Infinite Past

[DBT]

You haven't even attempted to address my questions. You are supposed to explain your claims, not just repeat them.

 

[fromderinside]

untermenche wrote:

I am talking about the imaginary concept of infinity.

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

definition: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)

Since it is likely that time existed before our world I'm pretty sure infinity is applicable to time a relativistic term even in our world..  Plank units exemplify this.. Infinitely small would apply to uncertainty of length, time, mass, area, momentum, etc since they are beyond measure therefore beyond counting. Given we live in a universe where we have measurement constraints infinity is a very real construct..

Don't worry DBT, Captain obvious is here to set the record strait about the blurts of the Trump among us.

 

[untermensche]

untermenche wrote:

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

definition: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)

Since it is likely that time existed before our world I'm pretty sure infinity is applicable to time a relativistic term even in our world..  Plank units exemplify this.. Infinitely small would apply to uncertainty of length, time, mass, area, momentum, etc since they are beyond measure therefore beyond counting. Given we live in a universe where we have measurement constraints infinity is a very real construct..

Don't worry DBT, Captain obvious is here to set the record strait about the blurts of the Trump among us.

You're pretty sure you can apply an imaginary concept to real entities?

I know for a fact it is irrational.

 

[untermensche]

You haven't even attempted to address my questions. You are supposed to explain your claims, not just repeat them.

What do you not understand about the problem with applying imaginary concepts to real entities?

The concept of "all knowing" is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as "eternity".

Can I just apply this imaginary concept to real entities because I want to?

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

You simply insist in being irrational.

You insist in applying imaginary concepts to real entities.

It is a form of cognitive dissonance.

 

[abaddon]

I want to intrude on this and see if I can get a clearer idea of just what the problem is with imaginary concepts.

The concept of "all knowing" is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as "eternity".

Ok. So?

Eternity at least might not be an idea with no 'external' referent forever. We might find evidence in the universe or multiverse of something being eternal, or recurring eternally. Can't find out if people don't use their imaginations and stretch past what's currently known.

Can I just apply this imaginary concept to real entities because I want to?

Yes you can apply it as part of an hypothesis and see if it has some explanatory power. It's ok to experiment with thoughts. It's not an issue of blind belief.

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

Time's not an "entity" but we can rationally apply the concept of eternity to time, and have done for millennia and possibly will for a long time to come. I guess we might also find other processes to apply eternity or infinity to. And, why not? By "apply" do you mean believe it? Did you see skeptics applying empirical principles to some religious concepts and decided you'd extend that to everything that isn't currently empirically demonstrated?

 

[DBT]

You haven't even attempted to address my questions. You are supposed to explain your claims, not just repeat them.

What do you not understand about the problem with applying imaginary concepts to real entities?

The concept of "all knowing" is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as "eternity".

Can I just apply this imaginary concept to real entities because I want to?

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

You simply insist in being irrational.

You insist in applying imaginary concepts to real entities.

It is a form of cognitive dissonance.

The claim of ''imaginary entity'' is yours. I am asking you to justify your claim. I am asking you to explain your assertions.

Firstly in terms of your claim that all things must have a beginning, that time must have a beginning......I am asking you to explain what you believe came before time. Something? Nothing? What?

Now can you explain this or not?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

There should have been the option, "it depends". It can be both logically possible and impossible imho

 

[abaddon]

There should have been the option, "it depends". It can be both logically possible and impossible imho

No it can't.

If you can imagine a logical possibility then "NO, it is not logically impossible" is the single correct answer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There should have been the option, "it depends". It can be both logically possible and impossible imho

That's an even more surprising position to have. At least you could explain yourself. Logicians the world over might get to learn something they didn't know.

Be careful what you say. Given your position that faculty members and academia generally have the authority on matters of scholarly knowledge, I hope you're not going to say that professors of logic the world over must be wrong somehow.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What do you not understand about the problem with applying imaginary concepts to real entities?

The concept of "all knowing" is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as "eternity".

