Infinte Regress Timeline...

[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."

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.

My argument now is that if something can completely pass then it implies it has a beginning and an end.

 

[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.

My argument now is that if something can completely pass then it implies it has a beginning and an end.

But as that argument is neither obvious nor correct, it is unreasonable for you to expect me to know this.

Again, elapsed time requires no observer. The equivocation of past and passed is not helping your understanding. Time elapsed need not have an observer to pass.

 

[untermensche]

No it isn't; the 'finish' limit is still there. The 'start' is the limit we are assuming is not there; to turn around and then say that removing the 'start' also removes the 'finish' needs some explanation - it certainly isn't an obvious or logical inference.

This is gibberish that I can't make sense of.

It is illogical to claim an amount of time that never finishes has finished at the present moment.

That's true. it is a good thing nobody is doing that.

You are doing it on every page. Your position is denial.

To say the past is infinite is to say it never ends. A line with only one terminus has a beginning but it has no end.

You can't define an infinite line as ending at the terminus. Infinite lines can be defined as beginning at a terminus and extending away from that terminus without end. But a line can't be defined as beginning nowhere then ending at a terminus. You can't begin at nowhere.

Where exactly is this nowhere you are going to begin your infinite line to make it end at a terminus? If you put pencil to paper to draw a line you have picked a somewhere, not a nowhere.

The past does not terminate at the present it begins at the present.

It terminates at the present; but it doesn't begin at the present. A period of time beginning at the present is called 'the future'. I assert that the future is not the past, and offer my failure to win the lottery next week as evidence.

They both begin at the present and extend infinitely away from the present.

You can't have a past moment unless it was a present moment first. Past moments begin as present moments. The present is the beginning of the past not the end of it.

You can't define a line as beginning nowhere and extending to a point. You can't say there is no starting point to the past and then say you have started somewhere and ended at the present.

You repeating the past ends at the present doesn't make it so. For the past to end at the present that would mean the past comes before the present.

The present comes before the past and the future. The present is all there is. It must be the start of everything. You can't have a start at something that doesn't exist. Or at least logically you can't.

You have the present and that present becomes the past. The present is the start of the past. Just as it is the start of the future.

Nonsense. The present is the conclusion of the past. Time doesn't flow in both directions from the present.

All that exists is the present. The past and the future only exist as definitions. The past is prior present moments and the future is present moments yet to come.

The present is not the conclusion of something that only exists as a definition. The present is real. It has to be the start of everything because it is the only thing real. Real things do not flow from unreal things.

The start of the past and the future is the present and the end of both is the furthest point from the start.

There is that equivocation again. If the 'end' of the past is the furthest point from the present, then there is no problem at all; You have already accepted time 'without end' for the future, and it can be the same for the past. There is no problem with getting to the present if the present is the beginning; by definition we are already there. But if the 'end' of the past is the furthest point in the past from the present, then there is no need for the past to 'finish' any more than there is a need for the future to 'finish'.

Of course we are at the present. The only place it is possible to be is the present. To not be in the present is to not be.

So saying we are at the present says NOTHING about the duration of the past.

It does say that all starts at the present, both the past and the future. They are both imaginary lines that extend from the present.

I will not listen any more to nonsense that says that time begins on some imaginary line and ends at reality. The present is not the end of the past. The end of the past is the furthest moment in the past away from the present. Just like the end of the future is the furthest moment in time from the present.

I'm the only one using it consistently.

Rubbish. In just this one post you have used it to mean the present, and the point in the past furthest from the present.

Nonsense. I never say end when I am talking about the beginning of things.

I'm using it to mean the furthest point from the terminus every time I use it.

But you are not being specific about which of your proposed terminii it is farthest from.

There is only one terminus, the present. And the past and the future are just imaginary conceptions.

 

[bilby]

This is gibberish that I can't make sense of.

It is illogical to claim an amount of time that never finishes has finished at the present moment.

That's true. it is a good thing nobody is doing that.

You are doing it on every page. Your position is denial.

To say the past is infinite is to say it never ends. A line with only one terminus has a beginning but it has no end.

You can't define an infinite line as ending at the terminus. Infinite lines can be defined as beginning at a terminus and extending away from that terminus without end. But a line can't be defined as beginning nowhere then ending at a terminus. You can't begin at nowhere.

Where exactly is this nowhere you are going to begin your infinite line to make it end at a terminus? If you put pencil to paper to draw a line you have picked a somewhere, not a nowhere.

