Infinite Past

[ryan]

I think something just clicked.

If we think about time as just another dimension, we can give it the x axis and a spatial dimension on the y axis. So when I think about a guy Bob who tries to walk forever at 1 meter per second, I see that his path will exist simply as a line at a 45 degree angle extending as far as he decides to walk. Let's say Bob is a robot programmed to never stop walking. You may see him at the 500th meter, but because he is programmed to never stop walking, we would know that his walk is never going to end like infinity. I know what you're thinking, but hold on there's more.

If the distance dimension never ends, and the time dimension never ends, then wouldn't his path also never end? This could be interpreted as Bob is walking a never ending walk. He doesn't finish, but the endlessness property of his program is like the endlessness property of infinity.

The distance he will walk does not end. Outside of our frame of reference, these 2 dimensions on a graph don't wait; they are already there infinitely long or they aren't. They will either exist forever along with Bob's path or they won't; both options are instantaneous because nothing is waiting; there is no reference.

Now I am willing to say that from Bob's reference/point of view (or any reference for this matter), he will never finish. But somehow he can finish when there is no reference, like in the case of the whole universe that already exists as 4 dimensions.

Will you agree to that?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Infinite steps is steps without end. Infinite time is time without end. We do not need to bring in any talk of reference to say that.

The point was that Bob could be programmed to stop at some finite distance, or he could be programmed to never stop. In the latter case, his distance is infinite because he is not going to stop. In other words, his total distance will never be finite; there will always be more. And with nobody waiting, his endless amount of time will match the endless distance. Think about the time as a dimension and his path extending at 45 degrees where the infinite time will match the infinite space he walks through.

The three dimensions can form a solid object. Add space and you have something the solid can move around in. Add time and you have the freedom to move.

Things don't necessarily move. They are either 4 dimensional static structures that we consciously traverse through like ghosts, or, and I think most probable, they grow like in the growing universe theory of time. The latter would also explain indeterminable nature of QM.

 

[ryan]

Nobody is really giving any kind of logical rebuttal to untermenche's argument.

Not so. As I pointed out, if Presentism is true (not to say that it is ) there is no past or future only an ever changing present where a conscious subject may measure rates of change (being relative) and call these rates of change ''time.''

But if presentism is true, can't we still wonder if we came from an infinite past, whether it exists now or not? I don't see how presentism solves the problem.

 

[untermensche]

Your position is simply wishing the past away.

It is nonsense.

No matter the magic spell you think you can cast you can't turn the past into a nothing.

So you don't understand the basics of the concept of Presentism and won't make the slightest effort to do so. I'm not surprised.

You claim it magically makes the past go away.

That's all I need to know about it to know it is nonsense.

The past are the configurations of the universe that actually existed but do not exist anymore.

Nothing can make this go away.

Not even your magic spells.

 

[untermensche]

Your stupidity is noted.

Again.

I think I'm finally beginning to understand irony.

Look sweetpea if you can prove me wrong I would be thrilled. I would learn something.

But if all you can do is make claims and your arguments are bad I am not happy.

 

[untermensche]

The point was that Bob could be programmed to stop at some finite distance, or he could be programmed to never stop. In the latter case, his distance is infinite because he is not going to stop. In other words, his total distance will never be finite; there will always be more. And with nobody waiting, his endless amount of time will match the endless distance. Think about the time as a dimension and his path extending at 45 degrees where the infinite time will match the infinite space he walks through.

Why complicate this?

Infinite steps are steps where the person never stops. Steps can represent the passage of time as well as anything. You just can't wear somebody stepping on your wrist. So we have this little hand that continually moves. Same thing. Neither a person walking or a hand moving around a central point represents the passage of time better than the other.

And claiming infinite time occurred before any given moment is exactly like saying infinite steps WERE taken before a given moment.

Things don't necessarily move.

I've not seen these things.

 

[ryan]

Why complicate this?

Infinite steps are steps where the person never stops. Steps can represent the passage of time as well as anything. You just can't wear somebody stepping on your wrist. So we have this little hand that continually moves. Same thing. Neither a person walking or a hand moving around a central point represents the passage of time better than the other.

