Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Imagine that you are the reference frame that they all passed through.

That makes absolutely no sense. Was that intentional?

What is this "reference frame" that time "passes through"?

If you are talking about watching a movie of what has happened in time then for finite time it would be a short movie. If time is infinite then it would have to be run starting from today and going back so you would be watching it forever as universe after universe after universe was shown.

Imagine that you are on a couch and have been watching every event that has ever happened, and then time stops. How can one infinitely large unit of time completely passed by you without starting? Moreover, since the whole unit completely passed in your reference frame, you saw the beginning and the end of each subunit.

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

 

[skepticalbip]

That makes absolutely no sense. Was that intentional?

What is this "reference frame" that time "passes through"?

If you are talking about watching a movie of what has happened in time then for finite time it would be a short movie. If time is infinite then it would have to be run starting from today and going back so you would be watching it forever as universe after universe after universe was shown.

Imagine that you are on a couch and have been watching every event that has ever happened, and then time stops. How can one infinitely large unit of time completely passed by you without starting? Moreover, since the whole unit completely passed in your reference frame, you saw the beginning and the end of each subunit.

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

Your scenario assumes a start. If it started and ended then it isn't infinite. If that confuses you then you don't know what infinity means.

Your scenario is no different than saying imagine you go to the end of the infinite future and look back at all the events that had occurred throughout time. Obviously an absurd suggestion if there is any understanding of infinity because it assumes an end to an infinite future which is self-contradictory.

 

[Juma]

But if the amount of time in the past is infinite then it must be the same amount of time as an infinite future.

Two sets have the same size if we can map each item in one set with the other and vice versa.
So let us map today with yesterday, tomorrow with the day before yesterday etc. Thus the past and the future is the same amount if time has gone on forever and if the future will go on forever.

It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

No. It just be an amount that never starts.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying the amount of time in the past is without end

No. I say it never started.

 

[Juma]

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

What the fuck? I crushed that bullshit to dust several posts ago. And you have guts to spit it up again????

I dont really believe in you being sincere anymore.

 

[skepticalbip]

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

What the fuck? I crushed that bullshit to dust several posts ago. And you have guts to spit it up again????

I dont really believe in you being sincere anymore.

I haven't thought that he was for quite a while.

It's the reason I posted a description of circular conversations that some personality types use in their interactions with others way back on page 176.

1. Circular conversations

You’ll think you worked something out, only to begin discussing it again in two minutes. And it’s as if you never even said a word the first time around. They begin reciting all of the same tired garbage, ignoring any legitimate arguments you may have provided moments ago. If something is going to be resolved, it will be on their terms.

 

[ryan]

Imagine that you are on a couch and have been watching every event that has ever happened, and then time stops. How can one infinitely large unit of time completely passed by you without starting? Moreover, since the whole unit completely passed in your reference frame, you saw the beginning and the end of each subunit.

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

Your scenario assumes a start. If it started and ended then it isn't infinite. If that confuses you then you don't know what infinity means.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! I am trying to explain what "infinity completely passed" means, and how contradictory it is. A few, maybe you, even said that today could mean that infinity completely passed. Something that completely passes implies upper and lower bounds.

 

[ryan]

Infinity is not unique, but the past is.

What the fuck? I crushed that bullshit to dust several posts ago. And you have guts to spit it up again????

I dont really believe in you being sincere anymore.

I am going back on what I said. I thought of this, "In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week."

I would love to be wrong if it means knowing the answer to this. Do you think I am on here for my health.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your scenario assumes a start. If it started and ended then it isn't infinite. If that confuses you then you don't know what infinity means.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! I am trying to explain what "infinity completely passed" means, and how contradictory it is. A few, maybe you, even said that today could mean that infinity completely passed. Something that completely passes implies upper and lower bounds.

Then by starting your "argument" by assuming a start to time you are just begging the question. That is not a logical argument. It is only a statement of belief.

Unless you mean that THE WHOLE POINT was that that you don't know diddly-squat about what infinity means.

Your scenario is no different than saying imagine you go to the end of the infinite future and look back at all the events that had occurred throughout time. Obviously an absurd suggestion if there is any understanding of infinity because it assumes an end to an infinite future which is self-contradictory.

 

[Juma]

What the fuck? I crushed that bullshit to dust several posts ago. And you have guts to spit it up again????

I dont really believe in you being sincere anymore.

I am going back on what I said. I thought of this, "In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week."

So what? did you intend to have point with this? As it stands now there are none.

 

[ryan]

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! I am trying to explain what "infinity completely passed" means, and how contradictory it is. A few, maybe you, even said that today could mean that infinity completely passed. Something that completely passes implies upper and lower bounds.

Then by starting your "argument" by assuming a start to time you are just begging the question. That is not a logical argument. It is only a statement of belief.

Unless you mean that THE WHOLE POINT was that that you don't know diddly-squat about what infinity means.

It is your side that implies a beginning and an end when it says that an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed until now for an infinite past to have existed.

 

[ryan]

I am going back on what I said. I thought of this, "In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week."

So what? did you intend to have point with this? As it stands now there are none.

There is only one length for a given timeline; there are many different lengths for an infinitely long timeline.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then by starting your "argument" by assuming a start to time you are just begging the question. That is not a logical argument. It is only a statement of belief.

Unless you mean that THE WHOLE POINT was that that you don't know diddly-squat about what infinity means.

It is your side that implies a beginning and an end when it says that an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed until now for an infinite past to have existed.

Funny. Try suckering someone else into your silly game. I have seen rational posts by you so I don't buy that you could be this clueless.

