Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

No matter how many times you try to hide behind the smoke screen of "it never ends" it is never an answer. It is always a dodge.

No dodge; just consistent use of the same definition for each word throughout.

A consistent dodge. That is all it is. Saying time doesn't begin means it is an amount of time that never ends. A = B

You haven't even tried to disprove this. You think you can dismiss it with this inanity that it means a start is the same as a finish.

An infinite amount of time equals an infinite amount of time. A = B

It doesn't matter if that infinite time allegedly took place in the past or it allegedly will take place in the future. It is still an infinite amount of time.

And infinite amounts of time don't finish. They don't ever finish. Even if you describe an infinite amount of time as time that doesn't start. It is still an amount of time that can never finish.

Infinite amounts of time, even if we describe them as never starting, never finish.

It seems to me that you are claiming time worked differently in the past. Maybe it did, but if it did we wouldn't call that time. It would be something else. Time works the way we observe it working. Things that are not time work differently.

I don't know how it 'works' and nor do you. It is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is "did time start in the past?" (or if we consider it from the other side, if it started today, "does it finish in the past?").

I do know how it works, and so do you.

Any moment in time is first a present moment. It is the current configuration of all that exists.

Then when the configuration of all that exists changes there is a different configuration and therefore a different present moment.

When this happens the previous present moment, or previous configuration of all that exists, no longer exists.

But we have memories so we know that the previous moment did at one time exist and we label moments in time that did at one time exist but no longer exist as the past.

So moments are first present moments then thought of as past moments.

That is how it works.

But if the number of previous moments is without end, if they are infinite, they can't have already occurred before any present moment. They never finish. Infinite prior moments never finish. Even if you claim they never started.

Please don't tell me to look at an abstraction of the situation drawn in lines. That doesn't demonstrate anything.

Then why did you present it? That's not very rational, presenting a diagram that doesn't demonstrate anything.

It doesn't demonstrate anything about how an infinite amount of time can finish, and that was the only purpose of my drawing, to show what I meant when I said "an amount" of time.

Just tell me how something that never starts ends. How does that work?

Exactly the same way something that does start ends, presumably.

The way something that starts ends is by first starting then going through it's entire length and then ending. To end it has to go through it's entire length.

An infinite line pointing to the past can't be "gone through". You can't go through it's entire length to reach an end. It's length is without end.

What you presume is nonsense.

You say 'we couldn't have reached the present', but that's silly - wherever we are, where ever we start from, IS by definition, the present at that time. And if the past is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of time before ANY point in time.

You won't defend this so I don't even have to dispute it.

But saying the present is here is not proof of any kind that if infinite time had to pass first the present could be here.

In fact, if infinite time had to pass before the present moment it never could be here because infinite time is an amount of time that never finishes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

Who said we had to go through them. We live now. Nobody is saying we have already lived for an infinitely long time. Again, your English stinks or your post is idiotic.

If the time in the past was one day that would mean one day's worth of time would have to pass before we have today.

Your English stinks.

Yes and no. If you insist on a subjective viewpoint then you should stick to it and then there isn't much you’re going to be able to say. If the past had been one day long and assuming that we would have been there to observe time then one day would have had to pass for us before we could be and observe today. You cannot assume that time has been passing when you weren't there to observe time passing. You want insist on a subjective viewpoint? Then stick to it.

If the time in the past was infinite days that means infinite day's worth of time would have to pass before we have today.

If the past was infinite nobody would have been there to observe this infinite amount of time passing.

Suppose an infinite road and assume you are somewhere on this road. Now, are you going to claim that it's impossible for you to be anywhere on this infinite road because you would have to have travelled along the whole of the road? This is idiotic, the road is already there, infinitely long in both directions and you don't need to travel on the road itself to get at one particular point along this road. Same thing for time.

I say "we" because we do have today. We are both here at today.

Yes we are here today but we never had to travel through the entire length of the past, infinite or not, to get where we are. Time may be passing only for us. This is a property relative to our viewpoint.

And time is definitely not passing relative to itself.

