Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

This is quite fascinating.

So you, in fact, really don't understand the idea of infinity. Forget about infinite past! You don't understand the concept of infinity (to start with if I may say).

There's not much to explain, unfortunately.

I can always suggest you try to imagine a straight road which would be infinite in both directions and such that it exists in its entirety as an infinite road. Amusingly, it wouldn't even collapse on its own weight! Hey, presto! Well, as long as nobody walks on it. But assuming it exists on its own, with nothing else in the universe, and made of matter that wouldn't decay too fast, then it would sit there, a straight line lost in an infinite universe (the universe would have to be infinite at least in the diection of the road of course but it could end at a short distance from the road in all other directions, making, like, a tunnel!).

So, OBVIOUSLY, such a road would not start anywhere (and wouldn't end anywhere either except along all directions perpendicular to its main axis). It would sit there, and it could have alternative black and white markings all along to give a sense of location although all locations would be symmetrical (equivalent).

I have of course no idea how such a road could possibly come about but it seems a logical possibility.
EB

Exactly how does this explain how a person could walk on a road that never began?

And infinity exists only as a definition. And I do understand the definition.

Infinity means to go on without end.

There are no mathematical infinities that are defined as never beginning. Even lines with infinities at both ends can't possibly be defined as "never beginning". Whatever that could possibly mean.

 

[untermensche]

So the past is infinite because Newton said so?

No, it's just that there is not much to discuss appart from this.

The universe is in a state of constant change. No two present moments are the same thing because of this. Every moment in time is an acknowledgement of that constant change.

You don't need Newton to notice this.

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.

Why not? It just doesn't make sense.

You can't have an infinite amount of changes before the present moment.

An infinite amount of changes is an amount of changes that never ends.

 

[untermensche]

Just show me evidence of any kind of an event that occurred before the Big Bang to demonstrate time existed before it.

Or you could show us evidence that no such event occurred.

I was asking for evidence. If no evidence exists I have proven no evidence exists.

In the complete absence of evidence we don't assume things exist. We assume they don't.

So you're making an assumption.

No. I am making a statement about evidence.

If there is no evidence of something there is no reason to assume it exists.

I have read Hawking say it and heard Krauss say it.

I've never seen anybody print it in hardcopy without also saying, as Hawking did, that they are simply calling that the beginning out of ignorance.

Exactly. They have absolutely no evidence of anything before the Big Bang.

It is possible to speculate that possibly there was time before the Big Bang.

But there is NO evidence. So the speculations are as empty as all speculations without evidence.

Just because leading physicists make empty speculations doesn't mean I should take those speculations seriously.

It is how physics progresses, so physicists can spend their days taking empty speculations seriously.

The only things I should take seriously from physicists are positions supported by evidence. Hearing about their empty speculations is not helpful in the least.

Isn't that what you're doing, claiming---without evidence---that the big bang exists as the ultimate beginning of time?

That's not my position. My position is a logical position about definitions.

Infinity is defined as never ending. An infinite past can't have ended at the present. Infinities don't end.

But my position is supported by all available evidence.

We can say for certain the Big Bang is A beginning to time. It may be the only beginning or it may be one of many.

Why would it have to be a beginning at all. Just because we don't know whether anything came before? That's not evidence of a beginning. If you don't favor claims without evidence, don't claim a beginning without evidence.

How do you know the Big Bang isn't the ultimate beginning?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't say that time is "emergent".
EB

Yes you did:

What is the emergent construct?

Physical time.

You would have done wonders in the Moscow trials.

Still, I didn't. Let me put the offending quote into context:

if time is somehow emergent

What is the emergent construct?

Physical time.

See? It's physical time if time is somehow emergent. Yes?

Not that it wasn't already there for you to notice had you taken the time to do so.

And, if not emergent, then it's real time, if any.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Have you noticed that every time that you said "time ends now" it didn't end? The continuum is unbounded in both directions- now is not an "end". If it was, this thread would have ended long ago....

What I have said over and over is that all the time that has occurred in the past ends at the present. You couldn't have a present unless this was true.

I have never said time ends at the present.

Nor have I tried to make the ridiculous claim that an infinite amount of time could end at the present.

