# Infinte Regress Timeline...

#### none

##### Banned
Banned
I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Well, not an argument.
Just Troy dismissing any argument that doesn't lead directly to his favorite skybuddy.

He appears to think that if the universe is eternal, just collapsing and banging back out over and over, that it must be set on infinite repeat, somehow. So that each time there's a big bang, eventually there will be a Troy Brooks each time.
Exactly how this is part of the definition of infinite regress is left to the reader's imagination.
Exactly how this is a problem for the idea of infinite regression is just lost in Troy's smug self-regard.

#### dockeen

##### Member
Using a term like "infinite regress" just makes a person feel so.....smart inside

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

Now isn't the problem. The problem is that the 14 billion year old universe becomes an infinitesimal point in time. It's a good argument for quantified time in a universe of finite time.

Basic calculus would confirm this.

Actually, on second thought, it is way more complicated than what I said in this post. We could have space in infinity, but our space becomes an infinitesimal observed from someone infinitely far away.

And it also probably depends on how large the infinity being considered is.

Last edited:

#### Mageth

##### Senior Member
There are an infinite number of integers, yet 127 is defined.

#### Juma

##### Gone
The problem is that the 14 billion year old universe becomes an infinitesimal point in time.

No. That is not a problem. Due to the physics of this universe, different time scales looks different. There is no need for a discrete time.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Just because god apologists talk about infinite regress doesn't mean the problem is solved. If time stretches back infinitely then the day I was born can be pushed infinitely backward, and it will never occur.

But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress. That is how we are here. Time doesn't stretch infinitely into the past.

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?

#### dystopian

##### Veteran Member
If time stretches back infinitely then the day I was born can be pushed infinitely backward, and it will never occur.

I don't see why. Yes, it *could* be pushed infinitely backward; but that doesn't really mean anything since could is not the same as would; you *were* born, it happened; this has no impact whatsoever on whether or not time can be infinite in both directions because with infinite time it is entirely possible that a version of you; a perfect copy in every sense including your experiences; is born multiple times over the infinite eons. In fact, if we have infinite time but only a finite number of possible states that all the matter/energy in the universe can be organized in, this is inevitable. On the other hand, if we also have an infinite number of possibilities, then the original argument about your birth being infinitely pushed backward becomes even less of a problem.

But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress.

No, they don't really say that, and is a gross oversimplification in any case. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that some physicists say that our *spacetime* began with the big bang, although that still isn't really a given; and which would in any case not mean that either space or time began with the big bang but rather just our universe (which could very well just be a black hole in another universe, or could in fact just refer to a small section of an infinitely large space in which big bang events are constantly spawning new "universe" that we could in theory reach by travelling in their direction if we could achieve the impossible speeds necessary to reach them.)

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?

Who says space is an entity in the way you're using the word? You're getting stuck on definitions. Space is not fundamentally like other 'entities'. An entity is defined as something having real existence, just like space sure. Space, however, is a concept we use to describe the real existence of entities. Putting space on the same footing as the entities that inhabit space is akin to arguing that points on a graph and the graph itself are the same thing: they're not, one is just the means by which we can define and understand the other.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
I don't see why. Yes, it *could* be pushed infinitely backward; but that doesn't really mean anything since could is not the same as would; you *were* born, it happened; this has no impact whatsoever on whether or not time can be infinite in both directions because with infinite time it is entirely possible that a version of you; a perfect copy in every sense including your experiences; is born multiple times over the infinite eons. In fact, if we have infinite time but only a finite number of possible states that all the matter/energy in the universe can be organized in, this is inevitable. On the other hand, if we also have an infinite number of possibilities, then the original argument about your birth being infinitely pushed backward becomes even less of a problem.
I think you're missing the implications of "pushing" time infinitely backward.

That's the same as pushing yesterday infinitely forward. Yesterday will never occur because infinite time has to pass before it does.