Can I just apply this imaginary concept to real entities because I want to?

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

You simply insist in being irrational.

You insist in applying imaginary concepts to real entities.

It is a form of cognitive dissonance.

The claim of ''imaginary entity'' is yours. I am asking you to justify your claim. I am asking you to explain your assertions.

Firstly in terms of your claim that all things must have a beginning, that time must have a beginning......I am asking you to explain what you believe came before time. Something? Nothing? What?

Now can you explain this or not?

I said that saying something has no beginning is irrational. It makes no sense to anybody.

The positive claim here is that eternity or infinity is real.

The rational default position for claims like this is that the concept is not real.

 

[untermensche]

Eternity at least might not be an idea with no 'external' referent forever. We might find evidence in the universe or multiverse of something being eternal, or recurring eternally. Can't find out if people don't use their imaginations and stretch past what's currently known.

In other words it is imaginary. It refers to nothing real.

When you can demonstrate it is a real concept (to go on forever without end) you can claim it real.

Until then it just a figment of the imagination.

Nothing we can apply to real entities.

Yes you can apply it as part of an hypothesis and see if it has some explanatory power. It's ok to experiment with thoughts. It's not an issue of blind belief.

It would be an irrational hypothesis. A worthless hypothesis. Worthless speculation.

Like wondering what color robes Jesus is wearing today in heaven.

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

Time's not an "entity" but we can rationally apply the concept of eternity to time, and have done for millennia and possibly will for a long time to come. I guess we might also find other processes to apply eternity or infinity to. And, why not? By "apply" do you mean believe it? Did you see skeptics applying empirical principles to some religious concepts and decided you'd extend that to everything that isn't currently empirically demonstrated?

Time is real. If something is real the term entity can apply. Time is just a unique entity. But we can measure it, even if the measurement can change a little if we go a lot faster.

And we can in no way apply imaginary concepts to it.

We can't say time is all knowing. We can't say that time is all powerful. We cannot say it moves infinitely fast, or is infinitely strong. We can't say that time has a soul. We also can't say that time is eternal.

They are all equally irrational statements.

 

[Juma]

In other words it is imaginary. It refers to nothing real.

When you can demonstrate it is a real concept (to go on forever without end) you can claim it real.

Until then it just a figment of the imagination.

Nothing we can apply to real entities.

Yes you can apply it as part of an hypothesis and see if it has some explanatory power. It's ok to experiment with thoughts. It's not an issue of blind belief.

It would be an irrational hypothesis. A worthless hypothesis. Worthless speculation.

Like wondering what color robes Jesus is wearing today in heaven.

Which entity can I apply it to rationally?

Time's not an "entity" but we can rationally apply the concept of eternity to time, and have done for millennia and possibly will for a long time to come. I guess we might also find other processes to apply eternity or infinity to. And, why not? By "apply" do you mean believe it? Did you see skeptics applying empirical principles to some religious concepts and decided you'd extend that to everything that isn't currently empirically demonstrated?

Time is real. If something is real the term entity can apply. Time is just a unique entity. But we can measure it, even if the measurement can change a little if we go a lot faster.

And we can in no way apply imaginary concepts to it.

We can't say time is all knowing. We can't say that time is all powerful. We cannot say it moves infinitely fast, or is infinitely strong. We can't say that time has a soul. We also can't say that time is eternal.

They are all equally irrational statements.

So you say that time must have a starting point?

 

[DBT]

The claim of ''imaginary entity'' is yours. I am asking you to justify your claim. I am asking you to explain your assertions.

Firstly in terms of your claim that all things must have a beginning, that time must have a beginning......I am asking you to explain what you believe came before time. Something? Nothing? What?

Now can you explain this or not?

I said that saying something has no beginning is irrational. It makes no sense to anybody.

The positive claim here is that eternity or infinity is real.

The rational default position for claims like this is that the concept is not real.

