Infinite Past

[beero1000]

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.

Plank length, Plank time. Space and time are in fact discrete. There is a lower limit to how far one can divide time.

I think you're misunderstanding the implication of Planck lengths and times. There is a lower limit to how precisely one can measure, but quantum mechanics (and general relativity) still require continuous time and space.

 

[untermensche]

To show something is possible requires evidence.

If there is no evidence, to think something possible is just imagining something. It isn't real.

So are you also claiming time is the Easter Bunny?

I can imagine he is real.

So can you explain what came before time got started?

That has nothing to do with anything here.

The issue here is how we rationally deal with claims that things are possible or that things are real.

You want to abandon reason and just use your imagination and imagine answers.

It's childish nonsense.

There is no difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

It doesn't matter what imaginary thing you want to attach to time, it is nonsense every time.

 

[abaddon]

There is no difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

But there is.

Time is clearly more applicable to the history of all existence than mythical animals. Time might precede this particular universe; any of the analogous "entities" you have offered cannot have.

We know what animals are like, and none are mammals that go about laying colorfully designed eggs on a certain day in April every year. If there wasn't that evidence against the Easter Bunny, then the Easter Bunny would actually be a possibility. It would be an imaginary concept we'd compare against reality to test it. But it's done already and that's why the Easter Bunny is useful to express "that is silly" with.

Not so with infinity.

Lack of empirical evidence does not discount possibilities. There has to be evidence against a claim's likelihood for the claim to be an extraordinary claim.

Immense lack of evidence would count as evidence against. But time's longevity isn't a trait of existence that has an immense lack of evidence.

You're misapplying things you've seen skeptics say about religions. The reason to consider EoG an extraordinary claim isn't merely lack of evidence for God, but that nature doesn't have things like that in it. If it were only lack of evidence, then "That's possible" would be the most correct answer to EoG.

You're not making this distinction. You cannot discount everything that is not evident as impossible or absurd or meaningless. Infinity is still on the table in science.

I don't know what your problem is with imaginary concepts. An imaginary concept is an extraordinary claim only if it is extremely different from what nature is generally known to be like.

Nowhere in this post or any other have I claimed or implied that time is infinite. I don't know either way, and neither does anyone else. I just don't dismiss the possibility because there is no evidence against nature possibly having this feature, as a trait of time. There is no principle of reason violated by the idea.

It doesn't matter what imaginary thing you want to attach to time, it is nonsense every time.

But it does matter. The imaginary thing has to violate some principle of reason to be nonsensical in the way you are declaring infinity is when applied to time. Infinity isn't known to violate how we know nature to be the way that your analogous entities and traits are meant to make it seem.

 

[untermensche]

There is no difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

But there is.

Time is clearly more applicable to the history of all existence than mythical animals.

Time is in no way applicable to this imaginary human invention called infinity.

Time is consistent with known events.

But we can only go back so far.

We have no access to any infinite events.

 

[abaddon]

Time is in no way applicable to this imaginary human invention called infinity.

We are talking about time with no beginning and that is an application of time to the imaginary human invention.

Time is consistent with known events.

Right. But my point was clarified in the rest of the post, which you ignored (again).

Extrapolating from time's longevity to infinity does not conflict with what's known. So it's not nonsensical or impossible.

It might be "turtles all the way down" with universes. If so then wouldn't time be present in them all?

But we can only go back so far.

We have no access to any infinite events.

Right. But no access means there is no strong evidence for its improbability or impossibility as an actual trait of time, and no reason to claim it is absurd as a concept.

So, again, lack of empirical evidence does not discount possibilities.

 

[untermensche]

We are talking about time with no beginning and that is an application of time to the imaginary human invention.

Claiming anything, a god, or time had no beginning is a meaningless undefined claim.

It has no scientific explanation or explanation of any kind.

It is words put together that make no sense.

The god existed but had no beginning.

It is nothing but an imaginary state. Nothing to take seriously or look at seriously.

But no access means there is no strong evidence for its improbability or impossibility as an actual trait of time, and no reason to claim it is absurd as a concept.

Possibilities are not determined by fanciful imaginings.

It takes evidence to show something is possible.

I can imagine all kinds of things are possible. In my imagination I flap my arms and fly around Saturn.

 

[DBT]

So can you explain what came before time got started?

That has nothing to do with anything here.

