Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Speakpigeon]

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.

If time was emergent, what you call physical time would be emergent. I'm not stating a fact. This is entirely hypothetical: There is always a logical possibility that physical time is emergent, i.e. from something that wouldn't be time.

For example, as Untermensche suggested, and a few other also distinguished contributors to the philosophical forum, time may be just change, i.e. physical time is emergent from change. In this case, physical time doesn't actually exist physically but its characteristic could be logically inferred from the reality of change. Then those characteristics might well be shown different from those currently ascribed to time by science.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

In this case, physical time doesn't actually exist physically but its characteristic could be logically inferred from the reality of change.

Hey EB,

I think we can observe duration exists by observing change over duration. Then we can extrapolate that things with "permanent" or unchanging features, such as a proton's rest mass, also have duration. From this we can bootstrap to deeper ideas about time.

Duration is what we mean by the time dimension. If everything was simply an unchanging square, this too would have duration. Even if there was nothing except for duration, duration would endure. Time is eternal- duration exists, even if duration of duration is the only thing that exists.

Say there is nothing (which is never true)- which exists (or lacks existence) for infinite duration. Well, the duration of its existence exists, which means that there was never nothing, because there was always duration of existence of the duration of existence of nothing.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Ooohh... you missed a big one.

Anyway: duration of existence is eternal (even if that which endured for most of eternity was nothing but duration), which means time (or duration), has always existed. In other words, duration did not start, it has always been.

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.

It looks like you're confusing the conscious recognition of duration, through observation of change, with duration itself.

The value of a proton's rest mass (apparently) does not change, yet it has duration. Things that do not change still have duration, one does not need to change to have duration. One uses change to measure relative duration of various things, but this does not mean that duration does not exist for things which do not change, or which do not have something to compare duration with.

Pre-BB conditions had some form of duration (even if they were nigh eternal, as No. 2 said), we just don't have something to compare them with yet.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

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

The person is on the road. S/he has to decide which way to go. Then, s/he just move over one foot in this direction and then do the same thing with the other foot. That's it. S/he walking towards infinity! Surprisingly easy.

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

Infinity means to go on without end.

No. If something goes on without an end then it is infinite. But this is also true of something that always went on, i.e. something without a beginning.

Maybe infinity exists only as a definition but you just picked the wrong definition and then ran with it.

There are no mathematical infinities that are defined as never beginning.

We don't need the mathematical definition of infinite sets to understand infinity. The mathematical definition is based on the principle of constructing the set and came late in the history of ideas. Since construction is conceived of as a physical process, we have to think of it as starting somewhere and as never stopping (without end). But we don't need this method to conceive of infinity and we can conceive of time as being infinite both in the past and in the future. Since we experience time as if we were going into the future, we speak of an infinite past as a past without a beginning and the future as a future without an end. If one is logically possible so is the other.

If you accept the logical possibility of an infinite future you can't possibly refuse the logical possibility of an infinite past.

You have zero argument and in 273 pages we would know if you did. Your claim is not even articulated, not in such a way that people could understand your point.

You also don't discuss specific counter-arguments meant to ellucidate your view. You just repeat that infinity is something that goes on without end even though this is not a proper definition of infinity. If we conceive of something as infinite then sure we can conceive of processes that would go on without ever ending. But that's not the essence of infinity since we can also conceive of processes that would have never begun. So it is misleading to claim as you do that the definition of infinity is that of something that never ends. A line of one meter would have an infinite number of points and it has two ends which are both also beginnings. So talking as you do of ends and beginnings as if these notions could help define properly the concept of infinity is obviously wrong. You just choose to confere on an ordinary expression the dignified status of a definition. Well, you are just wrong on this. This is a strawman.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In this case, physical time doesn't actually exist physically but its characteristic could be logically inferred from the reality of change.

Hey EB,

I think we can observe duration exists by observing change over duration. Then we can extrapolate that things with "permanent" or unchanging features, such as a proton's rest mass, also have duration. From this we can bootstrap to deeper ideas about time.

Duration is what we mean by the time dimension. If everything was simply an unchanging square, this too would have duration. Even if there was nothing except for duration, duration would endure. Time is eternal- duration exists, even if duration of duration is the only thing that exists.

Say there is nothing (which is never true)- which exists (or lacks existence) for infinite duration. Well, the duration of its existence exists, which means that there was never nothing, because there was always duration of existence of the duration of existence of nothing.