The idea is illogical.
But physicists today say that time began with the big bang, so there is no infinite regress.
No, they don't really say that, and is a gross oversimplification in any case. It would be somewhat more accurate to say that some physicists say that our *spacetime* began with the big bang, although that still isn't really a given; and which would in any case not mean that either space or time began with the big bang but rather just our universe (which could very well just be a black hole in another universe, or could in fact just refer to a small section of an infinitely large space in which big bang events are constantly spawning new "universe" that we could in theory reach by travelling in their direction if we could achieve the impossible speeds necessary to reach them.)
I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know. And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space. As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.
Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

So infinite space violates something else. The idea of infinite entities.

How is it possible for there to be infinite entities since an entity is a discreet thing and therefore any number of them must be a discreet amount. Since space is an entity, how is it possible that there is infinite space?
Who says space is an entity in the way you're using the word? You're getting stuck on definitions. Space is not fundamentally like other 'entities'. An entity is defined as something having real existence, just like space sure. Space, however, is a concept we use to describe the real existence of entities. Putting space on the same footing as the entities that inhabit space is akin to arguing that points on a graph and the graph itself are the same thing: they're not, one is just the means by which we can define and understand the other.
This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

Just as a planet is a discreet entity. So no matter how many exist it is a discreet amount, not infinity.

#### dystopian

##### Veteran Member
I think you're missing the implications of "pushing" time infinitely backward.

That's the same as pushing yesterday infinitely forward. Yesterday will never occur because infinite time has to pass before it does.

I don't think I am. You seem to be appealing to something akin to Zeno's paradox; which isn't really applicable to begin with. What you're saying is not really any different than saying that because we can divide any given space into two equal spaces, you can never cross the distance between yourself and me. However, you clearly can. The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that infinite time means our current timeline expanding in much the same way; but this is of course not the case. Infinite time does NOT imply that yesterday will never occur, since time can still be divided into discrete and finite sections. Even with infinite time, the sun will still rise and set, meaning that days will still go by and so today will still turn into tomorrow. Now is still now; yesterday is still yesterday, and tomorrow is still tomorrow. There's just an infinite number of days past and future; but that has no impact on the contents of neither yesterday nor tomorrow.

I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know.

The distinction is that time as we understand it is just the time that is *relative* to us. Even if we say that said time began with the big bang, that does not mean that some of time did not exist before then. That's why what you're saying doesn't serve as an argument against infinite regress.

And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space.

Eh... not exactly? Time is just one of the 4 dimensions we use to define spacetime, which is an abstract concept; and which can be used to define points within said spacetime. Whether time itself even exists in any classical sense remains a matter of controversy among physicists.

As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.

Which tells us nothing about whether or not that is actually true. There are credible models in which it does; and there is really no reason for us to assume that there is no such existence outside of our universe, as doing so causes more problems than it solves.

This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

You're misunderstanding the distinction there; he's talking about "space" as in a vacuum, not "space" as in spatial dimensions. There's absolutely no reason to describe the spatial dimensions we inhabit as a discrete entity. Incidentally, the fact that a vacuum itself has energy within it does not mean the vacuum itself is an entity, just that it has entities *within* it, so even accepting space as meaning vacuum, we're still not left with the conclusion that space = discrete.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
I don't think I am. You seem to be appealing to something akin to Zeno's paradox; which isn't really applicable to begin with. What you're saying is not really any different than saying that because we can divide any given space into two equal spaces, you can never cross the distance between yourself and me. However, you clearly can. The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that infinite time means our current timeline expanding in much the same way; but this is of course not the case. Infinite time does NOT imply that yesterday will never occur, since time can still be divided into discrete and finite sections. Even with infinite time, the sun will still rise and set, meaning that days will still go by and so today will still turn into tomorrow. Now is still now; yesterday is still yesterday, and tomorrow is still tomorrow. There's just an infinite number of days past and future; but that has no impact on the contents of neither yesterday nor tomorrow.
This is not similar to that paradox. An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch. But the idea of infinite space is illogical so the analogy is worthless. It assumes the impossible.

