Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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.

Events are not only points in time; an event can have duration.

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?

I left that out because I thought it was obvious.

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...

Either is correct.

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

 

[bilby]

Events are not only points in time; an event can have duration.

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?

I left that out because I thought it was obvious.

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...

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

 

[ryan]

Events are not only points in time; an event can have duration.

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?

I left that out because I thought it was obvious.

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...

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

 

[bilby]

Events are not only points in time; an event can have duration.

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?

I left that out because I thought it was obvious.

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...

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

Those are not contradictions, unless you still labour under the misapprehension that infinity is a number. (Hint - it isn't).

 

[Juma]

Events are not only points in time; an event can have duration.

A physical process that takes time is measured by a time span: the time between two events: the event that the start condition is met and the event that the stop condition is met.

An event is NOT a physical thing, it is the transition between two logical states: when a condition is not met and when it is.

Maybe you forgot to specify that the timespan between each events is greater than a minimum timespan?

I left that out because I thought it was obvious.

Ok, sloppy, but now you know it is not. Continue.

 

[ryan]

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

Those are not contradictions, unless you still labour under the misapprehension that infinity is a number. (Hint - it isn't).

Are you saying that ordinal transfinite numbers are not numbers?

 

[ryan]

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.

I need a real answer to my question above to answer the following,

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

 

[bilby]

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

Those are not contradictions, unless you still labour under the misapprehension that infinity is a number. (Hint - it isn't).

Are you saying that ordinal transfinite numbers are not numbers?

Yes.

 

[ryan]

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

Those are not contradictions, unless you still labour under the misapprehension that infinity is a number. (Hint - it isn't).

Are you saying that ordinal transfinite numbers are not numbers?

Yes.

Why are they called cardinal numbers if they are not numbers?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CardinalNumber.html

 

[Juma]

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

The question is wrong. Because I can answer contradictory answers depending on how I interpret it:

1) yes. If by "reach infinity" you mean "is unbounded" or "get bigger than any predefined number"
Or more precise:
for any number d, is there a number k such that numberOfBreaths > d when numberOfSeconds > k ?

2) no, if you mean that the number of breaths actually will reach infinity within that period of time, since at each time the timespan from start is finite.

 

[bilby]

Either is correct.

Now there's a contradiction. If it has left, it cannot still be there; and if it is till there, it hasn't left. Only one can be correct.

This is because infinity contradicts itself: infinity = 1 + infinity = 2 + infinity = infinity + infinity = 3*infinity ...

Those are not contradictions, unless you still labour under the misapprehension that infinity is a number. (Hint - it isn't).

Are you saying that ordinal transfinite numbers are not numbers?

Yes.

Why are they called cardinal numbers if they are not numbers?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CardinalNumber.html

To confuse you.

A peanut isn't a pea, nor a nut.

 

[Juma]

Why are they called cardinal numbers if they are not numbers?

They are cardinal numbers (measures size) but not ordinal numbers.

There is no aleph0:th second.

 

[ryan]

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

The question is wrong. Because I can answer contradictory answers depending on how I interpret it:

1) yes. If by "reach infinity" you mean "is unbounded" or "get bigger than any predefined number"
Or more precise:
for any number d, is there a number k such that numberOfBreaths > d when numberOfSeconds > k ?

2) no, if you mean that the number of breaths actually will reach infinity within that period of time, since at each time the timespan from start is finite.

1) is what I meant. 2) actually sounds a lot untermensche's argument

 

[ryan]

A peanut isn't a pea, nor a nut.

Even the definition says that it "is a type of number".

- - - Updated - - -

Why are they called cardinal numbers if they are not numbers?

They are cardinal numbers (measures size) but not ordinal numbers.

There is no aleph0:th second.

I just meant that it is a transfinite ordinal number like the set of natural numbers.

 

[Juma]

Even the definition says that it "is a type of number".

- - - Updated - - -

Why are they called cardinal numbers if they are not numbers?

They are cardinal numbers (measures size) but not ordinal numbers.

There is no aleph0:th second.

I just meant that it is a transfinite ordinal number like the set of natural numbers.

The set of natural numbers is not an ordinal.
A natural number is a finite ordinal. The smallest transfinite ordinal is the order type of the natural numbers.

Dont mess things up. Distinctions are important.

 

[ryan]

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

Here's the problem.

If an infinite number of units of time can occur for some frame of reference, then it would seem to mean that the frame of reference itself is infinitely old and infinitely large. The problem I think that comes from this is that any frame of reference in the universe that shares the infinitely old frame of reference would see the universe age infinitely fast. And any frame of reference that isn't infinitely old, well, is not infinitely old.

Any frame of reference that observes events take some measurable amount of time could not be infinitely old relative to its environment. Years do not go by instantaneously for most reference frames in our universe, except for in a black hole.

 

[Juma]

If an infinite number of units of time can occur for some frame of reference, then it would seem to mean that the frame of reference itself is infinitely old and infinitely large.

first: frames of references are an abstract concept. There are no real "frames of references" hanging around.
second: frames of references have no age or size (see above)
third: what the heck are you talking about? If time has been going on for ever then there may have (or may not) been inifinitely many events. so what?

that any frame of reference in the universe that shares the infinitely old frame of reference would see the universe age infinitely fast.

this is total gobbliwok. "shares a frame"? what is that supposed to mean? As stated above: frames of references
are abstract concepts, not real things.
And WHY would it see the universe age infinitely fast????

 

[ryan]

first: frames of references are an abstract concept. There are no real "frames of references" hanging around.
second: frames of references have no age or size (see above)

The distance that objects are at rest from each other and assuming they have equal accelerations is how large the reference frame is.

third: what the heck are you talking about? If time has been going on for ever then there may have (or may not) been inifinitely many events. so what?

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.

that any frame of reference in the universe that shares the infinitely old frame of reference would see the universe age infinitely fast.

this is total gobbliwok. "shares a frame"? what is that supposed to mean? As stated above: frames of references
are abstract concepts, not real things.
And WHY would it see the universe age infinitely fast????

What happens when we have the ratio (14 billion years)/(infinite number of years)? Our time does not make sense to an ageless interval of time.

 

[Juma]

The distance that objects are at rest from each other and assuming they have equal accelerations is how large the reference frame is.

This doesnt make sense. A reference frame is just an abstract concept denoting a point, speed and acceleration in space time.
It doesnt have any size.

But the intervals of time between events would be infinitesimally small.

What? why?

What happens when we have the ratio (14 billion years)/(infinite number of years)?

What is that ratio suppose to mean? Seems totally meaningless to me.

Our time does not make sense to an ageless interval of time.

Yes it does. Time being infinitely old have no bearing on how old you are or that spmething happen 12 days ago.

 

[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.

LOL

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

It is external to the universe.

All you need is something external to the universe to imagine a view of the universe whole from there.

Your objection is worthless.

A frozen universe represents a universal now. There cannot be two "nows" in a frozen universe.