You do understand that if you divide an infinitely long string at any point, you have 2 infinitely long strings? Just sayin'.

Infinity is defined as never ending. An infinite past can't have ended at the present. Infinities don't end.

You've claimed there is no infinite past because it cannot have ended at the present. The claim is incorrect, and will remain so for all eternity.

Divide eternity in 2 (by making a cut at any "now"), and you have 2 infinite amounts of time (the past and the future). Divide it into 3 sections (make 2 cuts) and you have 2 infinite amounts of time, and a finite amount of time in between them.

 

[Juma]

Yes you did:

What is the emergent construct?

Physical time.

You would have done wonders in the Moscow trials.

Still, I didn't. Let me put the offending quote into context:

if time is somehow emergent

What is the emergent construct?

Physical time.

See? It's physical time if time is somehow emergent. Yes?

Not that it wasn't already there for you to notice had you taken the time to do so.

And, if not emergent, then it's real time, if any.
EB

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. There is nothing such as "emergent" time. The feature we are takibg about is physical time.

 

[untermensche]

You do understand that if you divide an infinitely long string at any point, you have 2 infinitely long strings? Just sayin'.

There is no such thing as a string of infinite length.

You can't cut something that doesn't exist.

Infinity is defined as never ending. An infinite past can't have ended at the present. Infinities don't end.

You've claimed there is no infinite past because it cannot have ended at the present. The claim is incorrect, and will remain so for all eternity.

I have shown the logical consequences of a claim.

If somebody claims that the past is infinite there are logical consequences to that claim.

One being it is logically impossible for something defined as never ending to end.

Divide eternity in 2 (by making a cut at any "now"), and you have 2 infinite amounts of time (the past and the future). Divide it into 3 sections (make 2 cuts) and you have 2 infinite amounts of time, and a finite amount of time in between them.

This isn't about dividing an infinity. It is about an infinity allegedly having a finish.

No matter how many times you divide infinity you still are left with something that never finishes.

We know that all the time that already occurred in the past finished at the present.

An infinite amount of time can't finish anywhere or at any time.

Even if you define that infinity as never starting, whatever that could possibly mean.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

That is not at all how it works.
If somebody claims that it is possible for there to have been an infinite number of moments in time before the present moment THEY have to show how this is possible.
If somebody claims they climbed an infinite number of stairs before the stair they presently stand, THEY have to show how this is possible.
If somebody claims they had an infinite number of children before the child they hold, THEY have to show how it is possible.
The believers in real infinities have to show how any could be possible.
In no way do we assume that ANY are possible without a demonstration.

Just sooo fantastic! You just justified that all claim should be deemed untrue (or illogical?).

This is why: There is no conclusion arrived at through logic alone which is not entirely founded on some premises so that any claim rests on some premises which is not demonstrated (here we again have infinity playing havoc in our lives). So, according to you, logic is entirely useless. Yet, you pretend to argue from logic! You have just contradicted yourself so you cannot be arguing from logic at all. Which has been in appearance all along this thread.

This shows you just don't get the point of the concept of logical possibility. Essentially, you want people to prove that any logical possibility is not just a logical possibility but is actually true. So to recap, a logical possibility is a statement that is not self-contradictory. If you want to show that a statement is not a logical possibility, you need to show how it is self-contradictory. There is no other way around.

What I notice is that YOU don't have any interest in defending what are incredible claims. Claims like, an infinite amount of something can be encased in a finite container

I didn't say anything about that but it's nonetheless true that the set of real numbers in the interval between 1 and 2 for example contains an infinity of real numbers. This interval is finite with respect to the reals (it is bounded), and yet contains an infinite number of elements.

But given the waste of time discussing this would cause we better not.

, that an infinite amount of time ("A" in my little graph) can be contained and bounded by the present. You possibly think this is possible because you don't know my little graph is a complete abstraction of the situation. It uses lines of finite length to define lines of infinite length.

I think I had understood that already, thanks.

Basically you claim that infinite time isn't really infinite. It can finish at the present moment.

No, it's you who is claiming that just because the past ends now it cannot have been an infinite amount of time based on a mind-bogglingly idiotic argument.

