Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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.

To say that the past can be numbered with infinity is to say that the past can change like infinity can. All variations of an infinite number are true, such as infinity - 100. But time does not have this property.

I am not totally sold on this argument, so I probably won't mention it again unless I am.

 

[skepticalbip]

It was that an arithmetic increasing sequence (from -infinity) can have an upper bound (any integer), which blows my mind but was also a tough pill to swallow.

First of all you shouldn't commit to any argument until you have thought it through.

But infinite time is not an infinity like an infinity of fractions bounded by a whole number.

Infinite time is like the infinity of the positive integers. It is an ever growing infinity that is unbounded. It never hits anything.

Both the past and the future begin at the present and move away from it. If they are infinite they move away forever. They are not bounded by anything.

To avoid this argument some are making the ludicrous claim that the past ends at the present. They have to turn reality on it's head to make this claim. The present comes before the past. The present can't be the end of something that happens after it.

We say the future starts at the present because it comes after the present. We should be consistent in our conceptions and also say the past starts at the present because it comes after it.

Wow!

Congratulations. You got it. I am impressed.

 

[untermensche]

[Let's say that I bite into an apple. I choose to concentrate on the apple and its taste, smell, feel, etc. In your theory, the memories and pretty much everything else in the universe would not exist since the present is mentally "occupied" with the apple.

A memory is a kind of recording. It can degrade but once the recording is made it is there and has the possibility to be retrieved.

So if you concentrate on a sensation the recorded memory doesn't disappear.

Memories are not the past. They were made in the past.

Don't you mean that they were made in the present since you are saying that the past doesn't exist?

Yes, you're right. They were made in a present that is now gone and we call that the past.

What is so hard? The present exists and the past existed when it was the present but it doesn't exist anymore.

 

[untermensche]

First of all you shouldn't commit to any argument until you have thought it through.

But infinite time is not an infinity like an infinity of fractions bounded by a whole number.

Infinite time is like the infinity of the positive integers. It is an ever growing infinity that is unbounded. It never hits anything.

Both the past and the future begin at the present and move away from it. If they are infinite they move away forever. They are not bounded by anything.

To avoid this argument some are making the ludicrous claim that the past ends at the present. They have to turn reality on it's head to make this claim. The present comes before the past. The present can't be the end of something that happens after it.

We say the future starts at the present because it comes after the present. We should be consistent in our conceptions and also say the past starts at the present because it comes after it.

Wow!

Congratulations. You got it. I am impressed.

This in no way is an argument to support the claim that time is infinite in the past.

It is merely a description of an abstraction of infinite time.

 

[ryan]

It was that an arithmetic increasing sequence (from -infinity) can have an upper bound (any integer), which blows my mind but was also a tough pill to swallow.

First of all you shouldn't commit to any argument until you have thought it through.

But infinite time is not an infinity like an infinity of fractions bounded by a whole number.

Infinite time is like the infinity of the positive integers. It is an ever growing infinity that is unbounded. It never hits anything.

Both the past and the future begin at the present and move away from it. If they are infinite they move away forever. They are not bounded by anything.

To avoid this argument some are making the ludicrous claim that the past ends at the present. They have to turn reality on it's head to make this claim. The present comes before the past. The present can't be the end of something that happens after it.

We say the future starts at the present because it comes after the present. We should be consistent in our conceptions and also say the past starts at the present because it comes after it.

Hey, that's quite interesting!

 

[skepticalbip]

Wow!

Congratulations. You got it. I am impressed.

This in no way is an argument to support the claim that time is infinite in the past.

It is merely a description of an abstraction of infinite time.

I agree. I never claimed that the past had to be infinite. My stance is and has been that we don't know. Either is possible.

Your description is what Kharakov, Bilby, and I were trying to explain, that the past would be a mirror image of the future. Start from 0, -1, -2, etc for the past. 0, +1, +2. etc. for the future.

 

[Juma]

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.

To say that the past can be numbered with infinity is to say that the past can change like infinity can. All variations of an infinite number are true, such as infinity - 100. But time does not have this property.

You cannot identify infinitity, which is a generalized measure, with history (the order of events) which is not.

It like saying that this banana must have all the properties of a real number because its length is a real number.


Your time units is nothing but measurement. Remember that! It is not the history of events.

 

[ryan]

Don't you mean that they were made in the present since you are saying that the past doesn't exist?

Yes, you're right. They were made in a present that is now gone and we call that the past.

What is so hard? The present exists and the past existed when it was the present but it doesn't exist anymore.

You seem to be acknowledging the past but then saying it doesn't exist.

Are you really trying to say that the past doesn't exist now? If you are, then I completely agree.

 

[untermensche]

This in no way is an argument to support the claim that time is infinite in the past.

It is merely a description of an abstraction of infinite time.

I agree. I never claimed that the past had to be infinite. My stance is and has been that we don't know. Either is possible.

Your description is what Bilby and I were trying to explain, that the past would be a mirror image of the future. Start from 0, -1, -2, etc for the past. 0, +1, +2. etc. for the future.