The issue here is how we rationally deal with claims that things are possible or that things are real.

You want to abandon reason and just use your imagination and imagine answers.

It's childish nonsense.

There is no difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

It doesn't matter what imaginary thing you want to attach to time, it is nonsense every time.

It has absolute relevance to your claim that time must have a beginning. I didn't expect you to give an account of the questions being raised. I know you can't.

You just repeat your claims and throw in words like 'childish' in the vain hope that nobody notices that your claims put you in the position of the Emperor with no clothes.

 

[untermensche]

That has nothing to do with anything here.

The issue here is how we rationally deal with claims that things are possible or that things are real.

You want to abandon reason and just use your imagination and imagine answers.

It's childish nonsense.

There is no difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

It doesn't matter what imaginary thing you want to attach to time, it is nonsense every time.

It has absolute relevance to your claim that time must have a beginning. I didn't expect you to give an account of the questions being raised. I know you can't.

You just repeat your claims and throw in words like 'childish' in the vain hope that nobody notices that your claims put you in the position of the Emperor with no clothes.

I have never once made the claim that time must be this or that.

Only fools make such claims.

I have examined claims, like time is the Easter Bunny, or time is infinite, and found them laughably absurd.

If somebody claimed they knew time had a beginning I would laugh at that claim just as hard.

 

[DBT]

It has absolute relevance to your claim that time must have a beginning. I didn't expect you to give an account of the questions being raised. I know you can't.

You just repeat your claims and throw in words like 'childish' in the vain hope that nobody notices that your claims put you in the position of the Emperor with no clothes.

I have never once made the claim that time must be this or that.

Only fools make such claims.

I have examined claims, like time is the Easter Bunny, or time is infinite, and found them laughably absurd.

If somebody claimed they knew time had a beginning I would laugh at that claim just as hard.

You have said quite a lot along the line of, things that don't have a beginning can't or don't exist. Therefore by default, you are claiming that time must have had a beginning or it couldn't exist.

Or are you now acknowledging that, logically, time need not have had a beginning? What is it? Given what you said above, what exactly are you arguing?

 

[untermensche]

I have never once made the claim that time must be this or that.

Only fools make such claims.

I have examined claims, like time is the Easter Bunny, or time is infinite, and found them laughably absurd.

If somebody claimed they knew time had a beginning I would laugh at that claim just as hard.

You have said quite a lot along the line of, things that don't have a beginning can't or don't exist. Therefore by default, you are claiming that time must have had a beginning or it couldn't exist.

Or are you now acknowledging that, logically, time need not have had a beginning? What is it? Given what you said above, what exactly are you arguing?

I have said if we want to define the term "no beginning" perhaps we should define it rationally.

So the term would mean the same thing when applied to a journey, or a woman, or a rain cloud as when applied to time.

You want to have this special magical definition when you apply the words to time that applies to nothing else.

It is absolute nonsense.

 

[DBT]

You have said quite a lot along the line of, things that don't have a beginning can't or don't exist. Therefore by default, you are claiming that time must have had a beginning or it couldn't exist.

Or are you now acknowledging that, logically, time need not have had a beginning? What is it? Given what you said above, what exactly are you arguing?

I have said if we want to define the term "no beginning" perhaps we should define it rationally.

This doesn't help you in the least. Your claim being that time must have a beginning. A beginning from what? What came before time?

So the term would mean the same thing when applied to a journey, or a woman, or a rain cloud as when applied to time.

You want to have this special magical definition when you apply the words to time that applies to nothing else.

It is absolute nonsense.

It's nonsense because you are arguing against a strawman of your own making. It's nonsense because you twist what other posters say into something that suits your own need for a rationale to prop up what is a defunct claim.

 

[untermensche]

I have said if we want to define the term "no beginning" perhaps we should define it rationally.

This doesn't help you in the least. Your claim being that time must have a beginning. A beginning from what? What came before time?

When people tell me objectively defining things doesn't help I know they are no use to me or anybody.

They are trying to get away with some irrationality.

Either we give "no beginning" a definition that applies to all things or we behave irrationally.

I see how you want to behave. You seem desperate to behave irrationally and give terms magical special definitions only when they apply to time.

It is frivolous and foolish.

That you do it over and over shows how lost you are.

 

[DBT]

This doesn't help you in the least. Your claim being that time must have a beginning. A beginning from what? What came before time?