And you think you can somehow get away with this by saying you will define an infinite amount of time as time that never starts, whatever that could possible mean. You think by defining infinite time this way it isn't really an infinite amount of time. It is an amount of time that finishes. Since ALL the time that has occurred in the past ends at the present, saying an infinite amount of time occurred in the past means an amount of time that never finishes finished.

You can't even get this right. An infinite past would not have started. It would have ended now. And it would have been infinite, representing an infinite amount of time. Just so.

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?

People presenting what they think Einstein means isn't at all convincing.

Relativity is about speed and light and what happens when the speed of things made of matter approaches the speed of light. It is not a proof or argument of any kind that infinite time already passed in the past.

Yes? Read again. You missed the point of this quote by billions of miles.

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

The negative integers DO NOT end at zero.

They BEGIN at negative one. There is no end to the negative integers, just like there would be no end to the past if it was infinite. It could not end at the present.

Ok, I guess that you are absolutely beyond the redeeming powers of my patience.


That being said, you must live in a fantastic world! Most people read maths textbooks without ever noticing such extraordinary niceties as "The negative integers DO NOT end at zero"! You definitely don't need to read Sci-Fi stories. You have brought the art of imagination to the nth power. The Surrealist painters are minusculed by your towering example. Go visit North Korea to show them what amateurs they are in this game.

I guess I'm done.
EB

 

[NobleSavage]

I like to check in her every once and a while. 272 pages, that's impressive. Is there a conclusion yet?

 

[Kharakov]

There is no such thing as a string of infinite length. You can't cut something that doesn't exist.

At no point in the history of time has someone used an imaginary item to illustrate a concept or idea.

If somebody claims that the past is infinite there are logical consequences to that claim.

One being it is logically impossible for something defined as never ending to end.

It's definitely a logical possibility that certain infinites are bound at certain points, or in certain directions. You're just confused by the "arrow of time".

Divide eternity in 2 (by making a cut at any "now"), and you have 2 infinite amounts of time (the past and the future). Divide it into 3 sections (make 2 cuts) and you have 2 infinite amounts of time, and a finite amount of time in between them.

This isn't about dividing an infinity. It is about an infinity allegedly having a finish.

Ok, so now you're not understanding something very fundamental about a single 1 dimensional infinity. If you divide it at any point, you have 2 infinities. This is one of the most basic concepts of infinity.

Infinite: <------------------------>
Divide it in 2:
<--------- / ---------->

Both sides have infinite magnitude (although they have opposite directions).

No matter how many times you divide infinity you still are left with something that never finishes.

Divide it in 3 sections:
<--------- / ---- / ---------->

The middle section is finite.

We know that all the time that already occurred in the past finished at the present.

It didn't finish at the present, it is part of eternity.

The whole "time ends now" thing is an imaginary concept. Time doesn't end or begin. It is eternal.

Even if you define that infinity as never starting, whatever that could possibly mean.

Look up eternity.

 

[untermensche]

Just sooo fantastic! You just justified that all claim should be deemed untrue (or illogical?).

Claims that have no evidence to support them should be dismissed.

I don't know if that is logic or just the scientific method.

If your argument is we should dismiss the scientific method instead of dismissing claims not supported by evidence then you should clearly say it.

Basically you claim that infinite time isn't really infinite. It can finish at the present moment.

No, it's you who is claiming that just because the past ends now it cannot have been an infinite amount of time based on a mind-bogglingly idiotic argument.

The mind-boggling argument is that infinity is defined as never finishing. I didn't define the concept.

You can't even get this right. An infinite past would not have started. It would have ended now. And it would have been infinite, representing an infinite amount of time. Just so.

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

It can't finish at any time. Including now.

But please just explain this concept of things always existing. How does that work? Why would anyone believe such a thing?

You do realize I equate the belief in things that have always existed with belief in gods.

They are equally irrational.

In fact the idea of something always existing is a theological invention.

The fact that people throw it around as if it something that makes any sense amazes me.

The negative integers DO NOT end at zero.

They BEGIN at negative one. There is no end to the negative integers, just like there would be no end to the past if it was infinite. It could not end at the present.

