Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

It is conceptually an amount of time that has already occurred.

No. The past is the events themselves: history.

As I said, it is an imaginary conception. It can be several things.

It is the events, but the events needed a duration to occur. So the past is also that duration necessary for the events to occur.

To say the past was infinite is to say the number of events were infinite and the duration was infinite.

Both meaning to have no end.

 

[bilby]

Indeed; and so far there has been no reasoning given that would allow us to determine whether or not that is the case; so the past may be finite, or it may be infinite.

/thread.

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.

But that's OK, because:

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

See, this is what is called the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Your argument rests on using two different definitions at the same time; it is therefore fallacious.

 

[Mageth]

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

Not in any way that you can demonstrate.

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.

No. If time in the past was infinite, then time had no beginning. The present is the end of time in the past.

Therefore, since we do have a present moment in time we know that the duration of time before it ended.

OK, so we know the past ends at the present. You think this is some special logic knowledge you've deduced?

It was not an infinite duration.

It was if time had no beginning.

Your "logic" is asserting that there would not be a present moment if time had no beginning. That is patent nonsense. If time, there is a present moment. If time is finite, there is a present moment. If time is infinite, there is a present moment. That's because it's time.

And we, not surprisingly, are at the present moment. This is true whether time had a beginning or not.

 

[Mageth]

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.

If change is finite, there would be a current state. If change is infinite, if there was no first state, there would be a current state.

 

[ryan]

No. The time between events is not in any way depending on wether time has a beginning or not.

I agree. Please continue reading.

Is an infinite number of finite time intervals still time?

If they are consecutive and not reordered then obvuosly yes.

Imagine a person holds a clock for 100 seconds. For her frame of reference, we can geometrically show this 100 second interval on a timeline.

Now consider the same geometric description in an interval of an infinite number of those 100 second intervals. Her interval becomes a point; that's fine. The problem is that the infinitely dense interval is now a higher dimension. Is that still time? The usual definition of time has only one dimension; this infinite amount of time would be a 2 dimensional time.

 

[Mageth]

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.

Infinite time in the future means that time in the future has no end. Infinite time in the past means that time in the past had no beginning.

It's really that fucking simple.

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

Your entire set of assertions (I won't do it justice as an "argument") is based on flawed logic and tortured language, namely as to your bizarre notion of what an infinite past is defined as and implies, which it clearly isn't and doesn't.

 

[ryan]

Imagine a person holds a clock for 100 seconds. For her frame of reference, we can geometrically show this 100 second interval on a timeline.

Now consider the same geometric description in an interval of an infinite number of those 100 second intervals. Her interval becomes a point; that's fine. The problem is that the infinitely dense interval is now a higher dimension. Is that still time? The usual definition of time has only one dimension; this infinite amount of time would be a 2 dimensional time.

GAME OVER!!!!

Inspired by Kharakov's Idea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7OyKAFu50M

Turn it up!

 

[untermensche]

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.

But that's OK, because:

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

See, this is what is called the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Your argument rests on using two different definitions at the same time; it is therefore fallacious.

First of all for you to make a complete argument you have to explain what you're talking about.

But I will try to guess.

What is this equivocation you speak of?

In the first quote I am talking about an amount of time. Amounts of time end.

The second I am talking about the mechanics of time, the way time works. A moment is first a present moment then a past moment.

The present moment occurs before the past moment and is the start of the past moment.

I fail to see any equivocation, but maybe because you never pointed one out.

 

[Mageth]

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?

Infinite events in the future have a start but no finish.
Infinite events in the past had no start but have finished.

It's really that simple.

 

[untermensche]

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.

No. If time in the past was infinite, then time had no beginning. The present is the end of time in the past.

The present is the beginning of the past. Not the end of it.

A moment is a present moment BEFORE it is thought of as a past moment.

Something that is here first can't be the end. It has to be the start.

OK, so we know the past ends at the present. You think this is some special logic knowledge you've deduced?

The past doesn't end at the present.

The prior present moments end at the present.

The past begins at the present.

There is a difference between the past, an imaginary conception, and the prior present moments which were something real.

What was real ends. What is imaginary begins.

Your "logic" is asserting that there would not be a present moment if time had no beginning. That is patent nonsense. If time, there is a present moment. If time is finite, there is a present moment. If time is infinite, there is a present moment. That's because it's time.

I am saying if infinite prior moments have to occur before the present moment the present moment can't occur because infinite prior moments will never finish.

But the present moment is the end of all the prior moments.

How did an infinite number of them finish?

 

[untermensche]

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?

Infinite events in the future have a start but no finish.
Infinite events in the past had no start but have finished.

It's really that simple.

How does an event not start?

If an event doesn't start it isn't an event.

 

[bilby]

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.

But that's OK, because:

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

See, this is what is called the Fallacy of Equivocation.

Your argument rests on using two different definitions at the same time; it is therefore fallacious.

First of all for you to make a complete argument you have to explain what you're talking about.

But I will try to guess.

What is this equivocation you speak of?

I have bolded it for you.

You are defining 'the present moment' as the point at which the past ends; and also defining it as the point at which the past starts. You can use either definition, but using both is equivocation.

In the first quote I am talking about an amount of time. Amounts of time end.

The second I am talking about the mechanics of time, the way time works. A moment is first a present moment then a past moment.

The present moment occurs before the past moment and is the start of the past moment.

I fail to see any equivocation, but maybe because you never pointed one out.

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.

Two different meanings for 'end' there as well.

An amount of time that never starts can end at the present moment; but if:

The present is the start of the past, not the end of it.

Then an amount of time that never ends stretches infinitely back in time.

Your definitions of 'start' 'end' and 'present' are all over the place; your argument is useless until you define ONE meaning for each of these and stick to it.

 

[Mageth]

Indeed; and so far there has been no reasoning given that would allow us to determine whether or not that is the case; so the past may be finite, or it may be infinite.

/thread.

Fucking Christ!!!

The argument is that an amount of time that never ends can't have ended at the present moment.

But you assert that the past starts at the present moment as does the future, and that they're symmetrical. Assuming the past starts at the present, and if the future is or even may be unbounded going away from the present, then it seems the past is or may be unbounded going away from the present, and if so there is no end to the past as there would be no end to teh future. You seem to have undermined your own "argument".

- - - Updated - - -

Infinite events in the future have a start but no finish.
Infinite events in the past had no start but have finished.

It's really that simple.

How does an event not start?

If an event doesn't start it isn't an event.

Language barrier. Parse the first sentence as meaning there is a first event given infinite events in the future. Parse the second sentence as meaning there was no first event given infinite events in the past.

 

[untermensche]

I have bolded it for you.

You are defining 'the present moment' as the point at which the past ends; and also defining it as the point at which the past starts. You can use either definition, but using both is equivocation.

No. I make a distinction between that which causes the past, the present, and the past itself.

The past itself as I've said is just an imaginary conception. But it STARTS at the present.

Any moment in time is FIRST a present moment THEN thought of as a past moment. The present comes before the past and is the beginning of the past.

But prior present moments are not the past. They are what becomes the past. Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

So the current present moment is at the END of the prior present moments, but it is at the START of the past.

If the prior present moments are infinite how did they end at the present moment?

 

[Mageth]

No. If time in the past was infinite, then time had no beginning. The present is the end of time in the past.

The present is the beginning of the past. Not the end of it.

I said the present is the end of time in the past. Just like 11:59:59 pm will be the end of today. Do you think 11:59:59 today will be the beginning of today?

A moment is a present moment BEFORE it is thought of as a past moment.

OK, but so what?

Something that is here first can't be the end. It has to be the start.

11:59:59 pm will be the end of today.

The past doesn't end at the present.

11:59:59 pm will be the end of today.

The prior present moments end at the present.

We commonly refer to "the prior present moments" as the past.

The past begins at the present.

11:59:59 pm will be the end of today.

There is a difference between the past, an imaginary conception, and the prior present moments which were something real.

Shorthand for "prior present moments" is "the past".

What was real ends. What is imaginary begins.

What....the fuck?

I am saying if infinite prior moments have to occur before the present moment the present moment can't occur because infinite prior moments will never finish.

Which is patent nonsense.

But the present moment is the end of all the prior moments.

How did an infinite number of them finish?

This is possible if time in the past had no beginning. Time has a present moment, whether time had a beginning or not. And so, here we are, at the present moment, with all those "prior moments" behind us.

Your "logic" is asserting that there would not be a present moment if time had no beginning. That is patent nonsense. If time, there is a present moment. If time is finite, there is a present moment. If time is infinite, there is a present moment. That's because it's time.

