Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

Where are these incredible arguments?

Why do they never appear every time I post mine?

Why is it nothing but claims? Claim upon claim does not become a rebuttal.

There are NO valid arguments. There are only people that make the same poor arguments over and over and never seem to understand they have been answered and shown to be inadequate.

I've asked this before, and was disappointed, What is the most substantial single argument to dispute mine?

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.

 

[untermensche]

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

Just too too funny.

To think highlighting parts of an argument is any kind of refutation what-so-ever is insane.

Your worthless comment about amounts of time that don't pass has been noted. It is the only comment you have made.

In an hour when an amount of time known as an hour passes you will make the same worthless claim again.

 

[untermensche]

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.

They see the same thing differently, I agree.

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

The views are already coherent. They are looking at a 3D object. To make a 3D model of the object is no different from having the real thing. That 3D model can look different to 2 different observers.

Are you with me?

That's for you to decide.

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.

By freezing the universe you freeze time. A frozen universe is a moment in time but it is a thing without time.

And it is just like the 3D model of the building. Yes it can appear different to two different observers, but it is one thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

 

[untermensche]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

You have explained NOTHING.

You don't understand my argument.

It is a simple argument. All it says is that an infinite amount of time never ends.

Once you comprehend that you know it can't have already occurred. The past can't be infinite. Because the present means that time in the past has finished occurring.

I've put up with enough of your nonsense and insane claims of trolling because you make worthless arguments.

Is an infinite amount of time an amount of time that never ends or does it somehow end?

If it ends please explain HOW infinite time ends. Don't talk about imaginary lines. How does infinite time end?

 

[skepticalbip]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

You have explained NOTHING.

You don't understand my argument.

It is a simple argument. All it says is that an infinite amount of time never ends.

Once you comprehend that you know it can't have already occurred. The past can't be infinite. Because the present means that time in the past has finished occurring.

I've put up with enough of your nonsense and insane claims of trolling because you make worthless arguments.

Is an infinite amount of time an amount of time that never ends or does it somehow end?

If it ends please explain HOW infinite time ends. Don't talk about imaginary lines. How does infinite time end?

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

 

[untermensche]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

What you are doing is what trolls do.

You ran out of arguments about 200 pages ago yet you linger for nothing but this garbage.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. That is my claim.

I've reduced my argument to a claim. Prove you are more than a troll and try to dispute it.

 

[Juma]

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.

Where are these incredible arguments?

Why do they never appear every time I post mine?

Why is it nothing but claims? Claim upon claim does not become a rebuttal.

There are NO valid arguments. There are only people that make the same poor arguments over and over and never seem to understand they have been answered and shown to be inadequate.

I've asked this before, and was disappointed, What is the most substantial single argument to dispute mine?

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 already refuted this. You ignored it then. you wont recognize it this time either.

 

[Juma]

What you are doing is what trolls do.

You are the troll here.

 

[untermensche]

What you are doing is what trolls do.

You are the troll here.

I have 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.

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.

What is this incredible argument that disputes this?

For your information the only argument that can dispute this is an argument that shows that an infinite amount of time finishes. An argument that shows an infinite amount of time in the future is an amount of time that finishes would be an argument to dispute this argument.

Minus that you are dreaming if you think you have disputed the logic of this argument. You haven't even addressed it.

 

[Juma]

You are the troll here.

I have 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.

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.

What is this incredible argument that disputes this?

For your information the only argument that can dispute this is an argument that shows that an infinite amount of time finishes. An argument that shows an infinite amount of time in the future is an amount of time that finishes would be an argument to dispute this argument.

Minus that you are dreaming if you think you have disputed the logic of this argument. You haven't even addressed it.

You are trolling.

 

[skepticalbip]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

What you are doing is what trolls do.

You ran out of arguments about 200 pages ago yet you linger for nothing but this garbage.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. That is my claim.

I've reduced my argument to a claim. Prove you are more than a troll and try to dispute it.

Your vacuous claims have been shown to be exactly that many times in many different ways. You just refuse to accept them or even argue why they are wrong, only restating your vacuous claim or throwing in a red herring to be chased for a while then returning to your same vacuuous claim. That is the reason I have been trying to figure WTF you were doing. This is what lead to my conclusion:

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

 

[untermensche]

You are trolling.

Not addressing arguments is trolling.

My argument doesn't have to change because nobody has pointed out a need to change it.

Some quibbles about semantics and really nothing else.

I totally destroy any objection to the idea of imagining a frozen static universe.

