Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

But they will pass in an infinite amount of seconds. It is a mind-boggling truth in calculus that gives a logical explanation of how infinity can be bounded by infinity.

I have no problem with calculus. I just know that calculus has it's own internal logical structure that has nothing to do with the way the world works. It's not a method to recreate the world. It's just a method for dealing with numbers.

You were concerned about the logical possibility of finishing infinity. Calculus gives a very logically sound explanation on how this could work. Remember, I get to say "could work" because I am only arguing against your positive claim.

Is it still a positive claim, or is it a hypothetical claim that it's possible time began?

It is your argument that needs time to be divided into quanta of time.

That's not my argument at all. My argument just says it is illogical to conclude that infinite time has already passed. It is no more than that.

It says nothing about the division of time.

So are you saying that your argument allows for time to be continuous?

 

[untermensche]

You haven't touched the logic of my arguments because you have never once addressed them.

The "logic" of your “argument” is based on a nonsensical strawman. You assert that we believe that the models are real physical things that reality has to consult to know what to do.

We are saying that models help us predict what reality will do (however it does it).

i.e. A comet comes into the inner solar system. Our model tells us the path it will take with respect to the other bodies in the system. The fact that it does indeed take that path means that our model is a good model for describing and predicting what the reality of the comet’s orbit will be. Our saying that the model is good at describing the reality of the comet’s orbit does mean that we believe that the comet consults our model to know where to go.

Please take your silly strawmen somewhere else.

Once again you don't address my arguments.

You claim that calculus describes how reality works and then wave your hands around and shout something about a strawman.

None of it either refuting my arguments or supporting them.

 

[untermensche]

I have no problem with calculus. I just know that calculus has it's own internal logical structure that has nothing to do with the way the world works. It's not a method to recreate the world. It's just a method for dealing with numbers.

You were concerned about the logical possibility of finishing infinity.

The logic of finishing a real infinity. Not a conceptual infinity.

And my positive claim is that it is illogical to conclude that an infinite amount of time has already passed in the past. Because that is no different than saying an infinite amount of time, something real, not conceptual, needs to pass before yesterday can arrive. But an infinite amount of time never passes so if we need an infinite amount of time to pass before yesterday will arrive then yesterday will never arrive. Since yesterday did arrive we can conclude a finite amount of time passed prior to it arriving.

So are you saying that your argument allows for time to be continuous?

That's a different argument and it is the argument about the limit of divisibility. We know that time can only be "broken" so much before it isn't time anymore. I think it was you that mentioned Plank's work on this. If we try to record shorter and shorter amounts of time we hit a limit and cannot go any further. Any further would not be time anymore. It would be the absence of time, stillness.

 

[skepticalbip]

The "logic" of your “argument” is based on a nonsensical strawman. You assert that we believe that the models are real physical things that reality has to consult to know what to do.

We are saying that models help us predict what reality will do (however it does it).

i.e. A comet comes into the inner solar system. Our model tells us the path it will take with respect to the other bodies in the system. The fact that it does indeed take that path means that our model is a good model for describing and predicting what the reality of the comet’s orbit will be. Our saying that the model is good at describing the reality of the comet’s orbit does mean that we believe that the comet consults our model to know where to go.

Please take your silly strawmen somewhere else.

Once again you don't address my arguments.

You claim that calculus describes how reality works and then wave your hands around and shout something about a strawman.

None of it either refuting my arguments or supporting them.

All our observations show reality to be continuous down to the quantum level. Calculus best describes this continuous nature of reality so it describes how reality works. Of course you are now going to claim that I believe reality is calculus but that's because you have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and a description of how reality works. That comet in the example above follows a nice smooth orbital curve just as the model (using calculus) described and predicted it would.

 

[untermensche]

Once again you don't address my arguments.

You claim that calculus describes how reality works and then wave your hands around and shout something about a strawman.

None of it either refuting my arguments or supporting them.

All our observations show reality to be continuous down to the quantum level. Calculus best describes this continuous nature of reality so it describes how reality works. Of course you are now going to claim that I believe reality is calculus but that's because you have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and a description of how reality works. That comet in the example above follows a nice smooth orbital curve just as the model (using calculus) predicted it would.

Calculus doesn't describe anything. It is a method for determining sums. Area under the curve and all that.

The continuous or noncontinuous nature of the universe has nothing to do with calculus.

 

[skepticalbip]

All our observations show reality to be continuous down to the quantum level. Calculus best describes this continuous nature of reality so it describes how reality works. Of course you are now going to claim that I believe reality is calculus but that's because you have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and a description of how reality works. That comet in the example above follows a nice smooth orbital curve just as the model (using calculus) predicted it would.

Calculus doesn't describe anything. It is a method for determining sums. Area under the curve and all that.

The continuous or noncontinuous nature of the universe has nothing to do with calculus.

Just bedamned. Fucking word games.

Calculus is used in the model to make such predictions. In fact, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation - like the one I showed you earlier.

 

[untermensche]

Calculus doesn't describe anything. It is a method for determining sums. Area under the curve and all that.

The continuous or noncontinuous nature of the universe has nothing to do with calculus.

Just bedamned. Fucking word games.

Calculus is used in the model to make such predictions. In fact, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation - like the one I showed you earlier.

And?

The models use calculus to arrive at sums.

But the universe doesn't calculate sums or make use of calculus. They are two completely distinct things.

 

[skepticalbip]

Just bedamned. Fucking word games.

Calculus is used in the model to make such predictions. In fact, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation - like the one I showed you earlier.

And?

The models use calculus to arrive at sums.

But the universe doesn't calculate sums or make use of calculus. They are two completely distinct things.

