Infinite Past

[ryan]

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?

No no no, now you are definitely wrong. You have just changed the arguement. Points are infinitesimal; they don't really end or start. I should say that their beginnings and their endings are the same thing. Why would you bring this up?

I agree with you that an infinite number of regular finite intervals never end FOR the reference going through them.

 

[bilby]

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.

Just not in any way that you can actually demonstrate or support with any kind of logical argument.

Preaching is against the TOU; If you can't support your claim with reason, then please retract it.

 

[untermensche]

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

But can infinite moments have already occurred before the present moment?

Can infinite moments ever have a completion?

 

[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.

Just not in any way that you can actually demonstrate or support with any kind of logical argument.

Preaching is against the TOU; If you can't support your claim with reason, then please retract it.

I can discuss this if one definition of infinite time is adhered to at all times.

If we use infinite time in the future to describe what infinite time is I can discuss this.

But if we jump from one definition to another that is just muddying the water.

Like jumping from one definition of end (the outermost point) to another definition of end (to finish) carelessly.

 

[DBT]

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

But can infinite moments have already occurred before the present moment?

Can infinite moments ever have a completion?

Philosophical Presentism is not a collection of 'infinite moments' but an eternal present where everything happens without past of future.

 

[untermensche]

But can infinite moments have already occurred before the present moment?

Can infinite moments ever have a completion?

Philosophical Presentism is not a collection of 'infinite moments' but an eternal present where everything happens without past of future.

Are all moments the same thing? Time cannot be separated from space.

If they are different then different moments have existed in the past and different moments will occur in the future.

 

[bilby]

Just not in any way that you can actually demonstrate or support with any kind of logical argument.

Preaching is against the TOU; If you can't support your claim with reason, then please retract it.

I can discuss this if one definition of infinite time is adhered to at all times.

If we use infinite time in the future to describe what infinite time is I can discuss this.

But if we jump from one definition to another that is just muddying the water.

Like jumping from one definition of end (the outermost point) to another definition of end (to finish) carelessly.

Nobody is jumping from one definition to another except you.

 

[untermensche]

I can discuss this if one definition of infinite time is adhered to at all times.

If we use infinite time in the future to describe what infinite time is I can discuss this.

But if we jump from one definition to another that is just muddying the water.

Like jumping from one definition of end (the outermost point) to another definition of end (to finish) carelessly.

Nobody is jumping from one definition to another except you.

Try me.

I will discuss infinite time as time that never is completed. Like time into the future if the universe never stops.

If we stick to the definition of infinite time as time that cannot be completed, time that never has an end or completion, I can discuss this.

So even if infinite time in the past theoretically has no beginning, whatever that could mean, it is equivalent to time with no completion, if it is infinite time.

 

[bilby]

Nobody is jumping from one definition to another except you.

Try me.

I will discuss infinite time as time that never is completed. Like time into the future if the universe never stops.

If we stick to the definition of infinite time as time that cannot be completed, time that never has an end or completion, I can discuss this.

So even if infinite time in the past theoretically has no beginning, whatever that could mean, it is equivalent to time with no completion, if it is infinite time.

So, if we stick to a definition that includes your conclusion, then your conclusion is inevitable? Colour me unsurprised.

Question begging remains a logical fallacy, however; even if you really, really want it to be allowed.

The definition of infinite time is time that is infinite.

I am arguing that it is not logically impossible for infinite time to exist in the past.

Clearly I don't accept the definition that infinite time is time that cannot be completed; Because that definition is designed solely to entail the conclusion you want, and there is no other basis for the change in definition from "time that is infinite", other than to beg the question.

No, I shall not accept your invitation to use only definitions that make things fit your preconceptions. Because to do so would be illogical.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?
EB

No. The argument is that the "present" moment would never arrive because an infinite number of moments would have to occur prior to this one.

Well, that's certainly one, well-known, argument but untermensche's argument in the current thread on the laws of nature seems different and all his own.
EB

To say that time without end or limit has ALREADY passed is irrational.

It cannot have happened. If it did that would mean there was a limit to it.

We all understand that the past is by definition the period of time limited by the present moment. At any given moment, the past necessarily has an end. This symmetrical with what happens for the future. The future starts at the present moment and can be thought of as extending without end.

Why would that be contradictory with the past being infinite? If there is no beginning to time then the past would have to be infinite. Having one limit, the present moment, doesn't make it finite, just as the future having one limit, also the present moment, doesn't make the future finite.

All I can come up as an explanation of your position is that you are stuck on the literal sense of your definition. You definition says an infinite past has no end and you say it's logically inconsistent because the past by definition ends at the present moment. But what we mean by infinite past is obviously a past that has no beginning, not a past which would not have the present moment as an end. So you can say that according to you definition there's no infinite past. I say change your definition if that's what you need.

Can you agree on the following definition: An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning?
EB

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

But that's the same situation with the future. The present is as much a limit for the future as it is for the past. If one is infinite, so must be the other. You seem to accept the future is infinite so you should accept a past without a beginning can only be infinite.

To look at the past we have to stop time at some present moment and examine it.

If there is a present moment that means all the past moments are gone.

If they are all gone they could not have been infinite, without end.

Moments without end will never be all gone.

