Infinite Past

[untermensche]

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.

I did make a completely different argument demonstrating it is impossible for there to have been infinite time in the past.

It is not possible for infinite moments to have occurred before a given moment. It is a logical contradiction. Infinite moments can never have "occurred". Infinite moments are moments that never stop occurring.

But here I am saying infinity is not real. It is an imaginary concept. "Something without end" is purely imaginary. It can't be shown to exist in any way.

And I am saying you cannot logically apply imaginary concepts to the real universe.

Can we rationally claim the universe has a soul?

Nobody can prove the universe does not have a soul.

 

[ryan]

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.

I did make a completely different argument demonstrating it is impossible for there to have been infinite time in the past.

It is not possible for infinite moments to have occurred before a given moment. It is a logical contradiction. Infinite moments can never have "occurred". Infinite moments are moments that never stop occurring.

But here I am saying infinity is not real. It is an imaginary concept. "Something without end" is purely imaginary. It can't be shown to exist in any way.

And I am saying you cannot logically apply imaginary concepts to the real universe.

But we just went through this. What about an animal that is imagined that does not exist yet?

 

[untermensche]

I did make a completely different argument demonstrating it is impossible for there to have been infinite time in the past.

It is not possible for infinite moments to have occurred before a given moment. It is a logical contradiction. Infinite moments can never have "occurred". Infinite moments are moments that never stop occurring.

But here I am saying infinity is not real. It is an imaginary concept. "Something without end" is purely imaginary. It can't be shown to exist in any way.

And I am saying you cannot logically apply imaginary concepts to the real universe.

But we just went through this. What about an animal that is imagined that does not exist yet?

What about it?

Can we say it exists?

But infinity is a concept like the human soul. A pure invention.

You can't apply it to the universe.

That is irrational.

Like I asked but you never answer, Can we say the universe has a soul?

Can we just apply imaginary concepts to the universe willy nilly? Is that sane?

 

[abaddon]

It is an imaginary concept.

"Imaginary concept". If a concept was mentioned in a work of fiction but never spelled out, that would be an "imaginary concept". What you mean is a real concept about an imaginary thing. Like possibilities in general. All possibilities are imaginary things... something you have a strong bias against.

"Something without end" is purely imaginary.

Trivial observation. BTW, "imaginary" and "false" are not synonyms.

It can't be shown to exist in any way.

You don't know that it can never be shown to exist in any way. Infinite universes have been conjectured by scientists.

And I am saying you cannot logically apply imaginary concepts to the real universe.

You can't logically apply the concept of an imaginary thing to "the real universe" and imagine what that scenario would be like? So IOW you can't imagine things about the universe.

Nobody can prove the universe does not have a soul.

Why are you arguing by analogy? Isn't there a better step-by-step logic you might spell out? 'Infinity is like soul, and I proclaim soul is irrational so infinity is too!' It's a guilt by association fallacy for likening infinity to religious concepts.

And don't say the analogy is ok here because you'd already proved infinity is logically impossible. You've only asserted it over and over through the whole thread.

An infinite past wouldn't require "infinite moments". (I take it that means "infinitely long moments").

 

[ryan]

But we just went through this. What about an animal that is imagined that does not exist yet?

What about it?

Can we say it exists?

But nobody is saying that it does exist. This is a strawman.

Like I asked but you never answer, Can we say the universe has a soul?

You are asking the wrong person about the soul (remember my thoughts on the consciousness?). Instead of soul, let's use fairies dancing on the Eiffel Tower. There probably are not fairies dancing on the Eiffel Tower right now. So there is a spectrum from likely to unlikely based on what we know about the universe.

Based on what we know about the universe, there are things that end, but then something else always begins. So these objects next to each other have never been proven to end or even observed to end. So why is it so ridiculous to think that there is no end? In that sense, it would seem that one could argue that infinity is the fallback position.

 

[untermensche]

"Imaginary concept". If a concept was mentioned in a work of fiction but never spelled out, that would be an "imaginary concept". What you mean is a real concept about an imaginary thing. Like possibilities in general. All possibilities are imaginary things... something you have a strong bias against.