Again I don't think you appreciate the situation.

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

Just like infinite space the situation is absurd.
I don't know what distinction you're trying to draw.

Time as something we can examine began with the big bang. That is all we know. If it has existence outside this universe, we don't know.
The distinction is that time as we understand it is just the time that is *relative* to us. Even if we say that said time began with the big bang, that does not mean that some of time did not exist before then. That's why what you're saying doesn't serve as an argument against infinite regress.
We can't assume there is anything beyond this universe, even if it is possible. We can only know things if there is evidence for them. If evidence for time before the big bang is beyond us then we can not assume it exists.

I don't think the problems are with the logical conclusions of infinite regress, none of which are "god did it". The problem is with the idea of infinite time itself. It's an illogical idea.
And as you say space is linked to time so the same thing is true of space.
Eh... not exactly? Time is just one of the 4 dimensions we use to define spacetime, which is an abstract concept; and which can be used to define points within said spacetime. Whether time itself even exists in any classical sense remains a matter of controversy among physicists.
The problem again is the evidence.

We have no evidence of space or time existing before the big bang.

And if time is something that can be distorted in some way, it can be different to two different people, then it must be something real. You can't perceive the distortions of unreal things.
As far as we know it has no existence outside this universe.
Which tells us nothing about whether or not that is actually true. There are credible models in which it does; and there is really no reason for us to assume that there is no such existence outside of our universe, as doing so causes more problems than it solves.
If we can't find evidence we can't assume anything exists beyond this universe. What people who propose something like the multiverse are doing is looking for evidence within this universe of universes beyond it. They know they need evidence or the hypothesis goes nowhere.
This comes from reading Lawrence Krauss's latest book proposing a universe from "nothing".

His hypothesis is linked to the discovery that even within what we thought was empty space a small amount of energy exists. Space has weight. It is an entity.

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.
You're misunderstanding the distinction there; he's talking about "space" as in a vacuum, not "space" as in spatial dimensions. There's absolutely no reason to describe the spatial dimensions we inhabit as a discrete entity. Incidentally, the fact that a vacuum itself has energy within it does not mean the vacuum itself is an entity, just that it has entities *within* it, so even accepting space as meaning vacuum, we're still not left with the conclusion that space = discrete.
He's talking about good old space. The space that is out there. What is meant by space in a vacuum is good old space that is out there and can be bent by gravity minus all the energy that normally travels through space. So you remove all the external energy and all the matter and space still has energy. Space is something. It is an entity.

And if something is made up of entities it is by definition an entity also. The entity made up of the other entities.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch.
Unless they move infinite distances. You guys need the hyperreals...

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.
Not if time passes at an infinite rate.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Unless they move infinite distances. You guys need the hyperreals...
To move infinite distance implies infinite space to move in, but it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity. The amount of any real entity is always a discreet amount. We now look at space itself as an entity. Not just a container. So you can't move infinite distances because there isn't infinite space to move in.
Not if time passes at an infinite rate.
If time has an infinite rate then there would be no way to measure it. It's like asking; how fast is a car traveling at an infinite speed going? The question is illogical. If a car is real it can't travel at an infinite rate. As far as we know it can't even travel the speed of light.

And time is just as real, so it too can't pass at an infinite rate. The concept is irrational.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
To move infinite distance implies infinite space to move in, but it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity.
I couldn't find that rule in my reality handbook. Where does it say "it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity."?
The amount of any real entity is always a discreet amount. We now look at space itself as an entity. Not just a container. So you can't move infinite distances because there isn't infinite space to move in.
Perhaps with these words, I can create an indiscreet terminus between what is above and what is below.
An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects. So no matter how far they move they will never touch.

If time has an infinite rate then there would be no way to measure it. It's like asking; how fast is a car traveling at an infinite speed going? The question is illogical. If a car is real it can't travel at an infinite rate. As far as we know it can't even travel the speed of light.

