Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

I presume that your proof of this would have been presented here, but it would not fit on the Internet...


...not that it really matters, because my argument assumes nothing of the sort.

A present moment in time is a unique arrangement of all that exists. It is unlike all arrangements that have come before it.

But if those arrangements (prior moments in time) were infinite there would be no way for all of them to finish and allow the present arrangement.

When you say we have a present and we would have a present whether or not the prior moments were infinite or not, you are saying all moments are the same.

But we are not just having a present moment, that moment is unlike any other moment.

Every moment is unique, like the negative integers.

An infinite number of unique prior moments can't finish just like the negative integers don't.

Moments are infinitesimal. They don't have duration, or they wouldn't be moments, they would be sets of moments.

An infinite number of moments can therefore finish in a finite time; they sure as shit can finish in an infinite time. They could finish in infinite time even if they were not moments but finite durations.

This whole line of argument is irrelevant.

An infinite past is enough time to have anything happen you can think of, and still have infinite time left.

Your inability to grasp this isn't proof of anything - except of your lack of ability to grasp concepts like 'infinity'.

 

[untermensche]

Moments are infinitesimal.

I don't agree with this unsupported claim at all. It has to proven. It is not assumed.

But we don't have to talk about moments. We could talk about seconds.

Every second is unique. In a changing universe, and whatever allegedly existed before the universe in infinite time in the past, no two seconds are the same thing.

Infinite time would be an infinite number of seconds.

An infinite number of seconds can't have finished before the next second.

An infinite number of moments can therefore finish in a finite time; they sure as shit can finish in an infinite time. They could finish in infinite time even if they were not moments but finite durations.

Yes, your imaginary conception of something with no dimension can fit anywhere.

But an infinite number of seconds won't finish in infinite time.

 

[bilby]

I don't agree with this unsupported claim at all. It has to proven. It is not assumed.

But we don't have to talk about moments. We could talk about seconds.

Every second is unique. In a changing universe, and whatever allegedly existed before the universe in infinite time in the past, no two seconds are the same thing.

Infinite time would be an infinite number of seconds.

An infinite number of seconds can't have finished before the next second.

An infinite number of moments can therefore finish in a finite time; they sure as shit can finish in an infinite time. They could finish in infinite time even if they were not moments but finite durations.

Yes, your imaginary conception of something with no dimension can fit anywhere.

But an infinite number of seconds won't finish in infinite time.

Why not?

As long as they never started, any point where they finish is as good as any other; There is plenty of time for them to have finished. Infinite time, in fact.

 

[untermensche]

As long as they never started, any point where they finish is as good as any other; There is plenty of time for them to have finished. Infinite time, in fact.

To say they never started just means there are an infinite number of them. It doesn't mean that in infinite time an infinite number can finish.

Even in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish.

So if the past is infinite an infinite number of past seconds can't have finished before the next second.

 

[bilby]

As long as they never started, any point where they finish is as good as any other; There is plenty of time for them to have finished. Infinite time, in fact.

To say they never started just means there are an infinite number of them. It doesn't mean that in infinite time an infinite number can finish.

Even in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish.

So if the past is infinite an infinite number of past seconds can't have finished before the next second.

Why? Because one of these infinities is less than the other infinity? I can assure you they are the same size. There is no reason to assert that "in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish"; that is errant nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

To say they never started just means there are an infinite number of them. It doesn't mean that in infinite time an infinite number can finish.

Even in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish.

So if the past is infinite an infinite number of past seconds can't have finished before the next second.

Why? Because one of these infinities is less than the other infinity? I can assure you they are the same size. There is no reason to assert that "in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish"; that is errant nonsense.

Infinite time is a duration of time without end.

That is the definition of infinite time we invented.

It can be looked at two ways.

Time without end can be described as time that never starts or it can be described as time that never finishes.

It is still time without end.

Time without end can't have ended at the present moment. It is without end.

 

[Speakpigeon]

really?

