Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

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

That doesn't explain anything.

I am not trying to explain anything; I am demonstrating that you have not proven that the past is finite.

I don't have a clue how, or whether, time started. Nor do you. That's OK; not knowing isn't a problem - unless we want to claim that we do know. IF time didn't start, then the past is infinite. IF time did start, then the past is finite. By definition.

You are claiming to know that the past is finite. But so far, you haven't shown this.

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.

Yes, that is what infinite means. Your task is to show how this is logically impossible. I already know that you don't LIKE the idea, but that is not the same as showing it to be illogical.

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?

By your definition.

I can understand how a finite amount of events in the past could end at the present. Finite amounts of events end.

So do infinite amounts that end, but have no start.

 

[ryan]

I am not trying to explain anything; I am demonstrating that you have not proven that the past is finite.

I don't have a clue how, or whether, time started. Nor do you. That's OK; not knowing isn't a problem - unless we want to claim that we do know. IF time didn't start, then the past is infinite. IF time did start, then the past is finite. By definition.

Don't you agree that every event needs to have a beginning before it has an end?

 

[bilby]

I am not trying to explain anything; I am demonstrating that you have not proven that the past is finite.

I don't have a clue how, or whether, time started. Nor do you. That's OK; not knowing isn't a problem - unless we want to claim that we do know. IF time didn't start, then the past is infinite. IF time did start, then the past is finite. By definition.

Don't you agree that every event needs to have a beginning before it has an end?

That depends what you mean by an 'event'. If you mean 'point in time', then it has neither a beginning nor an end; If you mean 'finite period of time' then it must have both a beginning and an end; and if you mean something else, it may or may not have a beginning, or an end, or both.

Nothing in what I said in the post you quoted talks about 'events' at all, so I am at a loss to understand where your question comes from; the 'Don't you agree...' opening looks like you are trying to highlight something I have said about events that implies that they don't have a beginning before they have an end. But I didn't talk about events at all, so I am afraid I don't understand the question, nor the context of the question.

 

[untermensche]

I am not trying to explain anything; I am demonstrating that you have not proven that the past is finite.

You can't prove anything unless you explain something.

You are claiming to know that the past is finite. But so far, you haven't shown this.

I claim to know that to claim the past is infinite is illogical.

It is illogical to say the amount of time that has already passed is an amount that never finishes passing.

Yes, that is what infinite means. Your task is to show how this is logically impossible. I already know that you don't LIKE the idea, but that is not the same as showing it to be illogical.

I don't like illogical ideas put forward as logical possibilities.

The idea that an amount of time that never finishes has already finished is an illogical idea.

Yes they end at the present moment by definition, but how did an infinite amount of them end?

By your definition.

My definition says that prior present moments end at the present moment.

It doesn't explain how an infinite number of present moments could have possibly ended.

That is what needs to be explained.

 

[bilby]

You can't prove anything unless you explain something.

You are claiming to know that the past is finite. But so far, you haven't shown this.

I claim to know that to claim the past is infinite is illogical.

It is illogical to say the amount of time that has already passed is an amount that never finishes passing.

Yes, that is what infinite means. Your task is to show how this is logically impossible. I already know that you don't LIKE the idea, but that is not the same as showing it to be illogical.

I don't like illogical ideas put forward as logical possibilities.

The idea that an amount of time that never finishes has already finished is an illogical idea.

How about the idea that an amount of time that never starts has already finished?

Yes they end at the present moment by definition, but how did an infinite amount of them end?

By your definition.

My definition says that prior present moments end at the present moment.

It doesn't explain how an infinite number of present moments could have possibly ended.

That is what needs to be explained.

By not having a start.

That's it.

That's your explanation.

IF the number of number of "prior present moments" is infinite, then that is because there are an infinite number of them. If you have to assume a finite number of them to show that an infinite number is not possible, you are simply begging the question.

The word you are looking for here is not 'illogical'; If an infinite past was illogical, you would by now have presented a logical argument showing this to be the case. What you are actually saying is that 'to claim the past is infinite is unimaginable'.

Fortunately reality isn't constrained by your imagination.

 

[untermensche]

I don't like illogical ideas put forward as logical possibilities.

The idea that an amount of time that never finishes has already finished is an illogical idea.

How about the idea that an amount of time that never starts has already finished?

Time that never starts is an amount that never finishes.

To not start means your amount has no end.

It is still the idea of an amount that never finishes finishing.

By not having a start.

That's it.

That's your explanation.

It's not an explanation. It's doesn't answer the problem.

To not start is to have no limit to your duration.

To have no limit to your duration is to never end.

Anybody who says time doesn't have a start is saying it is an amount of time that never ends.

IF the number of number of "prior present moments" is infinite, then that is because there are an infinite number of them. If you have to assume a finite number of them to show that an infinite number is not possible, you are simply begging the question.

You have not even tried to explain how an infinite number of prior moments could have ALREADY occurred. How does a number of moments without end have an end?