The past is also not like a tree, it's not growing. Instead, you have a particular distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe at each particular point in time. There is a relation of continuity between successive dispositions but nothing is moving through time. Time is not really passing. You would find various distributions if you could look at them in the past and if the past was infinite there would be an infinite number of distributions in the past, one for each moment in the past.

Of course, if you want to speak from your subjective viewpoint, it's fine. Sure, the past is not infinite. In fact, it doesn't even exist. It's just a memory. There is no past today. All you have is a memory, or more accurately speaking, the impression of a memory. According to this viewpoint, time is only as old as the oldest event you can remember, which mustn't be too long ago. And you're not going to have any fruitful conversation with anybody with a longer memory!

But if infinite days had to pass before we have a today then we could never have it.

We could never have witness this much time passing and that's very different from what you claim.

You want to talk about time as you may perceive it but there is no concept of that kind of time, not that I am aware of. The only concept of time that exists is the concept of absolute time which is pretty much what Newton had in mind. In this view, the past is infinite and we are here today at some point in time between an infinite past and an infinite future. We as a human species never had to go through any infinite amount of time to find ourselves here today. The universe itself never had to go through time because if time exists at all it is just one aspect of the universe so if time is infinite then the universe is infinite in a way which doesn't require the universe to go through time, through this infinite past in order for us to exist today. In this universe, we are where we are and we are conscious of where we are without having had to go through this infinite past.

If you are too smart for Newtonian time, you can try to think in terms of Einstein's concept of relative time and good luck with that.

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.

The part underlined is so idiotic I don't understand how you can bring yourself to utter such nonsense.

Calling what you don't understand "idiotic" doesn't make it so.

Sure but if it's idiotic let me call it so.

It's idiotic. Therefore let me call it so.

If we say the prior days before today were infinite then that would be an unending number of days.

How do an unending number of days end at today?

Like any finite amount of time. There is a point in time. Every moment that came before is part of what is the past relative to this point. This past ends there. If this past has been an infinite amount of time then this infinite amount of time ends there, at this point in time. No big deal.

Either they are unending or they are not. If the prior days were unending (infinite), then they couldn't have finished at today.

An infinite past would end today like a finite past would. No difference. An infinite past is not unending. Instead, it didn't begin. I don't what's difficult to understand in that.

If time has no start how much time has passed in the past? Is it a finite amount or is it an amount that increases without finish?

Neither.

It is an infinite amount of time. Meaning that if we tried to count this amount of time we would never get to a finite number and we would go on and on counting without end but still without ever being able to count this infinite amount of time. The past is passed so there is no increase, no passing of time, it's all over and done with. You don't understand that? I'm really sorry.
EB

 

[untermensche]

If the time in the past was one day that would mean one day's worth of time would have to pass before we have today.

Your English stinks.

Whatever you say. But to talk about time is difficult because time is not really a thing that exists. What exists is the universe and that universe is in a state of constant change.

We call the particular way the universe changes "time". We even say it is a "dimension" as if it is something real.

But all our talk about "time" is an abstraction to describe a kind of change. And if we invent a device that changes at a specific rate, like the hands of a clock, we can measure amounts of time. And if we go really fast the hands move slower, but it is still the way change occurs in this universe.

So when people say "time has always existed", what they are really saying is that change has always been occurring in the way change occurs in this universe.

Yes and no. If you insist on a subjective viewpoint then you should stick to it and then there isn't much you’re going to be able to say. If the past had been one day long and assuming that we would have been there to observe time then one day would have had to pass for us before we could be and observe today. You cannot assume that time has been passing when you weren't there to observe time passing. You want insist on a subjective viewpoint? Then stick to it.

Based on the evidence, scientists believe time has been passing at least 13.8 billion years.

Can we assume time was passing all these years even though we weren't there to see it?

If the time in the past was infinite days that means infinite day's worth of time would have to pass before we have today.

If the past was infinite nobody would have been there to observe this infinite amount of time passing.

Whether seen or unseen, it still has to pass.

If the past is infinite that means infinite change has already occurred in the past.

And saying change has always occurred means there is reaction without action.