No. Me I understood your little drawing. Did everybody? Hmm, no so sure.

You seemed to be expecting people to get your point because it was somehow obvious. I was just trying to suggest how it may not be to all of us, in particular to untermensche since his mind has been so impervious to on the whole very reasonable and very persistent explanations articulated by many different samaritans.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I would really like it if he could indeed have a serious point as suggested by your remark! I mean, a point such that your argument could possibly make an impact. However, I suspect he is only taking the expression "infinite past" as meaning "an infinite amount of time in the past that had no end" on the very literal interpretation that the word "infinite" itself really means "without end": "infinite past" = without end + past.

So, it would be an instance of obtuse, even mechanistic literal-mindedness rather than anything properly logical. Poor English couldn't possibly be the reason for this. The reverse is probably more likely to be true, i.e. literal-mindedness may explain his style of writing.

Yet, the result would be that he will never get it...

and we may as well resign ourself to it by now.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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>

Yeah, I guess that's exactly what I suspected: Obdurate literal-mindedness.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

Who said that are necessarily the same kind of infinity? We think so but it's not necessarily true.

They represent the EXACT SAME amount of time.

Not necessarily: maybe yes, maybe not. We don't know. You don't know. You just think you do just because you can't conceive how to infinite sets could possibly differ.

Do you think that R, the set of real numbers, and N, the set of natural numbers, have the same number of numbers? Could you think of a scheme by which we could imagine matching every real number with one and only one natural number?

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

That's just idiotic. They may be the same infinite amount of time but one ended yesterday and never began while the other starts tomorrow and will never ends. See?
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Eternity does not have a beginning or an end.

That is the definition. It doesn't mean it is logical.

Right so far. You can define something into existence, such as the beginning of time, and just because you defined something as existing, it doesn't mean that it does.

It is not logical to say an infinite number of unique prior moments occurred before a unique present moment. An infinite number of unique prior moments would go on and on. They would never finish, like the negative integers.

1 problem is the misunderstanding of mathematics that your argument requires: one does not measure from an undefined point like "negative infinity".

The negative integers are measured from 0. They aren't measured from negative infinity (which is boundless, so one can't measure from it). So while any integer you measure to, positive or negative, will have a finite value, one can always measure farther back in the timeline (negative) or further forward in the timeline (positive).

So in some sense you can measure back an infinite amount of "prior moments" (in other words, you can measure to any point in the timeline, because it is unbounded in the backwards direction), but you cannot measure from an undefined place and have a uniquely defined, bounded amount that arrives at point 0.

Remember, indeterminate form implies that -infinity + infinity = anything. The philosophical roots of this are pretty simple- something that has no defined boundary (infinity and/or negative infinity) being added to its "opposite" has no defined central location (or zero point), because the boundaries on the opposite sides do not actual exist: there are no boundaries.

 

[bilby]

Why? Because one of these infinities is less than the other infinity? I can assure you they are the same size. There is no reason to assert that "in infinite time an infinite number of seconds won't finish"; that is errant nonsense.

Infinite time is a duration of time without end.

That is the definition of infinite time we invented.

What's all this 'we' business? YOU invented that definition; the rest of us have been arguing ever since that the common definition of infinity should be used, which would imply that infinite time can be time without end OR time without beginning OR time with neither end NOR beginning. The only reason I can see for using your more limited definition is that it allows for equivocation on the meaning of the word 'end' later on.

It can be looked at two ways.

Time without end can be described as time that never starts or it can be described as time that never finishes.

It is still time without end.

Time without end can't have ended at the present moment. It is without end.

See, just like that. You are using two different meanings of the word 'end'; If we do NOT use your modified definition, we get this argument instead:

"Time without a beginning can't have ended at the present moment. [Because] it is without a beginning." Which is obviously nonsense; clearly not having a beginning says nothing whatsoever about the existence or otherwise of an end.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, I guess that's exactly what I suspected: Obdurate literal-mindedness.
EB

Infinite isn't any kind of observation.