I destroy the idea that seeing the same events differently means there is no present.

The argument is simple.

An amount of time that never finishes can't have already finished before a present moment.

Just repeating that I am a troll to avoid the argument one more time is something any troll could do.

 

[Juma]

You are trolling.

Not addressing arguments is trolling.

My argument doesn't have to change because nobody has pointed out a need to change it.

Some quibbles about semantics and really nothing else.

I totally destroy any objection to the idea of imagining a frozen static universe.

I destroy the idea that seeing the same events differently means there is no present.

The argument is simple.

An amount of time that never finishes can't have already finished before a present moment.

Just repeating that I am a troll to avoid the argument one more time is something any troll could do.

You are trolling.

 

[untermensche]

What you are doing is what trolls do.

You ran out of arguments about 200 pages ago yet you linger for nothing but this garbage.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. That is my claim.

I've reduced my argument to a claim. Prove you are more than a troll and try to dispute it.

Your vacuous claims have been shown to be exactly that many times in many different ways. You just refuse to accept them or even argue why they are wrong, only restating your vacuous claim. That is the reason I have been trying to figure WTF you were doing. This is what lead to my conclusion:

As I said, you ran out of arguments a long time ago. You really should go away. You have absolutely nothing to add.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. That is my claim.

I've reduced my argument to a claim. Prove you are more than a troll and try to dispute it.

 

[untermensche]

Not addressing arguments is trolling.

My argument doesn't have to change because nobody has pointed out a need to change it.

Some quibbles about semantics and really nothing else.

I totally destroy any objection to the idea of imagining a frozen static universe.

I destroy the idea that seeing the same events differently means there is no present.

The argument is simple.

An amount of time that never finishes can't have already finished before a present moment.

Just repeating that I am a troll to avoid the argument one more time is something any troll could do.

You are trolling.

You have simply stopped responding to arguments made.

It is not the same thing.

You have completely run out of arguments so you've stopped trying.

Most reasonable people would say after running out of arguments that the arguments made are sound.

But children might just keep repeating the word troll over and over and hope the world goes away.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your vacuous claims have been shown to be exactly that many times in many different ways. You just refuse to accept them or even argue why they are wrong, only restating your vacuous claim. That is the reason I have been trying to figure WTF you were doing. This is what lead to my conclusion:

As I said, you ran out of arguments a long time ago. You really should go away. You have absolutely nothing to add.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. That is my claim.

I've reduced my argument to a claim. Prove you are more than a troll and try to dispute it.

A beautiful example of what I posted.

We spent several pages on this exact claim. You just refused to accept any explanation or even argue why they are wrong. You just continued to restate your vacuous claim Now you even refuse to accept that that we spent many pages arguing about it.

Your vacuous claims have been shown to be exactly that many times in many different ways. You just refuse to accept them or even argue why they are wrong, only restating your vacuous claim or throwing in a red herring to be chased for a while then returning to your same vacuuous claim. That is the reason I have been trying to figure WTF you were doing. This is what lead to my conclusion:

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

 

[Kharakov]

I totally destroy any objection to the idea of imagining a frozen static universe.

I destroy the idea that seeing the same events differently means there is no present.

You totally destroy any credibility you have with your amazing powers of destroying your own credibility.

 

[untermensche]

We spent several pages on this exact claim.

Oh you actually remember something?

I say that an infinite amount of time is time that never ends.

What argument do you think disputes this.

It is a truism. Infinite time in the future is time that never ends. Infinite time in the past HAS to mean the same thing, the same amount of time.

Forget the pages. You clearly understand the argument that disputes this.

What is that argument?

Talking about an imaginary line is not argument that shows infinite time in the future is time that ends.

- - - Updated - - -

I totally destroy any objection to the idea of imagining a frozen static universe.

I destroy the idea that seeing the same events differently means there is no present.

You totally destroy any credibility you have with your amazing powers of destroying your own credibility.

Yes I know. A frozen static universe is unreasonable because there is no outside to the universe.

Oh wait, the model of the multiverse states there is an outside to the universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

We spent several pages on this exact claim.

Oh you actually remember something?

I say that an infinite amount of time is time that never ends.

What argument do you think disputes this.

It is a truism. Infinite time in the future is time that never ends. Infinite time in the past HAS to mean the same thing.

Forget the pages. You clearly understand the argument that disputes this.

What is that argument?

Talking about an imaginary line is not argument that shows infinite time in the future is time that ends.