Suppose an infinite road and assume you are somewhere on this road. Now, are you going to claim that it's impossible for you to be anywhere on this infinite road because you would have to have travelled along the whole of the road? This is idiotic, the road is already there, infinitely long in both directions and you don't need to travel on the road itself to get at one particular point along this road. Same thing for time.

If the road never began what is the person walking on?

How do you walk on a road that never began? A road that never begins can't take you anywhere.

I say "we" because we do have today. We are both here at today.

Yes we are here today but we never had to travel through the entire length of the past, infinite or not, to get where we are. Time may be passing only for us. This is a property relative to our viewpoint.

No. Change is occurring whether we note it or not.

If time is infinite in the past that means infinite change has occurred in the past because infinite time means an infinite amount of change.

The past is also not like a tree, it's not growing. Instead, you have a particular distribution of matter and energy throughout the universe at each particular point in time. There is a relation of continuity between successive dispositions but nothing is moving through time. Time is not really passing. You would find various distributions if you could look at them in the past and if the past was infinite there would be an infinite number of distributions in the past, one for each moment in the past.

I agree, to say time is passing is only a metaphor to mean change is occurring in a specific way. But it is an understood metaphor. One moment passes before us, then the next, and so on. It is subjective but it points to something objective, change, and the specific way change occurs in this universe.

To say time passes is only to say a specific kind of change is occurring. It doesn't matter how you describe the situation. It is the same thing. You are making a big deal about nothing.

Infinite time in the past means infinite change in the past. But infinite change means change that goes on without end. Change without end could not have ended before the present moment in time. It is without end.

The only concept of time that exists is the concept of absolute time which is pretty much what Newton had in mind. In this view, the past is infinite and we are here today at some point in time between an infinite past and an infinite future. We as a human species never had to go through any infinite amount of time to find ourselves here today. The universe itself never had to go through time because if time exists at all it is just one aspect of the universe so if time is infinite then the universe is infinite in a way which doesn't require the universe to go through time, through this infinite past in order for us to exist today. In this universe, we are where we are and we are conscious of where we are without having had to go through this infinite past.

So the past is infinite because Newton said so?

The universe is changing. It had to go through all of it's prior changes to reach today. Today could not occur unless all the changes in the universe that came before today finished first.

If those prior changes were infinite the universe could not go through all of them to reach today.

 

[Juma]

Whatever you say. But to talk about time is difficult because time is not really a thing that exists. What exists is the universe and that universe is in a state of constant change.

We call the particular way the universe changes "time". We even say it is a "dimension" as if it is something real.
.

Theory of relativity shows that time is as real as the other three dimensions.

 

[untermensche]

Whatever you say. But to talk about time is difficult because time is not really a thing that exists. What exists is the universe and that universe is in a state of constant change.

We call the particular way the universe changes "time". We even say it is a "dimension" as if it is something real.
.

Theory of relativity shows that time is as real as the other three dimensions.

I don't know.

In the inertial frame of reference the light cone may not necessarily move in something real, it just has a direction and reflects things undergoing a certain kind of change.

The direction is real and the specific kind of change is real, but time may be just a side consequence of both.

You would have to give more argument than that.

 

[surreptitious57]

General Relativity does indeed determine the existence of time

But most of space is empty so G R does not apply in such scenarios

Time does not require matter to exist just empty space and nothing else

If the Universe was a vacuum space and time would still exist but not spacetime

Because without the mass of large objects such as stars and planets G R cannot exist

 

[bilby]

 

[fromderinside]

The glass episode on " How We Got to Now" seems relevant somehow.

 

[skepticalbip]

General Relativity does indeed determine the existence of time

But most of space is empty so G R does not apply in such scenarios

Time does not require matter to exist just empty space and nothing else

If the Universe was a vacuum space and time would still exist but not spacetime

Because without the mass of large objects such as stars and planets G R cannot exist

That isn't the way I read GR. GR assumes a 4space (spacetime) and describes how mass deforms it. Without mass the 4space would still exist but there would be nothing to cause local deviations in it.
would just say that, without mass, 4space would be flat everywhere. At least that is my reading.

