Infinite Past

[untermensche]

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.

Not rationally.

If rational means conforming with experience.

If some story has no beginning it is not eternal.

If some person has no beginning they are not eternal.

If some journey has no beginning it is not eternal.

Having no beginning means it doesn't exist.

It is a figment of the imagination to claim it means eternal.

 

[DBT]

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

It does not mean it is eternal.

Yet the Universe exists and we do not know whether time had a beginning or if our Universe is not a Universe but just an expanding bubble of energy in a larger system.

So it is you who is making claims of what is possible and what is not possible, when it is clear that you cannot possibly know what is possible and what isn't. And there lies the irony of your position.

 

[bilby]

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

Not rationally.

If rational means conforming with experience.

Rational doesn't mean 'conforming with experience'. Rational means 'based on reason'.

I strongly suggest that you learn what words mean, before basing a long-winded and highly contentious argument on them; It would help you to look a LOT less foolish.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

You've misunderstood time. Time is a function of movement in a system. We can, theoretically, run time forwards and backwards like a record. It's just another dimension.

There's clearly things we (humanity) haven't figured out yet. Based on everything we know so far the universe must have had a start. But what came before that? Based on what we know there must have been something before the start. We just don't know.

All existing theories today is basically turtles all the way down. Whatever the truth of the beginning or "beginning" of the universe is, the real answer is going to be weird.

 

[untermensche]

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

It does not mean it is eternal.

Yet the Universe exists and we do not know whether time had a beginning or if our Universe is not a Universe but just an expanding bubble of energy in a larger system.

So it is you who is making claims of what is possible and what is not possible, when it is clear that you cannot possibly know what is possible and what isn't. And there lies the irony of your position.

We can't turn our ignorance of something into a positive claim about something else. Our total ignorance of how a universe could exist is not evidence infinity is real.

We don't know how a universe could exist.

But we do know the concept of infinity is imaginary.

And we do know that claiming some imaginary concept actually exists is nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Not rationally.

If rational means conforming with experience.

Rational doesn't mean 'conforming with experience'. Rational means 'based on reason'.

I strongly suggest that you learn what words mean, before basing a long-winded and highly contentious argument on them; It would help you to look a LOT less foolish.

Rational does mean conforming with evidence.

It is irrational to claim elephants can flap their ears and fly to the moon.

It is one meaning of the word.

You must have never learned this, words can have more than one meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Can something exist without a start?

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

You've misunderstood time. Time is a function of movement in a system. We can, theoretically, run time forwards and backwards like a record. It's just another dimension.

There's clearly things we (humanity) haven't figured out yet. Based on everything we know so far the universe must have had a start. But what came before that? Based on what we know there must have been something before the start. We just don't know.

All existing theories today is basically turtles all the way down. Whatever the truth of the beginning or "beginning" of the universe is, the real answer is going to be weird.

We can imagine we are running time backwards.

We cannot run time backwards.

Imagining things do not make them real or possible.

 

[abaddon]

You must have never learned this, words can have more than one meaning.

Irrational has 2 meanings:

irrational |i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl|

adjective

1 not logical or reasonable.

• not endowed with the power of reason.

2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) not expressible as a ratio of two integers, and having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal. Examples of irrational numbers are the number π and the square root of 2.

~ from the New Oxford American Dictionary

Imagining things do not make them real or possible.

Conceivably it is possible there might always have been universes. We don't know this is how it really is. We don't know this is how it really isn't. And that makes the statement true.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You've misunderstood time. Time is a function of movement in a system. We can, theoretically, run time forwards and backwards like a record. It's just another dimension.

There's clearly things we (humanity) haven't figured out yet. Based on everything we know so far the universe must have had a start. But what came before that? Based on what we know there must have been something before the start. We just don't know.

All existing theories today is basically turtles all the way down. Whatever the truth of the beginning or "beginning" of the universe is, the real answer is going to be weird.

We can imagine we are running time backwards.

We cannot run time backwards.

Imagining things do not make them real or possible.

Aha. I see you're completely ignorant about quantum mechanics. Please read more books.

There's just too much to explain for a short post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[untermensche]

Irrational has 2 meanings:

irrational |i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl|

adjective

1 not logical or reasonable.

• not endowed with the power of reason.

2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) not expressible as a ratio of two integers, and having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal. Examples of irrational numbers are the number π and the square root of 2.

~ from the New Oxford American Dictionary

Thanks for proving my point.

It is not reasonable to claim that things that do not have any evidence to support them are real. It is not reasonable to claim things that do not conform to any evidence are real.

If it is not reasonable it is irrational.

Imagining things do not make them real or possible.

Conceivably it is possible there might always have been universes. We don't know this is how it really is. We don't know this is how it really isn't. And that makes the statement true.

You have no idea if it is possible.

Your imagination does not tell us about real possibilities.

In my imagination I can fly around Mars by flapping my arms. According to your logic that is now a real possibility.

 

[fromderinside]

Anyone claiming time is not infinite need only try to count time in infinitesimal time units. Oh wait, we can't. Plank minimums suggest we can't go with infinitesimal units. we can't access below the Planck minimum time unit.

Besides we wouldn't have infinite frequency if we didn't have infinitesimal time. So much for the Dirac delta function.

 

[abaddon]

Thanks for proving my point.

