Infinte Regress Timeline...

[PyramidHead]

Nobody is trolling.

When you say "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" you are making a false statement.

An infinite past does not imply what you are saying it implies.

One need not produce "an argument that shows that an infinite amount of time finishes," because this is a meaningless statement. Amounts don't finish, just as predicates don't deliver pizza and rebuttals don't undergo plastic surgery.

Worse yet, time can be understood without thinking in terms of amounts, and when understood as a system of coordinates on a line, your problem goes away.

You are the one making a definitive statement of logical impossibility; everyone else is remaining agnostic about the finitude of time.

If you are saying the idea of infinite time is logically impossible, you need to show that there are no interpretations of time that can escape that logical impossibility. I and others have provided several coherent models of time, which agree with experience and are routinely invoked by physicists, that do not suffer from the problem of infinite amounts.

Of course, when you encounter those counterarguments, you dismiss them as imaginary and cling to your preferred interpretation as if it were uniquely 'inherent' to the fabric of reality, when it's actually no less imaginary than anybody's conception of time.

 

[untermensche]

One need not produce "an argument that shows that an infinite amount of time finishes," because this is a meaningless statement. Amounts don't finish, just as predicates don't deliver pizza and rebuttals don't undergo plastic surgery.

Amounts of time DO finish.

In an hour the amount of time known as an hour will finish.

You keep making this claim that amounts of time don't finish.

I have disputed it countless times and you ignore my problems and just proclaim it again later.

An amount of time can have a starting point and a finishing point.

Anybody with a stopwatch knows this.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's a colloquialism. In actuality, it's not the amount of time that finishes, it's whatever event is defined as taking an hour to complete.

Either way, it doesn't say anything about infinity in the past direction.

What is illogical about an infinite number of past events, all of which have finished?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not really into the various block universe ideas... they entertained me for a bit, but they seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Anyways, "outside of the universe" is a bit of a semantic quagmire: the universe was originally defined as all encompassing (which means the "multiverse" is within it), although we needed a term to describe a universe in which baby universes exist, thus the term "multiverse" was created.

Not really sure where you're trying to go with your statements... although hopefully somewhere uplifting and entertaining.

 

[untermensche]

That's a colloquialism. In actuality, it's not the amount of time that finishes, it's whatever event is defined as taking an hour to complete.

Either way, it doesn't say anything about infinity in the past direction.

What is illogical about an infinite number of past events, all of which have finished?

How does an infinite number of events finish?

If I say there will be an infinite number of events in the future when do those events finish?

How can we say an infinite number of events have finished just because we are talking about the past?

 

[untermensche]

Not really sure where you're trying to go with your statements... although hopefully somewhere uplifting and entertaining.

I've stated about a dozen times what I make from this.

I've never once claimed it is entertaining.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's a colloquialism. In actuality, it's not the amount of time that finishes, it's whatever event is defined as taking an hour to complete.

Either way, it doesn't say anything about infinity in the past direction.

What is illogical about an infinite number of past events, all of which have finished?

How does an infinite number of events finish?

Careful; the number of events doesn't finish (or not), because numbers don't finish. We have to be careful and precise with terms here. All of the events finished, but the number of events is infinitely high.

If I say there will be an infinite number of events in the future when do those events finish?

Depends on the length of each event. If there is an infinite number of one-hour events in the future, each one finishes exactly one hour after it starts.

How can we say an infinite number of events have finished just because we are talking about the past?

Because the past, by definition, is made up of finished events!

 

[Juma]

How does an infinite number of events finish?

Exactly as any event: when they do.

If I say there will be an infinite number of events in the future when do those events finish?

Never

How can we say an infinite number of events have finished just because we are talking about the past?

Because contrary to the future (as seen as beginning in the predent) an infinite past assumes no beginning. Thus any time position will be the finish of a an infinite length of time.

Deal with it. But of course you will not.

Troll.

 

[untermensche]

How does an infinite number of events finish?

Careful; the number of events doesn't finish (or not), because numbers don't finish. We have to be careful and precise with terms here. All of the events finished, but the number of events is infinitely high.

Again, a finite number of events DO finish.

An infinite number of events never finishes. There can't have been an infinite number of events that finished before some present event.

