Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

I am talking about an AMOUNT of time. I suspect I will have to say the word "amount" infinite times before some people actually hear the word and respond accordingly. The dissonance with this word I can't explain.

The amount of time described by saying time doesn't finish is, surprisingly, an amount that doesn't finish.

But guess what, the amount of time described by saying time doesn't begin is the same amount, also an amount that doesn't finish.

Whether you say time didn't begin or time won't end you are talking about the same AMOUNT of time.

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.

There is no "fitting". There is continual increasing. Infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never finishes. It doesn't "fit" into anything. If we use the word "fit" as an abstraction, no container can "fit" infinite time. It increases without end. There is no container large enough to "fit" it.

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.

No. You clearly don't have the slightest clue what my argument is.

That is why I have to tell you over and over I am talking about an AMOUNT of time. I even made a little drawing to show people what that looked like.

But still some refuse to even look at the very simple concept of an AMOUNT of time.

A simple question if you think you understand.

Does an infinite AMOUNT of time ever finish?

Really this is the only question I need an answer to.

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.

What is the AMOUNT of time described by saying time never started?

Is it an amount of time that ever finishes?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Of course and I have said the exact same thing countless times in this thread.

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.

If the number of days in the past were infinite then we could not get "through" them to get to today.

To have a today means all the prior days have come and gone. An infinite number of prior days doesn't come and go. It goes on forever. There is no finish to an infinite number of days.

However, as infinite past it still has to have something to do with having no bound somehow.

An infinite past is only bound on one end. A line bound only on one end is of infinite length. It goes on and on.

However, we want to express the idea that an infinite past has no beginning, which is the main idea of an infinite past.

Conceptually it is no different from saying time has no finish. It represents the same amount of time.

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.

It is an amount of time that never finishes.

So, an infinite past is just time that just finished passing and had no bound in the direction of the past.

What is the AMOUNT of time we are talking about when we say time has no start?

Again you want to obscure the situation by talking about this strange concept of "no start".

I want to clarify the situation by talking about the AMOUNT of time, because when we talk about the amount of time it doesn't matter if we say time didn't start or we say time didn't finish. It is the same amount of time.

If you want to address my argument in any way you have to use the concept of "an amount of time" to do it.

 

[bilby]

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

I am talking about an AMOUNT of time. I suspect I will have to say the word "amount" infinite times before some people actually hear the word and respond accordingly. The dissonance with this word I can't explain.

The amount of time described by saying time doesn't finish is, surprisingly, an amount that doesn't finish.

But guess what, the amount of time described by saying time doesn't begin is the same amount, also an amount that doesn't finish.

Whether you say time didn't begin or time won't end you are talking about the same AMOUNT of time.

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.

There is no "fitting". There is continual increasing. Infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never finishes. It doesn't "fit" into anything. If we use the word "fit" as an abstraction, no container can "fit" infinite time. It increases without end. There is no container large enough to "fit" it.

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.

No. You clearly don't have the slightest clue what my argument is.

That is why I have to tell you over and over I am talking about an AMOUNT of time. I even made a little drawing to show people what that looked like.

But still some refuse to even look at the very simple concept of an AMOUNT of time.

A simple question if you think you understand.

Does an infinite AMOUNT of time ever finish?

Really this is the only question I need an answer to.

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.

What is the AMOUNT of time described by saying time never started?

Is it an amount of time that ever finishes?

Yes, of course it is - if we declare it to have finished at the present.

Talking about 'amount' changes nothing.

In your diagram, the area under the line is proportional to the length of the line; if the line is infinite, so is the area - and the area fits exactly under the line, showing that infinite time has to pass if time has no start; and that (if we accept your use of the word 'amount' to refer to the area under the line) that an infinite 'amount' of time has plenty of opportunity to 'finish passing' - as long as (as shown on your graph) it never starts passing - ie the past is infinite.

Nothing in your diagram in any way contradicts or confounds any of my arguments.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, of course it is - if we declare it to have finished at the present.

I asked about the amount of time. What is the amount of time when we talk about time having no start?

Is the amount infinite or not? If it is an infinite amount of time then it is the same amount if time as infinite time in the future.

Which is an amount of time that can't finish at the present. It is an amount of time that never finishes.

Talking about 'amount' changes nothing.

I agree it changes nothing. It simply shows what is going on.