Your point was only that there are more than one definition? Actually your point was "conforming with evidence" is one of the definitions. And it's not there among them.

Conceivably it is possible there might always have been universes. We don't know this is how it really is. We don't know this is how it really isn't. And that makes the statement true.

You have no idea if it is possible.

Yes I do because there's nothing inherently contradictory in the idea itself and the idea does not contradict what we know about reality. What I don't know is if it's real which is a different question.

Your imagination does not tell us about real possibilities.

I'm thinking it's only imagination that tells us about real possibilities. The imagination need only not contradict the things that are known with strong certainty.

You've taken some things you saw real skeptics say about the need for evidence, and you try to mimic it. But you do it so badly that you have mangled the fuck out of skepticism.

In my imagination I can fly around Mars by flapping my arms. According to your logic that is now a real possibility.

That's irrationalism in action right there, because it is not logical or reasonable to draw that conclusion from my logic.

You saw skeptics say things like this about God, and you figure you'll apply the same "we need to see it or it's not reasonable to believe it" standard to just any conception that isn't currently demonstrable. So you treat it as though you're talking about something demonstrably impossible, and it's a total wreck of how skepticism actually works.

You're not being a rational skeptic here, you're behaving much more like a creationist than a scientific skeptic.

 

[bilby]

Rational doesn't mean 'conforming with experience'. Rational means 'based on reason'.

I strongly suggest that you learn what words mean, before basing a long-winded and highly contentious argument on them; It would help you to look a LOT less foolish.

Rational does mean conforming with evidence.

It is irrational to claim elephants can flap their ears and fly to the moon.

It is one meaning of the word.

You must have never learned this, words can have more than one meaning.

Words can have more than one meaning; But they can't just mean whatever the fuck you feel like they should mean at any given time.

'Rational' means 'based on reason'. It can also mean 'able to be expressed as a ratio'. It does NOT mean 'conforming with experience'; nor does it mean 'conforming with evidence'.

It also doesn't mean 'purple', 'like a tree frog', or 'underground'.

You must have never learned this, words cannot just mean whatever the fuck you want them to mean.

 

[untermensche]

Rational does mean conforming with evidence.

It is irrational to claim elephants can flap their ears and fly to the moon.

It is one meaning of the word.

You must have never learned this, words can have more than one meaning.

Words can have more than one meaning; But they can't just mean whatever the fuck you feel like they should mean at any given time.

'Rational' means 'based on reason'. It can also mean 'able to be expressed as a ratio'. It does NOT mean 'conforming with experience'; nor does it mean 'conforming with evidence'.

It also doesn't mean 'purple', 'like a tree frog', or 'underground'.

You must have never learned this, words cannot just mean whatever the fuck you want them to mean.

It is unreasonable to imagine things that have no evidence to support them are real.

That also means it is irrational.

Your ignorance of simple meanings is no argument.

 

[untermensche]

Your point was only that there are more than one definition? Actually your point was "conforming with evidence" is one of the definitions. And it's not there among them.

It sure is.

If a claim that something is real has no evidence to support it we dismiss that claim as irrational.

Maybe you don't but rational people do.

You have no idea if it is possible.

Yes I do because there's nothing inherently contradictory in the idea itself and the idea does not contradict what we know about reality. What I don't know is if it's real which is a different question.

It is empty speculation with no evidence to support it.

It is an absolutely WORTHLESS claim.

It is the claim that something is infinite. So it is also an irrational claim as well. It is a claim that we can describe real entities with imaginary qualities.

Absurd!!!

In my imagination I can fly around Mars by flapping my arms. According to your logic that is now a real possibility.

That's irrationalism in action right there, because it is not logical or reasonable to draw that conclusion from my logic.

It is exactly your claim.

You claim if you can imagine some absurdity, like infinite time, it is real.

You have no rational arguments. You have no case. You merely have absurd claims that are easy to dismiss as absolute nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

We can imagine we are running time backwards.

We cannot run time backwards.

Imagining things do not make them real or possible.

Aha. I see you're completely ignorant about quantum mechanics. Please read more books.

There's just too much to explain for a short post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't explain anything to me if you are stupid enough to think you can apply imaginary qualities to real entities.

 

[bilby]

Aha. I see you're completely ignorant about quantum mechanics. Please read more books.

There's just too much to explain for a short post. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't explain anything to me ...

Ain't that the truth.

 

[abaddon]

You claim if you can imagine some absurdity, like infinite time, it is real.

False. But however much I might try to convince you that I never made that claim (and probably no one else on the board did either) it is certain to bounce off the rock you call your mind.

 

[untermensche]

You claim if you can imagine some absurdity, like infinite time, it is real.

False. But however much I might try to convince you that I never made that claim is certain to bounce off the rock you call your mind.

No.

You merely have bad worthless claims you can't support in any way, like the past is infinite.

You suffer from this modern ignorance that you can apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

 

[untermensche]

You can't explain anything to me ...

Ain't that the truth.

It's was a full thought and you had to butcher it to make a point.

You behave like a child not an adult.

 

[abaddon]

False. But however much I might try to convince you that I never made that claim is certain to bounce off the rock you call your mind.

No.

You merely have bad worthless claims you can't support in any way, like the past is infinite.

You suffer from this modern ignorance that you can apply imaginary concepts to real entities.

"Modern ignorance".


What does modern mean here and what older thing does it contrast against?