An infinite number of events never finishes.

If I say there will be an infinite number of events in the future when do those events finish?

Depends on the length of each event. If there is an infinite number of one-hour events in the future, each one finishes exactly one hour after it starts.

That is a dodge. We are talking about a number of events all strung together in one line.

When will an infinite number of hours each occurring one after the other end?

Because the past, by definition, is made up of finished events!

No that doesn't change anything.

We are asking if the amount of finished events can be without end before a present end.

The whole question is, how does an infinite amount of time already pass before a present moment in time?

 

[untermensche]

Exactly as any event: when they do.

That is not an answer any adult would accept. The question is how do a number of events without end have an end?

Because contrary to the future (as seen as beginning in the predent) an infinite past assumes no beginning.

How many times do you have to be told that saying time has no beginning is saying the amount of it has no end?

How many times will I have to explain it to you before you understand?

An amount of time with no end can't have ended at the present moment.

Deal with it.

 

[PyramidHead]

Careful; the number of events doesn't finish (or not), because numbers don't finish. We have to be careful and precise with terms here. All of the events finished, but the number of events is infinitely high.

Again, a finite number of events DO finish.

An infinite number of events never finishes. There can't have been an infinite number of events that finished before some present event.

An infinite number of events never finishes.

I just told you to be careful with language. Every event in the past has finished, whether the past is finite or infinite. Nothing is contradictory about that.

If I say there will be an infinite number of events in the future when do those events finish?

Depends on the length of each event. If there is an infinite number of one-hour events in the future, each one finishes exactly one hour after it starts.

That is a dodge. We are talking about a number of events all strung together in one line.

When will an infinite number of hours each occurring one after the other end?

Again: the number will not end, because numbers don't end. The hours themselves will end. The days, weeks, and years made up of those hours will end, as all units of time do. Every unit of time has an end. This does not have anything to do with whether or not the QUANTITY of those units is infinite (and that is NOT the same as saying "the quantity does not end," which is meaningless)

Because the past, by definition, is made up of finished events!

No that doesn't change anything.

We are asking if the amount of finished events can be without end before a present end.

The whole question is, how does an infinite amount of time already pass before a present moment in time?

It's really very simple if you stop creating problems by applying the word "end" to amounts of things. Only things with DURATION can end. I am presenting a model where all durations are finite, but there need not be any limit to the number of durations. I'm not saying that's how time definitely works, but it's a possibility, and it's not logically contradictory. So your claim is not true.

 

[PyramidHead]

That is not an answer any adult would accept. The question is how do a number of events without end have an end?

Because contrary to the future (as seen as beginning in the predent) an infinite past assumes no beginning.

How many times do you have to be told that saying time has no beginning is saying the amount of it has no end?

How many times will I have to explain it to you before you understand?

An amount of time with no end can't have ended at the present moment.

Deal with it.

A series of events, each with finite duration, but infinite in number, may have taken place before today. Each event happened after its predecessor and before its successor. For any event, the number of events between it and the present-day would be finite. There is no first event.

Thus: saying time had no beginning does not mean the amount of it has no end. It means the number of events that ended before today is infinite.

What is contradictory about that description of reality, regardless of whether it is actually true?

 

[Juma]

That is not an answer any adult would accept. The question is how do a number of events without end have an end?



How many times do you have to be told that saying time has no beginning is saying the amount of it has no end?

How many times will I have to explain it to you before you understand?

An amount of time with no end can't have ended at the present moment.

Deal with it.

A series of events, each with finite duration, but infinite in number, may have taken place before today. Each event happened after its predecessor and before its successor. For any event, the number of events between it and the present-day would be finite.

Thus: saying time had no beginning does not mean the amount of it has no end. It means the number of events that ended before today is infinite.

What is contradictory about that description of reality, regardless of whether it is actually true?

Good luck with this... The chanses of unter actual make sense is minimal though.

 

[untermensche]

Again, a finite number of events DO finish.

An infinite number of events never finishes. There can't have been an infinite number of events that finished before some present event.

An infinite number of events never finishes.

I just told you to be careful with language. Every event in the past has finished, whether the past is finite or infinite. Nothing is contradictory about that.