The past does not terminate at the present it begins at the present.

It terminates at the present; but it doesn't begin at the present. A period of time beginning at the present is called 'the future'. I assert that the future is not the past, and offer my failure to win the lottery next week as evidence.

They both begin at the present and extend infinitely away from the present.

You can't have a past moment unless it was a present moment first. Past moments begin as present moments. The present is the beginning of the past not the end of it.

You can't define a line as beginning nowhere and extending to a point. You can't say there is no starting point to the past and then say you have started somewhere and ended at the present.

You repeating the past ends at the present doesn't make it so. For the past to end at the present that would mean the past comes before the present.

The present comes before the past and the future. The present is all there is. It must be the start of everything. You can't have a start at something that doesn't exist. Or at least logically you can't.

You have the present and that present becomes the past. The present is the start of the past. Just as it is the start of the future.

Nonsense. The present is the conclusion of the past. Time doesn't flow in both directions from the present.

All that exists is the present. The past and the future only exist as definitions. The past is prior present moments and the future is present moments yet to come.

The present is not the conclusion of something that only exists as a definition. The present is real. It has to be the start of everything because it is the only thing real. Real things do not flow from unreal things.

The start of the past and the future is the present and the end of both is the furthest point from the start.

There is that equivocation again. If the 'end' of the past is the furthest point from the present, then there is no problem at all; You have already accepted time 'without end' for the future, and it can be the same for the past. There is no problem with getting to the present if the present is the beginning; by definition we are already there. But if the 'end' of the past is the furthest point in the past from the present, then there is no need for the past to 'finish' any more than there is a need for the future to 'finish'.

Of course we are at the present. The only place it is possible to be is the present. To not be in the present is to not be.

So saying we are at the present says NOTHING about the duration of the past.

It does say that all starts at the present, both the past and the future. They are both imaginary lines that extend from the present.

I will not listen any more to nonsense that says that time begins on some imaginary line and ends at reality. The present is not the end of the past. The end of the past is the furthest moment in the past away from the present. Just like the end of the future is the furthest moment in time from the present.

I'm the only one using it consistently.

Rubbish. In just this one post you have used it to mean the present, and the point in the past furthest from the present.

Nonsense. I never say end when I am talking about the beginning of things.

I'm using it to mean the furthest point from the terminus every time I use it.

But you are not being specific about which of your proposed terminii it is farthest from.

There is only one terminus, the present. And the past and the future are just imaginary conceptions.

You put a lot of words into this; so it is a shame that you are still equivocating on the word 'end'.

You need to stop doing that if you want me to engage with you any further.

 

[untermensche]

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.

And time in the future is time that will never finish so time in the past must be the same length of time.

It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

No. It just be an amount that never starts.

In terms of the amount of time, these mean the same thing. They both mean an amount of time that never ends.

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

No. I say it never started.

No, you are saying that time itself never started. This means the amount of time never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

You put a lot of words into this; so it is a shame that you are still equivocating on the word 'end'.

You need to stop doing that if you want me to engage with you any further.

You have no argument. You are a complete waste of time.

Address the arguments made or don't. I couldn't care less.

 

[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."

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.

My argument now is that if something can completely pass then it implies it has a beginning and an end.

But as that argument is neither obvious nor correct, it is unreasonable for you to expect me to know this.

Again, elapsed time requires no observer. The equivocation of past and passed is not helping your understanding. Time elapsed need not have an observer to pass.

There is no observer needed. If some amount of time can completely pass anything, such as a reference frame, then it must have a beginning and an end.

 

[bilby]

And time in the future is time that will never finish so time in the past must be the same length of time.

It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

No. It just be an amount that never starts.

In terms of the amount of time, these mean the same thing. They both mean an amount of time that never ends.

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

No. I say it never started.

No, you are saying that time itself never started. This means the amount of time never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

You put a lot of words into this; so it is a shame that you are still equivocating on the word 'end'.

You need to stop doing that if you want me to engage with you any further.

You have no argument. You are a complete waste of time.

Address the arguments made or don't. I couldn't care less.

Ad hominems now? If this is an attempt to collect the complete set of logical fallacies, then I am afraid to have to tell you that many have achieved the goal in far less than two thousand posts. Anyway, I can't be a COMPLETE waste of time, as I am a finite being, and time is far larger than my span, even if it is not infinite. Any time wasting on my part is, necessarily, incomplete.