No I mean exactly what I say. Infinity is an imaginary concept. Numbers are imaginary so numbers without end is also imaginary.

Any concept is considered imaginary unless it can be shown to be real.

Trivial observation. BTW, "imaginary" and "false" are not synonyms.

Yes imaginary is not false.

But it is irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

It can't be shown to exist in any way.

You don't know that it can never be shown to exist in any way. Infinite universes have been conjectured by scientists.

How would we show infinite universes actually exist?

Suppose we found one new universe a second. When we would we be finished finding them?

You can't logically apply the concept of an imaginary thing to "the real universe" and imagine what that scenario would be like? So IOW you can't imagine things about the universe.

I'm not saying something can't arise out of imagining things.

But people have to understand when they are imagining things that should in no way be thought to have a possibility of existing.

Nobody can prove the universe does not have a soul.

Why are you arguing by analogy?

It's called giving an example of what it looks like to apply imaginary concepts to the universe.

 

[untermensche]

What about it?

Can we say it exists?

But nobody is saying that it does exist. This is a strawman.

Nobody says infinity is real?

I started a thread on that topic.

You are very wrong. Many people seem to believe infinity is somehow real.

 

[bilby]

But nobody is saying that it does exist. This is a strawman.

Nobody says infinity is real?

I started a thread on that topic.

You are very wrong. Many people seem to believe infinity is somehow real.

Does Pi exist? If not, do circles exist? What about numbers, do any numbers exist?

Infinity is, assuredly, 'somehow' real. Exactly how, well, that's open to debate. But as subtlety is almost as hard for you as admission of error, I don't imagine that you will ever grasp that - and if you did, I am sure you wouldn't admit it here.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody says infinity is real?

I started a thread on that topic.

You are very wrong. Many people seem to believe infinity is somehow real.

Does Pi exist? If not, do circles exist? What about numbers, do any numbers exist?

Infinity is, assuredly, 'somehow' real. Exactly how, well, that's open to debate. But as subtlety is almost as hard for you as admission of error, I don't imagine that you will ever grasp that - and if you did, I am sure you wouldn't admit it here.

Can we apply pi to the universe somehow? Can we have pi cars in the garage?

Or do we just use it in calculations?

And a perfect circle is totally imaginary.

You do not seem to understand the difference between imaginary concepts used in mathematics and reality.

 

[Juma]

Does Pi exist? If not, do circles exist? What about numbers, do any numbers exist?

Infinity is, assuredly, 'somehow' real. Exactly how, well, that's open to debate. But as subtlety is almost as hard for you as admission of error, I don't imagine that you will ever grasp that - and if you did, I am sure you wouldn't admit it here.

Can we apply pi to the universe somehow? Can we have pi cars in the garage?

Or do we just use it in calculations?

And a perfect circle is totally imaginary.

You do not seem to understand the difference between imaginary concepts used in mathematics and reality.

You are begging the question.
If the universe has always been then there is an infinite amount of time.

You cannot just say that infinites are impossible.

Please show a complete logical argument that shows that a real infinite is logically impossible.

 

[ryan]

But nobody is saying that it does exist. This is a strawman.

Nobody says infinity is real?

I started a thread on that topic.

You are very wrong. Many people seem to believe infinity is somehow real.

No, this all started because of your negative certainty against infinity. Just look at the heading of this thread. People, including me, were simply giving arguments on how it might be possible.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody says infinity is real?

I started a thread on that topic.

You are very wrong. Many people seem to believe infinity is somehow real.

No, this all started because of your negative certainty against infinity. Just look at the heading of this thread. People, including me, were simply giving arguments on how it might be possible.

So?

I am saying it is irrational to apply an imaginary concept like infinity to the universe.

It is irrational to try to apply it. Making up arguments to try to show it is possible for the universe to somehow be infinite in any way is nonsense.

It is absurd folly.

You might as well try to prove the universe has a soul.

 

[untermensche]

Can we apply pi to the universe somehow? Can we have pi cars in the garage?