I agree. A mirror image.

Infinite time in the future is time that will never finish passing. Infinite time in the past must be the same amount.

So at any present moment we are to believe that an amount of time that will never finish passing has already finished.

That would be illogical to believe and it is therefore illogical to believe time was infinite in the past.

 

[Juma]

The pole is never completely inside the tunnel in the frame of the runner but it is for the guy at rest relative the tunnel. How can these two have a common now?

They are viewing the same thing differently. Just as a change in position will cause us to view the same building differently.

They have the same now as they do this.

But we don't say the conception of a snapshot of the universe, which is a better conception than frozen universe, can't happen because two observers see something different in a moving universe. What they see in a moving universe has no bearing on whether we can conceptualize a snapshot of that moving universe.

That is true, it has no bearing whatever on what you beleive you can concepualize...

For me, and I beleive most of us, the concept of "now" require that things that happens now happens at the same time and the same order. Dont you agree?

 

[ryan]

To say that the past can be numbered with infinity is to say that the past can change like infinity can. All variations of an infinite number are true, such as infinity - 100. But time does not have this property.

You cannot identify infinitity, which is a generalized measure, with history (the order of events) which is not.

It like saying that this banana must have all the properties of a real number because its length is a real number.


Your time units is nothing but measurement. Remember that! It is not the history of events.

Not really, if we equate each number to an object, then the objects and the numbers must have the same properties. A timeline is perfect because it can almost be perfectly identical to the real number line.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you're right. They were made in a present that is now gone and we call that the past.

What is so hard? The present exists and the past existed when it was the present but it doesn't exist anymore.

You seem to be acknowledging the past but then saying it doesn't exist.

Are you really trying to say that the past doesn't exist now? If you are, then I completely agree.

The past has a definitional existence. The past is defined as time and the events in that time that have already come and gone.

The past does not have a real existence. It is not something real.

And of course this does not mean memories are not real.

 

[Juma]

You cannot identify infinitity, which is a generalized measure, with history (the order of events) which is not.

It like saying that this banana must have all the properties of a real number because its length is a real number.


Your time units is nothing but measurement. Remember that! It is not the history of events.

Not really, if we equate each number to an object, then the objects and the numbers must have the same properties. A timeline is perfect because it can almost be perfectly identical to the real number line.

So a banana (which is one and thus must have the same properties as 1) doesnt taste anything? (Or do 1 have a taste?)

You confuse real properties with your measurement of it.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree. I never claimed that the past had to be infinite. My stance is and has been that we don't know. Either is possible.

Your description is what Bilby and I were trying to explain, that the past would be a mirror image of the future. Start from 0, -1, -2, etc for the past. 0, +1, +2. etc. for the future.

I agree. A mirror image.

Infinite time in the future is time that will never finish passing. Infinite time in the past must be the same amount.

So at any present moment we are to believe that an amount of time that will never finish passing has already finished.

That would be illogical to believe and it is therefore illogical to believe time was infinite in the past.

Oh shit. You have more work to do. It only took two hundred pages for you to see this. Maybe the light will come on in another two hundred pages.

 

[untermensche]

That is true, it has no bearing whatever on what you beleive you can concepualize...

For me, and I beleive most of us, the concept of "now" require that things that happens now happens at the same time and the same order. Dont you agree?

In a snapshot there is no order to events. There is only the order of matter and energy and everything else.

If a snapshot of a moving universe can be conceptualized then it doesn't matter what any observer in that universe sees when it is moving. That snapshot is a universal now.

You haven't given a logical argument why we can't imagine a snapshot of all motion. Cameras take snapshots of motion every day.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. A mirror image.

Infinite time in the future is time that will never finish passing. Infinite time in the past must be the same amount.

So at any present moment we are to believe that an amount of time that will never finish passing has already finished.

That would be illogical to believe and it is therefore illogical to believe time was infinite in the past.

Oh shit. You have more work to do.

That's funny. I've made an argument and you have not.

It is you that has work.

You have to explain how time that doesn't finish passing can finish passing.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's funny. I've made an argument and you have not.

It is you that has work.

You have to explain how time that doesn't finish passing can finish passing.

It only took two hundred pages for you to see this. Maybe the light will come on in another two hundred pages.

 

[Juma]

In a snapshot there is no order to events. There is only the order of matter and energy and everything else.

Which event will be visible? That would differ. For some a specific event will happen before the snapshot, and thus be included, for others it will happen after the snapshot and thus not be included. That is a contradiction and thus the snapshot that represents a now for all observers is a impossibility.

Cameras take snapshots of motion every day.

Cameras take a snapshot from their frame of reference. Since there are no frame of reference common to the entire universe, or indeed my room, there is no common now.

The idea of a snapshot is not the problem. The problem begins when you think that it represents an universal now.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

It's absurd to say the past ends at the present.

It may be absurd depending on the point of view but it's not illogical.

To say that the past ends now is essentially a manner of speaking. It shouldn't be taken literally as you appear to be doing.

