Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

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

You have a point in that there is are a objective universe that can be deduced from what we observe. Somewhat like different, seemingly contradicting 2D views of a 3D object can be combined into a single coherent whole in 3D.

But "now" is not part of this combined coherent whole.

"Now" is more like the different viewers "here" in the 3D example.

 

[untermensche]

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

You have a point in that there is are a objective universe that can be deduced from what we observe. Somewhat like different, seemingly contradicting 2D views of a 3D object can be combined into a single coherent whole in 3D.

But "now" is not part of this combined coherent whole.

"Now" is more like the different viewers "here" in the 3D example.

This makes no sense to me. It needs to be rephrased.

A frozen universe is a 3 dimensional entity.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a complete whole unchanging entity.

If it is one thing then "now" is one thing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It most certainly is illogical. It is logical to say that something that occurs AFTER something else is the beginning of that thing which occurred first.
It is illogical to say that the step I take after the first step is the start. The first step is the start.

No, it really depends on the point of view you decide to have and that's arbitrary. What comes first depends on the process considered. If it's time in itself, then an infinite past has no beginning and it has an end (now). If the process is counting periods of time of the past, then the starting point or beginning of your counting is were you want to have it if at all possible, for example yesterday for backward counting. In this case, the period counted will start at yesterday and will have no end.

There is nothing arbitrary about saying a moment is a present moment THEN when it is gone forever it is thought of as a past moment. You can't have any past moment that wasn't a present moment FIRST.
To come FIRST means to start. The first step you take on a walk is the start of the walk not the end of it.

Again, we are talking about the ordinary concept of absolute time and whether it is somehow illogical, not whether time is or isn't really like our concept says it is.

Instead of which you are going into an altogether different concept of time, presumably yours. This is just a derail. Let me remind you that your claim was that the ordinary concept of an infinite past is somehow illogical. But you can't support this by discussing a different concept of time and past, be it your own concept. You have to show what is illogical in the ordinary concept of an infinite past. Me, I don't think there is but let's hear your argument.

Well, I've been trying to hear it for 224 pages and I'm none the wiser.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We are talking, I said this several times already, about our ordinary, common concept of absolute time. In this respect, the term "the present" refers to a point in time that comes after, not before, any point in time which is part of what is referred to as "the past". This is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of the English language.

I am talking about reality, about observation, not about some imaginary convention.

A moment in time is FIRST a present moment then it is thought of as a past moment. Past moments only exist as thoughts.

If you come first you are the start. I don't care what imaginary conventions look like.

Sorry, but if your no prepared to argue about the concept of absolute time, I don't know what we could be talking about.

But let refresh your memory. Below is what you stated was your argument. It shows it is about the the ordinary concept of absolute time.

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.

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

This was unambiguous and yet now you suddenly behave as if it has nothing to do with you! You can't be serious, man!!!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Grow means here to increase in number. I agree that this is an abstraction of the word "to grow", but it means something real.

Unlike you I know English pretty well and I can reassure you that your use of "grow" here is standard English here (unbelievably!).

grow verb \ˈgrō\

: to become larger : to increase in size, amount, etc.

: to become better or improved in some way : to become more developed, mature, etc.

: to become larger and change from being a child to being an adult as time passes : to pass from childhood to adulthood.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grow

When people are reduced to crowing about how well they understand English it is usually because they have no real arguments.

Except that I did give you plenty of arguments as well as a tutoring in English, none of it has any effect on you!

Second, what you posted here is illarious. It shows you did misunderstand my post. I was actually agreeing with your use of "grow" as meaning also "increase in number". Read again what I wrote:

I can reassure you that your use of "grow" here is standard English here

You just failed the Basic English Language Test in the most ridicule fashion.


So, your response shows, again, that your grasp of English is truly minimal. This in turns may explain that, judging by your responses, you don't seem to understand anything people have been telling you over 233 pages now!

A sheer waste of time.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A sheer waste of time.
EB

That describes your comment perfectly. Nothing but a rooster crowing about something they have never demonstrated.

