Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

If it has always been, then all of it cannot pass.

It's still passing, ryan. Whether finite or infinite, time is passing. Agreed? And we're at the present moment, agreed? If time is finite, there would be a present moment. Agreed? If time is infinite, there would be a present moment at which time is passing. Agreed? If not, why? Why wouldn't there be a present moment at which we find ourselves if time had no beginning?

Ignore your problems with infinity; just consider that question for a while. Think about it. EVEN IF time had no beginning, time still passes, and the leading edge of that time is the present.

I agree. As far as I can remember, I have never suggested otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

Who said that time wouldn't have a present moment? Where did you get that from?

That's my argument.

If an amount of time that never finishes must pass before any present moment then that present moment cannot occur.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course you don't see because you don't understand that NOW is different for different observers. Each would see a different universe "frozen" universe if it was frozen from their perspective.

I know it may be shocking and unbelievable to you but you are not the center of the universe. What you see is not what people in another galaxy would see. If the universe were frozen from their perspective and you were suddenly forced to see their view of reality from where you currently are you couldn't recognize it because you could suddenly be exposed to a few million year jump in reality.

A frozen universe is a conception.

And we are the observers looking at it from beyond it, not within it.

Within it, no observations are being made, it is frozen.

What in relativity stops us from conceptually freezing the universe?

You can conceptually imagine whatever you want. However your assumptions of what the result would be wouldn't have anything to do with what relativity would predict since you have shown no understanding of relativity. Personally, I don't see how the concept of freezing the universe even makes any sense given what relativity tells us. The universe is a dynamic system and its nature is defined by the dynamic interplay. A "frozen" universe would eliminate what makes the universe so is a rather absurd concept if it was meant as an attempt to understand the universe.

 

[ryan]

I don't think that it makes sense to assign a number that is not unique to something that is unique. It would be like saying that there are 11 days in the last 7 days.

Anyways, I don't care about that argument as much as I do the next argument.

Are you one who believes that an infinite number of units of time can completely pass for some reference frame?

Misstating what someone said is a strawman argument.

Where did I misstate anyone?

If I understand Juma correctly what he said was that an infinite number of events can occur in an infinite amount of time.

Could you actually address what he said rather than your strawman version of it?

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

 

[untermensche]

You can conceptually imagine whatever you want. However your assumptions of what the result would be wouldn't have anything to do with what relativity would predict since you have shown no understanding of relativity. Personally, I don't see how the concept of freezing the universe even makes any sense given what relativity tells us. The universe is a dynamic system and its nature is defined by the dynamic interplay. A "frozen" universe would eliminate what makes the universe so is a rather absurd concept if it was meant as an attempt to understand the universe.

What contortions you must go to to find some meager objection.

The argument is not that the conception would function.

The question is; What specifically forbids us from looking at the universe this way?

Saying that the universe moves is not an objection to conceptualizing that the movement is frozen.

And a universe frozen in time would represent a universal "now".

 

[skepticalbip]

Misstating what someone said is a strawman argument.

Where did I misstate anyone?

By suggesting that he could be the one, "who believes that an infinite number of units of time can completely pass for some reference frame".

If I understand Juma correctly what he said was that an infinite number of events can occur in an infinite amount of time.

Could you actually address what he said rather than your strawman version of it?

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

And could you address that an infinite number of events could happen in an infinite time?

 

[ryan]

Who said that time wouldn't have a present moment? Where did you get that from?

That's my argument.

If an amount of time that never finishes must pass before any present moment then that present moment cannot occur.

I know. But the post that Mageth was replying to had nothing to do with there being no present.

 

[skepticalbip]

You can conceptually imagine whatever you want. However your assumptions of what the result would be wouldn't have anything to do with what relativity would predict since you have shown no understanding of relativity. Personally, I don't see how the concept of freezing the universe even makes any sense given what relativity tells us. The universe is a dynamic system and its nature is defined by the dynamic interplay. A "frozen" universe would eliminate what makes the universe so is a rather absurd concept if it was meant as an attempt to understand the universe.

What contortions you must go to to find some meager objection.

The argument is not that the conception would function.

The question is; What specifically forbids us from looking at the universe this way?

I didn't say that anything prevented it. I said that it would tell you absolutely nothing about the real universe.

Saying that the universe moves is not an objection to conceptualizing that the movement is frozen.

And a universe frozen in time would represent a universal "now".

It would represent your now from your perspective. I would not represent a "universal now". Relativity doesn't bend to your wishes even if you really, really want it to.

 

[ryan]

Where did I misstate anyone?

By suggesting that he could be the one, "who believes that an infinite number of units of time can completely pass for some reference frame".

I was asking.

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

It is what time exists in.

 

[bilby]

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.

Reiterating your claim, no matter how vehemently, is not the same as supporting it.