 

[ryan]

Don't you agree that every event needs to have a beginning before it has an end?

That depends what you mean by an 'event'. If you mean 'point in time', then it has neither a beginning nor an end; If you mean 'finite period of time' then it must have both a beginning and an end; and if you mean something else, it may or may not have a beginning, or an end, or both.

I mean any event that takes longer than 0 seconds.

 

[bilby]

How about the idea that an amount of time that never starts has already finished?

Time that never starts is an amount that never finishes.

To not start means your amount has no end.

It is still the idea of an amount that never finishes finishing.

By not having a start.

That's it.

That's your explanation.

It's not an explanation. It's doesn't answer the problem.

To not start is to have no limit to your duration.

To have no limit to your duration is to never end.

Anybody who says time doesn't have a start is saying it is an amount of time that never ends.

IF the number of number of "prior present moments" is infinite, then that is because there are an infinite number of them. If you have to assume a finite number of them to show that an infinite number is not possible, you are simply begging the question.

You have not even tried to explain how an infinite number of prior moments could have ALREADY occurred. How does a number of moments without end have an end?

Oh for fuck's sake; can't you remember back just a few hours? We covered all of this.

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.

If you don't use consistent definitions, then your argument is nonsense.

To not start means an amount that doesn't start.

1 Start and finish = finite
2 No start and finish = infinite
3 Start and no finish = infinite
4 No start and no finish = infinite.

The past is either 1 or 2; the future is either 1 or 3. We know the past finished - by definition. We know the future starts - by definition. So those are the possibilities in each case.

Your only argument here is that YOU CAN'T IMAGINE that time can have no start. But that's no argument at all; just an admission that you lack imagination.

 

[untermensche]

Oh for fuck's sake; can't you remember back just a few hours? We covered all of this.

Yes I remember. I spent a lot of time responding to those posts in great detail. You can't just plaster up a bunch of arguments I've refuted and claim they are the final word.

Look at my responses.

While you do that also try to explain how saying time never started doesn't mean it is an amount that has no limit.

 

[Mageth]

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?

It's quite simple. If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning. But it's still time, and time has a present moment, whether finite or infinite. And time in the past ends at the present moment whether finite or infinite, just like today will end at 11:59:59.

Moreover, you've defined the present moment as being the end of all prior past moments.

 

[bilby]

Oh for fuck's sake; can't you remember back just a few hours? We covered all of this.

Yes I remember. I spent a lot of time responding to those posts in great detail. You can't just plaster up a bunch of arguments I've refuted and claim they are the final word.

Look at my responses.

While you do that also try to explain how saying time never started doesn't mean it is an amount that has no limit.

Of course it means that it is an amount with no limit; that is why it is infinite. That is the meaning of 'infinite'.

I looked at your responses; and I went through them in detail explaining where they were in error.

You have argued based on equivocation on the meaning of 'start, 'end', and 'present';

You have argued based on circularity, claiming that an infinite amount of time can't fit in the past because the past is not infinite;

You have argued from incredulity, declaring that it is 'illogical' for an infinite past to have completed in an infinite amount of time; and stating that '...it is an amount that has no limit.' as if that made it somehow an invalid concept.

You have not put forward one single argument that commits none of these fallacies.

If the past was infinite, it had no start.

If you want to look at it another way, and say that the past 'started' at the present, then it would still be infinite if it had no end.

If it is infinite, then it was big enough to hold an infinite number of 'events' or 'prior present moments', whatever those might be.

You have not shown a single contradiction that arises from the assumption of an infinite past.

 

[untermensche]

This I agree with.

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

It's quite simple. If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning.

Thinking of something that progresses but never had a start to that progression is not a simple idea. It is a strange idea that needs some explaining.

It is like saying a fish with no head ate my mother. What do you mean a fish with no head? What do you mean someone was eaten by something without a head?

What do you mean by saying that something that progresses had no beginning to it's progression? What does that mean?

But it's still time, and time has a present moment, whether finite or infinite.

No. No. No.

Time will not have a present moment if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end.

You can't reach the final step if the number of steps you must climb is infinite.

You can't reach the present moment, the end of the previous moments, if the number of moments that must pass first are infinite.

 

[bilby]

It's quite simple. If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning.

Thinking of something that progresses but never had a start to that progression is not a simple idea. It is a strange idea that needs some explaining.

It is like saying a fish with no head ate my mother. What do you mean a fish with no head? What do you mean someone was eaten by something without a head?

What do you mean by saying that something that progresses had no beginning to it's progression? What does that mean?

That means that it stretches back into the past indefinitely; without end; infinitely.

But it's still time, and time has a present moment, whether finite or infinite.

No. No. No.

Time will not have a present moment if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end.

Time HAS a present moment; this is it.

You can't reach the final step if the number of steps you must climb is infinite.

You can, if you have an infinite time to do it in.

You can't reach the present moment, the end of the previous moments, if the number of moments that must pass first are infinite.

