Infinite Past

[DBT]

You are making claims. You are being asked to explain and justify your own claims.

Are you nuts?

YOU are claiming some imaginary concept is actually a real entity.

YOU are making the claim here.

I am saying that all such claims need proof or we dismiss them with the wave of the hand.

What is your proof?

I asked you a question but instead of dealing with the question you repeat your strawman. I am forced to assume that you cannot deal with the question....that you cannot answer the question, that you cannot explain your claim of a beginning to time and what, if anything, time emerged from. Nothing? Something? What?

Can you explain or not?

 

[untermensche]

Are you nuts?

YOU are claiming some imaginary concept is actually a real entity.

YOU are making the claim here.

I am saying that all such claims need proof or we dismiss them with the wave of the hand.

What is your proof?

I asked you a question but instead of dealing with the question you repeat your strawman. I am forced to assume that you cannot deal with the question....that you cannot answer the question, that you cannot explain your claim of a beginning to time and what, if anything, time emerged from. Nothing? Something? What?

Can you explain or not?

It is not a strawman. You flail and flail and make one nonsensical claim after another.

It is the way we examine ALL claims.

If we are rational we treat ALL claims equally.

We do not say some claims need evidence and some do not.

You are claiming eternity is real.

Saying the universe exists and is running is not evidence in any way that eternity is real.

What is your proof eternity is real?

 

[beero1000]

Projection-wise, he's giving Trump a run for his money. It's pretty amazing...

 

[Speakpigeon]

To wrap up, here are the results:

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?

YES, it is logically impossible:
0 (0%)

NO, it is not logically impossible:
7 (58.33%)
abaddon, beero1000, bilby, DBT, fromderinside, Juma, Kharakov

I don't know:
4 (33.33%)
DrZoidberg, J842P, ryan, Wiploc

Logic does not apply to this problem:
1 (8.33%)
sdelsolray

My comments on the results is that there's a comfortable majority who think the idea of an infinite past is not logically impossible. That's what I would expect most people on this forum to say so there's no surprise here.

The surprise is that there's a lot of people who say they don't know. A third seems a lot to me. Also, the question was "Do you think etc.", so, "don't know" suggests one doesn't know what one think about the issue. Maybe they could make explicit any reason they might have since they didn't chose to reply that logic didn't apply to this problem.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Projection-wise, he's giving Trump a run for his money. It's pretty amazing...

I am just saying we should be logically consistent. It is amazing that some have a problem with this.

If somebody claims something is real we do not say "good job". We say "prove it".

If a concept cannot be shown to be a real entity we logically conclude it is imaginary.

You seem to desire inconsistent irrational standards. You want us to treat a concept like infinity differently than a concept like god.

On what basis do you promote this irrational inconsistency? How do you justify it?

How do we say to the person claiming their god is real to prove it but say to the person claiming infinity is real to not?

 

[bilby]

That you appear to imagine that anyone who disagrees with the claim 'X is logically impossible' is thereby making the claim 'X is certain', goes a long way towards illustrating just how far away you are from having the ability to think clearly about anything.

You are the one making the claim; everyone else is saying 'maybe not - can you support your claim?'

It's very clear that you cannot support your claim.

Pretending that others are making a counterclaim may help you to pretend that you haven't been soundly defeated in this battle of wits, which you started yourself despite being unarmed. But it's not fooling anyone else.

 

[DBT]

Projection-wise, he's giving Trump a run for his money. It's pretty amazing...

Alternative facts and all. The whole pack and caboodle being brought into play.

 

[untermensche]

Projection-wise, he's giving Trump a run for his money. It's pretty amazing...

Alternative facts and all. The whole pack and caboodle being brought into play.

This is what people do when they have no arguments.

Infinity is an invented imaginary concept. Just like the concept of god.

It cannot be shown to have any real existence.

That is why people talk about me and not the topic.

 

[untermensche]

That you appear to imagine that anyone who disagrees with the claim 'X is logically impossible' is thereby making the claim 'X is certain', goes a long way towards illustrating just how far away you are from having the ability to think clearly about anything.

You are the one making the claim; everyone else is saying 'maybe not - can you support your claim?'

It's very clear that you cannot support your claim.

Pretending that others are making a counterclaim may help you to pretend that you haven't been soundly defeated in this battle of wits, which you started yourself despite being unarmed. But it's not fooling anyone else.

The claim here is that infinity is real.

As with all such claims the default position is that it is not real until proven otherwise.

I don't have to prove anything. We assume something is imaginary unless proven otherwise.

 

[DBT]

Alternative facts and all. The whole pack and caboodle being brought into play.

This is what people do when they have no arguments.

Infinity is an invented imaginary concept. Just like the concept of god.

It cannot be shown to have any real existence.

That is why people talk about me and not the topic.

So tell me then, you say that time must have had a beginning, what then is the cause? A prior state? If no prior cause, how did time get started? If nothing existed before time, what is this 'nothing' that gives rise to time? Is it an eternal nothing? A timeless nothing?

What? Can you address this issue and explain your claim that time must have had a beginning?

 

[untermensche]

This is what people do when they have no arguments.

Infinity is an invented imaginary concept. Just like the concept of god.

It cannot be shown to have any real existence.

That is why people talk about me and not the topic.

So tell me then, you say that time must have had a beginning, what then is the cause? A prior state? If no prior cause, how did time get started? If nothing existed before time, what is this 'nothing' that gives rise to time? Is it an eternal nothing? A timeless nothing?

What? Can you address this issue and explain your claim that time must have had a beginning?

I am saying nothing about time.

I am talking about the imaginary concept of infinity. You can't apply imaginary concepts to real entities, period.

Infinity can't rationally be applied to anything real, like size, or weight, or mass, or speed.

Or time.

 

[bilby]

That you appear to imagine that anyone who disagrees with the claim 'X is logically impossible' is thereby making the claim 'X is certain', goes a long way towards illustrating just how far away you are from having the ability to think clearly about anything.

You are the one making the claim; everyone else is saying 'maybe not - can you support your claim?'

It's very clear that you cannot support your claim.

Pretending that others are making a counterclaim may help you to pretend that you haven't been soundly defeated in this battle of wits, which you started yourself despite being unarmed. But it's not fooling anyone else.

The claim here is that infinity is real.

Oh, OK; In that case you will have no problem quoting someone in this thread making that claim.

As with all such claims the default position is that it is not real until proven otherwise.

Indeed, the burden of any such claim would be on the claimant. So all you need to do is to show that someone is making that claim.

I don't have to prove anything. We assume something is imaginary unless proven otherwise.

You have to prove that someone is claiming that infinity is real. I don't recall seeing anyone make any such claim - but you appear to be of the opinion that somebody has. Who was it, and when did they make that claim? A simple quote of their post would clear this up.

But I think you are full of shit. The OP asks "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?" Answering this question with 'No' is not making any claim.

Nobody has claimed that 'Infinity is real'; Lots of people have refused to accept the claim 'Infinity is NOT real', by saying 'It might be' - which is another way of pointing out that the person claiming 'Infinity is NOT real' assumes the burden of proving that claim.

 

[untermensche]

The claim here is that infinity is real.

Oh, OK; In that case you will have no problem quoting someone in this thread making that claim.

So you agree. It is imaginary. Good. You show some sense for once.

As with all such claims the default position is that it is not real until proven otherwise.

Indeed, the burden of any such claim would be on the claimant. So all you need to do is to show that someone is making that claim.

Good. Then we are done with this nonsense of trying to apply an imaginary concept to a real entity.

People understand the irrationality of doing so and it will not happen again.

I don't have to prove anything. We assume something is imaginary unless proven otherwise.

You have to prove that someone is claiming that infinity is real. I don't recall seeing anyone make any such claim - but you appear to be of the opinion that somebody has. Who was it, and when did they make that claim? A simple quote of their post would clear this up.

I don't have to prove anything.

I am saying infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities.

That is a fact.

If you disagree you have a lot of proving to do.

 

[bilby]

Oh, OK; In that case you will have no problem quoting someone in this thread making that claim.

So you agree. It is imaginary. Good. You show some sense for once.

As with all such claims the default position is that it is not real until proven otherwise.

Indeed, the burden of any such claim would be on the claimant. So all you need to do is to show that someone is making that claim.

Good. Then we are done with this nonsense of trying to apply an imaginary concept to a real entity.

