Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

?????

My post was talking about NO start and NO finish. And it was talking about the AMOUNT of time, not time.

You obviously need a visual aid.

View attachment 1335

Time is represented by the diagonal lines.

A and B represent the total AMOUNT of of time that has passed.

In this diagram both A and B represent a volume that is increasing without end. An infinite volume.

If the center point is now then an amount of time without end occurs before now. This can be abstracted in a diagram, but conceptually it is impossible for an amount of time without end to occur before now. If it is an amount of time without end it can't occur BEFORE anything. It goes on and on, nothing comes after it because it never ends.

So you are saying that the only problem with an infinite past is that you find it inconceivable?

What makes you think that your intellectual deficiency in this regard makes a whit of difference to reality?

You are not arguing that an infinite past is logically impossible. You are arguing that thinking about it is hard, so it must be wrong. That is the most pathetic excuse for abandoning reason there is.

Unfortunately even visual aids don't help some.

Where in that chart do I say something is inconceivable?

What I say is something is impossible.

It is impossible for you to count to the end of the positive integers. I could give you infinite time and you would never finish.

But somehow you think it is possible for infinite prior moments in time to occur before the present moment.

There is a deficiency here. Look in the mirror.

 

[untermensche]

This is good for everyone to visualise the argument.

But, shouldn't the past be a continuation of the future line, with the shaded part still in between the x axis and the graph?

The center vertical line represents the present. It would be moving in the direction of the future.

But the infinite amounts wouldn't change so it is still the same looking at it stationary.

But the real problem with the graph is that some people think because you can abstract the situation like this it somehow proves infinite time in the past can end at the present.

But IF INFINITE, the amount of time represented by A is the same as the amount represented by B.

It is an amount of time that will never finish.

The reason you can have a present with this abstraction is because you depict an infinite line with a line of finite length.

If what appears on the graph actually took place in real life you could never reach the center vertical line. The volume of A would have to reach a final volume to do that, but it never does. It grows and grows.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are saying that you can't tell the difference between a start and a finish?

?????

My post was talking about NO start and NO finish. And it was talking about the AMOUNT of time, not time.

You obviously need a visual aid.

View attachment 1335

Time is represented by the diagonal lines.

A and B represent the total AMOUNT of of time that has passed.

In this diagram both A and B represent a volume that is increasing without end. An infinite volume.

If the center point is now then an amount of time without end occurs before now. This can be abstracted in a diagram, but conceptually it is impossible for an amount of time without end to occur before now. If it is an amount of time without end it can't occur BEFORE anything. It goes on and on, nothing comes after it because it never ends.

So you are saying that an infinity unbounded in both directions is not illogical? However, if you arbitrarily select some point and call it NOW dividing that unbounded infinity into past and present that it suddenly becomes a logical impossibility for it to have extended infinitely in the direction of the past?

Gotcha.

 

[untermensche]

?????

My post was talking about NO start and NO finish. And it was talking about the AMOUNT of time, not time.

You obviously need a visual aid.

View attachment 1335

Time is represented by the diagonal lines.

A and B represent the total AMOUNT of of time that has passed.

In this diagram both A and B represent a volume that is increasing without end. An infinite volume.

If the center point is now then an amount of time without end occurs before now. This can be abstracted in a diagram, but conceptually it is impossible for an amount of time without end to occur before now. If it is an amount of time without end it can't occur BEFORE anything. It goes on and on, nothing comes after it because it never ends.

So you are saying that an infinity unbounded in both directions is not illogical? However, if you arbitrarily select some point and call it NOW dividing that unbounded infinity into past and present that it suddenly becomes a logical impossibility for it to have extended infinitely in the direction of the past?

Gotcha.

You got nothing of my argument. Nothing.

The argument is about the duration of time depicted by volume 'A'.

'A' represents a duration of time that never finishes.

To say time doesn't start is to say an amount of time that never finishes.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are saying that an infinity unbounded in both directions is not illogical? However, if you arbitrarily select some point and call it NOW dividing that unbounded infinity into past and present that it suddenly becomes a logical impossibility for it to have extended infinitely in the direction of the past?

Gotcha.

You got nothing of my argument. Nothing.

The argument is about the duration of time depicted by volume 'A'.

'A' represents a duration of time that never finishes.

To say time doesn't start is to say an amount of time that never finishes.

Again, thanks. :laughing-smiley-014

 

[untermensche]

Again, thanks. :laughing-smiley-014

Go away <snip>

 

[ryan]

This is good for everyone to visualise the argument.

But, shouldn't the past be a continuation of the future line, with the shaded part still in between the x axis and the graph?

The center vertical line represents the present. It would be moving in the direction of the future.

Because I am only interested in understanding this topic thoroughly - if that's even possible - I have some concerns that your diagram made me think of.

If the present is defined loosely as leading the past but trailing the future, the present does not start. This may be saying that time as we experience it is not only infinite but that it couldn't have started.