We are talking about the idea of an infinite number of events finishing.

I know every event in the past is finished. The question is whether or not it is possible for an infinite number of them to finish.

How does an infinite number of events finish to allow the present events to take place?

Again: the number will not end, because numbers don't end. The hours themselves will end. The days, weeks, and years made up of those hours will end, as all units of time do. Every unit of time has an end. This does not have anything to do with whether or not the QUANTITY of those units is infinite (and that is NOT the same as saying "the quantity does not end," which is meaningless)

Because the past, by definition, is made up of finished events!

The question is; Will the amount of time made up of an infinite number of hours end? Will there be a final hour in an infinite number of hours? An hour ends, so if there is a final hour the amount of time will end.

You are running away from the question.

Can infinite time end? A simple question.

It's really very simple if you stop creating problems by applying the word "end" to amounts of things. Only things with DURATION can end. I am presenting a model where all durations are finite, but there need not be any limit to the number of durations. I'm not saying that's how time definitely works, but it's a possibility, and it's not logically contradictory. So your claim is not true.

Amounts of time DO end. You keep saying the same thing that has been disputed over and over. It is unreasonable.

Your model does not address the idea of an infinite duration of time that ends at the present moment.

 

[skepticalbip]

A series of events, each with finite duration, but infinite in number, may have taken place before today. Each event happened after its predecessor and before its successor. For any event, the number of events between it and the present-day would be finite.

Thus: saying time had no beginning does not mean the amount of it has no end. It means the number of events that ended before today is infinite.

What is contradictory about that description of reality, regardless of whether it is actually true?

Good luck with this... The chanses of unter actual make sense is minimal though.

Yup,

It has already been explained. I even got him to agree that every event in a day could be completed during the day and then, at the end of the day, it would become the past. That this could be done day by day. Even got him to agree that an infinite number of events can occur in an infinite time. A few hours later he claimed that, yes an infinite number of events can occur in an infinite amount of time but they couldn't all be completed...????. After this, the discussion was ignored and he returned to his same mantra.

 

[untermensche]

A series of events, each with finite duration, but infinite in number, may have taken place before today. Each event happened after its predecessor and before its successor. For any event, the number of events between it and the present-day would be finite. There is no first event.

That is not an explanation of anything.

It is saying if time never began it is infinite.

And I have said over and over, time that doesn't begin is a duration of time that never ends.

To say time never began is to say the duration of time in the past is without end.

Well, if it is without end, how did it end at the present moment?

You are not giving me any sound arguments.

 

[bilby]

Time with no start is infinite, regardless of when (or indeed, whether) it ends.

If the past has no beginning, and ends now, then it is infinite.

But we have been over this; you have ignored it before, and you have flat out denied it before, and I predict you will do so again.

 

[untermensche]

Time with no start is infinite, regardless of when (or indeed, whether) it ends.

If the past has no beginning, and ends now, then it is infinite.

But we have been over this; you have ignored it before, and you have flat out denied it before, and I predict you will do so again.

If it has no start then the amount of it has no end.

You are ignoring this.

I don't know if you always will.

 

[bilby]

Time with no start is infinite, regardless of when (or indeed, whether) it ends.

If the past has no beginning, and ends now, then it is infinite.

But we have been over this; you have ignored it before, and you have flat out denied it before, and I predict you will do so again.

If it has no start then the amount of it has no end.

If it has no start then there is an infinite amount of it. But it can still finish.

Once again, you equivocate on the word 'end'.

It is 'endless' insofar as it is infinite; but it still finishes.

Or perhaps you think it can't end, because you can't fit an infinite block of time into a finite past - in which case you are assuming your conclusion.

Either way, your 'logic' is flawed.

 

[ryan]

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.

Yes it does. But the size doesn't matter for my point; the age is what matters. A finite length of time in an infinite length of time is infinitesimally small like a point of time in our time. But a point in our time is just a 3 dimensional static structure. So it doesn't seem like infinite time would be time anymore; it seems to mean another dimension.

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

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

See above and below.

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.

This is the fraction of time that the universe exists in for some frame of reference.

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.

Not for our frames of references in this universe, but it does seem to matter for the frame of reference that an infinite amount of time occurred in.