaginary, sure, but this imaginary universe is not ruled out from the one we live in. And so far, math has been a pretty good reflection of the real universe and even a predictor. So how do you know that we don't live in the universe according to mathematics?

I am taking the rational stance.

The rational default position with something that cannot be shown in any way to be real, like a god, or a fairy, or infinity, is that the thing is purely imaginary.

You originally claimed that infinity goes against logical/rational sense, but math is logical/rational.

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

That's not really what most are saying, including me. We aren't claiming infinity is in fact real. From mostly a theoretical perspective, we are claiming it is physically possible, or at least logically possible that it is physically possible.

 

[untermensche]

I am taking the rational stance.

The rational default position with something that cannot be shown in any way to be real, like a god, or a fairy, or infinity, is that the thing is purely imaginary.

You originally claimed that infinity goes against logical/rational sense, but math is logical/rational.

I said the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And I said trying to apply imaginary concepts to the real universe is nonsensical.

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

That's not really what most are saying, including me. We aren't claiming infinity is in fact real. From mostly a theoretical perspective, we are claiming it is physically possible, or at least logically possible that it is physically possible.

If infinity is a purely imaginary concept how do you rationally apply it to the real universe?

Can we next apply the imaginary concept of a human soul to the universe and claim the universe has a soul? This cannot be proven to be untrue.

It is not rational in any way to try to apply the concept of infinity to the universe.

You can't apply purely imaginary concepts to real entities.

 

[ryan]

You originally claimed that infinity goes against logical/rational sense, but math is logical/rational.

I said the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And I said trying to apply imaginary concepts to the real universe is nonsensical.

I can imagine a 5 legged horse; does that mean one doesn't or can't exist?

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

That's not really what most are saying, including me. We aren't claiming infinity is in fact real. From mostly a theoretical perspective, we are claiming it is physically possible, or at least logically possible that it is physically possible.

If infinity is a purely imaginary concept how do you rationally apply it to the real universe?

Can we next apply the imaginary concept of a human soul to the universe and claim the universe has a soul? This cannot be proven to be untrue.

It is not rational in any way to try to apply the concept of infinity to the universe.

You can't apply purely imaginary concepts to real entities.

Again, why can't something imaginary exist too?

 

[4321lynx]

The past is as imaginary as infinity.

All that is real is the ever changing present moment.

The past is not nothing. It is all the previous arrangements of the universe that did exist but do not exist anymore. An imaginary concept.

Since the past is imaginary trying to apply concepts like beginning and end to it is as irrational as trying to attach the concept of infinity to time.

One can try to attach the concept of beginning and end to time, but not to the "past".

But talking about the beginning of time with the evidence at hand is a very short conversation.

The different arrangements existed and their effects, some of them, still exist. For instance, you and I did not exist and now we do. We came into existence at at some moment which was then the present, becoming the past, a moment different for each of us I bet, which passed into the past. The past being the sum of all the moments since the Big Bang, if you believe that the universe came into being then and brought with it time as part of its baggage or one of its dimensions. You are too tied up by your own version of English or semantics and your imagination fails you.
Sure, the past is imagined, but that image exists as surely as time and the universe exist, and its effects exist, if you think they do not, just look around, some of the effects are obvious even to the "lower" animals. Time "past" or "passed" is "all our yesterdays", and the yesterdays of the whole universe, and certain forecasts of the future, which certainly does not exist, can be made with confidence on the basis of that past.

 

[untermensche]

I said the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And I said trying to apply imaginary concepts to the real universe is nonsensical.

I can imagine a 5 legged horse; does that mean one doesn't or can't exist?

A horse is not an imaginary concept. A leg is not an imaginary concept.

Animals can have all kinds of genetic and developmental defects.

A 5 legged horse is not something like infinity. Infinity is purely imaginary. It cannot be shown to have any kind of real existence.

Again, why can't something imaginary exist too?

What is the likelihood the flying spaghetti monster is real?

Is it rational to think the flying spaghetti monster is real with no evidence it is real?

Again the rational position is that things are thought to not exist unless they can be shown in some way to exist.

There is nothing rational about saying if we can imagine something then it might exist.

 

[untermensche]

The different arrangements existed and their effects, some of them, still exist.

All effects like all things exist at the ever changing present.