It is a made up concept. And it means endless.

What do you want it to mean? To have an end?

 

[untermensche]

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

Do I have to say more?

Who said that are necessarily the same kind of infinity? We think so but it's not necessarily true.

They are both unbounded infinities of the same thing.

How do they differ? Besides the fact that one is time that has come and gone and the other is time yet to come.

The negative integers are the exact same integers as the positive integers except they are negative.

Infinite time in the past is the exact same thing as infinite time in the future except it is in the past.

They represent the EXACT SAME amount of time.

Not necessarily: maybe yes, maybe not. We don't know. You don't know. You just think you do just because you can't conceive how to infinite sets could possibly differ.

We are comparing a set like the positive integers with a set like the negative integers. We are not looking at any other kinds of infinite sets.

Both sets represent the same number of elements, elements without end.

Do you think that R, the set of real numbers, and N, the set of natural numbers, have the same number of numbers? Could you think of a scheme by which we could imagine matching every real number with one and only one natural number?

The fact that there can be different kinds of infinite sets has no bearing here.

We have two infinite sets that are identical except in the direction from the present.

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

That's just idiotic. They may be the same infinite amount of time but one ended yesterday and never began while the other starts tomorrow and will never ends. See?
EB

They are the same kind of infinity defined in two different ways. There is no difference, in terms of the amount of time, in saying time has no beginning or time has no finish. I even drew a little diagram to illustrate this fact.

 

[untermensche]

That is the definition. It doesn't mean it is logical.

Right so far. You can define something into existence, such as the beginning of time, and just because you defined something as existing, it doesn't mean that it does.

The idea of time starting at the Big Bang is something I've heard physicists say many times.

I didn't define the idea into existence. Physicists told me about it.

It is not logical to say an infinite number of unique prior moments occurred before a unique present moment. An infinite number of unique prior moments would go on and on. They would never finish, like the negative integers.

1 problem is the misunderstanding of mathematics that your argument requires: one does not measure from an undefined point like "negative infinity".

I agree this can't be done. So what we have to talk about is the amount of time represented by infinite time. It is an amount that never finish.

You can't claim that because we have a present it means infinite time in the past is possible. It means infinite time in the past is impossible.

To have a present means the past is over, it is finished.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. It can't have finished at the present.

The negative integers are measured from 0. They aren't measured from negative infinity (which is boundless, so one can't measure from it). So while any integer you measure to, positive or negative, will have a finite value, one can always measure farther back in the timeline (negative) or further forward in the timeline (positive).

Again, when you talk about the AMOUNT of time you are always talking about something positive. This gets rid of all the troubles of trying to start counts from pasts that don't begin.

The easiest way to look at the situation is to look at equivalents. This is a common mathematical tactic.

The AMOUNT of time represented by saying time doesn't begin is the same as saying time doesn't finish. It is an amount of time that is unbounded and increases without end.

Remember, indeterminate form implies that -infinity + infinity = anything. The philosophical roots of this are pretty simple- something that has no defined boundary (infinity and/or negative infinity) being added to its "opposite" has no defined central location (or zero point), because the boundaries on the opposite sides do not actual exist: there are no boundaries.

This supports my argument and it makes perfect sense to me. That is why I said over and over that picking a point on a line that is infinite in both direction is an arbitrary process.

This is why I say over and over you can't have a present moment if the prior moments are infinite.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time is a duration of time without end.

That is the definition of infinite time we invented.

What's all this 'we' business? YOU invented that definition; the rest of us have been arguing ever since that the common definition of infinity should be used, which would imply that infinite time can be time without end OR time without beginning OR time with neither end NOR beginning. The only reason I can see for using your more limited definition is that it allows for equivocation on the meaning of the word 'end' later on.

I didn't invent the definition.

Time without finish is the same amount of time as time without beginning.

Somehow you clearly see this when the arrow is pointed to the future but can't understand when the arrow is pointed to the past.

Infinite time in the future is just the mirror image of infinite time in the past. They are the same amount of time.