Or do we just use it in calculations?

And a perfect circle is totally imaginary.

You do not seem to understand the difference between imaginary concepts used in mathematics and reality.

You are begging the question.
If the universe has always been then there is an infinite amount of time.

You cannot just say that infinites are impossible.

Please show a complete logical argument that shows that a real infinite is logically impossible.

The idea of something "always being there" is imaginary.

It cannot be shown to be possible in any way.

All a person can do is say the words and pretend they mean something.

And it is rational to think no infinity is possible unless somebody actually shows a way one could be possible.

Saying "something was always there" is just invoking magic, not giving a way infinity could be possible.

 

[ryan]

You are begging the question.
If the universe has always been then there is an infinite amount of time.

You cannot just say that infinites are impossible.

Please show a complete logical argument that shows that a real infinite is logically impossible.

The idea of something "always being there" is imaginary.

It cannot be shown to be possible in any way.

If a block universe (relativity) is correct, then everything that happens could be eternal. There is what there is and nothing must change. So you have to show that relativity is false or correct it; or come up with a better theory. It may not be correct, but it's the best we got.

 

[abaddon]

But it is irrational to apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

You're a robot.

How would we show infinite universes actually exist?

The conceptual possibility was the point of mentioning it. That people can apply a concept about imagined things to the universe and still be rational and not insane.

Suppose we found one new universe a second. When we would we be finished finding them?

Why is that necessary? Why hasn't anyone else than you noted that an infinity of universes is impossible because scientists cannot personally observe each and every one?

... people have to understand when they are imagining things that should in no way be thought to have a possibility of existing.

And knowing this comes before the imagining? (It's a rhetorical question, because the answer is quite plainly there in your proclamation.)

It's called giving an example of what it looks like to apply imaginary concepts to the universe.

You're a dogmatic robot.

I don't mind considering the universe has a soul. Define your terms...

 

[untermensche]

The idea of something "always being there" is imaginary.

It cannot be shown to be possible in any way.

If a block universe (relativity) is correct, then everything that happens could be eternal. There is what there is and nothing must change. So you have to show that relativity is false or correct it; or come up with a better theory. It may not be correct, but it's the best we got.

That is not showing something is possible.

That is a theory that is unsupported by evidence.

You cannot go back and experience the past.

To claim it is there is a very empty claim.

- - - Updated - - -

You're a dogmatic robot.

I have specific ideas and I apply them consistently.

I am not all over the place.

It is not a negative.

 

[Juma]

You are begging the question.
If the universe has always been then there is an infinite amount of time.

You cannot just say that infinites are impossible.

Please show a complete logical argument that shows that a real infinite is logically impossible.

The idea of something "always being there" is imaginary.

It cannot be shown to be possible in any way.

All a person can do is say the words and pretend they mean something.

And it is rational to think no infinity is possible unless somebody actually shows a way one could be possible.

Saying "something was always there" is just invoking magic, not giving a way infinity could be possible.

It is you that says that it is not possible , that there are no real infinites, thus it is up to you to prove that.

 

[ryan]

If a block universe (relativity) is correct, then everything that happens could be eternal. There is what there is and nothing must change. So you have to show that relativity is false or correct it; or come up with a better theory. It may not be correct, but it's the best we got.

That is not showing something is possible.

If theoretical physics allows it, then what other option do we have than to assume it is possible? Theoretical physics is the best we have for lack of evidence. Give evidence or a stronger theory that falsifies a block universe.

To claim it is there is a very empty claim.

I have theory on my side, but you are just saying it's wrong. You aren't giving me anything better than theory. How do you expect me to take your side?

 

[DBT]

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.

Resorting to saying ''imaginary'' is your claim. Eternity is a valid concept. We know change occurs, we know that we define rates of change in terms of time. We know that time is relative. We don't know if time had a beginning or not. If time had no beginning, it is reasonable to assume eternity exists.

You are still just waving your arms in denial.

 

[DBT]

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.

If Presentism is true, this ever changing moment of existence need not necessarily have a beginning, so Presentism can be something eternal.