When people tell me objectively defining things doesn't help I know they are no use to me or anybody.

They are trying to get away with some irrationality.

Either we give "no beginning" a definition that applies to all things or we behave irrationally.

I see how you want to behave. You seem desperate to behave irrationally and give terms magical special definitions only when they apply to time.

It is frivolous and foolish.

That you do it over and over shows how lost you are.

That's you. You clearly, carefully and meticulously avoid the problems being raised and pointed out, instead focusing on definitions that are clear enough for the purposes of this discussion, standard definitions of eternal and infinite being sufficient.

So you waffle on, using words like 'childish,' 'frivolous' and 'foolish' as a vain means to bolster your own standing and your claims....all of which crumbled and fell right at the start.

 

[untermensche]

When people tell me objectively defining things doesn't help I know they are no use to me or anybody.

They are trying to get away with some irrationality.

Either we give "no beginning" a definition that applies to all things or we behave irrationally.

I see how you want to behave. You seem desperate to behave irrationally and give terms magical special definitions only when they apply to time.

It is frivolous and foolish.

That you do it over and over shows how lost you are.

That's you. You clearly, carefully and meticulously avoid the problems being raised and pointed out, instead focusing on definitions that are clear enough for the purposes of this discussion, standard definitions of eternal and infinite being sufficient.

So you waffle on, using words like 'childish,' 'frivolous' and 'foolish' as a vain means to bolster your own standing and your claims....all of which crumbled and fell right at the start.

Yes.

It is childish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is frivolous to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is foolish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

Why do you want to do it?

Why do the words "no beginning" mean one thing when applied to all things but somehow have a different definition when applied to time and gods?

 

[DBT]

That's just sad.

 

[bilby]

That's you. You clearly, carefully and meticulously avoid the problems being raised and pointed out, instead focusing on definitions that are clear enough for the purposes of this discussion, standard definitions of eternal and infinite being sufficient.

So you waffle on, using words like 'childish,' 'frivolous' and 'foolish' as a vain means to bolster your own standing and your claims....all of which crumbled and fell right at the start.

Yes.

It is childish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is frivolous to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is foolish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

Why do you want to do it?

Why do the words "no beginning" mean one thing when applied to all things but somehow have a different definition when applied to time?

Because the definition of 'beginning' involves the concept of time, so 'The beginning of time' is a recursive concept, while 'the beginning of the football match' is not.

Time is unique in its relationship to 'beginning' as a concept.

This is obvious to everyone except you, and as a result you are engaged in a parade of foolishness the like of which this board has rarely seen from a non-theist.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

It is childish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is frivolous to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is foolish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

Why do you want to do it?

Why do the words "no beginning" mean one thing when applied to all things but somehow have a different definition when applied to time?

Because the definition of 'beginning' involves the concept of time, so 'The beginning of time' is a recursive concept, while 'the beginning of the football match' is not.

Time is unique in its relationship to 'beginning' as a concept.

This is obvious to everyone except you, and as a result you are engaged in a parade of foolishness the like of which this board has rarely seen from a non-theist.

There is no relationship between time and "no beginning".

That is absolute nonsense.

Show me the physics of "no beginning" as it relates to time.

- - - Updated - - -

That's just sad.

So now you have adopted the position of being totally unresponsive. That's alright. When I see it I know the issue is decided.

I repeat:

It is childish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is frivolous to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

It is foolish to apply a special magical definition to words that only applies to time.

Why do you want to do it?

Why do the words "no beginning" mean one thing when applied to all things but somehow have a different definition when applied to time and gods?

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are not an infinite amount of finite length segments in a line segment. There are an infinite amount of points on a line segment.

To clarify: there are not an infinite amount of line segments of the same length in a line segment.

Personally, I can conceive of an infinity of line segments all the same length making up a finite line segment, and different from mere points.

I can conceive of it, in the abstract, so to speak, but I don't seem to be able to properly imagine it.

And, crucially for what you seem to suggest here, I don't know of any mathematical expression of this like, say, the set of all the segments with length of 1/n².

So, it just shows I think our limitation in expressing this concept in a formal, mathematical way, but I wouldn't surprised overmuch if in fact somebody had found a way to do just that.

It's pretty trivial to prove that if the line segments have different length, there can be infinitely many of them, though this may seem counterintuitive on first glance.

Right.
EB