Sure, the past is imagined, but that image exists as surely as time and the universe exist, and its effects exist, if you think they do not, just look around, some of the effects are obvious even to the "lower" animals. Time "past" or "passed" is "all our yesterdays", and the yesterdays of the whole universe, and certain forecasts of the future, which certainly does not exist, can be made with confidence on the basis of that past.

Effects are real. Memories are real. The ever changing present moment is real.

The past is imaginary.

 

[ryan]

I can imagine a 5 legged horse; does that mean one doesn't or can't exist?

A horse is not an imaginary concept. A leg is not an imaginary concept.

Animals can have all kinds of genetic and developmental defects.

A 5 legged horse is not something like infinity. Infinity is purely imaginary. It cannot be shown to have any kind of real existence.

Again, why can't something imaginary exist too?

What is the likelihood the flying spaghetti monster is real?

Is it rational to think the flying spaghetti monster is real with no evidence it is real?

Again the rational position is that things are thought to not exist unless they can be shown in some way to exist.

There is nothing rational about saying if we can imagine something then it might exist.

A 6 legged horse is purely in my imagination because I do not know that one exists or has ever existed. Let's just assume for a moment that it doesn't exist and has never existed. Does this mean it cannot exist?

 

[untermensche]

A 6 legged horse is purely in my imagination because I do not know that one exists or has ever existed. Let's just assume for a moment that it doesn't exist and has never existed. Does this mean it cannot exist?

That is just a rearrangement of a horse.

A horse is not imaginary so that is not PURELY imaginary.

Now if you imagined some 6 legged animal that never existed then that would be PURELY imaginary.

And we should not for a second believe that 6 legged animal is real without evidence.

 

[ryan]

A 6 legged horse is purely in my imagination because I do not know that one exists or has ever existed. Let's just assume for a moment that it doesn't exist and has never existed. Does this mean it cannot exist?

That is just a rearrangement of a horse.

A horse is not imaginary so that is not PURELY imaginary.

Now if you imagined some 6 legged animal that never existed then that would be PURELY imaginary.

And we should not for a second believe that 6 legged animal is real without evidence.

Right, but you are arguing that this animal can't exist because it is still imaginary like infinity is.

Nobody is making a positive claim, just arguing against your negative claim.

 

[4321lynx]

A 6 legged horse is purely in my imagination because I do not know that one exists or has ever existed. Let's just assume for a moment that it doesn't exist and has never existed. Does this mean it cannot exist?

That is just a rearrangement of a horse.

A horse is not imaginary so that is not PURELY imaginary.

Now if you imagined some 6 legged animal that never existed then that would be PURELY imaginary.

And we should not for a second believe that 6 legged animal is real without evidence.

All adult insects ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect ) have six legs, here are some biggies --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_insects

There were even bigger insects in time that has now gone, and is not now, that is not the present, and also is not the future, & is commonly called the past in English. Imagine that !!!


Spiders have eight legs, centipedes and millipedes have even more.

Try an imaginary normal whole animal uninjured and undiseased in the present or in the past, with seven-and-a-half legs.

 

[untermensche]

That is just a rearrangement of a horse.

A horse is not imaginary so that is not PURELY imaginary.

Now if you imagined some 6 legged animal that never existed then that would be PURELY imaginary.

And we should not for a second believe that 6 legged animal is real without evidence.

Right, but you are arguing that this animal can't exist because it is still imaginary like infinity is.

Nobody is making a positive claim, just arguing against your negative claim.

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

I am not arguing a six legged horse cannot exist.

It is not an entity that is purely imaginary. Like infinity.

It is in fact very possible since we know horses exist and we know animals can have birth defects.

REAL: Exists, can be observed in some way either directly or through its effects. ex. A horse

PARTIALLY IMAGINARY: Taking something real and making some imaginative alteration to it. ex. A horse with six legs

PURELY IMAGINARY: Cannot be shown to have any existence. Not an alteration of some kind to something real. ex. Some imaginary monster that never existed, Infinity.

 

[ryan]

Right, but you are arguing that this animal can't exist because it is still imaginary like infinity is.

Nobody is making a positive claim, just arguing against your negative claim.

The burden is always on the person claiming something is real.

I am not arguing a six legged horse cannot exist.

It is not an entity that is purely imaginary. Like infinity.

It is in fact very possible since we know horses exist and we know animals can have birth defects.

You have set up a Stawman whether you know it or not. You originally said that infinity is impossible because it is illogical for it to exist, and everyone else stayed agnostic about it. Now you are trying to say that we claimed it exists.

 

[untermensche]

duplicate