Please keep reading.

Having said that, I naturally forced a present to start. But even if I consider that, I realize that it wouldn't be the same present as the one that we are suppose to be experiencing now. Then this present that we are in would never begin.

I don't even know where I am with all of this anymore.

I am going to keep this topic in my mind as I study my math, and hopefully I will be able to add something helpful to this thread. I have a feeling that math will help solve this along with god knows what else.

But the infinite amounts wouldn't change so it is still the same looking at it stationary.

But the real problem with the graph is that some people think because you can abstract the situation like this it somehow proves infinite time in the past can end at the present.

But IF INFINITE, the amount of time represented by A is the same as the amount represented by B.

It is an amount of time that will never finish.

The reason you can have a present with this abstraction is because you depict an infinite line with a line of finite length.

If what appears on the graph actually took place in real life you could never reach the center vertical line.

The volume of A would have to reach a final volume to do that, but it never does. It grows and grows.

If you are right, and I truly don't even have an opinion anymore whether you are or not, then I wish you good luck for the sake of truth and those of us who don't understand.

 

[bilby]

So you are saying that the only problem with an infinite past is that you find it inconceivable?

What makes you think that your intellectual deficiency in this regard makes a whit of difference to reality?

You are not arguing that an infinite past is logically impossible. You are arguing that thinking about it is hard, so it must be wrong. That is the most pathetic excuse for abandoning reason there is.

Unfortunately even visual aids don't help some.

Where in that chart do I say something is inconceivable?

What I say is something is impossible.

It is impossible for you to count to the end of the positive integers. I could give you infinite time and you would never finish.

But somehow you think it is possible for infinite prior moments in time to occur before the present moment.

There is a deficiency here. Look in the mirror.

You said 'conceptionally it is impossible'.

Nobody cares what you personally can or cannot conceive.

The only thing 'wrong' with your diagram is that you can't accept what it clearly shows - that an infinite past is infinite, regardless.

It shows the infinite past. Your only objection is either that you can't conceive of what it shows; or that you assume that infinity is too big to fit into infinity.

Either way, the problem is in your head - and reality doesn't care.

 

[untermensche]

The center vertical line represents the present. It would be moving in the direction of the future.

Because I am only interested in understanding this topic thoroughly - if that's even possible - I have some concerns that your diagram made me think of.

I put it up to be questioned. It is just an abstraction of the situation.

The point of the graph is just to put into a picture what I mean by an increasing "amount" of time. If somebody asks what I mean by "amount" all they have to do is look at the graph.

But once you understand that A = B you understand that to say time doesn't start you are talking about the exact same "amount" of time as saying time doesn't end.

We know what that the "amount" of time is when we talk about time in the fuiture. It is an "amount" that doesn't ever finish. A duration of time that has no finish.

So if infinite time in the future is an "amount" of time that never finishes and it is the same "amount" of time as infinite time that doesn't start then time that never starts is an "amount" of time that never finishes.

Time that doesn't start is an "amount" of time that never finishes.

A = B

If the present is defined loosely as leading the past but trailing the future, the present does not start. This may be saying that time as we experience it is not only infinite but that it couldn't have started.

The present is the present state of changing "things". You can't talk about the present as if it is some uniform undifferentiated entity. Every present state is a unique state.

So we are not experiencing some infinite present. We are experiencing a string of unique present moments.

If the amount of present moments in the past is infinite then they are without end. An infinite amount of prior present moments can't finish at the current present moment. They never end.

Having said that, I naturally forced a present to start. But even if I consider that, I realize that it wouldn't be the same present as the one that we are suppose to be experiencing now. Then this present that we are in would never begin.

No. Every present moment is unlike all the present moments before it. The present we are in is this slippery thing called the present state of the universe. The way the universe is at the present. But the universe is changing so the way it is in the present is always in the process of changing.

Imagine time as descending stairs and the universe is a slinky moving down them. The slinky is in a state of constant change. But whatever state it is in that is described as the present. Don't get too hung up in this analogy. It is just to try to show what the present is.

I have a feeling that math will help solve this along with god knows what else.

All that needs to be understood is that an infinite amount of time is a duration that never ends.

Infinite time in the past is a duration that never ends.

Can a duration that never ends have ended at the present?

 

[untermensche]

You said 'conceptionally it is impossible'.

So you think because I can make a graph that shows time is infinite in the past it is evidence time is infinite in the past?

The only thing 'wrong' with your diagram is that you can't accept what it clearly shows - that an infinite past is infinite, regardless.

No it shows that the amount of time represented by saying time doesn't end is the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of time as saying time doesn't start.

In terms of the amount of time, to say time never ends is the same as saying time never begins.

It is a duration of time that can never finish.

It can't have finished at the present moment.

 

[Mageth]

"Can a duration that never ends have ended at the present?"