You can, if you allow infinite time for them to pass.

It is OK not to understand.

It isn't an easy concept to grasp.

But your failure to understand infinity is NOT the same thing as infinity being impossible, or illogical.

 

[untermensche]

You have argued based on circularity, claiming that an infinite amount of time can't fit in the past because the past is not infinite;

Horseshit!

I have argued over and over that an infinite amount of time can't finish.

I have never talked about it not fitting in the past.

If you think this is true you are not responding to my clear arguments but are responding to phantoms of your own making.

It is illogical to say an amount of time that never finishes has finished at the present moment. That is the argument.

Nowhere does it say that infinite time can't fit into an infinite past.

You have argued from incredulity, declaring that it is 'illogical' for an infinite past to have completed in an infinite amount of time; and stating that '...it is an amount that has no limit.' as if that made it somehow an invalid concept.

No wonder you are having so much trouble. You are not responding to my arguments at all.

I am saying it is impossible for an infinite amount of time to finish. Period. Nothing else.

From this you can conclude that an infinite amount of time cannot have finished at the present moment.

If the past was infinite, it had no start.

Don't stop. Take the thought further.

If it had no start the amount of it has no limit.

An amount of time with no limit is an amount of time that never finishes passing.

An amount of time that never finishes passing cannot have finished at the present moment.

 

[untermensche]

That means that it stretches back into the past indefinitely; without end; infinitely.

That doesn't explain how a progression can have no start.

How do we have a progression if it never started?

I don't really expect you to answer, but it is not a simple idea.

Time HAS a present moment; this is it.

Not quite. Time is the progression of ever changing present moments. The present is constantly changing.

But how does a progression of ever changing moments progress if it never started to progress?

How does an infinite number of changing moments occur before the present moment?

You can't reach the final step if the number of steps you must climb is infinite.

You can, if you have an infinite time to do it in.

No. You will never reach the end of either.

It is illogical to think an amount of time that never finishes has finished.

 

[bilby]

Horseshit!

I have argued over and over that an infinite amount of time can't finish.

And as this is demonstrably wrong, your argument is dead.

That you can't grasp the fact is not my problem.

 

[untermensche]

Horseshit!

I have argued over and over that an infinite amount of time can't finish.

And as this is demonstrably wrong, your argument is dead.

That you can't grasp the fact is not my problem.

If what you said could be demonstrated then it would be the end of my argument.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes by definition however.

So my argument survives.

 

[Mageth]

It's quite simple. If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning.

Thinking of something that progresses but never had a start to that progression is not a simple idea. It is a strange idea that needs some explaining.

If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning. What's to explain?

It is like saying a fish with no head ate my mother. What do you mean a fish with no head? What do you mean someone was eaten by something without a head?

What do you mean by saying that something that progresses had no beginning to it's progression? What does that mean?

Well, first, you said that, not me. I said "If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning. ". Second, it means just what it says. Third, your argument from incredulity is duly noted, but since what you might find "strange" carries no weight it is, with all due respect, ignored.

But it's still time, and time has a present moment, whether finite or infinite.

No. No. No.

Time will not have a present moment if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end.

On the contrary, if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end, then time would have an infinite number of present moments.

You can't reach the final step if the number of steps you must climb is infinite.

On the contrary, you would reach an infinite number of steps if the number of steps you must climb is infinite. Each in turn being the step you are presently at.

Your error here is in assuming we must again traverse what's already been traversed to reach where we're already at.

You can't reach the present moment, the end of the previous moments, if the number of moments that must pass first are infinite.

Again, on the contrary, you would reach an infinite number of present moments in so doing. Each in turn being a...present moment. No surprise. It really is this simple.

Guess what? The present moment we're at now just happens to be this present moment.

Again, your error here is in assuming we must again traverse what's already been traversed to reach where we're already at.

 

[bilby]

And as this is demonstrably wrong, your argument is dead.

That you can't grasp the fact is not my problem.

If what you said could be demonstrated then it would be the end of my argument.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes by definition however.

So my argument survives.

An amount of time that never starts is infinite whether or not it ever finishes.

If you didn't know that, then now you do.

If you don't believe it, then that is your problem.

 

[untermensche]

If time in the past is infinite, then it had no beginning. What's to explain?

Time is a progression of changing present moments. How does a progression not begin?

If you don't begin how do you make progress? What does it mean to make progress from nothing?

Time will not have a present moment if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end.

On the contrary, if the number of present moments that must occur first are without end, then time would have an infinite number of present moments.

If the number is without end how did they end at the present moment? The number of moments in the past ends at the present moment.

If they are a number without end they can't end anywhere.

You are contradicting yourself.

You would reach an infinite number of steps. Each in turn being the step you are presently at.

Gibberish. You can't reach an infinite number of steps. You can only make progress towards a finish that will never happen.

Again, your error here is in assuming we must traverse what's already been traversed to reach where we're already at.

We are at the end of the previous moments in time. They have ended.

If they are infinite how did they end?