And claiming infinite time occurred before any given moment is exactly like saying infinite steps WERE taken before a given moment.

I am seeing now that this is possible. If Bob is taking his 5th step now, but doesn't plan on stopping with nothing else stopping him either, then Bob is in an "infinite/unending state" at step 5. His 5th step is also his "infinity'ith" step even though step #5 is a finite number as is. Because we are using a definition for infinity as unending (if we are still using this definition) Bob's walk is unending/infinite on the 5th step or any step for that matter.

Things don't necessarily move.

I've not seen these things.

So this is actually really important and is a completely different argument from the one above. 2 popular, competing theories of time are the growing block universe and eternalism. Neither have matter moving. Something's temporal existence is treated as a spatial dimension like the other 3 dimensions.

 

[untermensche]

I am seeing now that this is possible. If Bob is taking his 5th step now, but doesn't plan on stopping with nothing else stopping him either, then Bob is in an "infinite/unending state" at step 5. His 5th step is also his "infinity'ith" step even though step #5 is finite number as is. Because we are using a definition for infinity as unending (if we are still using this definition) Bob's walk is unending/infinite on the 5th step or any step for that matter.

There is no infinith step. There is no last step if one is taking steps forever.

But in the present moment the past is complete. It has taken it's last step.

If it took it's last step it could have taken infinite steps.

I've not seen these things.

So this is actually really important and is a completely different argument from the one above. 2 popular, competing theories of time are the growing block universe and eternalism. Neither have matter moving. Something's temporal existence is treated as a spatial dimension like the other 3 dimensions.

So it's a theory?

 

[ryan]

There is no infinith step. There is no last step if one is taking steps forever.

But in the present moment the past is complete. It has taken it's last step.

But that is relative to the present which quickly becomes the past. The point is that Bob is not going to stop. His steps will never be finite even if he just started.

If it took it's last step it could have taken infinite steps.

Yes, because at least one direction needs to be infinite.

I've not seen these things.

So this is actually really important and is a completely different argument from the one above. 2 popular, competing theories of time are the growing block universe and eternalism. Neither have matter moving. Something's temporal existence is treated as a spatial dimension like the other 3 dimensions.

So it's a theory?

Relativity points to eternalism, but QM points to a block universe. Nothing moves in either.

 

[untermensche]

But that is relative to the present which quickly becomes the past. The point is that Bob is not going to stop. His steps will never be finite even if he just started.

If you are saying the past is continually growing therefore it is infinite that is not true.

It is approaching infinity if it is continually growing. But it is not infinite. It could not be.

A person could not have taken infinite steps prior to some present moment.

If we say a person has walked without finishing in the past then the person could not have finished at some present moment.

Nothing moves in either.

What do you mean?

Light does not move?

 

[ryan]

If you are saying the past is continually growing therefore it is infinite that is not true.

It is approaching infinity if it is continually growing. But it is not infinite. It could not be.

A person could not have taken infinite steps prior to some present moment.

If we say a person has walked without finishing in the past then the person could not have finished at some present moment.

Then how about I ask you this. What is the most amount of steps that Bob could have taken until now?

Nothing moves in either.

What do you mean?

Light does not move?

Light does not move in relativity, philosophy of relativity or other popular philosophies. It begins and ends instantaneously like everything else. Light just does it much more inefficiently.

Anyways, to really understand this, think of a square perfectly flat in 2 spatial dimensions. Because we will assume time is a dimension, at some point, your square theoretically becomes a cube. This is because time "grows" the square perpendicular to its other 2 dimensions and will become 3 dimensional. You wouldn't be able to see the depth of the cube because its growth is also perpendicular to the other spatial dimension.

 

[untermensche]

Then how about I ask you this. What is the most amount of steps that Bob could have taken until now?

Some things need to be made clear.

This is not any kind of proof showing that time in the past was finite.

I know some people think there are only two options. It is either finite or infinite.

But there are really three choices. It is finite or it is infinite or it is neither. If it is neither that is just saying these concepts don't apply.

So demonstrating that it can't be infinite does not prove it is finite.

As far as the maximum steps, it can't be three steps. How could it just be three steps? How did the stepper begin? By magic?