And time is just as real, so it too can't pass at an infinite rate. The concept is irrational.
hehe... Or . We've got an infinite distance between each of many points on an infinite line segment. It ends after 10 infinite distances. I can travel one infinite distance a second, and reach the end of the line in 10 seconds.

You can do the same thing with time.

#### dystopian

##### Veteran Member
This is not similar to that paradox. An analogy would be to say there is infinite space between two objects.

Which *is* (one of) zeno's paradox.

So no matter how far they move they will never touch. But the idea of infinite space is illogical so the analogy is worthless. It assumes the impossible.

Again I don't think you appreciate the situation.

Again, I think I do. I think you're not understanding the problem with your reasoning.

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

No.

Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.

Regardless of how long the timeline is, yesterday will still happen because while time itself may be infinite, our perception of the timeline is relative and the time between any two relative points on the timeline is NOT infinite.

We can't assume there is anything beyond this universe, even if it is possible. We can only know things if there is evidence for them. If evidence for time before the big bang is beyond us then we can not assume it exists.

I don't think you understand what it means to assume something. It does not mean saying "this is true"; it means "let's say this is true, what then?"

We have no evidence of space or time existing before the big bang.

We have mathematical models suggesting that it did; that constitutes evidence. Not sufficient evidence to arrive at even a fraction of certainty as to what happened; but it most certainly is evidence.

And if time is something that can be distorted in some way, it can be different to two different people, then it must be something real. You can't perceive the distortions of unreal things.

Tell that to a schizophrenic.

If we can't find evidence we can't assume anything exists beyond this universe. What people who propose something like the multiverse are doing is looking for evidence within this universe of universes beyond it. They know they need evidence or the hypothesis goes nowhere.

We *must* make these kind of assumptions in order to advance our understanding and investigate.

He's talking about good old space. The space that is out there. What is meant by space in a vacuum is good old space that is out there and can be bent by gravity minus all the energy that normally travels through space. So you remove all the external energy and all the matter and space still has energy. Space is something. It is an entity.

...Sigh.

Yes. That's what I said. He's talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT thing than I am. He is not talking about space in the true sense; which is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.

You can fill up said space with stuff, but that doesn't mean space (the three dimensional extent in which objects/events have position) itself is "stuff"; space is an abstract concept.

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

Just as a planet is a discreet entity. So no matter how many exist it is a discreet amount, not infinity.

Can you explain why there can't be an infinite number of discrete entities?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
I couldn't find that rule in my reality handbook. Where does it say "it is impossible to have an infinite quantity of any real entity."?
It's called logic.

If something exists it can be counted, in theory. So no matter how many of some entity exists they too can be counted, in theory.

Nowhere in the REAL world are there entities that exist that can't in theory be counted.

Therefore in the real world at any given moment there are never infinite amounts of any countable entity, only a discreet amount. Since any real entity can in theory be counted.
hehe... Or . We've got an infinite distance between each of many points on an infinite line segment. It ends after 10 infinite distances. I can travel one infinite distance a second, and reach the end of the line in 10 seconds.

You can do the same thing with time.
I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.
They have not quantified space yet. It is still assumed to be a continuum.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Can you explain why there can't be an infinite number of discrete entities?
If something is a discreet entity it has existence it can be counted. It isn't an imaginary concept like a number or infinity.

So it doesn't matter how many of any real entity exists it is always an exact sum. They can all in theory be counted since they can be perceived. Even if we can't possibly count every one of them. It is never an imaginary concept.

There is a huge difference between the imaginary world of mathematics and the real world. They are not the same thing. Many things can take place in imaginary worlds that can't take place in real ones.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.
They have not quantified space yet. It is still assumed to be a continuum.
Space has structure, so just like anything with structure it can only be broken apart or divided so much before the structure is destroyed and you don't have space anymore.

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
Can you explain why there can't be an infinite number of discrete entities?
If something is a discreet entity it has existence it can be counted. It isn't an imaginary concept like a number or infinity.