Ok, I guess that you are absolutely beyond the redeeming powers of my patience.

Humans love to throw around this word infinite to describe their wondrous powers.

They have infinite patience that lasts two minutes.

- - - Updated - - -

I like to check in her every once and a while. 272 pages, that's impressive. Is there a conclusion yet?

My conclusion is that some people think an infinite amount of time means one thing when it is the future and something completely different when it is the past.

 

[untermensche]

At no point in the history of time has someone used an imaginary item to illustrate a concept or idea.

Since part of my argument is that real infinities logically can't exist, using the existence of an imaginary real infinity as an opening premise is going to get a response. In fact using it shows, to me at least, that some first assume infinite time in the past exists and then conclude it, with no real argument in between.

If somebody claims that the past is infinite there are logical consequences to that claim.

One being it is logically impossible for something defined as never ending to end.

It's definitely a logical possibility that certain infinites are bound at certain points, or in certain directions. You're just confused by the "arrow of time".

If you could demonstrate my confusion instead of merely proclaiming it, you would have an argument.

We are only talking about one kind of infinity. Infinite time.

This is a progressively increasing infinity like the integers. One plus one plus one, forever. Or one minus one minus one, forever.

We establish this concept of nothingness for these two infinities to move away from. An arbitrary nothingness separates the two.

But the present is not an arbitrary nothingness. It is all there is. The past and the future are only imaginary. They are the nothingness.

The present can't arise from a past that always existed. The past arises in the mind only from a changing present that is all that exists.

And that present can't always have existed. If there was an infinite amount of prior present moments that needed to occur before the present moment then that present moment could never occur, because an infinite amount of prior present moments will never finish.

No matter how many times you divide infinity you still are left with something that never finishes.

Ok, so now you're not understanding something very fundamental about a single 1 dimensional infinity. If you divide it at any point, you have 2 infinities. This is one of the most basic concepts of infinity.

Infinite: <------------------------>
Divide it in 2:
<--------- / ---------->

Both sides have infinite magnitude (although they have opposite directions).

Exactly how am I wrong?

You are left with two lines that start but never finish. You are no way left with something that doesn't begin but ends. That is not a mathematical concept that exists. The arrow does not imply no beginning. It implies no end.

We know that all the time that already occurred in the past finished at the present.

It didn't finish at the present, it is part of eternity.

You can't have a present moment unless all the prior present moments have finished happening.

Even if you define that infinity as never starting, whatever that could possibly mean.

Look up eternity.

It is a theological term, invent to describe some god.

 

[Kharakov]

Since part of my argument is that real infinities logically can't exist, using the existence of an imaginary real infinity as an opening premise is going to get a response. In fact using it shows, to me at least, that some first assume infinite time in the past exists and then conclude it, with no real argument in between.

That is a really weird thing to conclude. All evidence points towards an eternal continuum- the illogical idea of "something from nothing" was eliminated from logical discourse long ago, and only exists in fantasy worlds/universes that are developed from previous ideas about "something appearing from nothing" which is completely and utterly imaginary- the idea of nothing appeared out of something, and is a strictly imaginary concept.

If you want to imagine that something magically appeared out of nothing, go ahead, but do it in a RP forum, rather than a science forum. Unless everyone here is RP, and I'm.. .just out of the loop... or pretending to be.

If somebody claims that the past is infinite there are logical consequences to that claim.

One being it is logically impossible for something defined as never ending to end.

It's definitely a logical possibility that certain infinites are bound at certain points, or in certain directions. You're just confused by the "arrow of time".

If you could demonstrate my confusion instead of merely proclaiming it, you would have an argument.

It's not really much of an argument- everyone else in this thread is aware of the position which you propose, which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of the direction of time to the measurement of time. You keep on measuring from an unbounded undefined point in the past to 0, when you can only measure from a defined point to another defined point. You can say that from a defined point (such as now) the past is unbounded- which means you can measure back in time any amount. This doesn't mean that you can pick an unbounded undefined point and measure to now.

Remember "indeterminate form"? infinity - infinity does not equal zero.

This is a progressively increasing infinity like the integers. One plus one plus one, forever. Or one minus one minus one, forever.