It can be looked at two ways.

Time without end can be described as time that never starts or it can be described as time that never finishes.

It is still time without end.

Time without end can't have ended at the present moment. It is without end.

See, just like that. You are using two different meanings of the word 'end';

The word means "finish" every time it is used.

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

"Time without a beginning can't have ended at the present moment. [Because] it is without a beginning."

To mimic my argument you would have to say; Time without a beginning can't have begun at the present moment. [Because] it is without a beginning.

 

[bilby]

Right so far. You can define something into existence, such as the beginning of time, and just because you defined something as existing, it doesn't mean that it does.

The idea of time starting at the Big Bang is something I've heard physicists say many times.

I didn't define the idea into existence. Physicists told me about it.

It is not logical to say an infinite number of unique prior moments occurred before a unique present moment. An infinite number of unique prior moments would go on and on. They would never finish, like the negative integers.

1 problem is the misunderstanding of mathematics that your argument requires: one does not measure from an undefined point like "negative infinity".

I agree this can't be done. So what we have to talk about is the amount of time represented by infinite time. It is an amount that never finish.

No, it isn't. Time that never starts is infinite, whether or not it finishes.

You can't claim that because we have a present it means infinite time in the past is possible. It means infinite time in the past is impossible.

No, it doesn't. Repeating it doesn't make it true; You are using a definition of infinity that is not complete, and then using it as if it were complete. That is not logic, it is deceit.

To have a present means the past is over, it is finished.

Yes. But it tells you NOTHING about whether or not that past was finite.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes.

Or never starts.

It can't have finished at the present.

Unless it never started.

The negative integers are measured from 0. They aren't measured from negative infinity (which is boundless, so one can't measure from it). So while any integer you measure to, positive or negative, will have a finite value, one can always measure farther back in the timeline (negative) or further forward in the timeline (positive).

Again, when you talk about the AMOUNT of time you are always talking about something positive. This gets rid of all the troubles of trying to start counts from pasts that don't begin.

The easiest way to look at the situation is to look at equivalents. This is a common mathematical tactic.

The AMOUNT of time represented by saying time doesn't begin is the same as saying time doesn't finish. It is an amount of time that is unbounded

Yes

and increases without end.

Or extends backward without end.

Remember, indeterminate form implies that -infinity + infinity = anything. The philosophical roots of this are pretty simple- something that has no defined boundary (infinity and/or negative infinity) being added to its "opposite" has no defined central location (or zero point), because the boundaries on the opposite sides do not actual exist: there are no boundaries.

This supports my argument and it makes perfect sense to me. That is why I said over and over that picking a point on a line that is infinite in both direction is an arbitrary process.

So what? Why should that matter?

This is why I say over and over you can't have a present moment if the prior moments are infinite.

That does not follow.

 

[untermensche]

I agree this can't be done. So what we have to talk about is the amount of time represented by infinite time. It is an amount that never finish.

No, it isn't. Time that never starts is infinite, whether or not it finishes.

How many times do I have to say the word "amount" when talking about time before it is understood and heard?

You are simply trying to hide behind an obscure concept. The concept of not starting. You are throwing up a smoke screen.

I am trying to make an obscure concept something clear. That is why I talk about an "amount" of time.

An amount of time is always positive.

And the amount of time represented by saying time has no beginning is the same amount of time as saying time has no finish.

You are using a definition of infinity that is not complete, and then using it as if it were complete. That is not logic, it is deceit.

There is nothing incomplete about my definition.

Infinite time is time that never finishes. Whether you define infinite time as time that doesn't begin or time that doesn't finish.

It is the same "amount" of time either way.

To have a present means the past is over, it is finished.

Yes. But it tells you NOTHING about whether or not that past was finite.

If it finished it is finite. Something that has no start cannot finish.

and increases without end.

Or extends backward without end.

It is the same amount of time. An amount that is unbounded and doesn't finish. You keep trying to claim a line unbounded only on one end can have a finite length.