Yes but I understand this as a logical possibility (and you do need to think of it as the possibility of time without anything else, i.e. as you say, just the duration of duration).

But to prove that sort of thing, you would need an absolute time reference, not just a dumb clock, but something that would be always changing, fowever, without being affected by any physical event. And I don't think we could find one and of course yours sounds like the opposite of Einstein's view on time, although maybe there a catch somewhere either way.

We can think of an unchanging square as still in time because we can think of us observing the unchanging square while observing other things which would be changing, like a clock, so we need change to observe time and therefore do we really need time at all?

If we now imagine time on its own, without change, then time appears equivalent with the absence of time. If so, what would be the use of a concept that can be discarded without any loss?
EB

 

[Juma]

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

Ooohh... you missed a big one.

Anyway: duration of existence is eternal (even if that which endured for most of eternity was nothing but duration), which means time (or duration), has always existed. In other words, duration did not start, it has always been.

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.

It looks like you're confusing the conscious recognition of duration, through observation of change, with duration itself.

The value of a proton's rest mass (apparently) does not change, yet it has duration. Things that do not change still have duration, one does not need to change to have duration. One uses change to measure relative duration of various things, but this does not mean that duration does not exist for things which do not change, or which do not have something to compare duration with.

Pre-BB conditions had some form of duration (even if they were nigh eternal, as No. 2 said), we just don't have something to compare them with yet.

Ah. Didnt realize the irony. (It is irony? Isnt it?)

 

[Kharakov]

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

I didn't say "things can't have beginnings". I didn't provide the whole example because we've presumably been over a form of it (the argument) before. I reiterated it in my responses to Juma and EB.

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.

No unter, this is not an empty claim, although it is about nothing. It is a logical impossibility (there is a built in contradiction) for something to come from nothing.

The statement "something came from X" assumes that X exists. That X is non-existence contradicts the assumption of X's existence for something to come from it.

Not only that, for nothing to have properties that allow things to emerge from it implies that it is not nothing. The preceding idea is somewhat akin to what Krauss said in the preface of his book, when he backpedaled from his foolish claims about something from "actual" nothing.

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.

There is plenty of evidence. Something caused the BB. Whatever did is obviously not nothing, because nothing doesn't cause anything. Simple logical inference. It's not a big mystery. It's simple and elegant. Something does not come from nothing.

However, the concept of nothing naturally emerges from something. And with the concept of nothing, we can build interesting frameworks, but they always come from something, no matter what. Nothing comes from something, not the other way around.

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.

That's backwards, as you've been told many times. An unbounded past means from the present, you can measure backwards any amount (although you may not be able to see clearly). An unbounded future means that from the present, you can measure forwards any amount, although once again, you may not be able to see clearly.

Certain events are a bit easier to predict, and observe (large scale physical interactions). Although even these get obscured by the fog of time.

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

No unter, it's been shown many times that something does not come from nothing. What something comes from is always something. Nothingness comes from something that creates the concept of nothingness, not the other way around.

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.

No unter, it is not. If you want to argue against the definition of what the set of integers is, and argue that it is something entirely different than what everyone else is referring to, start your own language, and speak to people who speak it. I'm not interested in learning your sub-dialect as I'd like to be able to communicate with those who already understand the mathematics, and they already use terms in specific ways which we have to learn in order to learn the concepts that they are speaking of.

There is a reason for standardized language: so we can communicate and build upon what has come before. We don't use Euler's symbol for infinity, because it is used as the symbol for the imaginary unit. If I started to use non-standard symbology, people would have to put more effort into understanding what I write. There would be various ambiguities. If I use standard language and symbols, and you do not, your concepts will appear incorrect, so you are required to communicate using standardized communication when you are arguing points.

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.

<------> That is a "series" (unter series) that has no beginning or end. It doesn't begin in the middle- it doesn't have a beginning or end. It is just an infinite unter "series".

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 don't count a limitless amount of time. There are much more interesting things to do in infinite reality.

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.

There you go. Finally. Now is the beginning of 2 timelines that never end- one extending into the past, one into the future.

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

Umm, you know we observe ideas that arise out of reality. Even the computer screen you are looking at now is imaginary in some sense. Objective and subjective reality are intertwined, and not realizing that ideas themselves can represent objective reality (e=mc^2 or the infinite duration of existence) is a major failure in understanding understanding. haha.