I am not going to continue to engage if you persist in equivocation between different meanings of the word 'end'. Nor will I accept question begging of the form 'if the past is infinite, then it couldn't have time to finish' - which is true only if the time available for infinite time to 'finish' is assumed to be finite.

Pointing out fallacies in a supposedly 'logical' argument IS addressing the argument. 'Address' doesn't mean 'sycophanticaly agree with regardless of obvious fallacies'.

You seem reasonably smart, so I am sure you are capable of seeing these fallacies now that they have been pointed out to you, just as soon as you let go of this futile and counterproductive attempt to save face by insulting your opponents, and realise that the fact that your argument is a failure is no reflection on you, or even on your intellect.

We all make mistakes. I fuck up once in a while, and I know how hard it is to face the fact that I am wrong. But eventually the evidence is too much. At this stage, you need to stop equivocating, and either repair your argument if you can, so that it is no longer fallacious (hint - this is probably not possible); or admit that your initial assertion is not true.

There is no logical argument against an infinite past. At least, not one that has been articulated in this thread.

 

[Juma]

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.

You are very vague. I guess that what you try to express is this:

1) the size of an infinite set is the same even if we remove some (finite) part of the set.

2) we cannot remove part of history without changing history.

But from this it does not follow that time cannot be infinite.

 

[untermensche]

I am not going to continue to engage if you persist in equivocation between different meanings of the word 'end'.

I don't give a fuck if you engage or not. So stop telling me of your worthless threats. Your arguments are weak and don't address the logic of my argument. They are nitpicking nonsense. They are the claim that you can start a line at nowhere.

Your totally unsupported claim that the past ends at the present is absurd and without any logical foundation beyond, you say so.

If one says the past ends at the present that is saying the past exists before the present.

I really don't have to say more.

 

[Juma]

And time in the future is time that will never finish so time in the past must be the same length of time.

It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

No. It just be an amount that never starts.

In terms of the amount of time, these mean the same thing. They both mean an amount of time that never ends.

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

No. I say it never started.

No, you are saying that time itself never started. This means the amount of time never ends.

if the time has been going on for ever then the total amount is undefined.

 

[bilby]

I am not going to continue to engage if you persist in equivocation between different meanings of the word 'end'.

I don't give a fuck if you engage or not. So stop telling me of your worthless threats. Your arguments are weak and don't address the logic of my argument. They are nitpicking nonsense. They are the claim that you can start a line at nowhere.

Your totally unsupported claim that the past ends at the present is absurd and without any logical foundation beyond, you say so.

If one says the past ends at the present that is saying the past exists before the present.

I really don't have to say more.

No. You should probably stop digging, before someone points out that the past does exist before the present, by definition.

A litany of logical fallacies requires nothing more than nitpicks to collapse.

If you had a sound argument you would have surely made it by now.

 

[untermensche]

I don't give a fuck if you engage or not. So stop telling me of your worthless threats. Your arguments are weak and don't address the logic of my argument. They are nitpicking nonsense. They are the claim that you can start a line at nowhere.

Your totally unsupported claim that the past ends at the present is absurd and without any logical foundation beyond, you say so.

If one says the past ends at the present that is saying the past exists before the present.

I really don't have to say more.

No. You should probably stop digging, before someone points out that the past does exist before the present, by definition.

By what definition does the past exist?

If you had a sound argument you would have surely made it by now.

I've made it many times.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

In this argument the word "end" is used to mean "to finish". Every time I use it that is what it means.

And your absurd claim that the past exists before the present isn't a comment at all on this argument.

It is a completely nonsensical claim. The past does not have any kind of existence except as a definition and in people's memories.

It can't exist before the present because it never has existence. All that has existence is the present.

 

[bilby]

No. You should probably stop digging, before someone points out that the past does exist before the present, by definition.

By what definition does the past exist?

If you had a sound argument you would have surely made it by now.

I've made it many times.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

In this argument the word "end" is used to mean "to finish". Every time I use it that is what it means.

And your absurd claim that the past exists before the present isn't a comment at all on this argument.

It is a completely nonsensical claim. The past does not have any kind of existence except as a definition and in people's memories.

It can't exist before the present because it never has existence. All that has existence is the present.

Says you. That is a purely religious statement of your entirely personal and unfounded belief.