And of course a line unbounded on both ends doesn't have a finite length either.

This is why I say over and over you can't have a present moment if the prior moments are infinite.

That does not follow.

If the prior moments are infinite how do they finish at the present moment?

 

[bilby]

No, it isn't. Time that never starts is infinite, whether or not it finishes.

How many times do I have to say the word "amount" when talking about time before it is understood and heard?

You are simply trying to hide behind an obscure concept. The concept of not starting. You are throwing up a smoke screen.

I am trying to make an obscure concept something clear. That is why I talk about an "amount" of time.

An amount of time is always positive.

And the amount of time represented by saying time has no beginning is the same amount of time as saying time has no finish.

Yes.

You are using a definition of infinity that is not complete, and then using it as if it were complete. That is not logic, it is deceit.

There is nothing incomplete about my definition.

Infinite time is time that never finishes. Whether you define infinite time as time that doesn't begin or time that doesn't finish.

These are two VERY different uses of the word 'finish' here. You are confusing the issue by using the same word with differing meanings.

It is the same "amount" of time either way.

Yes. So if it can exist in an infinite future, it can also exist in an infinite past. It fits into infinity, either way.

To have a present means the past is over, it is finished.

That depends what you mean by 'finish'. If you mean that it is in the past, then it is true; if you mean that it is necessarily finite, then that is false.

Yes. But it tells you NOTHING about whether or not that past was finite.

If it finished it is finite. Something that has no start cannot finish.

Yes, it certainly can. You keep asserting this, but that is all it is - your assertion. You have provided no support for it that does not rely on equivocation, circular reasoning, or personal incredulity.

Can I take it that you are OK with the idea of an infinite future? Because your argument against an infinite past here is EXACTLY equivalent to saying that an infinite future is impossible, because "Something that has no finish cannot start".

and increases without end.

Or extends backward without end.

It is the same amount of time. An amount that is unbounded and doesn't finish. You keep trying to claim a line unbounded only on one end can have a finite length.

I have never once suggested any such thing. Indeed I have repeatedly pointed out the exact opposite.

Please feel free to quote anything I have said that so much as hints that a line unbounded only on one end can have a finite length. I have never said this.

And of course a line unbounded on both ends doesn't have a finite length either.

This is why I say over and over you can't have a present moment if the prior moments are infinite.

That does not follow.

If the prior moments are infinite how do they finish at the present moment?

By never starting. If the past was always there, then it is infinite whether or not you define some point as the 'finish'. If it never started, then it is unbounded only at one end (the present), so it MUST be infinite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, I guess that's exactly what I suspected: Obdurate literal-mindedness.
EB

Infinite isn't any kind of observation.

It is a made up concept. And it means endless.

What do you want it to mean? To have an end?

Ah-ah sort of funny.


I just had a brain wave so let me put my proposal to you . Let's play a game. Let's see if you can play.

So, instead of the word "end", let's use the word "bound". Yes?

So, the word "infinite" means "no bound". Can you agree with that?

So, assuming you agree, what does the expression "infinite past" can possibly mean? We have to start from the meaning of the two words "past" and "infinite".

First, this isn't strictly a logical problem. We just need to understand the meaning of the expression "ininite past". The meaning of "bluebottle" is of course not that of a blue bottle but a fly with a green shine (the kind of fly willing to decorate turds and make them pretty).

So we have to start from the meaning of the main noun, "past". An infinite past is first and foremost a time that is aleady passed, i.e. a past. The past as time already passed is of course bounded, at least by today (or now etc). It is bounded by the last unit of time in which we count that has just passed. If we count in days then the past ended yesterday.

However, as infinite past it still has to have something to do with having no bound somehow. However, we want to express the idea that an infinite past has no beginning, which is the main idea of an infinite past. Using the word "bound", we can express this idea by saying that an infinite past does not have a bound in the direction of the past. So, an infinite past is just time that just finished passing and had no bound in the direction of the past.

Can you agree with that?
EB