 

[Kharakov]

Ah. Didnt realize the irony. (It is irony? Isnt it?)

I don't know.

Can't tell if you're making fun of me or not. I cannot remember the concept of irony. I always forget what it means. It's like my blind spot or memory kryptonite. Seriously. Fucking bugs the shit out of me.

And now I go to the wikipedia page to look it up again, and I remember every time I read it I'm like "ooohhh, yeah, that's funny!".

K, I wasn't feigning ignorance of irony. I actually forget what it is.

And yes, it was irony.

 

[Kharakov]

But to prove that sort of thing, you would need an absolute time reference,

Well, we can infer the duration of something unchanging by observing the duration of things that do not change for long periods of time. So while absolute proof may be out of reach, inference is not. You don't have to measure the duration of something for it to have duration, especially in the case of something with infinite duration, which means you cannot measure its duration, you can simply infer its duration.

And I don't think we could find one and of course yours sounds like the opposite of Einstein's view on time, although maybe there a catch somewhere either way.

Well Einstein was describing how to measure time. Immeasurable quantities (quantities that are infinite or otherwise immeasurable) don't fit into that paradigm. It's interesting to note that GR breaks down at the BB due to various infinities, although this may be due to the theories inability to delve deeper into the conditions at that time.

If we now imagine time on its own, without change, then time appears equivalent with the absence of time. If so, what would be the use of a concept that can be discarded without any loss?

Well, duration is duration, even if not measured. While we need to keep track of duration in order to be aware of it, using various changes, stuff still has duration. And duration is useful- to orchestrate events, musical harmony, showing someone you are caring for them by orchestrating events to align with their innermost thoughts.

So the concept of time and timing is extremely useful, even in Germany.

 

[untermensche]

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

The person is on the road. S/he has to decide which way to go. Then, s/he just move over one foot in this direction and then do the same thing with the other foot. That's it. S/he walking towards infinity! Surprisingly easy.

Yes, pretend infinities seem easy.

But if we try to imagine they are real, all kinds of problems arise.

It is easy to pretend to place somebody in the middle of a pretend infinite road.

But if you have a man on a road and he says he walked infinite miles to get here you know he is lying.

Infinite miles means miles that never end. Nobody can walk infinite miles, even if they were to live infinite years. They would walk and walk and walk, without end. That is infinite miles.

So don't try to tell me somebody is on an infinite road and already walked infinite miles. I know that is impossible.

Infinity means to go on without end.

No. If something goes on without an end then it is infinite.

Strange use of the word "no".

But this is also true of something that always went on, i.e. something without a beginning.

To not have a beginning means you have always gone on. It means there is no limit to your going on.

To have no limit to your going on means to go on forever.

To go on forever means to go on without end.

Again, strange use of the word "no".

Maybe infinity exists only as a definition but you just picked the wrong definition and then ran with it.

The fact that you don't understand that to say "to go on without end" means the exact same thing as to say "something that always went on" is not something I will lose much sleep over.

It is clear though.

If you accept the logical possibility of an infinite future you can't possibly refuse the logical possibility of an infinite past.

Baloney.

An infinite future means the ever changing present will continue forever. Maybe this is true or maybe it isn't. But no logic prevents having a present that continues forever. The nature of the universe may prevent it.

But to say the past is infinite means that the ever changing present existed forever. To exist forever is to exist for an amount of time that never ends.

If the present is said to exist after an amount of time that never ends finishes first then you are speaking gibberish.

Time that never ends, never ends. The present can't exist after something that never ends. There is no after to time that never ends.

What events occur after infinite time in the future?

How could you possibly think events could occur after infinite time in the past?

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say "things can't have beginnings".

Great. Then time can have a beginning.

No unter, this is not an empty claim, although it is about nothing. It is a logical impossibility (there is a built in contradiction) for something to come from nothing.

Then time didn't come from nothing. It came from something.

It had a beginning, since as you say, you're not saying things can't have beginnings.

Or is your argument that all things can have beginnings except time? And I understand the difficulty of saying time is caused by that which isn't somehow existing in time.

But time is something you have when you have change in space with matter and energy and all the rest. Space and time are inseparable. All change as we know it takes place in both space and time.

There may be other ways of having causes that don't involve matter or energy or whatever dark matter and energy are. There may be ways of having causes that don't involve movement through space and time.

Your limited imagination of things beyond this universe isn't an argument that space and time always existed.