 

[surreptitious57]

Spacetime [ as opposed to just space and time ] suggests a fundamental relationship between all four dimensions

But that would also require the existence of matter because in flat empty space there is nothing to distort time or space

So they would be treated as separate dimensions in such a scenario rather than ones which affect each other through G R

Indeed before Einstein time and space were regarded as just separate dimensions rather than being fundamentally connected

Newton thought time an eternal unchanging medium and while G R disproves this it is only false within space where matter exists

Gravity would not exist either as like G R it requires the existence of physical objects and so may only exist as a consequence of G R

Most of the known Universe is flat empty space anyway so G R does not apply as such as galaxies are but a relatively small proportion of it

 

[Juma]

General Relativity does indeed determine the existence of time

But most of space is empty so G R does not apply in such scenarios

Time does not require matter to exist just empty space and nothing else

If the Universe was a vacuum space and time would still exist but not spacetime

Because without the mass of large objects such as stars and planets G R cannot exist

Matter is a property of space-time. Vacuum is full of virtual particles.

Relativity works also for massless particles. Mass is not the only thing that curves space: so does acceleration and speed.

 

[steve_bnk]

Spacetime [ as opposed to just space and time ] suggests a fundamental relationship between all four dimensions

But that would also require the existence of matter because in flat empty space there is nothing to distort time or space

So they would be treated as separate dimensions in such a scenario rather than ones which affect each other through G R

Indeed before Einstein time and space were regarded as just separate dimensions rather than being fundamentally connected

Newton thought time an eternal unchanging medium and while G R disproves this it is only false within space where matter exists

Gravity would not exist either as like G R it requires the existence of physical objects and so may only exist as a consequence of G R

Most of the known Universe is flat empty space anyway so G R does not apply as such as galaxies are but a relatively small proportion of it

Time does not exist beyond a human invention as ticks on a clock.

Time is a human measure of observed change as is the meter.. The dimensions' of time and length do not have independent realities. The second and meter are both arbitrary definitions. The link betyween time and distnce is in how they are defined. They are inseparable no matter how you define them. To move a distance ds requires an interval of change we call dt.

Relativity says motion is relative to the observer’s reference frame, and that from our view from Earth there can be no absolute or preferred reference frame.

The problem of relative motion was known in Newton's time.

What we know experimentally is that if you synchronize two clocks, accelerate one away and back to rest with the other clock, the two clocks will show different elapsed times.

 

[steve_bnk]

Space is filled with photons across the EM spectrum.

Solid objects are mostly 'empty space'. atoms separated by relatively large inter atomic spaces.

 

[Juma]

Time does not exist beyond a human invention as ticks on a clock

wrong. That is the operational definition of time. But there is certainly a specific feature of the reality, following peculiar but known lays, that is usefully given an indepentent notation. So I definitely think "time" is something more than just a human invention.

 

[surreptitious57]

There are three standard definitions of time [ an event is defined as a point in spacetime ]

The passing of an event / the distance between events / the passing of a thought

Time is a temporal dimension so cannot also be a human construct

But what is a human construct however is its measurement

So it is important therefore not to conflate the two

 

[steve_bnk]

Time does not exist beyond a human invention as ticks on a clock

wrong. That is the operational definition of time. But there is certainly a specific feature of the reality, following peculiar but known lays, that is usefully given an indepentent notation. So I definitely think "time" is something more than just a human invention.

Science is a map and 'the map is not the countryside', that is my view of science.

What reality IS is a meaningless question. From relativity we have no absolute frame from which to deduce any ultimate reality.

We define reality by our arbitrary definitions in SI. It is inescapable.

Without telescopes the best occlusion was the Sun went round the Earth. Our current cosmology is a better fit to observations but we can never know how right or wrong the models are.

Time is a dimension as is length, width, and height hm or the Cartesian XYZ.


Einstein made some remarkable jumps but primarily what he did was formalize from the view of different inertial frames a point in space requires time as well as three spatial coordinates. Some people see to imbue 'space time' with some deeper mystical meaning.