At least we seem to have found the source of your gross error.

You want to claim that the past does not exist? Prove it, or STFU.

 

[untermensche]

Says you. That is a purely religious statement of your entirely personal and unfounded belief.

At least we seem to have found the source of your gross error.

You want to claim that the past does not exist? Prove it, or STFU.

This is too funny.

You are claiming something exists that you can't provide evidence of.

Pointing to a photograph of the past is pointing to a photograph, not the past. Pointing to light from distant stars is pointing to light hitting the eye in the present.

Provide some evidence of this thing I am supposed to prove doesn't exist.

Give me some evidence of the little god you hide in your coat.

 

[bilby]

Says you. That is a purely religious statement of your entirely personal and unfounded belief.

At least we seem to have found the source of your gross error.

You want to claim that the past does not exist? Prove it, or STFU.

This is too funny.

You are claiming something exists that you can't provide evidence of.

Pointing to a photograph of the past is pointing to a photograph, not the past. Pointing to light from distant stars is pointing to light hitting the eye in the present.

Provide some evidence of this thing I am supposed to prove doesn't exist.

Give me some evidence of the little god you hide in your coat.

Why?

I am not the one claiming that something is impossible. The past may be finite, or it may be infinite. You claim that one of these is illogical, and you have as your rather bizarre foundation for this, the claim that the past does not exist.

My only claim is that you are talking bollocks. And you provide ample evidence for this claim, with no effort required on my part.

If you can't support your claim that the infinite past is illogical, then retract it.

Don't try to shift the burden of proof. The past exists, or it doesn't. You claim it doesn't. I make no claim other than that your claim is baseless. Prove it or STFU.

 

[untermensche]

This is too funny.

You are claiming something exists that you can't provide evidence of.

Pointing to a photograph of the past is pointing to a photograph, not the past. Pointing to light from distant stars is pointing to light hitting the eye in the present.

Provide some evidence of this thing I am supposed to prove doesn't exist.

Give me some evidence of the little god you hide in your coat.

Why?

I am not the one claiming that something is impossible. The past may be finite, or it may be infinite. You claim that one of these is illogical, and you have as your rather bizarre foundation for this, the claim that the past does not exist.

My only claim is that you are talking bollocks. And you provide ample evidence for this claim, with no effort required on my part.

If you can't support your claim that the infinite past is illogical, then retract it.

Don't try to shift the burden of proof. The past exists, or it doesn't. You claim it doesn't. I make no claim other than that your claim is baseless. Prove it or STFU.

You are claiming the past has existence and saying that the default position is that it has existence until I prove otherwise.

I say this claim is bollocks.

That is not the way we make decisions about claims of existence.

To claim something exists is to provide evidence. Minus this evidence we do not conclude something exists.

The present is an arrangement of all that exists. When change occurs and the present becomes some other arrangement that past arrangement is gone forever.

It does not float in the ether as a ghost. The past is a concept only. It is not a thing that exists.

 

[bilby]

Why?

I am not the one claiming that something is impossible. The past may be finite, or it may be infinite. You claim that one of these is illogical, and you have as your rather bizarre foundation for this, the claim that the past does not exist.

My only claim is that you are talking bollocks. And you provide ample evidence for this claim, with no effort required on my part.

If you can't support your claim that the infinite past is illogical, then retract it.

Don't try to shift the burden of proof. The past exists, or it doesn't. You claim it doesn't. I make no claim other than that your claim is baseless. Prove it or STFU.

You are claiming the past has existence and saying that the default position is that it has existence until I prove otherwise.

I say this claim is bollocks.

That is not the way we make decisions about claims of existence.

To claim something exists is to provide evidence. Minus this evidence we do not conclude something exists.

The present is an arrangement of all that exists. When change occurs and the present becomes some other arrangement that past arrangement is gone forever.

It does not float in the ether as a ghost. The past is a concept only. It is not a thing that exists.