We often represent time conventionaly as an axis with now represented as a point on this axis moving towards the future. In this view, the past is always relative to the present, i.e. there is no absolute past and there is one past for each point in time (each point on the axis of time). To say that the past ends now is just a way of expressing this relation but it's only the past relative to now as we speak that ends now, with the idea that now is not a part of this particular past (even if it will be part of a future time) so this particular past does end now.

I don't think there was any major disagreement between this ordinary view of time and the scientific concept of time until Einstein came along. If so, I would be very surprised if there was any logical inconsistancy in it.

The past BEGINS at the present. First you have a present moment then that moment becomes a past moment. The past flows out of the present, the present is the beginning of the past, not the other way around as you imply.

You can look at it this way if you like but there is no compulsion in that and it's not the ordinary notion of absolute time. If I imagine that I am counting the past backward, i.e. starting from now = 0, I will indeed begin with yesterday = 1 (or -1) and then the day before = 2 (or -2). So my counting will start now. So what? If you have a road that stops here you can say that it begins here. Big deal!

From the point of view of science, time doesn't really begin or end. It's just an abstract mathematical referential usually taken to be one-dimensional and probably infinite in both direction. The past in this case is relative to each particular point in time, i.e each particular point on this axis. Each past in this case is limited by a particular point in time. Whether we say that is ends there or not is moot.

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.

To say they are of a different size would be irrational. They are the exact same kind of infinity. An ever growing sequential infinity. 1 +1 +1 + 1 + 1 ........

Again I didn't say or imply that they were of different sizes.

And yes they are the exact same kind of infinity.

But your use of "growing" here is defective, as often with whatever you say in this thread. In our conventional view of time, only finite periods of time are said to grow. For example, I can be said to be growing old because I was born at a particular time so that the time I already lived is growing with time itself. Similarly, the time left to me to live is growing smaller and smaller (or diminishing) every day. But an infinite future doesn't grow smaller and smaller and an infinite past doesn't grow bigger and bigger.

Infinite time in the future MUST represent the exact same amount of time as infinite time in the past. They are the exact same infinity.

No. It just doesn't mean anything.

To have the same exact amount of time you would need a definitive count, something you could not have in the case of an infinite past or an infinite future.

If infinite time in the future is an amount of time that will never finish so is infinite time in the past.

See above. You are just playing a childish game with words.

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 past is time that already passed. If time has no beginning that means the amount of time that has already passed has no limit.

Yes.

An amount of time with no limit is an amount that will never finish.

No. Again, amounts don't start or finish.

You are not parsing your English sentences proficiently. You can talk of the amount of time that has already passed but it's like this:

• The amount of ((time) that has already passed))

Not like this:

• (The amount of time) that has already passed

As I said, improve your English skills first if you want to argue effectively.

So, I still haven't seen any sensible justification whatever.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Yes.

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.

Amounts don't have "ends". They may have a limit (finite amounts) or no limits (infinite amount).

The amount of time that has already passed may be infinite if time that has already passed had no beginning.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.

Amounts don't have "ends". They may have a limit (finite amounts) or no limits (infinite amount). Only periods of time may have ends, not the amount of time they represent.

Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

Yes if you read it like this:

• It is an amount of (time that will never finish passing).

No if you read it like this:

• It is ((an amount of time) that will never finish passing)).

Amounts don't have ends and don't pass.

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.

No for the reasons already given. An infinite past is an amount of time that is infinite and it is time that has already passed. It's nonsensical to talk of an amount that is or isn't already passed. Amounts are infinite or not, they are not passed or not passed.

Improve your English, or indeed your linguistic skills, first. Try logic when you've done that.

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.

No for the reasons already given. An infinite past is not an amount of time that never finishes passing. It's an infinite amount of time, yes, and it's also time that has already passed.

This is what I am putting forward as my argument to conclude it is irrational to believe time in the past was infinite.

And so you don't have any sensible argument or justification for your claim.

And once you conclude this you can say other things.

No thanks.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Which event will be visible? That would differ. For some a specific event will happen before the snapshot, and thus be included, for others it will happen after the snapshot and thus not be included. That is a contradiction and thus the snapshot that represents a now for all observers is a impossibility.

An event is something that happens in time. I'm taking time out of the picture. In a frozen snapshot there is no time, there are no events.

There is only a specific arrangement of all things in that snapshot. That specific arrangement represents a universal "now".

Cameras take snapshots of motion every day.

Cameras take a snapshot from their frame of reference. Since there are no frame of reference common to the entire universe, or indeed my room, there is no common now.

The idea of a snapshot is not the problem. The problem begins when you think that it represents an universal now.

The snapshot is not taken from within the universe. It is taken from outside of the universe.

It flows from the idea of an "eternal multiverse", which is how Lawrence Krauss describes it. The snapshot is taken from outside the universe from the "eternal multiverse".

It is a picture of the entire universe looked at from an external frame of reference. A frame of reference that is beyond time, a frame of reference in an "eternal multiverse".

And this snapshot would most definitely represent a universal now. No other now could possibly exist besides the now represented in the frozen snapshot of the universe.