 

[bilby]

Then by starting your "argument" by assuming a start to time you are just begging the question. That is not a logical argument. It is only a statement of belief.

Unless you mean that THE WHOLE POINT was that that you don't know diddly-squat about what infinity means.

It is your side that implies a beginning and an end when it says that an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed until now for an infinite past to have existed.

I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Can you provide a quote of someone saying that?

If the past is infinite, it had no beginning. For an infinite past to exist, the past would need infinite time to elapse; and it would have infinite time to elapse, due to having no beginning.

If it has a beginning, it is finite, and requires only finite time to elapse.

Neither position contains or implies any contradiction; I don't see where you get the idea that infinite time elapsing in an infinite time implies a beginning to time. That is horseshit, and nobody here has made any such claim that I can recall.

 

[bilby]

Why the fuck would I want to do that? It would require an infinite amount of time. Of course, if I had an infinite amount of time, then I could do it; but that it is possible does not imply that it is necessary or desirable. I can just start counting wherever I find myself.

Let me repeat the original question. If all of the natural numbers on a number line passed by you, wouldn't you have to say that the line began and ended?

No, of course not. It would take an infinite time BECAUSE the natural numbers have no beginning or end.

The number line passes by you; what you count is not relevant to what the number line is doing. Answer the question please.

I am not convinced that there is a coherent question to answer, but I've given it my best shot.

 

[ryan]

It is your side that implies a beginning and an end when it says that an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed until now for an infinite past to have existed.

Funny. Try suckering someone else into your silly game. I have seen rational posts by you so I don't buy that you could be this clueless.

Take it up with bilby. He says it right below your post in the fourth sentence.

 

[ryan]

It is your side that implies a beginning and an end when it says that an infinite amount of time would have had to have passed until now for an infinite past to have existed.

I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Can you provide a quote of someone saying that?

I put the quote in bold below

If the past is infinite, it had no beginning. For an infinite past to exist, the past would need infinite time to elapse; and it would have infinite time to elapse, due to having no beginning.

If it has a beginning, it is finite, and requires only finite time to elapse.

Why are you using "elapse" instead of "passed". Are you uncomfortable with using that word in this context?

 

[ryan]

Let me repeat the original question. If all of the natural numbers on a number line passed by you, wouldn't you have to say that the line began and ended?

No, of course not. It would take an infinite time BECAUSE the natural numbers have no beginning or end.

But according to you, it will all pass/elapse in an infinite amount of time. How can something pass that doesn't even begin?

 

[bilby]

I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Can you provide a quote of someone saying that?

I put the quote in bold below

If the past is infinite, it had no beginning. For an infinite past to exist, the past would need infinite time to elapse; and it would have infinite time to elapse, due to having no beginning.

If it has a beginning, it is finite, and requires only finite time to elapse.

Why are you using "elapse" instead of "passed". Are you uncomfortable with using that word in this context?

No, I am making a deliberate distinction between the elapsed time in the past, which is an observer independent dimension, and the experience of time passing; because this is yet another equivocation fallacy seen in this thread.

I must say, it is completely bizarre to use a later quote as evidence for an earlier comment; and the more so when that later quote is an explicit explanation of why your claimed implication is not present.

Not one thing in the bolded text implies a start to time. (And if it did, it still wouldn't be evidence that the implication was made prior to your claim, as it was the response to that claim).

Seriously, I want a pint of whatever you have been drinking. Your world is far less coherent than mine, but I suspect it is more fun.

 

[ryan]

I put the quote in bold below

If the past is infinite, it had no beginning. For an infinite past to exist, the past would need infinite time to elapse; and it would have infinite time to elapse, due to having no beginning.

If it has a beginning, it is finite, and requires only finite time to elapse.

Why are you using "elapse" instead of "passed". Are you uncomfortable with using that word in this context?

No, I am making a deliberate distinction between the elapsed time in the past, which is an observer independent dimension, and the experience of time passing; because this is yet another equivocation fallacy seen in this thread.

I must say, it is completely bizarre to use a later quote as evidence for an earlier comment; and the more so when that later quote is an explicit explanation of why your claimed implication is not present.

Not one thing in the bolded text implies a start to time. (And if it did, it still wouldn't be evidence that the implication was made prior to your claim, as it was the response to that claim).

I didn't have to go far, post #1978, "It would require an infinite amount of time. Of course, if I had an infinite amount of time, then I could do it; but that it is possible does not imply that it is necessary or desirable. I can just start counting wherever I find myself."

 

[bilby]

I put the quote in bold below

If the past is infinite, it had no beginning. For an infinite past to exist, the past would need infinite time to elapse; and it would have infinite time to elapse, due to having no beginning.

If it has a beginning, it is finite, and requires only finite time to elapse.

Why are you using "elapse" instead of "passed". Are you uncomfortable with using that word in this context?

No, I am making a deliberate distinction between the elapsed time in the past, which is an observer independent dimension, and the experience of time passing; because this is yet another equivocation fallacy seen in this thread.

I must say, it is completely bizarre to use a later quote as evidence for an earlier comment; and the more so when that later quote is an explicit explanation of why your claimed implication is not present.

Not one thing in the bolded text implies a start to time. (And if it did, it still wouldn't be evidence that the implication was made prior to your claim, as it was the response to that claim).

I didn't have to go far, post #1978, "It would require an infinite amount of time. Of course, if I had an infinite amount of time, then I could do it; but that it is possible does not imply that it is necessary or desirable. I can just start counting wherever I find myself."

That's nice.

Now, where the fuck is the completely nonexistent implication of a beginning to time?

Every reference to an infinite past implies NO beginning. Nothing I have said implies a beginning to infinite time.