So it doesn't matter how many of any real entity exists it is always an exact sum. They can all in theory be counted since they can be perceived. Even if we can't possibly count every one of them. It is never an imaginary concept.

There is a huge difference between the imaginary world of mathematics and the real world. They are not the same thing. Many things can take place in imaginary worlds that can't take place in real ones.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?

Last edited:

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Yes, if there is infinite time in the past, then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. This does NOT, however, mean that yesterday could never have occur; and here we again fall into the paradox I mentioned: The reason the paradox doesn't work is NOT because (as you say), the concept of infinite space is absurd; but because there is a finite "smallest" space. Space could still be infinite, but the space between any two objects would not be; there is a lower limit; a point where you can no longer divide space in two. The existence of this lower limit does NOT imply the existence of an upper limit. The same principle applies to time, like I tried explaining. You CAN have infinite time in both directions and still have yesterday, because the 'lower limit' in the case of time is NOT in the past, but rather in how we describe individual chunks of time.
They have not quantified space yet. It is still assumed to be a continuum.

If something is a discreet entity it has existence it can be counted. It isn't an imaginary concept like a number or infinity.

So it doesn't matter how many of any real entity exists it is always an exact sum. They can all in theory be counted since they can be perceived. Even if we can't possibly count every one of them. It is never an imaginary concept.

There is a huge difference between the imaginary world of mathematics and the real world. They are not the same thing. Many things can take place in imaginary worlds that can't take place in real ones.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?

Oh. My. God! The resident atheists are talking metaphysical mumbo jumbo and ryan is being the voice of reason and skepticism!?! Now I have officially seen everything!

Well done, sir!

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
If something exists it can be counted, in theory. So no matter how many of some entity exists they too can be counted, in theory.

Nowhere in the REAL world are there entities that exist that can't in theory be counted.
So, you're saying there is a finite number of subatomic particles in the universe?

Therefore in the real world at any given moment there are never infinite amounts of any countable entity, only a discreet amount. Since any real entity can in theory be counted.
.....as above so blow.....
I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.
You don't see any overlap?

In addition, do you have a logical argument that supports the statement "any real entity can (in theory) be counted"?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
If something is a discreet entity it has existence it can be counted. It isn't an imaginary concept like a number or infinity.

So it doesn't matter how many of any real entity exists it is always an exact sum. They can all in theory be counted since they can be perceived. Even if we can't possibly count every one of them. It is never an imaginary concept.

There is a huge difference between the imaginary world of mathematics and the real world. They are not the same thing. Many things can take place in imaginary worlds that can't take place in real ones.

I still only see circular reasoning.

Imagine that there is an infinite number of cubic meters of space. Now why can't there be an object inside each one of them?
It's impossible for there to be an infinite number of cubic meters of space.

Space is an entity. It's impossible for there to be an infinite amount of any real entity. The amount of any real entities is always a discrete amount.

That's the difference between reality and the imagination.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
So, you're saying there is a finite number of subatomic particles in the universe?
At any given moment in time the number of subatomic particles in the universe is a discrete amount. If they can pop in and out of existence then obviously that amount can change, but it is never this imaginary concept called infinity.

Therefore in the real world at any given moment there are never infinite amounts of any countable entity, only a discreet amount. Since any real entity can in theory be counted.
.....as above so blow.....
I'm talking about the real world, not the imaginary world of numbers.
You don't see any overlap?
No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.
In addition, do you have a logical argument that supports the statement "any real entity can (in theory) be counted"?
If something is real and perceived then it can be counted. So in theory every real thing could be counted.

In reality to count every real thing is logistically impossible but that doesn't change anything.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
At any given moment in time the number of subatomic particles in the universe is a discrete amount. If they can pop in and out of existence then obviously that amount can change, but it is never this imaginary concept called infinity.
Yeah... I find it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state the above as factual.
No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.
So the number of particles in a system in the "real world" does not have an effect upon the system? Numbers come from our experience of reality, and are used for precise descriptions, mappings, and predictions of certain real behaviors that are described by mathematical rules (or so I've been told...).
If something is real and perceived then it can be counted.
This position is totally different from "if something is real it can be counted".