You simply want to run away from arguments you can't defend by talking about your imaginary knowledge of English. It is a child's ploy.

A sheer waste of time.

Here again is the argument that has not been touched. It is in English that is the only thing you seem to comprehend.

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.

I haven't had to alter in about 150 pages. Not one valid criticism.

Just people running away from it with claims of their superiority.

 

[untermensche]

Again, we are talking about the ordinary concept of absolute time and whether it is somehow illogical, not whether time is or isn't really like our concept says it is.

No.

You are using the phrase "absolute time" as if it a magic spell and can make logic disappear.

And what I am talking about really is change, not time.

Time is just the word we give to a kind of change.

I can make the same arguments by using change.

Infinite time means an infinite amount of change, an amount of change that never stops occurring.

To say that infinite change has already occurred that means before the change I see an amount of change without end occurred first.

The idea of infinite change is illogical. And time is only a kind of change therefore infinite time is illogical as well.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"Increase in number" can only mean something if there is an actual number that can increase. Finite amounts may increase but infinite amounts can't meaningfully be said to increase because infinity is not a number. So, the amount of time in an infinite past does not increase as time ellapses. The past today is no more infinite than it already was yesterday or a billion years ago.

There is no such thing as an amount that is the amount of infinite time. To say "amount" of time means a finite amount of time. To say an infinite amount of time is to change the meaning of "amount". In terms of infinity and an infinity like infinite time, an infinity like the positive integers, you can't say any amount exists. Infinite time is an infinity that increases without end. It never has what we would call an "amount". If we ask what is the amount we can only say infinite, which isn't an amount, it is the concept that the amount increases without end.

Again, bad English. "Amount" just means "quantity". not to confuse with "count", as you seem to be doing here.

So to talk of an infinite amount of time is just to talk of an infinite quantity of time. Of course you may disagree that there is in actual fact an infinite quantity of time but this would be irrelevant since the point here is about the meaning and indeed meaningfulness of this expression "an infinite amount of time". A perfect English expression: "Lucy!!! Come now! You are taking an infinite amount of time in there. John and Kate won't wait for us you know!". See?

Also, nobody speaking English properly would say "the amount of infinite time". This is because to talk of an infinite time entails that the amount of time is infinite so that "amount" feels redundant here.

You are also wrong on the semantic of "amount". An amount may be infinite. If the universe is infinite then it is possible that there is an infinite amount of galaxies in it. Again, this is not a matter of the semantic of "amount". In this respect, I think are confusing "count" and "amount". A count has to be an actual number and couldn't be infinite. That's the semantic of "count". But that's just different with "amount". An amount of galaxies is just a quantity of galaxies.

Now, you may still be right. Maybe there is no actual thing in the universe whose amount would be infinite. But that's an empricial question, not a logical one. If we talk about integer numbers for example, in the abstract, then we can say that according to the definition of integers, there is an infinite amount of integers. This is all in the abstract of course. Personally I think we should take for granted that there could be anything like that in the actual universe. Yet, if the universe is actually infinite, there would necessarily be something real of which there would be an infinite amount, even though we might not be able to effect any measure of it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That describes your comment perfectly. Nothing but a rooster crowing about something they have never demonstrated.

You simply want to run away from arguments you can't defend by talking about your imaginary knowledge of English. It is a child's ploy.

A sheer waste of time.

Here again is the argument that has not been touched. It is in English that is the only thing you seem to comprehend.

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.

I haven't had to alter in about 150 pages. Not one valid criticism.

I already replied in details to your arguments:

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.
EB

So you don't have any sensible argument or justification for your claim.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Again, we are talking about the ordinary concept of absolute time and whether it is somehow illogical, not whether time is or isn't really like our concept says it is.

No.

You are using the phrase "absolute time" as if it a magic spell and can make logic disappear.

And what I am talking about really is change, not time.

Yeah, change of subject.