 

[untermensche]

It would represent your now from your perspective. I would not represent a "universal now". Relativity doesn't bend to your wishes even if you really, really want it to.

If I'm conceptually looking at a frozen universe from beyond it then relativity doesn't apply. Relativity only applies within a moving universe.

This frozen universe would represent a universal "now".

 

[untermensche]

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.

Reiterating your claim, no matter how vehemently, is not the same as supporting it.

Saying empty words that don't address the argument quoted only brings the argument forward again. It doesn't dispense with the argument.

Your claim that the past is something real is ridiculous. You can't provide a shred of evidence to support that nonsense.

Deal with it.

 

[skepticalbip]

By suggesting that he could be the one, "who believes that an infinite number of units of time can completely pass for some reference frame".

I was asking.

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

It is what time exists in.

Try again. If it is what time exists in then no "units of time can completely pass it" to use your word salad phrase, even in a finite universe. Just as I can not "pass" my house while I am sitting in it.

 

[skepticalbip]

It would represent your now from your perspective. I would not represent a "universal now". Relativity doesn't bend to your wishes even if you really, really want it to.

If I'm conceptually looking at a frozen universe from beyond it then relativity doesn't apply. Relativity only applies within a moving universe.

This frozen universe would represent a universal "now".

No it wouldn't. It would represent your now from your perspective.

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.

 

[bilby]

Reiterating your claim, no matter how vehemently, is not the same as supporting it.

Saying empty words that don't address the argument quoted only brings the argument forward again. It doesn't dispense with the argument.

Your claim that the past is something real is ridiculous. You can't provide a shred of evidence to support that nonsense.

Deal with it.

I never made that claim. I asked you to support your claim that the past is not real.

You haven't, so I conclude that you can't.

I think you have the complete set now, so you can stop the logical fallacies any time you like.

 

[ryan]

I was asking.

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

It is what time exists in.

Try again. If it is what time exists in then "units of time can not completely pass it" to use your word salad phrase. Just as I can not "pass" my house while I am sitting in it.

Yeah, I should have been more specific and said, "present time". A frame of reference has an intrinsic time whether there is anything in it or not. There may be a clock in it that measures 5 seconds. Of course all 5 seconds do not exist in this frame of reference, but all 5 seconds did exist in it. Eventually all 5 seconds pass, as we all know.

 

[ryan]

If I'm conceptually looking at a frozen universe from beyond it then relativity doesn't apply. Relativity only applies within a moving universe.

This frozen universe would represent a universal "now".

No it wouldn't. It would represent your now from your perspective.

Untermensche is right. Relativity would be irrelevant with no inertial frames of reference and no accelerating bodies. Everything would be in a single frame of reference. There still would be gravity to dilate time, but with nothing moving, dilation becomes irrelevant.

There would only be one state, and everything would be in that state and share that state.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was asking.

When an infinite number of events occur in some ageless reference frame, it certainly seems fair to say that the total is bounded above and below in that reference frame.

WTF is this "reference frame"?

It is what time exists in.

Try again. If it is what time exists in then "units of time can not completely pass it" to use your word salad phrase. Just as I can not "pass" my house while I am sitting in it.

Yeah, I should have been more specific and said, "present time". A frame of reference has an intrinsic time whether there is anything in it or not. There may be a clock in it that measures 5 seconds. Of course all 5 seconds do not exist in this frame of reference, but all 5 seconds did exist in it. Eventually all 5 seconds pass, as we all know.

That is just more word salad and I'm not about to try to make sense of it.

If you didn't have a specific idea in mind when you used your "reference frame" then why the hell did you use it? Your struggling to justify using it is damned funny.

 

[untermensche]

If I'm conceptually looking at a frozen universe from beyond it then relativity doesn't apply. Relativity only applies within a moving universe.

This frozen universe would represent a universal "now".

No it wouldn't. It would represent your now from your perspective.

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.

Nothing about relativity applies to the conception of a frozen universe observed in the imagination.

Relativity applies to a moving universe.

A frozen moment isn't a relative observation in a moving universe. It is a conception.

But it is a conception of something real.

If a universe can be frozen and be only one thing then that would represent a universal now.

Your trying to shove relativity into a situation where it doesn't apply is only evidence you don't understand the conception.

 

[skepticalbip]

No it wouldn't. It would represent your now from your perspective.

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.

Nothing about relativity applies to the conception of a frozen universe observed in the imagination.

Relativity applies to a moving universe.

A frozen moment isn't a relative observation in a moving universe. It is a conception.

But it is a conception of something real.

If a universe can be frozen and be only one thing then that would represent a universal now.

Your trying to shove relativity into a situation where it doesn't apply is only evidence you don't understand the conception.

You can continue to repeat it over and over but infinite repetition of nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical.