Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

Here is the claim (more or less):
1) There was no time for change to occur
2) change occurred- the change that occurred is time to change began to exist.

No, there was a difference, but no change.

 

[George S]

Imagine, along with a few physicists, explaining all we can see with a coherent theory that explains everything after the first tick of time. Shall we imagine a reality that begins at 1, not 0?

The first tick from -1 to 0 in our direction of time's arrow and from 1 to 0 as time goes negative in the reverse-duration view. Note that this zero is seen as t = 1 from both directions. It is the single --selfsame, sphere seen from both directions as expanding. From their time perspective we are crashing into the t = 1 from infinity and we see the same. It is all done with mirrors: mathematically -- symmetry.

Where does all that mass come from? We both say the same -- a whole collapsing universe.

 

[ryan]

Okay, now why does there have to be a limit on the number of things that can exist? We don't know this because nobody can count to infinity, right?

Any possible counting is a finite counting.

I agree given the way you are using "counting".

A counting means to make a count of something. So to make a counting requires a finite amount to count. That is what that sentence means.

Okay, but you did not answer the question. Let me put it this way: why can't we count real objects and never finish?

Zero total energy sounds to me like something finite.

Draw a circle (you don't actually need to draw this to get the point). Imagine that circle is perfect and continuous. Now draw a larger circle around the first circle, and imagine it too is perfect and continuous. Any infinitesimal point on the smaller circle will actually expand into a measurable arc length on the larger circle. One of the interesting things about infinity is that the "pieces" are not conserved; we seem to get something from nothing - a universe from nothing?

My understanding of "the universe from nothing" is that all the matter/energy in the universe (positive energy) plus all the gravity in the universe (negative energy) equal zero. So the postulation is that what we now see as the universe started from nothing (and is still nothing if taken all together) when the fundamentals of matter/energy and gravity seperated from that nothing.

It's sorta like you are flat broke. You borrow a few million dollars and put it in your bank account. You now have a few million dollars you can show off but you are also a few million in debt. Your net worth is still zero.

Yeah, but it's still something from nothing. It is all conserved and nicely symmetrical in total, but something and nothing is not symmetrical.

That seems to just be a choice of terminology. Rather than calling the universe something call it [(+something) + (-something)] and it would be symmetrical with nothing.

Okay, but then all of this should be considered nothing too. Then there is no difference between something and nothing. But if there is a difference, then what is it, quantum fluctuation? I don't know enough about that to go any further.

Philosophers criticize his use of "nothing". Are quantum fluctuations really nothing?

Good question. Another would be was it a quantum fluctuation or something we have no knowledge of?

I have no idea.

In any case, it seems that his "nothing" is postulating a void very different from the fourspace we now see. Wouldn't our fourspace have come into being from his "nothing" along with the energy/matter and gravity when they seperated from the "nothing"?

I think that's what they claim, but I am not sure.

 

[skepticalbip]

Okay, now why does there have to be a limit on the number of things that can exist? We don't know this because nobody can count to infinity, right?

Any possible counting is a finite counting.

I agree given the way you are using "counting".

A counting means to make a count of something. So to make a counting requires a finite amount to count. That is what that sentence means.

Okay, but you did not answer the question. Let me put it this way: why can't we count real objects and never finish?

Zero total energy sounds to me like something finite.

Draw a circle (you don't actually need to draw this to get the point). Imagine that circle is perfect and continuous. Now draw a larger circle around the first circle, and imagine it too is perfect and continuous. Any infinitesimal point on the smaller circle will actually expand into a measurable arc length on the larger circle. One of the interesting things about infinity is that the "pieces" are not conserved; we seem to get something from nothing - a universe from nothing?

My understanding of "the universe from nothing" is that all the matter/energy in the universe (positive energy) plus all the gravity in the universe (negative energy) equal zero. So the postulation is that what we now see as the universe started from nothing (and is still nothing if taken all together) when the fundamentals of matter/energy and gravity seperated from that nothing.

It's sorta like you are flat broke. You borrow a few million dollars and put it in your bank account. You now have a few million dollars you can show off but you are also a few million in debt. Your net worth is still zero.

Yeah, but it's still something from nothing. It is all conserved and nicely symmetrical in total, but something and nothing is not symmetrical.

That seems to just be a choice of terminology. Rather than calling the universe something call it [(+something) + (-something)] and it would be symmetrical with nothing.

Okay, but then all of this should be considered nothing too. Then there is no difference between something and nothing. But if there is a difference, then what is it, quantum fluctuation? I don't know enough about that to go any further.

Exactly. That was a major part of the postulation. There is a difference between something and nothing but the something of our current universe is balanced by an equal negative something, gravity. The total is zero or nothing. The universe is nothing when the total mass/energy (positive energy) and the total gravity (negative energy) of the universe is taken into account. It is like borrowing a few million dollars. You have a few million dollars to show off (positive energy) but a few million in debt (negative energy) so even though you can flash millions of dollars around your net worth is zero.

Philosophers criticize his use of "nothing". Are quantum fluctuations really nothing?

Good question. Another would be was it a quantum fluctuation or something we have no knowledge of?

I have no idea.

In any case, it seems that his "nothing" is postulating a void very different from the fourspace we now see. Wouldn't our fourspace have come into being from his "nothing" along with the energy/matter and gravity when they seperated from the "nothing"?

I think that's what they claim, but I am not sure.

Good. Anyone who is *sure* about such things are only fooling themselves, not anyone else.

 

[untermensche]

How could there be a real object that we couldn't theoretically count?

We could theoretically count them if we had an infinite amount of time. It can't be finished in a finite amount of time, well, unless you could count infinitely fast, whatever that means.

No. We could actually count any finite amount in a finite amount of time. We can theoretically count them in an instant. A theoretical count is not an actual count. All a theoretical count means is a count that has been shown to be logically possible.

 

[ryan]

No. We could actually count any finite amount in a finite amount of time. We can theoretically count them in an instant. A theoretical count is not an actual count. All a theoretical count means is a count that has been shown to be logically possible.

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

 

[Malintent]

No. We could actually count any finite amount in a finite amount of time. We can theoretically count them in an instant. A theoretical count is not an actual count. All a theoretical count means is a count that has been shown to be logically possible.

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

This wuold only be true if "counting" was the only method available to determine the rationality of "infinity". But it isn't. "Infinity" can derived mathamatically... sufficently enough for it to pass scientific rigor to "exist" mathamatically.

 

[ryan]

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

This wuold only be true if "counting" was the only method available to determine the rationality of "infinity". But it isn't. "Infinity" can derived mathamatically... sufficently enough for it to pass scientific rigor to "exist" mathamatically.

But I think - I hope - the point is that just because there are infinities in math doesn't necessarily mean that infinities have to exist in terms of real objects in the universe. I don't know how Lawrence Krauss can just dismiss continuous fields altogether, but I hope he has his reasons.

In my opinion, this is a scientifically valid point but certainly arguable philosophically.

 

[untermensche]

No. We could actually count any finite amount in a finite amount of time. We can theoretically count them in an instant. A theoretical count is not an actual count. All a theoretical count means is a count that has been shown to be logically possible.

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

Mine is a logical argument.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

An infinite amount of things cannot even theoretically be counted. Even with infinite time you would have made no progress towards finishing the counting.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

Mine is a logical argument.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

An infinite amount of things cannot even theoretically be counted. Even with infinite time you would have made no progress towards finishing the counting.

You are still limiting your argument to physical things (limited specifics) and applying them to anything real (general). All reality isn't limited to physical things therefore you are guilty of a logical fallacy.

ETA:
And even if you limit your argument to physical things, you are making a circular argument i.e. your primise "If a thing exists it can in theory be counted" is assuming your conclusion - another logical fallacy.

Or are you just playing word games by saying that we can count (a limited set of individual) things in the primise and then changing what you mean by "count" to mean to number all things for your conclusion? If so then you are just playing semantic games for the joy of mental masturbation.

 

[ryan]

Here is my attempt at a summary of your argument.

Nothing has ever been counted to infinity; therefore, there is no reason to believe that an infinite number of objects exist.

This is a good scientific argument left at that. If there is no evidence or reason to hypothesize on the existence of an infinite number of anything, then it is not scientific.

Even though there are probably many arguments as to why it should scientifically hypothetical and possibly theoretical, this argument is pretty strong.

Mine is a logical argument.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted.

An infinite amount of things cannot even theoretically be counted. Even with infinite time you would have made no progress towards finishing the counting.

No, your last sentence is not true.

If there were an infinite number of apples lined up and it took a second to count each apple, then you will have counted all of the apples in an infinite number of seconds.

1st second, 2nd second, 3rd second, ... nth second
1st apple, 2nd apple, 3rd apple, ... nth apple

n/n as n goes to infinity = 1/1 as n goes to infinity = 1/1

You can see that the top always equals the bottom. So if you count to infinity, you will reach infinite seconds. Conversely, if you reach infinite seconds, you will have counted all of the apples.

But if you say that if time began at, say, the Big Bang, and we live forever, then we will never be able to count to infinity. That makes sense to me, but we have to accept some controversial postulates.

 

[Kharakov]

Semantics is important. The freedom of religion comes from religion. Freedom from religion is something your can have without religion (obviously).

The freedom of religion is part of religion.

No it doesn't.

The freedom of religion comes from something beyond religion.

That's right. Something that is part of something (like the usefulness of a computer is "part of" the computer) can be said to come from the designers of the computer.

 

[Kharakov]

Mine is a logical argument.

Your argument is logical in the sense that it is logical to present illogical arguments to perpetuate conversation and learning.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

Like skepticalbip said, you're assuming the premise that what exists can be counted.

Assuming smooth time (evidenced by Pi found in nature-smoothness of EM, gravitational fields), there are an infinite amount of different states between t=1 and t=2 with just 2 particles traveling in relation to one another (interacting through gravity alone). Assuming smooth time, we can't count the number of states between t=1 and t=2, but each state is real.

 

[untermensche]

If there were an infinite number of apples lined up and it took a second to count each apple, then you will have counted all of the apples in an infinite number of seconds.

You would count forever.

You would never have a counting.

 

[untermensche]

Your argument is logical in the sense that it is logical to present illogical arguments to perpetuate conversation and learning.

That's an opinion that has no demonstration.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

Like skepticalbip said, you're assuming the premise that what exists can be counted.

That is the definition of existence. If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists.

Assuming smooth time (evidenced by Pi found in nature-smoothness of EM, gravitational fields), there are an infinite amount of different states between t=1 and t=2 with just 2 particles traveling in relation to one another (interacting through gravity alone). Assuming smooth time, we can't count the number of states between t=1 and t=2, but each state is real.

This is only a model of reality. It is a mathematical construct. We cannot assume smooth time. We cannot assume such a thing as infinite states. What you are talking about is imaginary not real.

 

[ryan]

If there were an infinite number of apples lined up and it took a second to count each apple, then you will have counted all of the apples in an infinite number of seconds.

You would count forever.

You would never have a counting.

You wouldn't finish in a finite number of seconds, but you would in an infinite number of seconds. We don't know if time ends or even if time began.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's an opinion that has no demonstration.

If a thing exists it can in theory be counted. Therefore all things that exist can in theory be counted. If all things that exist can in theory be counted then the sum of all things that exist is a finite sum.

Like skepticalbip said, you're assuming the premise that what exists can be counted.

That is the definition of existence. If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists.

Asserting definitions that are absurd on the face of it is no way to defend your logical fallacy of begging the question.

 

[untermensche]

That's an opinion that has no demonstration.

Like skepticalbip said, you're assuming the premise that what exists can be counted.

That is the definition of existence. If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists.

Asserting definitions that are absurd on the face of it is no way to defend your logical fallacy of begging the question.

Bland opinions with no explanation don't lead us anywhere.

Try to make a coherent argument why you believe something instead of just saying what you believe.

 

[untermensche]

You would count forever.

You would never have a counting.

You wouldn't finish in a finite number of seconds, but you would in an infinite number of seconds. We don't know if time ends or even if time began.

When will this infinite amount of seconds pass so that the counting is finished?

 

[skepticalbip]

That's an opinion that has no demonstration.

Like skepticalbip said, you're assuming the premise that what exists can be counted.

That is the definition of existence. If something is said to exist then we must be able to perceive it in some way. If we can't perceive it we can't say it exists.

Asserting definitions that are absurd on the face of it is no way to defend your logical fallacy of begging the question.

Bland opinions with no explanation don't lead us anywhere.

Try to make a coherent argument why you believe something instead of just saying what you believe.

Show where you got that absurd definition of existence. There is a hell of a lot in this universe that we can not observe (perceive ) because they are to far, to small, to conceiled, etc. Just because we can't observe them or even know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist. There is a hell of a lot more in the universe that we can not perceive than there is that we can.

As to your logical fallacy of begging the question, your first premis is just a rewording of the conclusion you want to make - classic logical fallacy frequently used by theists trying to logically prove the existence of god.