So you claim. But as you won't or can't support your claim, it is just your fantasy against the heartless universe. Good luck with that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. Read his book again. He starts with a big-mouth tirade against philosophers and theologians so he must have read on the philosophy of nothingness and how something could possibly have come from nothing, although apparently he didn't read not enough on it. He also come back on this idea several times in the book and towards the end he becomes definite about what his point was: he had a scientific theory showing that it was possible that the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all. Still, this was a story within a story in his book. He could have told the science of it for the general public without going into this idiotic philosophically tainted discussion. But clearly he thought he was going to settle an old score with the clergy, you know like Galileo or something, and instead he flunked the basics on the philosophy of it. And he made a whole book of it! No excuse whatsoever.
EB

I agree he fucked up the philosophy. What the argument that the universe could come from nothing came from was his balancing the equation to produce a flat universe in his model. That is damned near impossible to do as a pop-sci book since the model is only one short equation. How many of the hundreds of thousands of readers of his book that he hoped to sell would or could understand a physics description of a flat universe and the consideration of mass/energy? The purpose of the book was to sell books and make money. Many theoretical physicists have been doing this since the success of Sagan showed that there was a hell of a lot more money in producing pop-sci than there was in science research. Even Hawking has produced a couple pop-sci books that really say nothing significant to get in on the gravy train (it was his name that sold them, not the content). The best pop-sci book I have seen is The God Particle by Leon Lederman. Few of the buyers that I know ever finished reading it because he actually tries to explain a little of the science so they got lost and gave up.

But the fact that Krauss fucked up the philosophy does not mean that balancing the equation of mass/energy and gravity in his model does not produce a flat universe. And if the universe is indeed flat then the total of all the universe could be zero only now it is divided as positive (mass/energy) and negative (gravity). He should have stuck to the science and avoided the philosophy but then he could not have sold enough books to pay for the publishing cost.

I think you're a tad too cynical here. I don't believe that a renown scientist would sex up a presentation of his own work for the masses to the extent that you suggest. Broadly, what you describe would be Krauss deliberately missleading the public over a fundamental question, i.e. whether the idea of the universe coming out of nothingness is meaningful, merely to sell more copies of his book. You should realise that appart from this idiotic digression the book is in fact good enough and interesting enough for the general public. There would have been no need to stoop below ground to make the book seriously misleading just to make it more attractive. I don't believe that.

Second, the frame of mind that I think motivated the inclusion of the idiotic digression in his book, i.e some score to settle with the clerics, is clearly shared by many people on this very website. The idiocy of some of their posting here, including in this thread, show the reality of this frame of mind and that it can be motivation enough to stoop below ground just now and then. I think he couldn't resist the temptation. He used his science to try to make a point, even though it was an idiotic point. To go this far, he had to be somehow blinded and the anti-cleric frame of mind seems to me good enough to achieve that.

Conversely, I don't believe that without this frame of mind he would have gone eyes wide open into this mess just in the belief that it was a smart way to nudge up the sales. Bright people can do stupid things, and they do, but there has to be some twisted logic to explain that they do and he didn't have to do what he did to sell the book. It was good enough without that. I grant you that as a result he probably sold much more books (I bought it myself just because of that) but he wouldn't have done it even for money if he had been aware that the digression was so idiotic. He had to be blinded.
EB

 

[untermensche]

So you claim. But as you won't or can't support your claim, it is just your fantasy against the heartless universe. Good luck with that.

The last gasp when somebody has no more arguments.

Your claim that the past comes before the present is laughable.

The past can't come before anything. It doesn't exist and never has. All that exists and all that we know can exist, is the present.

And the present is the start of both the past and the future.

The present is real, the past is imaginary.

You are claiming the real comes from the imaginary.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Infinite time in the future is time without end.
You somehow think infinite time in the past would represent some different amount of time.

No. I don't think that at all.

First, according to the ordinary concept of absolute time, the past and the future are symmetrical in every respect except that the universe appear to us as if it was going in the direction of the future and the correlate of this that we have a memory of the past but not of the future. So the notion of a future without an end is symmetrical to the notion of a past without a beginning. Also, the notion that the past ends now is symmetrical to the notion that the future starts now. Appart from that, the whole thing is rather bland and straightforward.

Second, I have no reason to compare the amount of time already passed with the amount of time that could still pass. Supposing both are infinite, I don't know what it would be to compare them except to say that they would be both infinite. So, they would have a shared quality, being infinite, but one that would prevent any attempt at comparing them. Saying one is bigger, or longer, than the other, or that they are equal, would be idiotic. All we could say would be that they are both infinite.

I haven't seen were you provide a proper justification for your idea that a past without a beginning is a past that never ends. The only thing I could relate to this is the idea that there would be no end to counting infinite time backward. But no end to counting the infinite past backward isn't equivalent to no end to the infinite past. Your claim is without any justification.
EB