Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

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?

The same way they would if they were finite.

No matter how much you scrutinize this end of the timeline, you cannot learn anything about the other end from so doing - not even whether or not there IS another end.

 

[untermensche]

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.

To say time itself never started is to say the amount of that time is without limit.

An amount of time without limit is an amount of time that never finishes.

So saying time has no beginning is no different from saying time has no end, in terms of the amount of time.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that an infinite amount of time can finish. Saying time with no start is infinite is not a demonstration that infinite time can end.

 

[untermensche]

The same way they would if they were finite.

No matter how much you scrutinize this end of the timeline, you cannot learn anything about the other end from so doing - not even whether or not there IS another end.

If they were finite we would have to go through a finite amount of prior moments to reach the present moment.

If they were infinite we would have to go through an amount without end to reach the present moment.

The situations are very different.

 

[bilby]

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

To say time itself never started is to say the amount of that time is without limit.

Yes. That is what 'infinite' means.

An amount of time without limit is an amount of time that never finishes.

or never starts. You can't just drop that part of the definition because you don't want it or like it; it is still a part of the definition.

So saying time has no beginning is no different from saying time has no end, in terms of the amount of time.

In terms of the absolute amount, no, it isn't different. But don't forget that the reason that amount exists is because, as you said (I bolded it for you) it never started.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that an infinite amount of time can finish. Saying time with no start is infinite is not a demonstration that infinite time can end.

Yes, it really is; If it is possible for the past to be infinite because and ONLY because it has no start (and it is, as you agreed above - I bolded it), then whether or not it has an end is irrelevant to its infinitude or otherwise.

 

[bilby]

The same way they would if they were finite.

No matter how much you scrutinize this end of the timeline, you cannot learn anything about the other end from so doing - not even whether or not there IS another end.

If they were finite we would have to go through a finite amount of prior moments to reach the present moment.

If they were infinite we would have to go through an amount without end (aka an infinite amount) to reach the present moment.

The situations are very different.

An amount without end is called 'infinite'. The situations are not 'very different' at all. They are identical.

If they were X, we would have to go through X to reach the present moment.

This statement is true for all X

 

[untermensche]

or never starts. You can't just drop that part of the definition because you don't want it or like it; it is still a part of the definition.

An amount of time without a limit is an amount without end.

Saying it never starts is just a way of saying it has no limit.

You can't hide behind this idea of never starting and escape it's implications.

It means to have no limit and to have no limit means to never end.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that an infinite amount of time can finish. Saying time with no start is infinite is not a demonstration that infinite time can end.

Yes, it really is; If it is possible for the past to be infinite because and ONLY because it has no start (and it is, as you agreed above - I bolded it), then whether or not it has an end is irrelevant to its infinitude or otherwise.

Saying time has no start is to say it has no limit.

Saying time has no limit means it never ends.

To say time has no start is to say the duration of it never ends.

You have not in any way demonstrated that infinite time can end by saying infinite time is time that has no start.

 

[untermensche]

If they were finite we would have to go through a finite amount of prior moments to reach the present moment.

If they were infinite we would have to go through an amount without end (aka an infinite amount) to reach the present moment.

The situations are very different.

An amount without end is called 'infinite'. The situations are not 'very different' at all. They are identical.

If they were X, we would have to go through X to reach the present moment.

This statement is true for all X

It is not true if X is defined as an amount of time that never finishes.

You can't go through an amount of time that never finishes.

It goes on and on.

 

[untermensche]

All anybody has to do to stop me from making my argument is demonstrate how an infinite amount of time can end.

They should do this using infinite time in the future however.

If infinite time in the future can end then that means infinite time in the past can end also.

 

[bilby]

An amount of time without a limit is an amount without end.

Or without beginning. Or both.

This remains true, no matter how hard you wish it wasn't.

Saying it never starts is just a way of saying it has no limit.

Indeed. That it is 'infinite', even.

You can't hide behind this idea of never starting and escape it's implications.

Its implications are that the past would be infinite. I am not the one trying to escape this implication.

It means to have no limit and to have no limit means to never end.

No, it doesn't. Saying it doesn't make it so; Wishing it doesn't make it so. It ain't so.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that an infinite amount of time can finish. Saying time with no start is infinite is not a demonstration that infinite time can end.

It isn't important whether it ends or not; if it didn't start, it is infinite regardless of whether it ends.

Yes, it really is; If it is possible for the past to be infinite because and ONLY because it has no start (and it is, as you agreed above - I bolded it), then whether or not it has an end is irrelevant to its infinitude or otherwise.

Saying time has no start is to say it has no limit.

Yes. That it is 'infinite'.

Saying time has no limit means it never ends.

No, it means it either never ends, or never starts, or both.

To say time has no start is to say the duration of it never ends.

Yes. It extends infinitely into the past. It has infinite duration.

You have not in any way demonstrated that infinite time can end by saying infinite time is time that has no start.

Well of course it can. If it has no start, it is infinite, whether or not it has an end. There is nothing about being startless that has any effect whatsoever on whether or not it is endless; Infinite time without a start can end or not end, and either way it is still infinite.

You don't like this; but the universe is disinterested in your likes.

 

[bilby]

An amount without end is called 'infinite'. The situations are not 'very different' at all. They are identical.