According to the graph you provided to illustrate what you mean, yes.

 

[untermensche]

"Can a duration that never ends have ended at the present?"

According to the graph you provided to illustrate what you mean, yes.

So it is possible because I drew a graph?

Whatever I draw is possible?

 

[ryan]

Because I am only interested in understanding this topic thoroughly - if that's even possible - I have some concerns that your diagram made me think of.

I put it up to be questioned. It is just an abstraction of the situation.

The point of the graph is just to put into a picture what I mean by an increasing "amount" of time. If somebody asks what I mean by "amount" all they have to do is look at the graph.

But once you understand that A = B you understand that to say time doesn't start you are talking about the exact same "amount" of time as saying time doesn't end.

We know what that the "amount" of time is when we talk about time in the fuiture. It is an "amount" that doesn't ever finish. A duration of time that has no finish.

So if infinite time in the future is an "amount" of time that never finishes and it is the same "amount" of time as infinite time that doesn't start then time that never starts is an "amount" of time that never finishes.

Time that doesn't start is an "amount" of time that never finishes.

A = B

If the present is defined loosely as leading the past but trailing the future, the present does not start. This may be saying that time as we experience it is not only infinite but that it couldn't have started.

The present is the present state of changing "things". You can't talk about the present as if it is some uniform undifferentiated entity. Every present state is a unique state.

So we are not experiencing some infinite present. We are experiencing a string of unique present moments.

If the amount of present moments in the past is infinite then they are without end. An infinite amount of prior present moments can't finish at the current present moment. They never end.

Having said that, I naturally forced a present to start. But even if I consider that, I realize that it wouldn't be the same present as the one that we are suppose to be experiencing now. Then this present that we are in would never begin.

No. Every present moment is unlike all the present moments before it. The present we are in is this slippery thing called the present state of the universe. The way the universe is at the present. But the universe is changing so the way it is in the present is always in the process of changing.

Imagine time as descending stairs and the universe is a slinky moving down them. The slinky is in a state of constant change. But whatever state it is in that is described as the present. Don't get too hung up in this analogy. It is just to try to show what the present is.

I have a feeling that math will help solve this along with god knows what else.

All that needs to be understood is that an infinite amount of time is a duration that never ends.

Infinite time in the past is a duration that never ends.

Can a duration that never ends have ended at the present?

In my humbled opinion, you have good arguments, but the other side has good arguments too.

I must leave this thread even though it kills me to leave with no personally satisfiable resolution to either side of the argument.

If I post again, it is only because I am addicted to this damn topic and probably should seek help.

 

[untermensche]

In my humbled opinion, you have good arguments, but the other side has good arguments too.

I must leave this thread even though it kills me to leave with no personally satisfiable resolution to either side of the argument.

If I post again, it is only because I am addicted to this damn topic and probably should seek help.

It's not a matter of any consequence.

Infinite time is nothing but a human definition.

When somebody tells you something has no start ask them what that could possibly mean?

How does something progress like the progression of present moments if they never began?

 

[bilby]

So you think because I can make a graph that shows time is infinite in the past it is evidence time is infinite in the past?

The only thing 'wrong' with your diagram is that you can't accept what it clearly shows - that an infinite past is infinite, regardless.

No it shows that the amount of time represented by saying time doesn't end is the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of time as saying time doesn't start.

In terms of the amount of time, to say time never ends is the same as saying time never begins.

It is a duration of time that can never finish.

It can't have finished at the present moment.

Because that would take an infinite amount of time.

 

[untermensche]

Because that would take an infinite amount of time.

If I gave you infinite time you would never finish counting the positive integers.

 

[bilby]

Because that would take an infinite amount of time.

If I gave you infinite time you would never finish counting the positive integers.

If I had been counting since an infinite time ago, there is no reason why I couldn't have finished.

 

[skepticalbip]

If I gave you infinite time you would never finish counting the positive integers.

If I had been counting since an infinite time ago, there is no reason why I couldn't have finished.

well not exactly. You seem to have been sucked into his "finished". This would have to assume a starting point to begin counting. However, if you started counting the days backward (assuming each day as an integer) then you would never finish because there would always be infinitely more ahead as well as infinitely more time yet to count them in.

 

[beero1000]

If I had been counting since an infinite time ago, there is no reason why I couldn't have finished.

well not exactly. You seem to have been sucked into his "finished". This would have to assume a starting point to begin counting. However, if you started counting the days backward (assuming each day as an integer) then you would never finish because there would be infinitely more ahead as well as infinitely more time yet to count them in.

Better yet, ask for one that you missed...

 

[Juma]

My point is that "infinity minus infinity" can result in infinity many different answers and is not a well defined "value". This your original question, which you probably has forgotten by now, now well formulated and thus impossible to answer.

So maybe we have found the reason why infinities in reality must be avoided.

What? Nature must avoid infinities because you cannot handle them?