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

In your diagram, the area under the line is proportional to the length of the line; if the line is infinite, so is the area - and the area fits exactly under the line, showing that infinite time has to pass if time has no start; and that (if we accept your use of the word 'amount' to refer to the area under the line) that an infinite 'amount' of time has plenty of opportunity to 'finish passing' - as long as (as shown on your graph) it never starts passing - ie the past is infinite.

An infinite amount of time won't finish no matter how much of an opportunity you give it. Just like counting the negative integers won't finish even if you had infinite time.

Nothing in your diagram in any way contradicts or confounds any of my arguments.

You're not really addressing the diagram. The amount of time on both sides of the center line is the same amount of time. If in the future it is an amount of time that will never finish it is that same amount of time in the past.

 

[bilby]

I asked about the amount of time. What is the amount of time when we talk about time having no start?

It is infinite.

Is the amount infinite or not?

Yes, it is.

If it is an infinite amount of time then it is the same amount if time as infinite time in the future.

Not necessarily; but it certainly could be. Certainly the two are sufficiently similar infinities for us to accept this for the sake of argument.

Which is an amount of time that can't finish at the present. It is an amount of time that never finishes.

An infinite future never finishes; by analogy, an infinite past never starts. The reason one is called 'the future' and the other 'the past', is precisely that the former starts at the present, and the latter finishes at the present. The thing stopping an infinite future from finishing, but not stopping it from starting, is that it is the future; if we take the same amount of time in the past, then it is impossible for it to have a start, and necessary for it to have a finish for the exact same reason.

Talking about 'amount' changes nothing.

I agree it changes nothing. It simply shows what is going on.

Then why raise it - it is just muddying the waters.

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

NO IT ISN'T. It MIGHT BE, but there are other possibilities. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.
An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.
IF it never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';
IF it it never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';
and IF it neither starts nor finishes, then it is called 'all time'.

An infinite past can't have finished at the present moment.

On the contrary, an amount of time finishing at the present moment is the very DEFINITION of 'past'. If that amount of time is infinite, then it is an 'infinite past'.

It never finishes.

If it never finishes, then some or all of it is the future, by definition.

In your diagram, the area under the line is proportional to the length of the line; if the line is infinite, so is the area - and the area fits exactly under the line, showing that infinite time has to pass if time has no start; and that (if we accept your use of the word 'amount' to refer to the area under the line) that an infinite 'amount' of time has plenty of opportunity to 'finish passing' - as long as (as shown on your graph) it never starts passing - ie the past is infinite.

An infinite amount of time won't finish no matter how much of an opportunity you give it. Just like counting the negative integers won't finish even if you had infinite time.

It will, if you are now at a defined point, and counting towards zero. And the only way to have achieved that is to have already been counting for an infinite amount of time.

Nothing in your diagram in any way contradicts or confounds any of my arguments.

You're not really addressing the diagram. The amount of time on both sides of the center line is the same amount of time.

Yes. I know. And in both cases, it is infinite.

If in the future it is an amount of time that will never finish

...because by definition the future starts at the present...

it is that same amount of time in the past.

...and as the past, by definition, finishes at the present, it will, if infinite, never start. Hence the 'start' of the past, like the 'finish' of the future, not actually appearing on the graph - they can't because they cannot ever be reached in finite time.

It is a good graph; it shows exactly how the infinite past and infinite future are reflections about the present; and it shows that there is nothing particularly different about the two concepts. Both are bounded at one end only; Both are bounded by the present; Both are infinite. The only difference between them is the direction you look from the present in order to see them - if you look back, the infinite time is called 'the past' and if you look forward, it is called 'the future'.

What none of this stuff does is establish that there is any better reason to claim that an infinite past is 'illogical', than there is to make the same claim for an infinite future.

 

[untermensche]

If it is an infinite amount of time then it is the same amount if time as infinite time in the future.

Not necessarily; but it certainly could be. Certainly the two are sufficiently similar infinities for us to accept this for the sake of argument.

They are the EXACT SAME THING, in terms of the amount of time.

What you say about A, in terms of the amount of time, you also say about B.

If B represents time that never finishes so does A.

Which is an amount of time that can't finish at the present. It is an amount of time that never finishes.

An infinite future never finishes; by analogy, an infinite past never starts. The reason one is called 'the future' and the other 'the past', is precisely that the former starts at the present, and the latter finishes at the present. The thing stopping an infinite future from finishing, but not stopping it from starting, is that it is the future; if we take the same amount of time in the past, then it is impossible for it to have a start, and necessary for it to have a finish for the exact same reason.