If I have a bag and claim it has infinite marbles in it and I start handing you marbles. And I tell you we will be done when I have given you all the marbles.

When will we be done?

You cannot claim that infinite marbles have already been handed out. You cannot claim that infinite time has already passed.

 

[untermensche]

Try me.

I will discuss infinite time as time that never is completed. Like time into the future if the universe never stops.

If we stick to the definition of infinite time as time that cannot be completed, time that never has an end or completion, I can discuss this.

So even if infinite time in the past theoretically has no beginning, whatever that could mean, it is equivalent to time with no completion, if it is infinite time.

So, if we stick to a definition that includes your conclusion, then your conclusion is inevitable? Colour me unsurprised.

Question begging remains a logical fallacy, however; even if you really, really want it to be allowed.

The definition of infinite time is time that is infinite.

I am arguing that it is not logically impossible for infinite time to exist in the past.

Clearly I don't accept the definition that infinite time is time that cannot be completed; Because that definition is designed solely to entail the conclusion you want, and there is no other basis for the change in definition from "time that is infinite", other than to beg the question.

No, I shall not accept your invitation to use only definitions that make things fit your preconceptions. Because to do so would be illogical.

The conclusion is basically infinite time = infinite time.

Talking about infinite time in the future is equivalent in terms of the amount of time as talking about infinite time in the past.

If you won't agree to that then you have nothing to offer.

 

[ryan]

A moment starts and ends simultaneously. 10 moments start and end simultaneously. Infinite moments starts and end finitely. Trust me; leave moments out of this. Stick with an infinite number of regularly divided finite segments of time.

 

[untermensche]

A moment starts and ends simultaneously. 10 moments start and end simultaneously. Infinite moments starts and end finitely. Trust me; leave moments out of this. Stick with an infinite number of regularly divided finite segments of time.

A moment is discreet.

It cannot be infinitesimal.

An infinitesimal moment would be a moment of zero duration.

In other words, nothing.

Infinitesimals can be used with imaginary objects like lines that can be infinitely divided.

But not with real entities.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. The argument is that the "present" moment would never arrive because an infinite number of moments would have to occur prior to this one.

That's exactly the argument.

Not too hard to understand.

If one had to take infinite steps before one arrived one would never arrive.

That wasn't your argument you used in the thread on the laws of nature.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That's exactly the argument.

Not too hard to understand.

If one had to take infinite steps before one arrived one would never arrive.

That wasn't your argument you used in the thread on the laws of nature.
EB

Refresh my memory.

 

[ryan]

A moment starts and ends simultaneously. 10 moments start and end simultaneously. Infinite moments starts and end finitely. Trust me; leave moments out of this. Stick with an infinite number of regularly divided finite segments of time.

A moment is discreet.

It cannot be infinitesimal.

An infinitesimal moment would be a moment of zero duration.

In other words, nothing.

Infinitesimals can be used with imaginary objects like lines that can be infinitely divided.

But not with real entities.

Okay, it seemed like you were talking about infinitesimal moments.

The present is usually thought of as an infinitesimal moment in time.

 

[untermensche]

A moment is discreet.

It cannot be infinitesimal.

An infinitesimal moment would be a moment of zero duration.

In other words, nothing.

Infinitesimals can be used with imaginary objects like lines that can be infinitely divided.

But not with real entities.

Okay, it seemed like you were talking about infinitesimal moments.

The present is usually thought of as an infinitesimal moment in time.

There has to be some duration for it to be something as opposed to nothing.

How small it can be divided is immaterial. It just can't be divided infinitely.

 

[Speakpigeon]

B-theory of time - Wikipedia

It's good to have the name of a conception of time that's compatible with the idea of an infinite past.

However, the question is whether the idea of an infinite past could be shown to be logically inconsistent (i.e. logically impossible). That there is a B-theory of time doesn't provide the answer.

The secondary question is whether anybody can make sense of what untermensche says. The A-theory is most likely the conception underlying what UM says, and I was about to post something to that effect, but it nonetheless doesn't seem to help make sense of what he actually says.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Why do you need external sources?

Why is it so hard to get agreement on a definition that is clear?

If we start at some moment then infinite time into the future is time without end. That can serve as a definition of infinite time.

How is that not clear?

What is not clear to anyone, even the people saying it, is this idea of "no beginning".

But all we have to say is infinite time = infinite time.

Infinite time in the future = infinite time in the past.

Infinite time in the future = time without end or finish (the definition of infinite time)

Therefore: Infinite time in the past = time without end or finish. If A = B and B = C then A = C.

Remember this is an equivalency, not how it is normally described.

But it doesn't matter how you describe infinite time it is always the same thing. Time without end.

 

[DBT]

Philosophical Presentism is not a collection of 'infinite moments' but an eternal present where everything happens without past of future.

Are all moments the same thing? Time cannot be separated from space.

If they are different then different moments have existed in the past and different moments will occur in the future.

Under presentism there are no ''all moments' - there is only an omnipresent now. Nor is this separate from space, relativity, physics or change, all events and conditions and relationships happening now, not in the past (which under presentism does not exist), and not in the future, which under presentism does not exist. What appears to be the past being conditions that no longer exist and what appears to be the future being predictions of persistent patterns, all occurring now. No past and no future.