We know experimentally that time dilation is an experimental fact. However with two frames that have accelerated away from each other to observers in each frame a kilogram, a second and a meter still appear the same.

To the OP, the question is more correctly infinite regression in change and causation.

Space-Time is a map of change in position of particles viewed from different inertial frames.

It is not all that difficult. You have a city map. The location of a house is not going to change with time relative to the Earth's surface as an inertial frame. If your inertial frame is Mars, you need an x/y/z and time to define the relative position of the house on Earth.

All that being said, what is your non 'operational' definition of time?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You have made no argument showing how it is possible for there to be a present moment even if the time before it is infinite.

Nobody needs to do that. If you don't think an infinite past is possible it's up to you to show why it is not possible.

HINT: usually, this involves logic...

Specifically, you have to show that the concept you want to attack is somehow self-contradictory.

Notice that nobody cares if you proved that your own private concept of an infinite past is wrong. So you first have to understand the concept of infinite past that people are using, for example the one assumed by scientists before Einstein. Do you?

Is it possible to count to the end of the negative integers before some point in the future?

How did infinite prior moments finish passing before the present moment?

I think you have a hangover from the notion of counting intergers but applied to counting past days (or years etc.). But we don't have to show that it would still be possible to count past years if the past was infinite. We certainly need the concept of counting to provide a definition of the concept of infinite past, i.e. a period of time already passed such that if we could count how many years there had been in the past we would never finish counting them (or we would count them for an infinitely long time). We may have to use the concept of counting to define an infinite past but we don't have to show that actual counting is possible, let alone actually count anything!

Specifically, the laws of physics may not allow an infinite past to be counted. We have to abide by the laws of physics and we are not at liberty to whatever we fanvy. As I see it, it would indeed be impossible for any information system, including us of course, to count an infinite amount of time such as an infinite past. But that does not invalidate the concept itself. This could only be done by showing how it is self-contradictory. something you haven't done.

So,I guess the concept of an infinite past will have to remain a theoretical curiosity.

Another way to look at it is to consider that an infinite past exists somehow. This is not so different from the pre-Einstein view of absolute time. Time is seen as an axis infinite in both directions. As such, this axis has to exist in some dimension. We only experience the passage of time but the axis of time exists independently of us and it exists as an axis, infinite in both directions. So, the infinite past exists in that dimension but nobody has to count anything. Time does not pass (it doesn't start, or end etc). All we have are boundaries that may define some periods of time. So, the present moment define was the past is now, so we can say that the past ends now although this is only a manner of speaking.

And I fail to see an self-contradiction in this view of time.

I'm not trying to shove definitions down your throat, but I am trying to define things so my words are clear.

"Time in itself" is just looking at the way time works. We can't say much, but we can say that time is first the present, then it is thought of as the past. Events occur in the present and then as time passes they are thought of as occurring in the past.

"Time in itself" has direction.

And when we look at "time in itself", we know that to have a present means all the prior moments have come and gone. They are finished.

Now when we look at something else, the "amount of time" meant by infinite time in the past (or defining time as having no start), this is an amount of time like the negative integers. It is an amount of time that never finishes.

So when looking at "time in itself" we see that all prior moments end at the present moment, but when we speculate about infinite time in the past it is an amount of moments that never finishes.

Our observations about the way time works, namely all prior moments finish at the present moment, comes into conflict with speculations about infinite time in the past, namely an amount of moments that never finishes.

Our observations show our speculations to be impossible.

It is quite funny to see that in your analogy between an infinite past and the set of negative integers, YOU JUST CHOOSE to ignore the fact that the infinite set of negative integers ends at the number 0 just like an infinite past would end now. By your own account, you have just definitely shown that the set of negative integers cannot possibly be infinite although for some mysterious reason you only fathom you see no problem with the future being infinite as you don't see any problem with the set of positive integers being infinite. Your argument has to be ridiculous.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How is it possible that infinite prior moments occurred before the present moment?

Reality is what it is irrespective of what we believe about it. What matters in this debate is that we don't have to show how it would be possible for reality to be what we imagine for reality to actually be what we imagine.