No, the integers are unbounded. This doesn't mean that infinity gets "bigger", it is already boundless. Adding 1 to or subtracting 1 from infinity is not going to change things whatsoever.

But the present is not an arbitrary nothingness. It is all there is. The past and the future are only imaginary. They are the nothingness.

Well, if you aren't aware of the duration of the present (It's been around for a long long year, and laid many a man's soul to waste), I suppose you don't understand that the past is real, as is the future.

I suppose if you have some sort of philosophical tunnel vision, you might buy into that zen be there now bullshit.

And that present can't always have existed. If there was an infinite amount of prior present moments that needed to occur before the present moment then that present moment could never occur, because an infinite amount of prior present moments will never finish.

Well, you do run into various indeterminate forms of the form: 0 * infinity = nothing specific.

Moment length=0* infinite moments... indeterminate form.

Also, remember you can only measure from now backwards infinitely, or now forwards infinitely. Infinite amount of time - infinite amount of time = undefined (any point in the timeline and no specific point on the timeline). -infinite amount of time + infinite amount of time also equals any (and no specific) point on the timeline.

Exactly how am I wrong?

You are left with two lines that start but never finish. You are no way left with something that doesn't begin but ends. That is not a mathematical concept that exists. The arrow does not imply no beginning. It implies no end.

Yeah, if you travel towards the division point, the line ends. If you travel away from the division point, the line does not end. You are consistently dividing the timeline at now, and traveling towards the division point. Like I said- you are confused by the "arrow of time". From the past, time looks (to you) like it approaches now. However, it was always now, now matter how far into the infinite past you measure.

This is because -infinity (infinite amount of time into the past) + an infinite amount of time = indeterminate form. In other words infinite amount of time - an infinite amount of time does not equal a specific moment in time- it equals all of them, not any of them specifically.

You can't have a present moment unless all the prior present moments have finished happening.

Once again, for the nth time, I will mention indeterminate form. Infinity - infinity = nothing specific, and everything specific. In other words, from an infinite past to a point infinitely in the future, you end up with all points on the timeline, but none specifically. Fun stuff.

It is a theological term, invent to describe some god.

Ok. From what I've read, the term eternity refers to infinite time, not a being. I'd think that a being that exists for an infinite amount of time would know the difference between itself, and time. You know- understand that eternity is the duration of its existence rather that what it is.

 

[NobleSavage]

I like to check in her every once and a while. 272 pages, that's impressive. Is there a conclusion yet?

My conclusion is that some people think an infinite amount of time means one thing when it is the future and something completely different when it is the past.

I know I'm gonna regret this, but didn't time start 13.8 billion years ago? I think I may have a way to semantically describe an infinite past, but I'll wait for your explanation.

 

[untermensche]

My conclusion is that some people think an infinite amount of time means one thing when it is the future and something completely different when it is the past.

I know I'm gonna regret this, but didn't time start 13.8 billion years ago? I think I may have a way to semantically describe an infinite past, but I'll wait for your explanation.

I know of no reason to think the scientists who say the Big Bang occurred 13.8 billion years ago are wrong.

Obviously the believers of infinite time in the past think that time existed before that and the Big Bang was just an event in time and not the beginning of time.

I have no idea if time existed before the Big Bang or not.

All I know is that if an infinite amount of time would have to pass before the Big Bang then it couldn't have happened, because an infinite amount of time never finishes passing.

 

[Kharakov]

All I know is that if an infinite amount of time would have to pass before the Big Bang then it couldn't have happened, because an infinite amount of time never finishes passing.

Once again with the misunderstanding of infinity. An infinite amount of time could have passed. This simply means that time has always been passing (from -infinity (in other words, an unbounded past) to any point in time is an infinite amount of time). That means from -infinity to now is an infinite amount, from -infinity to tomorrow is an infinite amount, from -infinity to yesterday is an infinite amount, etc.

Time didn't start passing, it always passed, even if you didn't realize it was passing until you were a 6 year old waiting for dessert.