The thing stopping an infinite future from finishing is that it is infinite, not that it starts at the present. Finite time could also start at the present.

But infinite time in the past could not finish at the present because it is like infinite time in the future. It never finishes.

I agree it changes nothing. It simply shows what is going on.

Then why raise it - it is just muddying the waters.

No, it is clarifying muddied waters. It is very muddy to talk about things that don't start.

It is much cleaner to talk about something we understand. An amount of something.

An infinite amount of time won't finish no matter how much of an opportunity you give it. Just like counting the negative integers won't finish even if you had infinite time.

It will, if you are now at a defined point, and counting towards zero. And the only way to have achieved that is to have already been counting for an infinite amount of time.

No. You will not finish counting the negative integers no matter how much time you have.

If every prior second represented a negative integer you would never finish them to get to the next second if they were infinite.

If in the future it is an amount of time that will never finish

...because by definition the future starts at the present...

Again, it is an amount of time that never finishes because it is infinite, not because it starts at the present.

it is that same amount of time in the past.

...and as the past, by definition, finishes at the present, it will, if infinite, never start. Hence the 'start' of the past, like the 'finish' of the future, not actually appearing on the graph - they can't because they cannot ever be reached in finite time.

The past is time that has already past. If it was infinite it would be an amount that never finishes.

You keep making the same error over and over again.

You somehow think saying time that doesn't start means a different amount of time from saying time doesn't finish. They are the exact same amount of time. If one never finishes neither does the other.

It is a good graph; it shows exactly how the infinite past and infinite future are reflections about the present; and it shows that there is nothing particularly different about the two concepts. Both are bounded at one end only; Both are bounded by the present; Both are infinite. The only difference between them is the direction you look from the present in order to see them - if you look back, the infinite time is called 'the past' and if you look forward, it is called 'the future'.

They are the SAME EXACT AMOUNT of time. If one is time that never finishes, so is the other.

 

[bilby]

Not necessarily; but it certainly could be. Certainly the two are sufficiently similar infinities for us to accept this for the sake of argument.

View attachment 1369

They are the EXACT SAME THING, in terms of the amount of time.

What you say about A, in terms of the amount of time, you also say about B.

If B represents time that never finishes so does A.

Which is an amount of time that can't finish at the present. It is an amount of time that never finishes.

An infinite future never finishes; by analogy, an infinite past never starts. The reason one is called 'the future' and the other 'the past', is precisely that the former starts at the present, and the latter finishes at the present. The thing stopping an infinite future from finishing, but not stopping it from starting, is that it is the future; if we take the same amount of time in the past, then it is impossible for it to have a start, and necessary for it to have a finish for the exact same reason.

The thing stopping an infinite future from finishing is that it is infinite, not that it starts at the present. Finite time could also start at the present.

Indeed it could.

But infinite time in the past could not finish at the present because it is like infinite time in the future.

It is like infinite time in the future in that it is bounded by the present, as your graph clearly shows; and in that it is infinite, as your graph also shows.

It never finishes.

I can SEE it finishing, at the present, on YOUR graph. That is what defines it as the past.

I agree it changes nothing. It simply shows what is going on.

Then why raise it - it is just muddying the waters.

No, it is clarifying muddied waters. It is very muddy to talk about things that don't start.

Don't be silly. The phrase 'infinite past' means 'time with no start'. Call it 'amount of time' or call it 'time', either way it has no start if it is both a) infinite; and b) the past. By definition.

It is much cleaner to talk about something we understand. An amount of something.

Well if you like we can talk about something completely unrelated to the topic, but that we both understand. That would be a short, boring and pointless discussion though.

An infinite amount of time won't finish no matter how much of an opportunity you give it. Just like counting the negative integers won't finish even if you had infinite time.

It will, if you are now at a defined point, and counting towards zero. And the only way to have achieved that is to have already been counting for an infinite amount of time.

No. You will not finish counting the negative integers no matter how much time you have.

Unless the amount is infinite. That's pretty much what 'infinite' means.

If every prior second represented a negative integer you would never finish them to get to the next second if they were infinite.

Where do you imagine we are starting this counting from?

If in the future it is an amount of time that will never finish

...because by definition the future starts at the present...

Again, it is an amount of time that never finishes because it is infinite, not because it starts at the present.

