Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

You don't see the same sequence differently; you see a DIFFERENT SEQUENCE.

You see the same events differently. You see a DIFFERENT SEQUENCE.

Two car crashes are two car crashes. These are the same events.

But they are seen differently depending on your frame of reference.

If you look at my car, and someone else looks at my next door neighbour's car, you are not looking at the same car differently; you are each looking at a different car.

This is not the case of two different cars. It is a case of the same events seen in a different order.

The same events seen differently.

Nor do you understand it, if you think it can be used as a universal reference frame from which to observe the universe.

It is an external reference frame. That is all that is important.

It doesn't matter at all if the same frozen universe is seen differently by different observers in that external reference frame. It still represents a single arrangement. A single present moment.

You are claiming a preferred reference frame. Placing it in a mythical space 'outside' the universe doesn't make it legitimate to claim a preferred reference frame; relativity says there is no such preferred reference frame, and you can wish as hard as you like without that fact being changed one iota.

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming a preferred reference frame. Placing it in a mythical space 'outside' the universe doesn't make it legitimate to claim a preferred reference frame; relativity says there is no such preferred reference frame, and you can wish as hard as you like without that fact being changed one iota.

I am talking about an external reference frame. Not a preferred reference frame. An external reference frame is not bound by relativity.

And this external reference frame is in the multiverse, not this universe.

And the multiverse is hypothetical but it isn't my hypothesis.

 

[bilby]

You are claiming a preferred reference frame. Placing it in a mythical space 'outside' the universe doesn't make it legitimate to claim a preferred reference frame; relativity says there is no such preferred reference frame, and you can wish as hard as you like without that fact being changed one iota.

I am talking about an external reference frame. Not a preferred reference frame. An external reference frame is not bound by relativity.

And this external reference frame is in the multiverse, not this universe.

And the multiverse is hypothetical but it isn't my hypothesis.

And you don't understand it, but are happy to use it in support of your position, if you need some way to get out of obeying physical law in your thought experiments.

 

[skepticalbip]

And you don't understand it, but are happy to use it in support of your position, if you need some way to get out of obeying physical law in your thought experiments.

You just don't understand the magic power of belief and wishing hard enough. Anything is possible if with enough denial and wishful thinking... at least as long as you stay in a dark room by yourself.

 

[untermensche]

I am talking about an external reference frame. Not a preferred reference frame. An external reference frame is not bound by relativity.

And this external reference frame is in the multiverse, not this universe.

And the multiverse is hypothetical but it isn't my hypothesis.

And you don't understand it, but are happy to use it in support of your position, if you need some way to get out of obeying physical law in your thought experiments.

The multiverse is external to the universe. The universe is external to it.

That is all one needs to understand about the multiverse to imagine a whole frozen universe seen from the outside.

 

[bilby]

And you don't understand it, but are happy to use it in support of your position, if you need some way to get out of obeying physical law in your thought experiments.

The multiverse is external to the universe. The universe is external to it.

That is all one needs to understand about the multiverse to imagine a whole frozen universe seen from the outside.

All you need is faith, eh.

 

[Mageth]

No, I am not saying two observers see the same events 'differently'; I am specifically saying that they see them 'in a different sequence'. You appear to be ignoring that bit, because it fucks up your preconceptions. But you shouldn't ignore it, because it is very important.

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

Einstein said you can't have a preferred reference frame IN the universe. The multiverse is external to the universe, in conception, and I didn't conceive of it.

You think the multiverse is a place from which one could see the universe? LOL

 

[Mageth]

You are claiming a preferred reference frame. Placing it in a mythical space 'outside' the universe doesn't make it legitimate to claim a preferred reference frame; relativity says there is no such preferred reference frame, and you can wish as hard as you like without that fact being changed one iota.

I am talking about an external reference frame. Not a preferred reference frame. An external reference frame is not bound by relativity.

And this external reference frame is in the multiverse, not this universe.

And the multiverse is hypothetical but it isn't my hypothesis.

What does "in the multiverse" refer to? Nothing. More nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

Einstein said you can't have a preferred reference frame IN the universe. The multiverse is external to the universe, in conception, and I didn't conceive of it.

You think the multiverse is a place from which one could see the universe? LOL

If there is ANYTHING external to the universe the universe can be imagined as being observed externally.

All that is necessary to imagine an external view is something external to the universe.

Your objections are laughable.

 

[Mageth]

If you see the sequence differently have you not seen the same events differently?

How do you see the sequence differently and not see the events differently?

The very idea of something external to the universe is incoherent; but even if you invent such a thing, you are simply nominating a preferred reference frame; and Einstein says that is not a coherent thing to do.

Einstein said you can't have a preferred reference frame IN the universe. The multiverse is external to the universe, in conception, and I didn't conceive of it.

You think the multiverse is a place from which one could see the universe? LOL

If there is ANYTHING external to the universe the universe can be imagined as being observed externally.

All that is necessary to imagine an external view is something external to the universe.

Your objections are laughable.