 

[untermensche]

All evidence points towards an eternal continuum- the illogical idea of "something from nothing" was eliminated from logical discourse long ago, and only exists in fantasy worlds/universes that are developed from previous ideas about "something appearing from nothing" which is completely and utterly imaginary- the idea of nothing appeared out of something, and is a strictly imaginary concept.

Saying time has a beginning is not saying it is "something from nothing".

It is saying it has a beginning.

And possibly the Big Bang was the beginning of time.

What caused the Big Bang is unknown. If anything existed before the Big Bang is unknown.

Some people fill unknowns with gods. Gods like infinity.

If somebody claims that the past is infinite there are logical consequences to that claim.

One being it is logically impossible for something defined as never ending to end.

It's not really much of an argument- everyone else in this thread is aware of the position which you propose, which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of the direction of time to the measurement of time. You keep on measuring from an unbounded undefined point in the past to 0, when you can only measure from a defined point to another defined point. You can say that from a defined point (such as now) the past is unbounded- which means you can measure back in time any amount. This doesn't mean that you can pick an unbounded undefined point and measure to now.

Remember "indeterminate form"? infinity - infinity does not equal zero.

It may not seem like much of an argument to those who don't address it.

I don't have to start counting an infinite amount of time from anywhere. I know as a whole it is an amount of time that never ends. That's what an infinite amount of anything means. An ever increasing amount.

These concepts were invented by theologians before the mathematicians made use of them. Infinity is nothing but a human created concept, like omniscience.

This is a progressively increasing infinity like the integers. One plus one plus one, forever. Or one minus one minus one, forever.

No, the integers are unbounded. This doesn't mean that infinity gets "bigger", it is already boundless. Adding 1 to or subtracting 1 from infinity is not going to change things whatsoever.

You confuse the boundless nature of the integers with the definition that makes it so.

They are boundless because they are defined as a series that never ends. The integers are two infinite series. Some arbitrarily include zero as an integer, but it is the opposite of an integer. Nothingness is the opposite of something and an integer represents something.

And you can't mathematically define a series as never beginning. The series of the negative integers has a beginning and the series of the positive integers has a beginning. What neither has is a finish.

But the present is not an arbitrary nothingness. It is all there is. The past and the future are only imaginary. They are the nothingness.

Well, if you aren't aware of the duration of the present (It's been around for a long long year, and laid many a man's soul to waste), I suppose you don't understand that the past is real, as is the future.

Every present moment is something different from the previous present moment and the next present moment.

No two are the same thing. The present is all that exists, but every present moment only lasts a moment, none last a year.

I suppose if you have some sort of philosophical tunnel vision, you might buy into that zen be there now bullshit.

The zen idea would be the idea of some eternal present that somehow transcends the actual present moments that exist in a changing universe.

You are talking new age gibberish.

Exactly how am I wrong?

You are left with two lines that start but never finish. You are no way left with something that doesn't begin but ends. That is not a mathematical concept that exists. The arrow does not imply no beginning. It implies no end.

Yeah, if you travel towards the division point, the line ends.

If an arrow exists on one side of the line and the line has no arrow on the other the line can only be defined as starting at the side with no arrow and moving away from it without end. You can't define a line as having no beginning but ending somewhere. A line that has no beginning is a line that does not exist.

You are consistently dividing the timeline at now, and traveling towards the division point.

This argument merely assumes time can be infinite in the past. It in no way demonstrates it or makes it logically possible. You are not addressing my argument at all.

Once again, for the nth time, I will mention indeterminate form. Infinity - infinity = nothing specific, and everything specific. In other words, from an infinite past to a point infinitely in the future, you end up with all points on the timeline, but none specifically.

For the n'th time this argument is complete rubbish. You should have stopped using it at the a'th time.

The indeterminate form talks about two existing infinities. Neither the past nor the future exist. Only the ever changing present exists.

If time is infinite in the past that means that the ever changing present has existed for infinite time in the past.

It is a theological term, invented to describe some god.

Ok. From what I've read, the term eternity refers to infinite time, not a being. I'd think that a being that exists for an infinite amount of time would know the difference between itself, and time. You know- understand that eternity is the duration of its existence rather that what it is.

It was invented to describe the amount of time god has existed in the past.