You don't even understand what your own argument is. I guess that's because it is in English.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as an amount that is the amount of infinite time. To say "amount" of time means a finite amount of time. To say an infinite amount of time is to change the meaning of "amount". In terms of infinity and an infinity like infinite time, an infinity like the positive integers, you can't say any amount exists. Infinite time is an infinity that increases without end. It never has what we would call an "amount". If we ask what is the amount we can only say infinite, which isn't an amount, it is the concept that the amount increases without end.

Again, bad English. "Amount" just means "quantity". not to confuse with "count", as you seem to be doing here.

I agree it means quantity. But you can count a quantity.

If I have a concept that says the quantity increases without end then I can't count that quantity in the sense of to make a final count. I count and count and count without end. I never have a final quantity to talk about.

To talk about an infinite "quantity" is to use the word differently than using it to mean an amount of something that can be known or experienced. You can't experience the final counting of an infinite quantity. The counting goes on and on.

So to talk of an infinite amount of time is just to talk of an infinite quantity of time. Of course you may disagree that there is in actual fact an infinite quantity of time but this would be irrelevant since the point here is about the meaning and indeed meaningfulness of this expression "an infinite amount of time". A perfect English expression: "Lucy!!! Come now! You are taking an infinite amount of time in there. John and Kate won't wait for us you know!". See?

Why would I disagree? An infinite amount is an infinite "quantity". And I just explained this is a unique way to use the word "quantity". Usually if somebody asks what the quantity of something is they assume a final count can be made. It would be a strange request to ask somebody to determine the quantity of infinite items. It would asking them to go away and count forever.

Also, nobody speaking English properly would say "the amount of infinite time". This is because to talk of an infinite time entails that the amount of time is infinite so that "amount" feels redundant here.

It is redundant. All you have to say is infinite time, but "amount" is used like "quantity". It is not used in the sense that a final amount or quantity can be determined.

So if you want to say that using "amount" differently but specifically is somehow bad English go ahead. The criticism is worthless when concepts are defined as special cases.

You are also wrong on the semantic of "amount". An amount may be infinite. If the universe is infinite then it is possible that there is an infinite amount of galaxies in it. Again, this is not a matter of the semantic of "amount". In this respect, I think are confusing "count" and "amount". A count has to be an actual number and couldn't be infinite. That's the semantic of "count". But that's just different with "amount". An amount of galaxies is just a quantity of galaxies.

If the galaxies are infinite that means the number of them are increasing without end.

Do you honestly believe that galaxies are just popping into existence without end?

And of course all those galaxies have their ultimate genesis at the Big Bang. A singularity, not an infinity.

You can say that "amount" has a special meaning when it is applied to infinite. It means a quantity that increases without end.

If you define what you mean you can use words how you want. That us what they are. Tools to use, not monuments to worship.

Now, you may still be right. Maybe there is no actual thing in the universe whose amount would be infinite. But that's an empricial question, not a logical one.

You were somewhat on the tracks but now you fly off.

In terms of infinite time it is one that logic can answer.

If time in the past was infinite then the duration of time that must occur before any present moment is a duration that has no end.

Therefore, since we do have a present moment in time we know that the duration of time before it ended. It was not an infinite duration.

 

[untermensche]

You don't even understand what your own argument is. I guess that's because it is in English.
EB

I tell you that time and change can be used interchangeably in my argument.

You don't make any argument showing it isn't so.

You wave your hands and stomp your feet.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your suspicion is well founded. What needs to be defined in his question are highlighted:

Either way I still don't understand how you can claim that units of time don't pass for some frame of reference. Where does time go?

Ryan has a passive aggressive way of slipping in ambiguous wording as a way to try to get someone to commit to something they don't know they are committing to.

Tbh, I don't think it's intentional. He just isn't a very precise thinker, yet is ambitious enough to try and tackle questions whose statements require precision. It's frustrating at times, but I don't hold it against him.

No, unfortunately, it's not intentional but explaining seems a waste of time.