This issue is also not an empirical one. Nobody is claiming that we are able somehow to observe the infinite amount of past time.

So, all we have is an idea of what an infinite past would be. We have a concept of it (e.g. the pre-Einstein scientific view of time) and unless somebody shows how this concept would be self-contradictory then we accept that reality might be such that the past is infinite in the way our concept specifies.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So when looking at "time in itself" we see that all prior moments end at the present moment, but when we speculate about infinite time in the past it is an amount of moments that never finishes.

Our observations about the way time works, namely all prior moments finish at the present moment, comes into conflict with speculations about infinite time in the past, namely an amount of moments that never finishes.

Our observations show our speculations to be impossible.

No, this is not an empirical issue. Nobody is arguing that we can observe an infinite amount of time.

And you cannot look at time and logically conclude that the past is finite. All we have are speculations. We have a speculative concept of an infinite past (just as we have a speculative concept of a finite past).

So nobody is saying that we know the past is infinite. We just say it is logically possible that the past is infinite. If you think that's wrong you need to show how this concept of an infinite past would be self-contradictory, something you haven't done yet.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But to talk about time is difficult because time is not really a thing that exists. What exists is the universe and that universe is in a state of constant change.

We call the particular way the universe changes "time". We even say it is a "dimension" as if it is something real.

But all our talk about "time" is an abstraction to describe a kind of change. And if we invent a device that changes at a specific rate, like the hands of a clock, we can measure amounts of time. And if we go really fast the hands move slower, but it is still the way change occurs in this universe.

So when people say "time has always existed", what they are really saying is that change has always been occurring in the way change occurs in this universe.

Scientists are not saying that time exists (let alone that the past is infinite). Maybe most of them believed that before Einstein but now it would be a bit more difficult. So the axis of time is indeed, as you say, an abstraction, an abstract construct, i.e. a concept, a useful concept to help scientists conveniently describe observable phenomena.

It should also be noted that there is no other properly defined concept of time. We all have our own notions regarding time and we need to be able to talk meaningfully about our business dealings and whether we should marry tomorrow or next year, but that's not really a concept because it doesn't need to be logically consistent.

All we can discuss usefully is the concept of absolute time as pre-Einstein scientists understood it since Newton. But that's not what you want to discuss so there is not much argument to be had.

Yes and no. If you insist on a subjective viewpoint then you should stick to it and then there isn't much you’re going to be able to say. If the past had been one day long and assuming that we would have been there to observe time then one day would have had to pass for us before we could be and observe today. You cannot assume that time has been passing when you weren't there to observe time passing. You want insist on a subjective viewpoint? Then stick to it.

Based on the evidence, scientists believe time has been passing at least 13.8 billion years.

Can we assume time was passing all these years even though we weren't there to see it?

This is a pragmatic issue, not a metaphysical one. Scientists can't possibly observe the past (not even one second in the past) but they can observe the present. Overtime, which assumes there is something like time, they have built a view of time. For example, given the observations made by astronomers and various physical theories, including Einstein's relativity, scientists have decided that their best guess is that the universe is 13.8 billion of years old. But again this is a pragmatic decision. They wouldn't know how to justify any different view. They don't know that the universe is 13.8 billion of years old. They believe it is, based on observations and mathematical analysis.

So, indeed, nobody was there and nobody can pretend to know. Maybe time is real, maybe it isn't. Maybe the observations made by astronomers are illusions, etc. However, this conversation has to assume something. I remember you broadly accept the finding of science and so do I so we can argue from there.

Now, since nobody argues they know the past is infinite and since all we have in lieu of concept of infinite time is how it was understood by scientists between Newton and Einstein, as indeed it is still used in non-relativistic physics textbooks, this is all we can argue about. In this respect, people who understand the concept of infinity accept that no one could possibly observe an infinite past (except God of course). Further, no observation has disqualified the concept of infinite past. So, it's not an empirical issue as you try to argue here and there. All we have is the concept and all the discussion we can have is whether it can be shown to be illogical. You haven't done that. You don't even seem to understand this is all conversation there can be.
EB