1 - Therefore time, according to you, must have had a beginning.....so I am asking you to explain what came before the beginning to time. Can you do that or not? Or are you only repeat assertions?

2 - Nobody has made the assertion that eternity of time is the reality, I said that nobody knows whether time had a beginning or not. I said that several times.

Now can you explain your necessary beginning to time and what came before, or not?

 

[untermensche]

So you say that time must have a starting point?

Can something exist without a start?

Give me an example. Tell me about something that exists that you can prove had no start.

 

[untermensche]

1 - Therefore time, according to you, must have had a beginning.....so I am asking you to explain what came before the beginning to time. Can you do that or not? Or are you only repeat assertions?

I can't speak about things like the beginning of time. I've said it is a paradox many times. We arrive in the middle with no means of knowing about anything before the Big Bang.

Anything you say about the subject is pure speculation. Nothing can be proven.

But I can speak about imaginary concepts like infinity. Or imaginary concepts like infinite size.

It is highly irrational to try to apply imaginary concepts like infinity to real entities.

Infinity is an imaginary concept. Infinite time is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as infinite wisdom.

 

[DBT]

1 - Therefore time, according to you, must have had a beginning.....so I am asking you to explain what came before the beginning to time. Can you do that or not? Or are you only repeat assertions?

I can't speak about things like the beginning of time. I've said it is a paradox many times. We arrive in the middle with no means of knowing about anything before the Big Bang.

Anything you say about the subject is pure speculation. Nothing can be proven.

But I can speak about imaginary concepts like infinity. Or imaginary concepts like infinite size.

It is highly irrational to try to apply imaginary concepts like infinity to real entities.

Infinity is an imaginary concept. Infinite time is an imaginary concept. As imaginary as infinite wisdom.

You can't speak about anything. Just make assertions and ignore all problems that are being raised.

If you thought about the implications of a beginning to time, you would have to consider what, if anything, came before time emerged. And emerged from what state? Nothingness? An eternity of Nothing and then there was something?

Or did time begin from something? What is the nature of this something? Eternal Timelessness and then there was time?

Of course there are no answers, nobody knows, but this (typically) doesn't stop you making outrageous claims of knowledge.

 

[untermensche]

You can't speak about anything. Just make assertions and ignore all problems that are being raised.

If you thought about the implications of a beginning to time, you would have to consider what, if anything, came before time emerged. And emerged from what state? Nothingness? An eternity of Nothing and then there was something?

Or did time begin from something? What is the nature of this something? Eternal Timelessness and then there was time?

Of course there are no answers, nobody knows, but this (typically) doesn't stop you making outrageous claims of knowledge.

Thinking about the so-called "beginning" of time is an irrational waste of time that leads to no understanding.

But we can understand things like the imaginary concept of infinity.

Your insistence that we somehow apply this imaginary concept as a solution to something is irrational twaddle.

 

[DBT]

You can't speak about anything. Just make assertions and ignore all problems that are being raised.

If you thought about the implications of a beginning to time, you would have to consider what, if anything, came before time emerged. And emerged from what state? Nothingness? An eternity of Nothing and then there was something?

Or did time begin from something? What is the nature of this something? Eternal Timelessness and then there was time?

Of course there are no answers, nobody knows, but this (typically) doesn't stop you making outrageous claims of knowledge.

Thinking about the so-called "beginning" of time is an irrational waste of time that leads to no understanding.

But we can understand things like the imaginary concept of infinity.

Your insistence that we somehow apply this imaginary concept as a solution to something is irrational twaddle.

Making assertions that you can't justify or explain when asked, like you do in regard to infinity/eternity, mind/consciousness is a waste of time, yet this doesn't stop you from doing it day in, day out.

 

[untermensche]

Rationally to say something has no beginning is to say it does not exist.

It does not mean it is eternal.

 

[bilby]

Rationally to say something has no beginning is to say it does not exist.

It does not mean it is eternal.

It could; And your refusal to grasp that fact doesn't make it true, no matter how often you repeat it.