Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

An infinite number of units of time is not time at all, never was, never will be. Time is not a number, be it a finite or an infinite number.

This is bad; this is just so bad.

I think most rational people accept they don't know time.

Holy s***!

The best we can do is to work out various concepts of time and argue about these.

Is it?

To think that we could possibly argue about time seems idiotic to me.

Well, you can't be wrong about your own opinion.

Time is what it is, yes?

I agree.

Well, assuming it exists in the first place. Yet, even if it doesn't exist we can still argue about our various concepts of time.

Thanks for letting me know this.

The infinite number of units of time becomes something different.

You mean: than a finite number of units of time?
Sure.
And if time is infinite it would be something else than if time is finite.

And we may disagree about which concept of time is best, more appropriate, etc.

What is your point exactly?
EB

There is absolutely no way I am getting into a discussion with you after what I read above.

You can do much much better than this.

 

[Juma]

So then would it be another infinite past an infinite number of units ago?

No, since the first one doesnt end there there is no "past the an infinite of units ago"

I was commenting on your second paragraph.

you still have to prove that there must be a "beginning unit"

The infinite number of units of time becomes something different.

No, it doesnt. You may show that infinite time is something else than the time we actually have. But that is not what you do.

 

[untermensche]

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.

This is your fatal error.

An infinite amount of time can NEVER end.

It doesn't matter one bit how you define that infinity. You can say it is an infinity that never ends or you can try to claim it is an infinity that never starts.

It is the same infinity and the amount of time of each never ends.

To claim an infinite amount of time ends simply by claiming it is an infinity that never starts is irrational. There is no logic that says an infinite amount of time that never starts can represent an amount of time that ends.

 

[untermensche]

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?

I am claiming the past present moments have an end. They end at the present.

BUT, an infinite amount of time has NO end.

It can't have ended at the present moment.

Even if we say time stretches back forever that isn't enough room for infinite time to finish. It is only enough room for infinite time to go on without end.

 

[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.

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.

You are the one twisted into a pretzel.

If infinite time can't end then it can't have ended at the present moment.

The present moment means all the prior moments (the past) have ended.

 

[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.

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.

You think you can prove infinite time in the past ends, but you can't prove infinite time in the future ends?

They are the same amount of time. If one ends so does the other.

I know you don't like to look at infinite time in the future because when we look at it the situation is clear. It is an amount of time that never ends.

But to say time has no start is to say the same exact thing about the amount of it. It is an amount that never ends.

 

[untermensche]

...This is because we are discussing the concept of absolute time...

Absolute time is an imaginary convention.

I am not talking about an imaginary convention.

I am talking about ordinary everyday time. That which we experience. That which is real as we define the word real.

In real time each moment represents a unique and distinct moment in time. No two moments are the same thing.

There cannot have been an infinite amount of real moments before the present moment. Infinite real moments never end.

 

[Speakpigeon]

They are the same amount of time. If one ends so does the other.

Where did you prove that an infinite past and an infinite future represented the same amount of time?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

...This is because we are discussing the concept of absolute time...

Absolute time is an imaginary convention.

I am not talking about an imaginary convention.

I am talking about ordinary everyday time. That which we experience. That which is real as we define the word real.

Suit yourself and good luck with your nonsense.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There is absolutely no way I am getting into a discussion with you after what I read above.
You can do much much better than this.

Maybe I could but I never saw you improve your extraordinary sloppy wording, however hard I tried to get you to do that.

And not for the first time, you chose not to address the substance of my post. See?
EB

 

[Mageth]

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.

You are the one twisted into a pretzel.

What I just said is unambiguous and quite easy to parse.

If infinite time can't end then it can't have ended at the present moment.

Ok, now continuing from and based on your own assertions, if infinite time can't end, then if time is infinite, time may or may not have had a beginning in the past, does not end at the present moment, and does not end in the future.

What you've failed to establish is that time must have a beginning.

Yet the past ends at the present, as you agree below.

The present moment means all the prior moments (the past) have ended.

What happened to your assertion that the past begins at the present? But I agree, of course; the past has ended.

What you've failed to establish is that time must have a beginning.

To further highlight your confusion, above you assert "If infinite time can't end then it can't have ended at the present moment." So if time is infinite, then time doesn't end at the present moment. That does not preclude the past from ending at the present moment, which you now agree it does, nor does it preclude there being no beginning to time.

So even according to all your rambling assertions, we are left at the past being finite or infinite. We don't know which.

And amusingly, your assertions here are consistent with...

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.

... Because that is consistent with the notion of infinite time that does not end and a past that ends at the present moment, as you now assert.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Even if we say time stretches back forever that isn't enough room for infinite time to finish. It is only enough room for infinite time to go on without end.

This cannot possibly refer to ordinary everyday time as you experience it. Yet, you just claimed that's what you were talking about!

so funny.

You want your cake and eat it. Il veut le beurre et l'argent du beurre!

In an infinite past, there is an infinite amount of time before any particular point in time, including before any particular point in the past. Any point in time is therefore an end for the period of time that came before it, be it finite or infinite.

We all understand this.

