Infinite Past

[bilby]

Infinity is a mathematical concept but not a physical one.

For instance if you were to create a set of whole numbers that could be divided by one then you could say the set would contain an infinite set of numbers.

In the physical world we can't measure an infinite amount of anything,

But even if you apply it you have to apply it rationally and consistently.

Theoretically infinite time is equivalent to the future if the universe never ends. It is time without end.

Any other infinity of time can also be described as time without end. Here infinity = infinity.

Saying time without beginning is just another way of saying time without end.

There is no difference between the two.

That's true. The mystery is why you think that there IS a difference; And I strongly suspect it is because you are equivocating between 'end' meaning the first or last point on a line, and 'end' meaning the last (but not first) point on a line that has a specified direction - which I suggest you refer to in future as 'the finish' to distinguish it from 'the end', and avoid confusion.

The only problem with that is that your argument becomes untenable without that confusion.

Saying time without [a] beginning is just another way of saying time without end. But it is NOT the same as saying time without a finish.

A past without a beginning is equal in length to a future without a finish. Both have only one end - the present - and both are infinite.

 

[untermensche]

If the future is infinite it will never finish. Infinite time never finishes passing. It can't have already happened.

It can, if it has had infinite time in which to do so. Once again, your objection assumes you conclusion - Infinite time never finishes passing if it started passing a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

By saying it had "infinite time in which to do it" you are just pretending something infinite is finite.

You are pretending that "infinite time to do it" is something that can be completed. Only finite amounts of time can be completed.

 

[untermensche]

Saying time without [a] beginning is just another way of saying time without end. But it is NOT the same as saying time without a finish.

Yes it is. End and finish are the exact same thing.

Infinite time in the future is time that never finishes.

 

[ryan]

If the future is infinite it will never finish. Infinite time never finishes passing. It can't have already happened.

It can, if it has had infinite time in which to do so. Once again, your objection assumes you conclusion - Infinite time never finishes passing if it started passing a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

In Unter's defense, if we assume no changes take place and a clock in its own frame of reference runs normally, then by logic I don't think an endless amount of time can end FOR the clock. Maybe it can pass FOR other frames like inside a black hole, but not for the clock itself.

Now that isn't to say that infinite time could not exist or be behind us for a variety of reasons. But FOR a particular frame of reference, I don't think you can say without being selfcontradictory that an infinite/endless amount of time can end. The contradiction is just too tight.

 

[Kharakov]

You won't ever reach the "end of the naturals", there isn't one. It's like you'll never find the smallest finite unit of time- there isn't one.

Mathematically, there really is an end to the naturals; larger infinite sets require it.

They don't require an end to the naturals. They just contain more elements.

 

[untermensche]

It can, if it has had infinite time in which to do so. Once again, your objection assumes you conclusion - Infinite time never finishes passing if it started passing a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

In Unter's defense, if we assume no changes take place and a clock in its own frame of reference runs normally, then by logic I don't think an endless amount of time can end FOR the clock. Maybe it can pass FOR other frames like inside a black hole, but not for the clock itself.

Now that isn't to say that infinite time could not exist or be behind us for a variety of reasons. But FOR a particular frame of reference, I don't think you can say without being selfcontradictory that an infinite/endless amount of time can end. The contradiction is just too tight.

I need no defense.

His logical error is clear.

He is merely pretending that an infinite amount of time is something that can be completed.

He says it can be completed in an infinite amount of time.

No it can't.

Under no circumstances can an infinite amount of time ever be completed. It is time that is never completed. Time that never ends.

 

[ryan]

Mathematically, there really is an end to the naturals; larger infinite sets require it.

They don't require an end to the naturals. They just contain more elements.

Well I don't know if I can use the formal use of limit, but aleph 0 is limited, or at least bounded, by 2 to the power of itself.

 

[bilby]

It can, if it has had infinite time in which to do so. Once again, your objection assumes you conclusion - Infinite time never finishes passing if it started passing a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

By saying it had "infinite time in which to do it" you are just pretending something infinite is finite.

You are pretending that "infinite time to do it" is something that can be completed. Only finite amounts of time can be completed.

Not so - Only finite amounts of time can be completed, if they started a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

 

[bilby]

Saying time without [a] beginning is just another way of saying time without end. But it is NOT the same as saying time without a finish.

Yes it is. End and finish are the exact same thing.

Infinite time in the future is time that never finishes.

You need to stop arguing, and start thinking. But you probably fondly imagine that they are the same thing.

 

[ryan]

In Unter's defense, if we assume no changes take place and a clock in its own frame of reference runs normally, then by logic I don't think an endless amount of time can end FOR the clock. Maybe it can pass FOR other frames like inside a black hole, but not for the clock itself.

Now that isn't to say that infinite time could not exist or be behind us for a variety of reasons. But FOR a particular frame of reference, I don't think you can say without being selfcontradictory that an infinite/endless amount of time can end. The contradiction is just too tight.

I need no defense.

His logical error is clear.

He is merely pretending that an infinite amount of time is something that can be completed.

He says it can be completed in an infinite amount of time.