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Yeah... I find it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state the above as factual.
I only have logic.

Where is the problem with the logic?

A subatomic particle as a discrete entity is no different than a baseball.

Do you think it is possible for there to be infinite baseballs in the universe? Wouldn't it require infinite universes to contain them?

What is so special about a subatomic particle? It is small?

Imagine a room. Now fill it with sand. It is certainly possible to count every grain of sand. The amount in the room is a discrete amount. If it were possible to count subatomic particles the same would be true of them. There would be a discrete amount in the room.

So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?

If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.

No. One is an abstract human creation and the other is reality. There is no overlap. Numbers don't exist in the real world. They exist only as imaginary concepts.
So the number of particles in a system in the "real world" does not have an effect upon the system?
The particles have an effect, and the amount of particles have an effect. But a particle is not a number. Numbers have no effects on anything. They are imaginary concepts.
Numbers come from our experience of reality, and are used for precise descriptions, mappings, and predictions of certain real behaviors that are described by mathematical rules (or so I've been told...).
They are used for modeling reality. But the model is not reality. Reality is not a bunch of equations on paper. Reality is reality. It is completely distinct from human mathematics although human mathematics is a part of reality.
If something is real and perceived then it can be counted.
This position is totally different from "if something is real it can be counted".
True enough, but that is only a limitation of the ability to perceive. It doesn't change the logic.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?
That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?
That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.
In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
Chewbacca defense?

What evidence do you have that reality is finite or that there is a finite number of particles?

What evidence do you have that one cannot travel an infinite distance in an infinite amount of time, even if this distance is simply a very big n-sphere that a photon travels around for eternity?
That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.

Last edited:

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Any application of this imaginary concept called infinity to the real world of real entities is illogical.

It's fine in the imaginary world of mathematics.
In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.
As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.

The only thing you've presented so far is this horrible conclusion that mathematics is the same thing as reality.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
That would require infinite time in the past.

Back to the first problem.

You can't have infinite time in the past because that means before yesterday can occur infinite time must pass first. Since infinite time will never pass that means yesterday will never arrive.

Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.
Infinite time can't pass. It can never pass. That is what infinite time means. Time that never ends, or begins.

Time is something real, so there are limitations on what infinity can mean for it, it can only mean an unending supply, unlike unreal things like numbers that do not have as many limitations. There are many kinds of infinities for numbers since they are not real and do not the limitations that real things have.

There is no logic in stating there is no difference between time and numbers.

#### ryan

##### Veteran Member
Maybe an infinite amount of time has passed in a larger domain of existence. You can philosophise about this stuff, but it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. There were many intuitive conjectures in the past, but sometimes science surprises us.
Infinite time can't pass. It can never pass. That is what infinite time means. Time that never ends, or begins.
How do you know that time or existence for that matter began?

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
I only have logic.

Where is the problem with the logic?
Ryan already told you where the problem is with the logic: you're making a circular argument. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise.

So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?
You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.

If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.
No, no, no, no, no. You're trying to shift burden of proof. Kharakov is proposing the amount might be infinite. Why is that so? Because anything might be true, unless it's been proven false. "Why is that so?" is no argument. You're the one making a specific claim about how the universe is; he just finds it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state as factual that the amount is finite. Burden of proof is always on the person making the is claim, never on the person making the might be claim.

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

#### dystopian

##### Veteran Member
I still haven't seen a solid reason why time can't be infinite. Time isn't absolute; it's relative. Since perception of time is dependent upon one's relative viewpoint; it makes no sense to say that time can't be infinite for the reason that yesterday would never happen in that case (even apart from the other reasons why said argument doesn't ring true)

- - - Updated - - -

The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.