...and again, if it starts at the present, it is called 'the future'.

it is that same amount of time in the past.

...and as the past, by definition, finishes at the present, it will, if infinite, never start. Hence the 'start' of the past, like the 'finish' of the future, not actually appearing on the graph - they can't because they cannot ever be reached in finite time.

The past is time that has already past.

Yes.

If it was infinite it would be an amount that never finishes.

NO. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.
An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.
IF it never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';
IF it it never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';
and IF it neither starts nor finishes, then it is called 'all time'.

Your statement "If it was infinite it would be an amount that never finishes" is simply not complete. It is but one (or two) of the three possible scenarios if something is infinite. You have no grounds to rule out the other way an amount of time can be infinite - by being an amount that never starts.

You keep making the same error over and over again.

You are making the error of claiming that one of three possible ways for 'an amount of time' to be infinite is the only possible way. It isn't.

You somehow think saying time that doesn't start means a different amount of time from saying time doesn't finish.

Not at all.

They are the exact same amount of time.

Yes.

If one never finishes neither does the other.

NO. There is more than one way for them to be the exact same amount of time, and 'never finishes' is only ONE of THREE possibilities. You can't just pretend the other two options don't exist.

It is a good graph; it shows exactly how the infinite past and infinite future are reflections about the present; and it shows that there is nothing particularly different about the two concepts. Both are bounded at one end only; Both are bounded by the present; Both are infinite. The only difference between them is the direction you look from the present in order to see them - if you look back, the infinite time is called 'the past' and if you look forward, it is called 'the future'.

They are the SAME EXACT AMOUNT of time. If one is time that never finishes, so is the other.

NO. There is more than one way for them to be the exact same amount of time, and 'never finishes' is only ONE of THREE possibilities. You can't just pretend the other two options don't exist.

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.

An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.

IF it never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';
IF it it never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';
and IF it neither starts nor finishes, then it is called 'all time'.

 

[untermensche]

But infinite time in the past could not finish at the present because it is like infinite time in the future.

I can SEE it finishing, at the present, on YOUR graph. That is what defines it as the past.

No. You don't see an infinite amount of time finishing. You don't see it on either side of the center line. Both sides have an amount of time that never finishes.

This is from another person in this thread and it explains the situation.

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.

The center line is in the drawing but really no such point could be located. It can exist in the drawing because the lines are of finite length, not infinite.

No, it is clarifying muddied waters. It is very muddy to talk about things that don't start.

Don't be silly. The phrase 'infinite past' means 'time with no start'. Call it 'amount of time' or call it 'time', either way it has no start if it is both a) infinite; and b) the past. By definition.

What you call silly is trying to make this obscure notion, "time with no start", less obscure.

Time with no start is an AMOUNT of time with no finish. If we look at it as an amount of time then we understand how much time we are talking about when we say "time with no start".

You simply won't step from obscurity towards a concept that is less obscure.

You don't have to say "time with no start", you can say "an AMOUNT of time that never finishes".

They are THE EXACT SAME THING.

If it was infinite it would be an amount that never finishes.

NO. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.

A = B

They are the same AMOUNT of time. If one is an amount of time that never finishes so is the other.

 

[bilby]

I can SEE it finishing, at the present, on YOUR graph. That is what defines it as the past.

No. You don't see an infinite amount of time finishing. You don't see it on either side of the center line. Both sides have an amount of time that never finishes.

This is from another person in this thread and it explains the situation.

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.

The center line is in the drawing but really no such point could be located. It can exist in the drawing because the lines are of finite length, not infinite.

And yet, here we are. I found the present - it is right here!

No, it is clarifying muddied waters. It is very muddy to talk about things that don't start.

Don't be silly. The phrase 'infinite past' means 'time with no start'. Call it 'amount of time' or call it 'time', either way it has no start if it is both a) infinite; and b) the past. By definition.

What you call silly is trying to make this obscure notion, "time with no start", less obscure.

Time with no start is an AMOUNT of time with no finish start.

FTFY

If we look at it as an amount of time then we understand how much time we are talking about when we say "time with no start".

Yes, we do - it would need to be infinite.

You simply won't step from obscurity towards a concept that is less obscure.

You don't have to say "time with no start", you can say "an AMOUNT of time that never finishes starts".

FTFY.

They are THE EXACT SAME THING.