No it can't.

Under no circumstances can an infinite amount of time ever be completed. It is time that is never completed. Time that never ends.

But what's driving everyone crazy is that you are not being specific on the reference (whether they know it or not). Infinite amount of time CAN end/pass FOR certain frames of references and in certain circumstances, but not FOR the time keeper keeping regular intervals of time.

 

[untermensche]

By saying it had "infinite time in which to do it" you are just pretending something infinite is finite.

You are pretending that "infinite time to do it" is something that can be completed. Only finite amounts of time can be completed.

Not so - Only finite amounts of time can be completed, if they started a finite time ago. You are STILL begging the question.

No. Only finite amounts of time can ever be completed.

No matter when they start.

 

[Kharakov]

Still are an infinite amount of 0 length presents between now and a second ago....

 

[untermensche]

But what's driving everyone crazy is that you are not being specific on the reference (whether they know it or not). Infinite amount of time CAN end/pass FOR certain frames of references and in certain circumstances, but not FOR the time keeper keeping regular intervals of time.

To look at time you can stop it at a moment. Call it moment A.

If time in the past was infinite that means infinite moments had already passed before moment A. Infinite moments had already been completed.

Can infinite moments be completed?

Can anything besides a finite amount of moments be completed?

 

[Kharakov]

Obviously there are an infinite amount of moments every second. The duration of the present is 0. There are uncounted moments every second.... of 0 duration.

 

[untermensche]

Obviously there are an infinite amount of moments every second. The duration of the present is 0. There are uncounted moments every second.... of 0 duration.

A moment of 0 duration is not a moment.

It is nothing.

 

[bilby]

In Unter's defense, if we assume no changes take place and a clock in its own frame of reference runs normally, then by logic I don't think an endless amount of time can end FOR the clock. Maybe it can pass FOR other frames like inside a black hole, but not for the clock itself.

Now that isn't to say that infinite time could not exist or be behind us for a variety of reasons. But FOR a particular frame of reference, I don't think you can say without being selfcontradictory that an infinite/endless amount of time can end. The contradiction is just too tight.

I need no defense.

His logical error is clear.

He is merely pretending that an infinite amount of time is something that can be completed.

He says it can be completed in an infinite amount of time.

No it can't.

Under no circumstances can an infinite amount of time ever be completed. It is time that is never completed. Time that never ends.

Unless, of course, it is time that never began. Then it can be infinite, and still have a finish. Because a timeline with only one end is infinite - regardless of which end that is.

Your inability to grasp this doesn't render it false. No matter how stubbornly you defend your ignorance.

Check this out:

A-------------------------------->B

1) A is one end of the line.

2) B is one end of the line

3) A is the start, but not the finish of the line

4) B is the finish, but not the start of the line

5) 'end' is synonymous with 'finish'.

From (1), (3) and (5) - A is both the 'end' and NOT the 'end' of the line. That's a contradiction, so I reject (5). If (5) is true, then which of the other premises do you reject, in order to avoid this contradiction?

6) If there is a point 'A' but no point 'B', the line has a beginning but no end, and is infinite.

7) If there is a point 'B' but no point 'A', the line has an end, but no beginning, and is infinite.

An infinite past is represented by (7), where point 'B' is the present. This is not in any way ruled out by logic.

 

[untermensche]

We are talking about time, not imaginary lines.

In terms of time, finishing and ending are the exact same thing.

And an infinite amount of time is time that never finishes or ends.

It can't end or finish at the present.

 

[bilby]

We are talking about time, not imaginary lines.

In terms of time, finishing and ending are the exact same thing.

And an infinite amount of time is time that never finishes or ends.

It can't end or finish at the present.

Actually, we started off talking about logic. Are you now abandoning logic, because it doesn't support your preferences?

Please feel free to point out the logic that renders my line an imperfect analogy for the purposes of discussing time. But forgive me if I don't just take your unsupported word for it.

If A is 6am on Friday June 23rd 2017, and B is 3pm on Friday June 23rd 2017, how does that change any of the logic in my post?

A (6am)-------------------------------->(3pm) B

1) A is one end of the time period.

2) B is one end of the time period

3) A is the start, but not the finish of the time period

4) B is the finish, but not the start of the time period

5) 'end' is synonymous with 'finish'.

From (1), (3) and (5) - A is both the 'end' and NOT the 'end' of the time period. That's a contradiction, so I reject (5). If (5) is true, then which of the other premises do you reject, in order to avoid this contradiction?

6) If there is a time 'A' but no time 'B', the time period has a beginning but no end, and is infinite.

7) If there is a time 'B' but no time 'A', the time period has an end, but no beginning, and is infinite.

An infinite past is represented by (7), where time 'B' is the present. This is not in any way ruled out by logic.

 

[untermensche]

No, this is about time. "An infinite past" to be specific.

It has nothing to do with imaginary lines.

Take that to some discussion about imaginary lines.

In terms of time, finishing and ending are the exact same thing.

 

[DBT]

If Philosophical Presentism is correct, there is no past or future. Just ever changing states and conditions, relativity, within an eternal present moment.