Maybe it's a method, à la Descartes. Throw words you really don't understand and see how it shines a new, surreal light on things. There is an infinite number of frames of reference, but it would be of course improper to take them to be real, physical things. But, hey, a word has to refer to something, you know. So, there you are, these are actual frames of reference. Now, since there's obviously an infinite number of them and ryan somehow knows that, actually, time goes in there. So, time somehow goes into these frames, into each of them, into each of the infinite number of them. Not bad, hey? I guess time must be infinite to be able to pull the trick.

Still, compare the idea of the QM multiverse. It's not soooo different.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I already replied in details to your arguments:

And they were all rebutted, but that doesn't matter. You simply post what was rebutted already again and pretend it stands unrebutted.

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

Amounts of time DO. An hour is an amount of time. In an hour that amount of time will end. You are simply making an absurd claim, not a logical criticism.

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

Meandering gibberish.

If time has no beginning then the duration of time in the past has no end. You are claiming a duration without end happened already. You are talking nonsense.

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.

More gibberish. Amounts of time end. To keep claiming they don't is just nonsense.

Infinite time in the future is a duration of time that never ends.

It doesn't matter where you put your parentheses. It is a duration (amount) of time that never ends.

The rest of your alleged argument is nothing but rehashing bad ideas you've already made.

This is not a refutation of my argument. To think so is to not think very well. Nitpicking over the word "amount" when it can mean duration is not a criticism of any worth.

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.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That describes your comment perfectly. Nothing but a rooster crowing about something they have never demonstrated.

You simply want to run away from arguments you can't defend by talking about your imaginary knowledge of English. It is a child's ploy.

A sheer waste of time.

Here again is the argument that has not been touched. It is in English that is the only thing you seem to comprehend.

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.

I haven't had to alter in about 150 pages. Not one valid criticism.

Just people running away from it with claims of their superiority.

This is your argument. I already commented on it in details and I just reposted this reply. But it's interesting to highlight how much of it is entirely moronic:

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.

So, not abosulutely entirely moronic but definitely beyond reprieve.
EB

 

[Juma]

I haven't had to alter in about 150 pages.

That is because your have your head in your own arse.

No one can show you anything if you dont want to see.

This thread has crushed your pathetic argument to smithereens an infinity amount of times.

And you just ignore it...

You have become the forum-fool nobody laughs at, because it is just so sad.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Meandering gibberish.

This is a very simple sentence as philosophy goes and it's perfectly good English but I can't be surprised you don't understand a perfectly good sentence in English even though most people would understand it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If time has no beginning then the duration of time in the past has no end. You are claiming a duration without end happened already.

Oh dear, oh dear.

A duration is always a duration of time. Do you think "duration" could be duration of something else than time?

And again, it's a nonsense to talk of a duration that has no end. It's just utter meaninglessness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

More gibberish. Amounts of time end. To keep claiming they don't is just nonsense.

You think so? Please, try to find examples from proficient, British or American, speakers of English who used this moronic notion that amounts do end (or pass, or finish, or elapse, or begin, start etc.).

It shouldn't be so hard and you seem to have plenty of time for nonsense.

Well, except perhaps that you're not going to recognise speakers of English as proficient.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It doesn't matter where you put your parentheses.

Then I'm not surprised that you logic and your English should be both so abysmal.
EB

 

[Juma]

You have a point in that there is are a objective universe that can be deduced from what we observe. Somewhat like different, seemingly contradicting 2D views of a 3D object can be combined into a single coherent whole in 3D.

But "now" is not part of this combined coherent whole.

"Now" is more like the different viewers "here" in the 3D example.

This makes no sense to me. It needs to be rephrased.

Picture a house. Picture two guys standing on different sides of the house. These will see different parts of the house and same parts in different prrspective and thus will describe it differently. If each one of these take a picture from their postion these pictures will be very different.

To make these two views coherent we must project the images back into 3D again.

Are you with me?

Now the same is true about Space-time. But here we have 3d projections of a truly 4 dimensional world. If you take 3d projections (your snapshot) of this 4d world the projections will not be coherent until you project them back into 4d.

It doesnt matter if you are inside or outside the universe doing this. Your 3d snapshot will only be the projection for your specific viewpoint.