God is infinite in all ways, therefore she existed for infinite time in the past. Existed for eternity.

I can understand getting rid of the gods. I can't understand getting rid of them and clinging to the imaginary concepts invented to describe them.

 

[Kharakov]

It is saying it has a beginning. And possibly the Big Bang was the beginning of time.

Nope. That is not logically possible, as in it is not a logical possibility for time (duration) to start: duration of existence is eternal, even if what exists has different forms.

What caused the Big Bang is unknown. If anything existed before the Big Bang is unknown.

Nope. It's known that it is a logical impossibility for something to come from nothing. Whatever pre-existed the BB existed. Even your boy Krauss admits that in the preface of his book about something from nothing.

It may not seem like much of an argument to those who don't address it.

Your claim that something that has unbounded past existence means that it can't end today? It's not correct.

Now, I'm all for infinite duration in both directions- it's the only logical possibility. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, if something is logically impossible, it's pretty much impossible. You can't have an all black bird that is all pink. The 2 are mutually exclusive. You can't have nothing existing to cause something, then existence. Something had to exist to cause stuff. That's the way it is- and it never in eternity did not exist. Just the way it is. You don't have something that lacks existence causing something- something always had to exist (even if it is not always in the same form).

I don't have to start counting an infinite amount of time from anywhere. I know as a whole it is an amount of time that never ends. That's what an infinite amount of anything means. An ever increasing amount.

No. An infinite amount of time isn't always increasing. It is unbounded. No beginning or end. We are within the infinite amount of time- it is not increasing. The amount of time we personally have experienced is increasing, because we have beginnings. The infinite amount of time that exists does not increase, it does not change, it is already infinite.

These concepts were invented by theologians before the mathematicians made use of them.

The concepts pre-exist theologians. In fact, the concept ( temporal finitism)you are arguing for is something that theologians came up with to attempt to reconcile ancient Greek concepts of time with the Abrahamic creation myths.

Infinity is nothing but a human created concept, like omniscience.

Nope. Infinity is a logical necessity when dealing with existence. Something must always have existed. This means that it has existed for infinite duration. This is a simple logical necessity- something does not come from nothing.

And you can't mathematically define a series as never beginning.The series of the negative integers has a beginning and the series of the positive integers has a beginning. What neither has is a finish.

It's a set without an upper or lower bound. It doesn't have a start or a finish. It's a set.

The present is all that exists, but every present moment only lasts a moment, none last a year.

What's your point? A moment of 0 duration is a location in eternal time. This doesn't mean you can add up 1000 moments (which are specific 0 sized points in eternity) and have anything other than 0 time. You can measure between 2 moments and have a specific duration measured out of eternity (remember I said it takes 2 cuts to divide a finite amount of time out of eternity, or an infinite line?).

You can't define a line as having no beginning but ending somewhere. A line that has no beginning is a line that does not exist.

Pick any point on the infinitely long x axis. That's your line with no beginning that ends at that point. You can do it with planes, and 3 dimensional objects as well. There are plenty of infinite things with defined ends.

Once again, for the nth time, I will mention indeterminate form. Infinity - infinity = nothing specific, and everything specific. In other words, from an infinite past to a point infinitely in the future, you end up with all points on the timeline, but none specifically.

For the n'th time this argument is complete rubbish.

I think you should seriously contemplate indeterminate form and try to understand what it is. Seriously- you apparently don't yet understand indeterminate form, and if you did you would understand more of what has been and will be said.

If time is infinite in the past that means that the ever changing present has existed for infinite time in the past.

Yes.

It was invented to describe the amount of time god has existed in the past.

There are Plato's eternal immutable forms and Aristotle was a proponent of eternal cosmology. Not sure exactly how their concept of creators relates to eternity.

 

[Juma]

Nope. That is not logically possible, as in it is not a logical possibility for time (duration) to start: duration of existence is eternal, even if what exists has different forms.

Bullshit. There is no logic contradictions with supposing a starting point of time.

I dont know what supposed contradictions you think of but a common one is that start of time is change and thus require time to already exist. But that is wrong: Time and change are two aspects of the same thing. Thus the change that time starts is at the edge of time, not outside it.