People understand the irrationality of doing so and it will not happen again.

I don't have to prove anything. We assume something is imaginary unless proven otherwise.

You have to prove that someone is claiming that infinity is real. I don't recall seeing anyone make any such claim - but you appear to be of the opinion that somebody has. Who was it, and when did they make that claim? A simple quote of their post would clear this up.

I don't have to prove anything.

I am saying infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities.

That is a fact.

If you disagree you have a lot of proving to do.

When you say "I am saying infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities", you are making a claim.

If you refuse to defend that claim, then we are perfectly justified in ignoring it. Nobody has to prove that your claim is false; That's the default position.

I don't agree with you; Nor do I claim the opposite of what you are claiming. I am agnostic on the subject - and if you want anyone to give a flying fuck about your opinion, you will need to back it up, not just announce that it is a fact, as though it becomes one just because you really, truly, want it to be one.

 

[untermensche]

When you say "I am saying infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities", you are making a claim.

Again, how do we consider claims that something is real?

If the person says their god is real where do we place the burden?

The default position is that things are imaginary until proven otherwise.

My "claim" is the default rational position.

 

[bilby]

When you say "I am saying infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities", you are making a claim.

Again, how do we consider claims that something is real?

Who cares? Nobody is making any such claim.

The only claim being made is your claim that "infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities".

You can defend your claim, or you can withdraw it. But if you want others to accept it when you refuse to defend it, then they will inevitably think you are a fucking numpty. And they will be right to do so.

 

[untermensche]

Again, how do we consider claims that something is real?

Who cares? Nobody is making any such claim.

The only claim being made is your claim that "infinity is an imaginary concept that can't rationally be applied to real entities".

You can defend your claim, or you can withdraw it. But if you want others to accept it when you refuse to defend it, then they will inevitably think you are a fucking numpty. And they will be right to do so.

It is the default rational position on all concepts. Not my claim. I would also say the Easter Bunny is imaginary.

And nobody rational would see that as an illegitimate claim in need of support.

That you see it as merely a claim speaks volumes.

 

[DBT]

So tell me then, you say that time must have had a beginning, what then is the cause? A prior state? If no prior cause, how did time get started? If nothing existed before time, what is this 'nothing' that gives rise to time? Is it an eternal nothing? A timeless nothing?

What? Can you address this issue and explain your claim that time must have had a beginning?

I am saying nothing about time.

But you did. You said that all things have a beginning a middle and an end. Which includes time (being a part of everything). not only that, it relates to your claim that eternity is an imaginary concept.

I am talking about the imaginary concept of infinity. You can't apply imaginary concepts to real entities, period.

Infinity can't rationally be applied to anything real, like size, or weight, or mass, or speed.

Or time.

Well, it can. It can because if time had no beginning this may be defined as as an example of eternity. So I am asking you to explain your claim that all things have a beginning, which includes time, in relation to your claim that eternity/infinity is an imaginary concept in terms of what existed before time had a beginning, if anything. If nothing existed, did this nothingness also have a beginning, middle and an end?

Can you explain?

 

[jonatha]

There are an infinite number of moments between now and 1 second ago, assuming a non-granular time. There might be a finite number of well defined thoughts and forms between now and 1 second ago, but AFASIAIOK, spacetime is smooth, not granular, which means it can be divided into any number of pieces we desire.

wiki planck time and planck length

 

[untermensche]

I am saying nothing about time.

But you did. You said that all things have a beginning a middle and an end. Which includes time (being a part of everything). not only that, it relates to your claim that eternity is an imaginary concept.

I've said many things in the past but I am not talking about time here.

I am talking about the imaginary concept of infinity.

It can't rationally be applied to any real thing.

Well, it can. It can because if time had no beginning this may be defined as as an example of eternity. So I am asking you to explain your claim that all things have a beginning, which includes time, in relation to your claim that eternity/infinity is an imaginary concept in terms of what existed before time had a beginning, if anything. If nothing existed, did this nothingness also have a beginning, middle and an end?

Can you explain?

No matter what problems you have with time or any other concept it is irrational to apply an imaginary concept like infinity to real entities like time.

No exceptions.

It is not something that can ever be done, rationally.