 

[Kharakov]

Great. Then time can have a beginning.

No, you're interpreting the statement "I didn't say things couldn't have beginnings" out of context: you said I claimed that things couldn't have beginnings, and I did not.

Obviously time did not begin since duration of existence is eternal, which is the measure of infinite time.

No unter, this is not an empty claim, although it is about nothing. It is a logical impossibility (there is a built in contradiction) for something to come from nothing.

Then time didn't come from nothing. It came from something.

No, time always existed. It didn't have to come from something. Duration (or time) is a property of existence itself, even if what exists is a vacuum, or just an eternal glass of Ballantine's that Dean Martin never drinks.

Measurement of duration (time) is another thing altogether. It's always a comparison between semi-regular events- one cannot measure an infinite amount of time, although one can easily infer it through logical deduction (if one isn't trying to hold onto an illogical position for whatever strange reason motivates their actions).

It had a beginning, since as you say, you're not saying things can't have beginnings.

Nope. You claimed I said something that I did not, and I said that I did not.

Some things have beginnings, some do not. Time belongs to the category of things that do not have beginnings.

Your limited imagination of things beyond this universe isn't an argument that space and time always existed.

Ummm, ok, so you imagine that things beyond this universe, which exist, have no duration of existence (they do not exist for periods of time)?

Are you sure you know what time is?

 

[untermensche]

Ummm, ok, so you imagine that things beyond this universe, which exist, have no duration of existence (they do not exist for periods of time)?

Are you sure you know what time is?

Time is the name we gave to the way things change in this universe.

But when we talk about something that is not this universe why are we forced to talk about the way things change in this one?

 

[Kharakov]

Ummm, ok, so you imagine that things beyond this universe, which exist, have no duration of existence (they do not exist for periods of time)?

Are you sure you know what time is?

Time is the name we gave to the way things change in this universe.

No it isn't. Time is duration.

Some things change over time (duration) and some do not. Something doesn't have to change during the period of time for a period of time to go by. A proton's rest mass does not change over time, yet it exists for periods of time (durations).

But when we talk about something that is not this universe why are we forced to talk about the way things change in this one?

Ok. Maybe it's just me but it seems like your linguistic processor might have been exposed to an EMP. Reboot and reparse please?

 

[untermensche]

No it isn't. Time is duration.

We call an amount of time, an amount of change, a duration of time.

But saying time is duration is like saying space is length.

Some things change over time (duration) and some do not. Something doesn't have to change during the period of time for a period of time to go by. A proton's rest mass does not change over time, yet it exists for periods of time (durations)

To change position is to undergo a change. To decay is to change, even if you last a long time before you decay.

All things are undergoing change. Some more than others and some at a different pace than others.

Nothing is eternal.

The idea of eternal is a religious idea, not a scientific idea.

 

[Kharakov]

Ummm, ok, so you imagine that things beyond this universe, which exist, have no duration of existence (they do not exist for periods of time)?

Are you sure you know what time is?

Time is the name we gave to the way things change in this universe.

No it isn't. Time is duration.

But saying time is duration is like saying space is length.

"like saying space is volume" is a better way of making your analogy. You aren't going to separate the amount of space (volume) from space, any more that you are going to separate the amount of time (duration) from time. Hey look, that volume is not space! Hey, those ten minutes were not time! The point being that time is one of the most basic properties of reality.

When you're talking about something like gasoline, it exists for some duration, it has a certain mass, it has a chemical formula (well, multiple compounds actually), a brand name associated with it in many cases, it takes up a certain volume of space, etc.

When you talk about something very basic- which has no other sub components, properties, etc., the only properties that that thing has are itself. Duration (amount of time) is all that time is. It doesn't have a brand, or compound, rest mass, volume (well, ok, some theories say time has volume, which is implied by multiverse theories). It is just itself: time is duration, the only thing you can observe about time is its duration (itself).

The reason I said "No it isn't. Time is duration." in the above quoted exchange is that I have intentionally separated the concept of duration of time (periods of time) from the concept of change, because duration occurs even without change (the duration of the rest mass of a proton is the primary example that I've given).

Some things change over time (duration) and some do not. Something doesn't have to change during the period of time for a period of time to go by. A proton's rest mass does not change over time, yet it exists for periods of time (durations)

To change position is to undergo a change. To decay is to change, even if you last a long time before you decay.