 

[Mageth]

Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

 

[bilby]

I have bolded it for you.

You are defining 'the present moment' as the point at which the past ends; and also defining it as the point at which the past starts. You can use either definition, but using both is equivocation.

No. I make a distinction between that which causes the past, the present, and the past itself.

The past itself as I've said is just an imaginary conception. But it STARTS at the present.

Any moment in time is FIRST a present moment THEN thought of as a past moment. The present comes before the past and is the beginning of the past.

But prior present moments are not the past. They are what becomes the past. Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

So the current present moment is at the END of the prior present moments, but it is at the START of the past.

If the prior present moments are infinite how did they end at the present moment?

By not having a start.

Using the same word to mean two different things in different parts of your argument appears to be confusing you.

For those concepts you want to define as starting at the present, there is no end; and for those concepts you want to define as ending at the present, there is no start.

There is no contradiction, unless you use both definitions for the same concept - which would be equivocation.

No. I make a distinction between that which causes the past, the present, and the past itself.

This is unnecessary and confusing, but if you must.

The past itself as I've said is just an imaginary conception. But it STARTS at the present.

And, if it is infinite, it doesn't end.

Any moment in time is FIRST a present moment THEN thought of as a past moment. The present comes before the past and is the beginning of the past.

OK. And if the present is the beginning of the past, and the past is infinite, then the past never ends.

But prior present moments are not the past. They are what becomes the past. Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

How so? Once they are 'prior' they are the past. By definition. This is a distinction without a difference. But OK, let's see where it takes us.

So the current present moment is at the END of the prior present moments, but it is at the START of the past.

So the current present moment is at the END of the prior present moments, which have no beginning, but it is at the START of the past, which has no end.

If the prior present moments are infinite how did they end at the present moment?

You defined them as doing so (I bolded it for you.); and the implication of that is that they have no beginning, (if they are infinite), which is implied by your argument, and not ruled out by anything you have said.

Equally, when you defined the past as starting at the present, the implication is that it has no end (if it is infinite). This also is not ruled out by anything you have said.

Two different definitions; one describes an infinity with no beginning; the other describes an infinity with no end; neither contradicts the other - indeed they can't contradict each other, because by your definitions of each, they are not the same.

 

[untermensche]

Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

Talking about prior present moments is talking about the progression of present moments.

The past is not the progression of present moments.

The past is an imaginary progression of past moments.

It is not an easy distinction to understand, but it really is no different from knowing the difference between the past and the present.

 

[untermensche]

The present is the beginning of the past. Not the end of it.

I said the present is the end of time in the past. Just like 11:59:59 pm will be the end of today. Do you think 11:59:59 today will be the beginning of today?

This I agree with.

And if the time in the past is infinite how can it end at the present moment?

 

[untermensche]

No. I make a distinction between that which causes the past, the present, and the past itself.

The past itself as I've said is just an imaginary conception. But it STARTS at the present.

Any moment in time is FIRST a present moment THEN thought of as a past moment. The present comes before the past and is the beginning of the past.

But prior present moments are not the past. They are what becomes the past. Prior present moments become what is called the past. They are not the same thing.

So the current present moment is at the END of the prior present moments, but it is at the START of the past.

If the prior present moments are infinite how did they end at the present moment?

By not having a start.

Using the same word to mean two different things in different parts of your argument appears to be confusing you.

For those concepts you want to define as starting at the present, there is no end; and for those concepts you want to define as ending at the present, there is no start.

There is no contradiction, unless you use both definitions for the same concept - which would be equivocation.

You can't explain how an infinite amount of time ended by simply saying it never started.

That doesn't explain anything.

In real terms to say something never started is to say it can't progress. If I never have a starting point I can never have a point to begin a progression. The start of any progression is pushed infinitely further and further away if we say it doesn't have a start.

No. I make a distinction between that which causes the past, the present, and the past itself.

This is unnecessary and confusing, but if you must.

Defining things is necessary. We don't experience the past, we remember it. For us to experience something it must be in the present.

There is a big difference between that which can be experienced and that which can't.

If the prior present moments are infinite how did they end at the present moment?

You defined them as doing so (I bolded it for you.); and the implication of that is that they have no beginning, (if they are infinite), which is implied by your argument, and not ruled out by anything you have said.

Yes they end at the present moment by definition, but how did an infinite amount of them end? I can understand how a finite amount of events in the past could end at the present. Finite amounts of events end.