Damn, I made the same basic argument earlier in the thread; just a lot more awkwardly and less clear so...

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Ryan already told you where the problem is with the logic: you're making a circular argument. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise.
So you say, yet don't demonstrate.

Without a demonstration this comment is not worth anything. I don't agree in the least.
So if you could count every particle in the room why wouldn't you, in theory, be able to count every single particle in the universe?
You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.
You can't have infinite rooms. If there is a room it can in theory be counted, since rooms can be perceived. If an amount of something can be counted it isn't infinite. It is finite.
If you propose the amount is infinite, why is that so? Because we can't logistically count them? That is no argument.
No, no, no, no, no. You're trying to shift burden of proof. Kharakov is proposing the amount might be infinite. Why is that so? Because anything might be true, unless it's been proven false. "Why is that so?" is no argument. You're the one making a specific claim about how the universe is; he just finds it hard to believe that you have access to information that allows you to state as factual that the amount is finite. Burden of proof is always on the person making the is claim, never on the person making the might be claim.
No, no, no, no, no.

Everybody must demonstrate their claims or provide some logic why they are true, not just me.

If somebody claims that it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of any real entity they have to demonstrate what that means and how it is so. It is not a given.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.
As far as we know the universe did have a beginning.

What do you mean by infinite time?

Time is something real. How is it possible for there to be an infinite amount of it?

If something is real it can in theory be counted. If things can be counted they are finite not infinite.

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
The universe could simultaneously have had no beginning while the difference between any two points in time is finite.

There is nothing wrong with infinite regress per se. The problem occurs when the infinite regress is vicious, that is, when it is circular. So, for example, the statement "The universe must have had a beginning, for if not, an infinite amount of time must have passed before reaching the present moment, which is impossible" is a vicious infinite regress and is invalid. This is because for any two times there is only a finite amount of time separating them. No matter how far back you've gone, you still never get infinite time. The unstated assumption is that you should 'go back all the way' which presupposes a beginning, introducing the fallacy.
As far as we know the universe did have a beginning.

You are arguing logical impossibility. Current physical theory is irrelevant.

What do you mean by infinite time?

I mean that the amount of time in the past is unbounded.

Time is something real. How is it possible for there to be an infinite amount of it?

Why wouldn't it be possible?

If something is real it can in theory be counted. If things can be counted they are finite not infinite.

Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.
No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have an amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.
No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have a amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have a amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?
These are only questions that you completely dodged.

#### beero1000

##### Veteran Member
Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?
These are only questions that you completely dodged.

So where is your logic? Keep in mind that logical arguments don't usually end in question marks.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
These are only questions that you completely dodged.

So where is your logic? Keep in mind that logical arguments don't usually end in question marks.
Perhaps you could read the thread, but it started with the discussion of infinite regress.

My contention is that it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past.

If we take yesterday as an example. If time extends infinitely into the past that means that infinite time passed before yesterday occurred.

But this is impossible because infinite time never passes. That is the definition of infinite time. As you said unbounded. Never ending.

Therefore it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past because yesterday did occur.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.
As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.
It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.
It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.
Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.
Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.
Numbers (and other symbols, like words) can be used to transmit information about reality, information which includes various concepts that could allow you to understand how an infinite amount of time can pass before an event occurs.

An eternal, always existing clock has struck noon an infinite amount of times. This does not mean that it does not strike noon once a day, or that it could not have reached today. It just means it has always been ticking away.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.
Numbers (and other symbols, like words) can be used to transmit information about reality, information which includes various concepts that could allow you to understand how an infinite amount of time can pass before an event occurs.

An eternal, always existing clock has struck noon an infinite amount of times. This does not mean that it does not strike noon once a day, or that it could not have reached today. It just means it has always been ticking away.
Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.

#### none

##### Banned
Banned
...
Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.
and this is what I was getting to in the OP, that there are an infinite possible positions and as such things still have a position not because of infinite possible positions but in spite of infinite possible positions..