Except you two.
EB

 

[Malintent]

Just contributing to the infinity of this thread...

all three of these diagrams represent different representations of "infinite time":

X------->

<-------X

<------->

This diagram represents "finite time":

X-------X

It is a sophmoric topic that does not deserve this many pages of discussion. I think you guys have gotten a bit lost. Time (and length, width, and height) are vectors (directional). Infinity is when there is no end in a particular direction.

One cannot rationally argue that this thread cannot go on forever, simply because it had a beginning.

 

[Speakpigeon]

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.

The end of a period of time is the moment in the period coming after all the other moments of the period. So, if we count in days, yesterday is the end of the period of time that has already passed, i.e. of the past.

Yes or no?

If yes, could you explain why an infinite period of time could not have exactly the same kind of end to it?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just contributing to the infinity of this thread...

all three of these diagrams represent different representations of "infinite time":

X------->

Sooo, leet mee seeee... Here we have indeed a line between a cross and a ">" sign. So, I guess the line starts with the "X" and ends with ">".

Well, if it ends with anything at all you can't say it's infinite. You're wrong. This is a matter of simple definition you see.

<-------X

Ok, let me see again... Here we have instead a line beginning with "<" and ending with "X".

So, I guess the line cannot be infinite either.

<------->

This one starts with "<" and ends with ">". No infinite, this one, nope.

Try again.

This diagram represents "finite time":

X-------X

Ah, YES! This one is so GOOD. It is finite. This one IS finite. Well done, man.

It is a sophmoric topic that does not deserve this many pages of discussion.

So why add even one post to it?

If we all did that each time somebody else posts something then sure the thread will end up being infinite.

But even an infinite amount of posts wouldn't be enough room for untermensche to understand the concept of infinite past because an infinite past cannot possibly end.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In my trying to figure out WTF Unter is on about, I had been torn between that this whole "argument" was an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect or simply a case of trolling. I am now leaning more toward trolling. I find it difficult to believe that someone who clings to their ignorant misunderstandings even when clearly explained to them couldn't at least remember what someone had posted only a few posts earlier.

That's interesting...

So I looked it up:

The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments published in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the Department of Psychology, Cornell University. The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, as lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras

Me, I don't understand how it's possible to see the words "invisible ink". Beats me!

But I do disagree with what the guy says:

If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. — David Dunning

Ok, the argument sounds good enough until you realise that the symmetrical effect affecting competent people, who systematically underestimate their competence, proves it wrong. You just have to replace incompetent by competent in the argument to see this:

• "If you’re competent, you can’t know you’re competent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you have."

I do have a different explanation to it but going into that would be a derail...

Though your point I think is not a derail.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The argument is simple.
An amount of time that never finishes can't have already finished before a present moment.

This is just irrelevant to the concept of infinite past because an infinite past is not a period of time that has no end. It's a period of time that had no beginning.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

That's interesting...

So I looked it up:

The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments published in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the Department of Psychology, Cornell University. The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, as lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras

Me, I don't understand how it's possible to see the words "invisible ink". Beats me!

But I do disagree with what the guy says:

If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. — David Dunning

Ok, the argument sounds good enough until you realise that the symmetrical effect affecting competent people, who systematically underestimate their competence, proves it wrong. You just have to replace incompetent by competent in the argument to see this:

• "If you’re competent, you can’t know you’re competent. […] the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you have."

That is a bit overstated but exactly what the research shows. Incompetent people overestimate their competence and competent people underestimate their competence. Competent people know they have some grasp of a subject but know enough to understand that they don't know absolutely everything about it so have a tendency to underestimate what they do know. Incompetent people have such a poor grasp that they don't have a clue how little they do know.

e.g.
Have you ever noticed how confidently some people who have absolutely no science background will opine on how absurd Einstein's relativity is when they know absolutely nothing about it? It is counter to their "understanding" so, in their mind, relativity has to be nothing but nonsense and there is nothing anyone can explain that will convince them otherwise.

I do have a different explanation to it but going into that would be a derail...

Though your point I think is not a derail.
EB

Interesting. Maybe you could start another thread. I would like to hear it.

 

[Malintent]

Sooo, leet mee seeee... Here we have indeed a line between a cross and a ">" sign. So, I guess the line starts with the "X" and ends with ">".

Well, if it ends with anything at all you can't say it's infinite. You're wrong. This is a matter of simple definition you see.

<-------X

Ok, let me see again... Here we have instead a line beginning with "<" and ending with "X".

Don't be obtuse...

<------->

This one starts with "<" and ends with ">". No infinite, this one, nope.

Try again.

This diagram represents "finite time":

X-------X

Ah, YES! This one is so GOOD. It is finite. This one IS finite. Well done, man.

It is a sophmoric topic that does not deserve this many pages of discussion.

So why add even one post to it?

If we all did that each time somebody else posts something then sure the thread will end up being infinite.

But even an infinite amount of posts wouldn't be enough room for untermensche to understand the concept of infinite past because an infinite past cannot possibly end.
EB

The > means "keep adding '---' forever". It's called an Arrow. You didn;t know I was representing an arrow in a direction that had no end? really?

 

[Kharakov]

The argument is simple.
An amount of time that never finishes can't have already finished before a present moment.

This is just irrelevant to the concept of infinite past because an infinite past is not a period of time that has no end. It's a period of time that had no beginning.
EB

this. again. for the infinitiethest time....