 

[untermensche]

Nope. That is not logically possible, as in it is not a logical possibility for time (duration) to start: duration of existence is eternal, even if what exists has different forms.

There is no logic that shows things can't have beginnings. At least none that you provide here.

This is nothing but an empty claim.

What caused the Big Bang is unknown. If anything existed before the Big Bang is unknown.

Nope. It's known that it is a logical impossibility for something to come from nothing.

Repeating empty claims many times doesn't make them logical arguments.

Whatever pre-existed the BB existed.

If something pre-existed the Big Bang then of course it existed. But we can't conclude that anything exists in the complete absence of evidence. Otherwise we would have to conclude that many gods exist. Even the imaginary god called infinity.

It may not seem like much of an argument to those who don't address it.

Your claim that something that has unbounded past existence means that it can't end today? It's not correct.

An unbounded past just means an amount of time that never finishes. Just as an unbounded future means the same. And yes, my claim is that an amount of time that never finishes can't finish at the present.

I don't have to start counting an infinite amount of time from anywhere. I know as a whole it is an amount of time that never ends. That's what an infinite amount of anything means. An ever increasing amount.

No. An infinite amount of time isn't always increasing. It is unbounded. No beginning or end. We are within the infinite amount of time- it is not increasing. The amount of time we personally have experienced is increasing, because we have beginnings. The infinite amount of time that exists does not increase, it does not change, it is already infinite.

Unbounded time means an amount of time that never ends.

Time that never ends can't have ended at the present.

These concepts were invented by theologians before the mathematicians made use of them.

The concepts pre-exist theologians. In fact, the concept ( temporal finitism)you are arguing for is something that theologians came up with to attempt to reconcile ancient Greek concepts of time with the Abrahamic creation myths.

The concept was invented by Greek theologians and passed to Christian theologians.

St. Augustine adopted the Platonic view that God was infinite and could have infinite thoughts.

http://www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/history/infinity.pdf

Infinity is nothing but a human created concept, like omniscience.

Nope. Infinity is a logical necessity when dealing with existence. Something must always have existed.

This is a religious belief, not the result of any logical argument, and as usual you give none and only make claims.

This is why Christians use this argument to support their belief in gods.

Waving your arms a lot and muttering over and over that something must always have existed is not an argument of any kind.

Something exists, that is all we know.

What came before the Big Bang, if anything, is something we don't know. But we do know there could not have been infinite time before the Big Bang or it couldn't have happened.

And you can't mathematically define a series as never beginning.The series of the negative integers has a beginning and the series of the positive integers has a beginning. What neither has is a finish.

It's a set without an upper or lower bound. It doesn't have a start or a finish. It's a set.

It's two sets with an imaginary nothingness plastered in between. Arrows do not mean no beginning to the series. They mean no end. We have no symbol that represents no beginning because a series that has no beginning is a series that doesn't exist.

The present is all that exists, but every present moment only lasts a moment, none last a year.

What's your point? A moment of 0 duration is a location in eternal time. This doesn't mean you can add up 1000 moments (which are specific 0 sized points in eternity) and have anything other than 0 time. You can measure between 2 moments and have a specific duration measured out of eternity (remember I said it takes 2 cuts to divide a finite amount of time out of eternity, or an infinite line?).

Yes I know, if you pretend to have an infinite line you can pretend to cut it. It is all make believe and you don't know it. Any talk of infinities is make believe. None could be known to exist.

Even if in some imaginary world I gave you infinite apples you could never be sure they were infinite. Even if you lived infinite years. You could count and count and count and never could you conclude you had infinite apples. Perhaps you only have a million more to count.

You can't define a line as having no beginning but ending somewhere. A line that has no beginning is a line that does not exist.

Pick any point on the infinitely long x axis. That's your line with no beginning that ends at that point.

The point is the beginning of two lines that have no end. It is not the end of something that never began, whatever that could possibly mean.

It was invented to describe the amount of time god has existed in the past.

There are Plato's eternal immutable forms and Aristotle was a proponent of eternal cosmology. Not sure exactly how their concept of creators relates to eternity.

They were working with theological ideas invented by humans. They were not basing these musings on anything observable.