LOL

The multiverse is not something external to the universe from where one could view the universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

If there is ANYTHING external to the universe the universe can be imagined as being observed externally.

All that is necessary to imagine an external view is something external to the universe.

Your objections are laughable.

Damned dude. You don't have much of an imagination if you have to believe that there has to be a possibility of the place you want to "view" from. I can imagine all sorts of totally absurd and impossible things.

And the absurd and impossible things I can imagine are every bit as sensible as what you are describing.

 

[ryan]

Well nobody would let me say that time passes, so I had to use "present" time.

No problem if you just do away with "pass".

What has already occurred is in the past. What hasn't yet occurred is in the future. What is in the past is over. We don't have to worry about it "passing".

Using "passing" is what is fucked up with Unter's supposed "logic". He somehow thinks we have to wait for what has already occurred so is in the past to "pass" our present.

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here). It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur. For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today - infinity occurred. In total infinity came and left.

 

[bilby]

No problem if you just do away with "pass".

What has already occurred is in the past. What hasn't yet occurred is in the future. What is in the past is over. We don't have to worry about it "passing".

Using "passing" is what is fucked up with Unter's supposed "logic". He somehow thinks we have to wait for what has already occurred so is in the past to "pass" our present.

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here). It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur. For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today - infinity occurred. In total infinity came and left.

No, it didn't come and leave; it left, but by definition if it was infinite, it never came - it was always there.

 

[skepticalbip]

No problem if you just do away with "pass".

What has already occurred is in the past. What hasn't yet occurred is in the future. What is in the past is over. We don't have to worry about it "passing".

Using "passing" is what is fucked up with Unter's supposed "logic". He somehow thinks we have to wait for what has already occurred so is in the past to "pass" our present.

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here). It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur. For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today - infinity occurred. In total infinity came and left.

You obviously don't know the meaning of infinity. It isn't a set number. Infinity minus infinity does not equil zero as your example assumes.

In addition, events and time are not the same thing. Events occur in time.

 

[ryan]

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here). It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur. For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today - infinity occurred. In total infinity came and left.

No, it didn't come and leave; it left, but by definition if it was infinite, it never came - it was always there.

An infinite number of seconds occurred. This is now the aleph null number or larger; this isn't a finite number. We now have a closed interval [-infinity, 0]

 

[ryan]

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here). It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur. For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today - infinity occurred. In total infinity came and left.

You obviously don't know the meaning of infinity. It isn't a set number. Infinity minus infinity does not equil zero as your example assumes.

All of the negative integers can begin and finish if they are all in the set with negative infinity as an endpoint.

 

[bilby]

No, it didn't come and leave; it left, but by definition if it was infinite, it never came - it was always there.

An infinite number of seconds occurred. This is now the aleph null number or larger; this isn't a finite number. We now have a closed interval [-infinity, 0]

An interval bound by infinity or -infinity is not closed. It is open, by definition.

Infinity is NOT a number. Transfinites are not necessary for this debate; they are a needless complexity. Apply the KISS principle.

If the past is infinite, it never began. It simply always was. And it is the same size no matter where it is viewed from. You are here; infinity is not.

 

[ryan]

An infinite number of seconds occurred. This is now the aleph null number or larger; this isn't a finite number. We now have a closed interval [-infinity, 0]

An interval bound by infinity or -infinity is not closed. It is open, by definition.

It is closed for the reals but not for the extended reals.

Infinity is NOT a number. Transfinites are not necessary for this debate; they are a needless complexity. Apply the KISS principle.

If the past is infinite, it never began. It simply always was. And it is the same size no matter where it is viewed from. You are here; infinity is not.

If it takes a second to breathe, will I reach an infinite number of breaths in an infinite number of seconds?

 

[Juma]

It takes 5 seconds for an event 5 seconds long to finish passing occurring (god only knows what word is acceptable here).

Events doesnt have length. They are as points in time, and events occurs, or passes. A bounded time interval ( or time span) is the time BETWEEN two events.

It takes an infinite number of seconds for an infinite number of events to occur.
.

No necessarily: all these events can occur in a finite time span. Maybe you forgot to specify that the timespan between each events is greater than a minimum timespan?

For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have finished occurring today

Since event ia a point in timeit is wrong to say that they all finished today.
I assume you what you meant was this:
For an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have occurred before today.

In total infinity came and left.

That infinity (number of already occurred events) has not left. And it will be there until end of time...

And there is no problem. Why would there? There is no logical contradiction at least.

 

[Juma]

An interval bound by infinity or -infinity is not closed. It is open, by definition.

It is closed for the reals but not for the extended reals.

Infinity is NOT a number. Transfinites are not necessary for this debate; they are a needless complexity. Apply the KISS principle.

If the past is infinite, it never began. It simply always was. And it is the same size no matter where it is viewed from. You are here; infinity is not.

If it takes a second to breathe, will I reach an infinite number of breaths in an infinite number of seconds?

You dont live forever, so the answer is no.