If we have to invoke magic it is not rational. It could not be three steps or any finite amount of steps.

So we are left with it is neither. It is not finite or infinite.

I do not find that surprising. Infinity is a concept we just invented. We did not discover it or observe it.

Thinking we could apply this concept we merely invented to the universe is a form of religion.

 

[ryan]

Then how about I ask you this. What is the most amount of steps that Bob could have taken until now?

Some things need to be made clear.

This is not any kind of proof showing that time in the past was finite.

I know some people think there are only two options. It is either finite or infinite.

But there are really three choices. It is finite or it is infinite or it is neither. If it is neither that is just saying these concepts don't apply.

So demonstrating that it can't be infinite does not prove it is finite.

As far as the maximum steps, it can't be three steps. How could it just be three steps? How did the stepper begin? By magic?

If we have to invoke magic it is not rational. It could not be three steps or any finite amount of steps.

So we are left with it is neither. It is not finite or infinite.

I don't understand why you say it can't be finite either.

 

[DBT]

Not so. As I pointed out, if Presentism is true (not to say that it is ) there is no past or future only an ever changing present where a conscious subject may measure rates of change (being relative) and call these rates of change ''time.''

But if presentism is true, can't we still wonder if we came from an infinite past, whether it exists now or not? I don't see how presentism solves the problem.

There is no past in presentism as in contrast to block time/eternalism As presentism is a progression of change that happens within the eternal here and now, events that have come and gone no longer exist, hence from our perspective we perceive a past and say that events happened in the past... but not a distinct past like block time (in which the past, present and future exist), just gone, the pattern of relationship no longer existing in the eternal here and now.

 

[untermensche]

Some things need to be made clear.

This is not any kind of proof showing that time in the past was finite.

I know some people think there are only two options. It is either finite or infinite.

But there are really three choices. It is finite or it is infinite or it is neither. If it is neither that is just saying these concepts don't apply.

So demonstrating that it can't be infinite does not prove it is finite.

As far as the maximum steps, it can't be three steps. How could it just be three steps? How did the stepper begin? By magic?

If we have to invoke magic it is not rational. It could not be three steps or any finite amount of steps.

So we are left with it is neither. It is not finite or infinite.

I don't understand why you say it can't be finite either.

Let's make it easy on ourselves. Let's not say time started some long time ago. Let's just say time started three seconds ago.

So time is finite and it started three seconds ago.

Are there no questions? You just accept this?

If I told you time started three seconds ago that is no more believable than saying it started 200 billion years ago.

It is an absurd claim. It is claiming something arose out of nothing.

 

[ryan]

But if presentism is true, can't we still wonder if we came from an infinite past, whether it exists now or not? I don't see how presentism solves the problem.

There is no past in presentism as in contrast to block time/eternalism As presentism is a progression of change that happens within the eternal here and now, events that have come and gone no longer exist, hence from our perspective we perceive a past and say that events happened in the past... but not a distinct past like block time (in which the past, present and future exist), just gone, the pattern of relationship no longer existing in the eternal here and now.

If there is no past, how do we know that a change occurred?

Also, even if this does explain the problem of infinity away, it goes against science. Thermodynamics needs past energies or lack thereof in order to make up for in the future. If thermodynamics is erased, then ...

 

[ryan]

I don't understand why you say it can't be finite either.

Let's make it easy on ourselves. Let's not say time started some long time ago. Let's just say time started three seconds ago.

So time is finite and it started three seconds ago.

Are there no questions? You just accept this?

If I told you time started three seconds ago that is no more believable than saying it started 200 billion years ago.

It is an absurd claim. It is claiming something arose out of nothing.

This problem does not exist if you read from a couple posts ago. Here it is again,

Light does not move?

Light does not move in relativity, philosophy of relativity or other popular philosophies. It begins and ends instantaneously like everything else. Light just does it much more inefficiently.

Anyways, to really understand this, think of a square perfectly flat in 2 spatial dimensions. Because we will assume time is a dimension, at some point, your square theoretically becomes a cube. This is because time "grows" the square perpendicular to its other 2 dimensions and will become 3 dimensional. You wouldn't be able to see the depth of the cube because its growth is also perpendicular to the other spatial dimension.