If they were X, we would have to go through X to reach the present moment.

This statement is true for all X

It is not true if X is defined as an amount of time that never finishes.

You can't go through an amount of time that never finishes.

It goes on and on.

Of course it's true; the only way you could not go through an infinite amount of time is if you only had a finite amount of time to do it in. But if the first X is infinity, then the second X is infinity; so there is infinite time available, which is enough time for an infinite amount of stuff to happen.

 

[Kharakov]

All anybody has to do to stop me from making my argument is demonstrate how an infinite amount of time can end.

Aren't you the only one claiming time has an end?

 

[Juma]

Now consider the same geometric description in an interval of an infinite number of those 100 second intervals. Her interval becomes a point;

What are you smoking?
Nothing happens to her time, the scale of time doesnt change just because you starts contemplating eternity...

 

[Mageth]

All anybody has to do to stop me from making my argument is demonstrate how an infinite amount of time can end.

They should do this using infinite time in the future however.

If infinite time in the future can end then that means infinite time in the past can end also.

Great, then by your own pretzel logic, if infinite time in the future can be without end then infinite time in the past can be without end also.

Or you could just dump the obfuscation and accept that:

An infinite future starts at the present but doesn't end in the future.
An infinite past ends at the present but doesn't start in the past.

 

[bilby]

All anybody has to do to stop me from making my argument is demonstrate how an infinite amount of time can end.

They should do this using infinite time in the future however.

If infinite time in the future can end then that means infinite time in the past can end also.

If infinite time in the past can end, then we don't need to worry about the future. The future is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Infinite time can end at any specified instant, and remains infinite, as long as it never started. That specified instant can be in the future if it makes you feel better. Pick a date; or don't pick a date - an infinite past is equally compatible with a finite future or an infinite one. It matters not a whit how far in the future time ends, or even whether it ends at all.

I would dearly like to hope that by showing you this simple fact, I shall indeed stop you from making your (very silly) argument, as promised.

But I am realistic enough to expect that I shan't.

 

[ryan]

Now consider the same geometric description in an interval of an infinite number of those 100 second intervals. Her interval becomes a point;

What are you smoking?
Nothing happens to her time, the scale of time doesnt change just because you starts contemplating eternity...

Apparently you didn't watch the video.

I agree, and I addressed this in the post. For the frame of reference that time is infinite in, her interval becomes infinitesimally small. Time as we know it ceases to exist in the ageless frame of reference. The infinite amount of time in the ageless frame of reference becomes something else.

 

[ryan]

All anybody has to do to stop me from making my argument is demonstrate how an infinite amount of time can end.

They should do this using infinite time in the future however.

If infinite time in the future can end then that means infinite time in the past can end also.

If infinite time in the past can end, then we don't need to worry about the future. The future is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Infinite time can end at any specified instant, and remains infinite, as long as it never started. That specified instant can be in the future if it makes you feel better. Pick a date; or don't pick a date - an infinite past is equally compatible with a finite future or an infinite one. It matters not a whit how far in the future time ends, or even whether it ends at all.

I would dearly like to hope that by showing you this simple fact, I shall indeed stop you from making your (very silly) argument, as promised.

But I am realistic enough to expect that I shan't.

Wouldn't you agree that any sequential length of time should have a beginning before it has an end? I mean shouldn't that be a required property for time to have?

 

[bilby]

If infinite time in the past can end, then we don't need to worry about the future. The future is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Infinite time can end at any specified instant, and remains infinite, as long as it never started. That specified instant can be in the future if it makes you feel better. Pick a date; or don't pick a date - an infinite past is equally compatible with a finite future or an infinite one. It matters not a whit how far in the future time ends, or even whether it ends at all.

I would dearly like to hope that by showing you this simple fact, I shall indeed stop you from making your (very silly) argument, as promised.

But I am realistic enough to expect that I shan't.

Wouldn't you agree that any sequential length of time should have a beginning before it has an end? I mean shouldn't that be a required property for time to have?

Why?

I mean, that is the matter under debate; and as far as I can see, there is no reason to make that assumption - other than a 'gut feeling' that it 'ought to be' true.

Having such a feeling is all very well, but it isn't going to persuade anyone else of the veracity of the claim.

 

[Juma]

I agree, and I addressed this the post. For the frame of reference that time is infinite in, her interval becomes infinitesimally small. Time as we know it ceases to exist in the ageless frame of reference. The infinite amount of time in the ageless frame of reference becomes something else.

This is just looks like some weird hallucination of yours. Is everything ok? 'Cause reading this starts me worrying about your mental state.

 

[ryan]

Wouldn't you agree that any sequential length of time should have a beginning before it has an end? I mean shouldn't that be a required property for time to have?

Why?

Because, time goes in one direction. So it really has to start before it stops.

 

[bilby]

Why?

Because, time goes in one direction. So it really has to start before it stops.

Why?

That would only be true if time was finite; but to make such an assumption would be begging the question.

If the past is infinite, then it really doesn't have to start. That's what the past being infinite means.

ETA: Time may or may not go in both directions; that is not relevant to the current topic under discussion, so for the sake of argument, I will accept the assertion that it goes in one direction - but that is an untested assumption.