'X that never starts' is the same as 'an amount of X without start'. 'X that never starts' is quite obviously NOT the same as 'an amount of X without finish'.

If it was infinite it would be an amount that never finishes.

NO. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.

A = B

Start =/= Finish.

They are the same AMOUNT of time. If one is an amount of time that never finishes so is the other.

No. They are the same amount of time. If one is an infinite amount of time so is the other. But whether these start or end at the present is not determined by whether or not they are infinite; it is not determined by the amount of either; it is determined by whether the time in question is past or present.

Time finishing now is called the past.
Time starting now is called the future.
Time that is unbounded in one or more directions is called infinite.

Combining these, we can have infinite time that starts now, called 'the infinite future'; OR infinite time that ends now, called 'the infinite past'.

You cannot talk of past without end (no matter whether it is finite or infinite), because the word 'past' implies that it does not extend beyond the present. It is nonsense to talk of past without end. But it is perfectly OK to talk of an infinite past; all that is needed is to accept that it is possible for time not to have a start.

You don't have to like this idea; it is perfectly sound, despite your distaste for it.

 

[untermensche]

And yet, here we are. I found the present - it is right here!

Which of course means the past can't be infinite. If it was it would be an AMOUNT of time that never finishes.

You simply won't step from obscurity towards a concept that is less obscure.

You don't have to say "time with no start", you can say "an AMOUNT of time that never finishes starts".

FTFY.

Too funny.

You run to try to hide in obscurity.

To say time has no start is to say the AMOUNT of time has no finish.

It is the EXACT SAME THING, in terms of the AMOUNT of time.

 

[bilby]

Which of course means the past can't be infinite. If it was it would be an AMOUNT of time that never finishes.

You simply won't step from obscurity towards a concept that is less obscure.

You don't have to say "time with no start", you can say "an AMOUNT of time that never finishes starts".

FTFY.

Too funny.

You run to try to hide in obscurity.

To say time has no start is to say the AMOUNT of time has no finish.

It is the EXACT SAME THING, in terms of the AMOUNT of time.

Well all you need to do now is show how 'start' is exactly the same as 'finish' and you will have convinced me.

I don't think you can though; but if you do, try for 'black' is the same as 'white' - that way we can cure racism once and for all (although pedestrian crosswalks may need a redesign).

You can highlight the word 'amount' all you like; it isn't the contentious issue here.

I am completely OK with the idea of an infinite AMOUNT of time, that finishes now; it can still be an infinite AMOUNT, as long as it has no START.

 

[untermensche]

Well all you need to do now is show how 'start' is exactly the same as 'finish' and you will have convinced me.

We are talking about NO start and NO finish, not a start and a finish which is something we all understand very well.

NO start and NO finish, in terms of time, both represent the same AMOUNT of time.

People seem to be able to understand when we say an infinite future is an amount of time that never finishes, but for some reason they can't understand that time that never starts represents the same exact amount of time, an amount of time that never finishes.

I am completely OK with the idea of an infinite AMOUNT of time, that finishes now...

Then you are irrational. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes.

 

[bilby]

We are talking about NO start and NO finish, not a start and a finish which is something we all understand very well.

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that the future has no start?

NO start and NO finish, in terms of time, both represent the same AMOUNT of time.

Yes, and both represent infinite time; the entirety of all time past present and future.

But if we want to talk about the past, as distinct from the present or the future, then we are talking of time that finishes (whether or not it is infinite); And if we want to talk about the future, as distinct from the past and the present, then we are talking of time that starts (whether or not it is infinite).

People seem to be able to understand when we say an infinite future is an amount of time that never finishes,

That's because it makes perfect sense; you are using the correct meanings for all the words, to present a coherent concept.

but for some reason they can't understand that time that never starts represents the same exact amount of time,

Of course we can; that too is perfectly fine.

... an amount of time that never finishes.

And then you go all weird, and try to make out that 'time that never starts' is the same as 'an amount of time that never finishes', which is EXACTLY the same as saying 'Starts' means the same as 'Finishes', which is complete bollocks.

I am completely OK with the idea of an infinite AMOUNT of time, that finishes now...

Then you are irrational. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes.

NO IT ISN'T. It MIGHT BE, but there are other possibilities. All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs. All amounts of time that never finish are infinite, but not all infinite amounts of time never finish.
An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.
IF it never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';
IF it it never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';
and IF it neither starts nor finishes, then it is called 'all time'.

