Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

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.


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?

Speakpigeon was intentionally "channeling" untermensche in that post as a spoof, I'm pretty sure, as unter has insisted that illustrations like yours are not real or applicable. You'll see what I mean if unter responds to your post.

 

[Kharakov]

That is not logical.

My logic destroys your logic with great fury and awesome reason.

 

[bilby]

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.

Mathematics and I disagree with you.

If the future could be infinite, then so can the past, by simple reflection.

Asserting what you want to believe is all very well, but it isn't logic, and it proves nothing.

 

[bilby]

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.

So you are saying that the infinity of time is always larger than the infinity of time.

Good luck with your Fields Medal attempt.

 

[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.

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

I make no claim to be able to prove any such thing. All I am proving is that you can't prove that it is impossible.

The burden of proof is yours. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

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

Agreed. They are both bound at one, and only one, end. They are exactly the same, and both are infinite.

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.

Indeed. And if only you could use the word 'end' to mean the same thing consistently in your arguments, you would see that this implies no problem whatsoever with the past being an amount of time that ends, but never started.

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.

Again, you are inconsistent in your use of the word 'ends'.

An amount that never ends is infinite. But this is not the only way for an amount to be infinite; an amount that never starts is infinite too.

All thumbs are fingers, but that does not mean we can assume that all fingers are thumbs.

An amount that never ends is infinite; but infinite does not necessarily imply an amount that never ends.

 

[ryan]

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"

Are you saying that infinity + infinity doesn't equal infinity? It does.

I was commenting on your second paragraph.

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

Any length of something that progresses must reach all points before it ends. There must be a beginning even if it is an infinite number of points away.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[bilby]

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

Are you saying that infinity + infinity doesn't equal infinity? It does.

'an infinite number of units ago' isn't a point in time. It is not defined, so discussion of what things would look like from there is incoherent.

At any point on an infinite timeline, the past is infinite; but 'infinity' is not a point on that line.

I was commenting on your second paragraph.

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

Any length of something that progresses must reach all points before it ends. There must be a beginning even if it is an infinite number of points away.

No. An infinite past has no beginning. There is no such place as 'an infinite number of points away'. Infinity is not a number.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying.

At last, a statement we can all agree on

 

[untermensche]

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

They are the same kind of infinity of the same thing, time.

Do I have to say more?

They represent the EXACT SAME amount of time.

If one is an amount of time that never finishes so is the other.

- - - Updated - - -

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

It is nonsense to talk about time as something real?

And not nonsense to talk about it as if it is purely imaginary?

I will suit myself.

 

[ryan]

Are you saying that infinity + infinity doesn't equal infinity? It does.

'an infinite number of units ago' isn't a point in time. It is not defined, so discussion of what things would look like from there is incoherent.

At any point on an infinite timeline, the past is infinite; but 'infinity' is not a point on that line.

This seems like a response to what you quoted of me immediately below.

Any length of something that progresses must reach all points before it ends. There must be a beginning even if it is an infinite number of points away.

No. An infinite past has no beginning. There is no such place as 'an infinite number of points away'. Infinity is not a number.

You are still going with that huh - sweet Jesus. "Infinity" is not a number, but an infinite number is. Maybe you mean to say that it's not a real number or complex number.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Some questions.

If we use these lines to represent time, does X-------> represent a different amount of time from <-------X ?

Does X-------> represent a duration of time that will ever end?

If we use <-------X to represent the past, is the present part of this represented set of the past, or is it only the past?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by X-------> to end?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by <-------X to end?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Some questions.

If we use these lines to represent time, does X-------> represent a different amount of time from <-------X ?

Does X-------> represent a duration of time that will ever end?

If we use <-------X to represent the past, is the present part of this represented set of the past, or is it only the past?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by X-------> to end?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by <-------X to end?

If you insist on using the word "end" then, in every case, the only end is at the X. The infintiy denoted by the > is unbounded.

 

[untermensche]

[

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.