All things are undergoing change. Some more than others and some at a different pace than others.

Ohh, so 2+2 is slowly changing to 11? The axioms of arithmetic, which form trigonometric identities, the exponential and logarithmic functions, the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio, Pi, inverse square laws, the Pythagorean Theorem, etc. form different things when you apply them to the same inputs?

Any intelligent mind that follows the axioms of arithmetic will come to the same conclusions given specific inputs. The conclusions of the axioms are eternal, and what can be built from them is exact.

The laws that are currently followed by the beings in the universe generate specific outcomes in specific conditions. From these laws, and certain conditions, certain things will occur.

 

[Juma]

Any intelligent mind that follows the axioms of arithmetic will come to the same conclusions given specific inputs. The conclusions of the axioms are eternal, and what can be built from them is exact..

Logic, mathematics etc is just the result of how we experience the reality. An intelligence that doesnt experience objects will not gave whole numbers etc.

 

[Kharakov]

Any intelligent mind that follows the axioms of arithmetic will come to the same conclusions given specific inputs. The conclusions of the axioms are eternal, and what can be built from them is exact..

Logic, mathematics etc is just the result of how we experience the reality. An intelligence that doesnt experience objects will not gave whole numbers etc.

Yeah. It's probably necessary to provide the clarification that you provided, although I think if someone reads the statement closely they would pick up that I wasn't referring to any intelligence (or intelligent mind), instead I was referring to any intelligent mind that follows the axioms of arithmetic...

The claim that logic and math are just a result of how we experience the reality seems to ignore the fact that reality follows certain mathematical and logical patterns whether or not we are here to comprehend them. Now maybe the linguistic versions of logic and mathematics that we apply are... unique in some sense to our minds, but I doubt it. I'd like to explore the idea of linguistic or symbolic awareness of reality for itself, but perhaps in another thread.

Although truthfully, anything and everything can be tied to infinite regression in some way. Technically you can talk about anything in this thread, because you can always regress to another point in time and use the regression as a demonstration of regression, claiming that the thing you are talking about is a demonstration of regression....

 

[untermensche]

But saying time is duration is like saying space is length.

"like saying space is volume" is a better way of making your analogy.

Same thing. Space is not length or volume.

Space is that which allows length and volume to exist.

You aren't going to separate the amount of space (volume) from space, any more that you are going to separate the amount of time (duration) from time. Hey look, that volume is not space! Hey, those ten minutes were not time! The point being that time is one of the most basic properties of reality.

A pear has volume. A pear is not space. When I have a pear I have separated a volume from space.

A year is a duration of time. A year is not time. It is an amount of time.

Duration (amount of time) is all that time is.

Nonsense.

Time involves change. If you have no change you have no time.

But the universe changes in very particular ways. I drop the fork it changes position and moves closer to the earth. It has a very specific direction of change and velocity of change.

So time is not just change. It is the way change occurs in THIS universe.

When we imagine something beyond this universe we don't necessarily have to imagine that any properties of this universe have to exist. Including the property of this universe we call time.

All things are undergoing change. Some more than others and some at a different pace than others.

Ohh, so 2+2 is slowly changing to 11?

2 is not a thing. It is a concept. It exists only as a human concept. And when humans exist no more neither will 2.

 

[Kharakov]

You aren't going to separate the amount of space (volume) from space, any more that you are going to separate the amount of time (duration) from time. Hey look, that volume is not space! Hey, those ten minutes were not time! The point being that time is one of the most basic properties of reality.

A pear has volume. A pear is not space. When I have a pear I have separated a volume from space.

The volume the pear occupies is still space. You haven't "separated" space from space.

A year is a duration of time. A year is not time. It is an amount of time.

A year (some time) is time, like some water is water.

The point of saying that time is duration is simple: there are things that do not change, which have duration (exist for a period of time).

Time involves change. If you have no change you have no time.

Duration exists for things that do not change. A particles spin and/or charge has duration and does not alter while the particle exists.
There are things that exist which change over time, and there are things that exist that do not change over time.

2 is not a thing. It is a concept. It exists only as a human concept. And when humans exist no more neither will 2.

Following certain rules, one will always arrive at certain answers. Any intelligence that follows the axioms of arithmetic will arrive at the conclusion 2+2=4 (although the symbols and language may differ).

The axioms are built into natural law: the charge of particles obeys the axioms of arithmetic- these axioms are a fundamental part of reality.