 

[untermensche]

Wait, what? Are you trying to say that the future has no start?

If it is infinite it has no finish. And this is the same amount of time as saying it has no start.

... an amount of time that never finishes.

And then you go all weird, and try to make out that 'time that never starts' is the same as 'an amount of time that never finishes', which is EXACTLY the same as saying 'Starts' means the same as 'Finishes', which is complete bollocks.

I am talking about an amount of time. Not a start or a finish.

I am talking about the amount of time represented by saying time is infinite in the future and the amount of time represented by saying time is infinite in the past.

They are the same exact amount of time.

To think one is an amount of time that finishes and the other isn't is to go all weird.

 

[bilby]

If it is infinite it has no finish. And this is the same amount of time as saying it has no start.

... an amount of time that never finishes.

And then you go all weird, and try to make out that 'time that never starts' is the same as 'an amount of time that never finishes', which is EXACTLY the same as saying 'Starts' means the same as 'Finishes', which is complete bollocks.

I am talking about an amount of time. Not a start or a finish.

I am talking about the amount of time represented by saying time is infinite in the future and the amount of time represented by saying time is infinite in the past.

They are the same exact amount of time.

To think one is an amount of time that finishes and the other isn't is to go all weird.

An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.
IF the amount never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';
IF the amount never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';
and IF the amount neither starts nor finishes, then it is called 'all time'.
All of these are valid descriptions of infinite amounts of time.

To talk of a past that never finishes is to be incoherent. Like talking of a giant midget, or a married bachelor.

'An amount of time that never finishes' cannot be a valid description of the past; any more than 'An amount of time that never starts' can be a valid description of the future. But both are valid descriptions of infinite time.

'An infinite amount of time in the past' is perfectly OK, simply using the bolded definition above.

 

[untermensche]

An infinite amount of time is an amount that is unbounded at one or both ends.

IF the amount never finishes, but does start, then it is called 'the future';

IF the amount never starts, but does finish, then it is called 'the past';

No.

You can't have an amount that never starts. The amount of time in the past begins with one day in the past then two days in the past and so on.

The amount of time in the past has a start at the present. What it doesn't have is a finish, if it is infinite.

To talk of a past that never finishes is to be incoherent.

That is why I am talking about an AMOUNT of time.

Every amount of time has a start. If it is an infinite amount of time it has no finish.

 

[bilby]

No.

You can't have an amount that never starts. The amount of time in the past begins with one day in the past then two days in the past and so on.

The amount of time in the past has a start at the present. What it doesn't have is a finish.

To talk of a past that never finishes is to be incoherent.

That is why I am talking about an AMOUNT of time.

Every amount of time has a start. If it is an infinite amount of time it has no finish.

OK, if you want to look at it that way, then an infinite past becomes:

A) an amount (sorry, I mean AMOUNT) of time that has a start at the present, and goes backwards forever.

In exactly the same way that the infinite future is:

B) an amount (sorry, I mean AMOUNT) of time that has a start at the present, and goes forwards forever.

I am happy to look at it that way - as long as we stick to one definition for each word per argument.

I fail to see what is illogical or impossible or even implausible about A) that is not equally illogical, impossible or implausible for B).

An infinite past. An infinite future. Whether you name the present as 'start' or 'finish' in either case changes nothing but the label - either way, an infinite past is a logical possibility. No matter how much you shout "AMOUNT", this remains true.

 

[untermensche]

OK, if you want to look at it that way, then an infinite past becomes:

A) an amount (sorry, I mean AMOUNT) of time that has a start at the present, and goes backwards forever.

Is this an amount of time that can finish?

If I say the amount of time in the past is infinite then it is one day in the past then two days in the past and so on.

When does the number of days finish?

 

[bilby]

OK, if you want to look at it that way, then an infinite past becomes:

A) an amount (sorry, I mean AMOUNT) of time that has a start at the present, and goes backwards forever.

Is this an amount of time that can finish?

Of course not - using your new definition of 'start' to mean the present, it cannot finish - it is infinite, and so goes backwards forever.

If I say the amount of time in the past is infinite then it is one day in the past then two days in the past and so on.

Infinitely. Yes.

When does the number of days finish?

It doesn't. That's what an 'infinite past' means.

 

[untermensche]

When does the number of days finish?

It doesn't. That's what an 'infinite past' means.

If it doesn't finish then how did it finish at the present?

The number of days in the past finished today.