The prior present moments end at the current present moment.

If there are infinite prior present moments how do we get through all of them to end at the current present moment?

- - - Updated - - -

Some questions.

If we use these lines to represent time, does X-------> represent a different amount of time from <-------X ?

Does X-------> represent a duration of time that will ever end?

If we use <-------X to represent the past, is the present part of this represented set of the past, or is it only the past?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by X-------> to end?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by <-------X to end?

If you insist on using the word "end" then, in every case, the only end is at the X. The infintiy denoted by the > is unbounded.

I said "amount of time represented by". Amounts of time end. The next hour will end in one hour.

Try again. And this time answer every question.

 

[skepticalbip]

[


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.

The prior present moments end at the current present moment.

If there are infinite prior present moments how do we get through all of them to end at the current present moment?

- - - Updated - - -

Some questions.

If we use these lines to represent time, does X-------> represent a different amount of time from <-------X ?

Does X-------> represent a duration of time that will ever end?

If we use <-------X to represent the past, is the present part of this represented set of the past, or is it only the past?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by X-------> to end?

Is it possible for the amount of time represented by <-------X to end?

If you insist on using the word "end" then, in every case, the only end is at the X. The infintiy denoted by the > is unbounded.

I said "amount of time represented by". Amounts of time end. The next hour will end in one hour.

Try again. And this time answer every question.

Carry on. You are making my day. Thanks.

 

[untermensche]

This is your fatal error.

An infinite amount of time can NEVER end.

Mathematics and I disagree with you.

If the future could be infinite, then so can the past, by simple reflection.

Asserting what you want to believe is all very well, but it isn't logic, and it proves nothing.

Saying an infinite amount of time never ends is just a definitional truism.

To argue against it is to argue against the definition of infinite.

Infinite:

1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>

 

[untermensche]

Carry on. You are making my day. Thanks.

So you've already stopped answering questions?

It didn't take you very long this time.

If you won't address arguments, what the fuck are doing?

 

[skepticalbip]

Carry on. You are making my day. Thanks.

So you've already stopped answering questions?

It didn't take you very long this time.

If you won't address arguments, what the fuck are doing?

I am enjoying the hell out of your posts.
They are better than any comedy routine I have seen since "who's on first".

ETA:
In case you or others haven't see that comedy routine:

 

[untermensche]

I am enjoying the hell out of your posts.
They are better than any comedy routine I have seen since "who's on first".

You are trolling.

 

[Kharakov]

I am enjoying the hell out of your posts.
They are better than any comedy routine I have seen since "who's on first".

You are trolling.

Well.. at least he's not Rrolling.

 

[Kharakov]

So you've already stopped answering questions?

If time didn't end today, did it end today?

If time didn't have a beginning, is there a boundary in the past that one can measure to that is the beginning of time?

 

[untermensche]

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

I make no claim to be able to prove any such thing. All I am proving is that you can't prove that it is impossible.

The burden of proof is yours. Stop trying to wriggle out of it.

This is me giving my arguments.

You simply won't respond to them.

One way to prove infinite time in the past doesn't end is to look at the exact same amount of time as infinite time in the past, infinite time in the future.

They are the same amount of time, or duration of time.

Since infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends infinite time in the past MUST be the same amount of time. It too MUST be an amount of time that never ends.

I'm not the one wriggling here. Your refusal to look at the same exact amount of time as infinite time in the past, namely infinite time in the future is simply a way for you to end the exchange by refusing to exchange.

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

Agreed. They are both bound at one, and only one, end. They are exactly the same, and both are infinite.

You clearly admit that infinite time in the past is an amount of time that never ends. You say it is the exact same amount of time as infinite time in the future.

We agree about this. Infinite time in the past is an amount of time that never ends.

The past is first present moments. So to say that the past is an amount that never ends is to say the amount of present moments that occurred before the current present moment are an amount that never ends.

But an amount that never ends can't have occurred before the present moment. It never ends. It never stops occurring.