This is meant to show you how time might not be anything more that just another dimension of a 4 dimensional static structure. Nothing moves; it's all just there.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The idea of an infinite past is that of time without beginning, that is, no starting point in the distant past.

We can conceive of an infinite series of points in time going back from now. Each point in time in the series is defined by subtracting the same strictly positive interval Δt to the preceding point in the series. So Tn+1 = Tn – Δt, with T0 the present time. Δt can be as small as you want as long as it is not zero, and as large as you want as long as it is finite.

This is a formal expression of the intuitive notion of time we all have in common.

This series has no upper bound and is therefore infinite. It is also a sample of the past, with all Tn spaced regularly across the entire past. Each Tn is further back in the past than its predecessor in the series. The bigger n is, the further back in the past Tn will be. So, if the series is infinite, then the past is infinite also.

All we need is to be able to conceive of such a series. But it is easy because it is our default description. It subsumes all our ordinary alternative descriptions of time either as a succession of seconds, years, centuries, or millennia. There is nothing difficult or vague in that conception. It is so much a part of our everyday notion of time as being completely intuitive for all of us. It also applies whether time is continuous or discrete, or even a mix of the two.

If time is infinite but discrete, then the infinity of the past is commensurable to that of N (or Q but that amount to the same thing).

If we conceive of the past as continuous, we can conceive of time as analogous to R for example, the past being R-, and the future R+, the present moment being 0. In this case, the infinity of the past is commensurable to than of R.

Keep in mind that this is just a conception of time. We don’t know whether this conception is the reality of time. The question asked of posters is whether they think this conception is logically impossible or not. The question is not whether it is true of time.
EB

 

[DBT]

There is no past in presentism as in contrast to block time/eternalism As presentism is a progression of change that happens within the eternal here and now, events that have come and gone no longer exist, hence from our perspective we perceive a past and say that events happened in the past... but not a distinct past like block time (in which the past, present and future exist), just gone, the pattern of relationship no longer existing in the eternal here and now.

If there is no past, how do we know that a change occurred?

As I said, we experience and measure change and call the rate of change being experienced and/or measured ''time'' - sun and moon and stars in different positions, tides, seasons, animals and people coming and going, etc....all being rates of change, not in the past, not in the future, but here and now. always here and now.

Also, even if this does explain the problem of infinity away, it goes against science. Thermodynamics needs past energies or lack thereof in order to make up for in the future. If thermodynamics is erased, then ...

Nothing happens in the past. Past conditions and events where always present conditions, a progression of causal change and events in the eternal here and now, events that no longer exist, we call the past even while we exist in the here and now, which is the only known existence, nothing exists in the past or the future.....unless block time/eternalism is the reality. Which I think is gaining favour with some physicists according to some reports.

 

[untermensche]

Let's make it easy on ourselves. Let's not say time started some long time ago. Let's just say time started three seconds ago.

So time is finite and it started three seconds ago.

Are there no questions? You just accept this?

If I told you time started three seconds ago that is no more believable than saying it started 200 billion years ago.

It is an absurd claim. It is claiming something arose out of nothing.

This problem does not exist if you read from a couple posts ago. Here it is again

That doesn't address the problem unless you can demonstrate it addresses the problem.

Not one bit of relativity or quantum theory explains how something could arise out of nothing. Not fake nothing like Krauss's fake nothing that was really all of quantum theory existing but nothing else.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of an infinite past is that of time without beginning, that is, no starting point in the distant past.

Yes. It is an irrational idea.

It is the idea that something (time) exists but it had no beginning.

Yet we have no evidence of anything existing without a beginning. We can't conceive of such a thing. And such a thing could not be shown to be possible.

So it is an irrational idea not supported by any evidence.

Sure, I'll buy it.

Your problem is you do not know the difference between something imaginary, like a point, and something real, like time. I can fit infinite imaginary points between two other imaginary points. I can even draw a perfectly straight imaginary line between them.

That in no way implies I could fit infinite time between two moments in time.

We clearly know that between any two moments in time is a finite amount of time.