Thank you....

from skepticalbip post #284 above.

Of course you are now going to claim that I believe reality is calculus but that's because you have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and a description of how reality works.

Do you have a point or do you just enjoy making obvious, insipid statements? Here's another for you - The reality of the Solar system is not the description of "Solar system" using words in wikipedia. The Solar system doesn't consist or words, the two are completely different.

 

[ryan]

You were concerned about the logical possibility of finishing infinity.

The logic of finishing a real infinity. Not a conceptual infinity.

And my positive claim is that it is illogical to conclude that an infinite amount of time has already passed in the past. Because that is no different than saying an infinite amount of time, something real, not conceptual, needs to pass before yesterday can arrive. But an infinite amount of time never passes so if we need an infinite amount of time to pass before yesterday will arrive then yesterday will never arrive. Since yesterday did arrive we can conclude a finite amount of time passed prior to it arriving.

But this must be based on certain assumptions. These assumptions must assume certain theories will hold indefinitely. And these theories are based on abstract models. So your logic can be perfectly sound if you make the right postulates.

For example, the statement, "if a ghost causes a car accident, then ghosts are real." is a true and logically sound statement. We can make positive logical claims when we use postulates. Lawrence may not have stated what he was basing his claims on, but I have to think he bases them on something scientific and therefore only theoretical possibilities. And as you know, these theories are based on models.

So are you saying that your argument allows for time to be continuous?

That's a different argument and it is the argument about the limit of divisibility. We know that time can only be "broken" so much before it isn't time anymore. I think it was you that mentioned Plank's work on this. If we try to record shorter and shorter amounts of time we hit a limit and cannot go any further. Any further would not be time anymore. It would be the absence of time, stillness.

A Planck time is the shortest amount of time that is measurable, but that does not mean it is the smallest interval that exists (please see page 2 of http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/PlanckScale.pdf it is interesting).

I have to think that Lawrence Krauss is taking an atomists approach and assuming a quantifiable space-time. We don't know this yet. But like I said in this post above, if he assumes this to be true, then his argument can be logically sound.

I have noticed over the years that Lawrence Krauss has been less and less critical of philosophers' critiques. I think he finally respects their concerns, is afraid to be targeted by them or does not have the answers that they want.

 

[untermensche]

Do you have a point or do you just enjoy making obvious, insipid statements? Here's another for you - The reality of the Solar system is not the description of "Solar system" using words in wikipedia. The Solar system doesn't consist or words, the two are completely different.

What is insipid is this nonsense that calculus describes how the universe works.

Have you ever used it? It isn't describing anything. It's a method not a description.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you have a point or do you just enjoy making obvious, insipid statements? Here's another for you - The reality of the Solar system is not the description of "Solar system" using words in wikipedia. The Solar system doesn't consist or words, the two are completely different.

What is insipid is this nonsense that calculus describes how the universe works.

Have you ever used it?

Absolutely. I couldn't do my work without it. Have you?

It isn't describing anything. It's a method not a description.

Google "Maxwell's equations". Now, explain how those equations do not describe electromagnetic radiation. The physicists of the world somehow think that they do and a hell of a lot of our technology is based on the description provided by those equations - but then they don't usually consider themselves to be primarily philosophers.

 

[untermensche]

The logic of finishing a real infinity. Not a conceptual infinity.

And my positive claim is that it is illogical to conclude that an infinite amount of time has already passed in the past. Because that is no different than saying an infinite amount of time, something real, not conceptual, needs to pass before yesterday can arrive. But an infinite amount of time never passes so if we need an infinite amount of time to pass before yesterday will arrive then yesterday will never arrive. Since yesterday did arrive we can conclude a finite amount of time passed prior to it arriving.

But this must be based on certain assumptions. These assumptions must assume certain theories will hold indefinitely. And these theories are based on abstract models. So your logic can be perfectly sound if you make the right postulates.

What assumptions am I am making that you think could change? We know what an hour is. We know that if there are infinite hours we will never reach the end of them.

We can make positive logical claims when we use postulates. Lawrence may not have stated what he was basing his claims on, but I have to think he bases them on something scientific and therefore only theoretical possibilities. And as you know, these theories are based on models.

What Krauss says is that time begins with the big bang. He also says that he's not sure if it is even logical to talk about time before that.

And of course that is based on current scientific understandings which can change.

A Planck time is the shortest amount of time that is measurable, but that does not mean it is the smallest interval that exists..

There is no way to measure time smaller than that because it would make no sense. There is no change. In effect no time.

I have noticed over the years that Lawrence Krauss has been less and less critical of philosophers' critiques. I think he finally respects their concerns, is afraid to be targeted by them or does not have the answers that they want.

I am not arguing that time doesn't stretch infinitely into the past because Krauss says time began with the big bang.

Again mine is a logical argument. An incredibly simple argument if you accept one premise. Infinite time means time that goes on forever. We can't apply infinities that only appear in numbers to time.

 

[untermensche]

Google "Maxwell's equations". Now, explain how those equations do not describe electromagnetic radiation. The physicists of the world somehow think that they do and a hell of a lot of our technology is based on the description provided by those equations - but then they don't usually consider themselves to be primarily philosophers.

My argument is not that the models don't work.

But calculus is something internal to the models. It doesn't explain reality. It is a human created method to come up with answers when data is plugged into equations. Reality does not plug in numbers or make calculations or have anything to do with equations.

Reality knows absolutely nothing of human calculus. It operates without it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Google "Maxwell's equations". Now, explain how those equations do not describe electromagnetic radiation. The physicists of the world somehow think that they do and a hell of a lot of our technology is based on the description provided by those equations - but then they don't usually consider themselves to be primarily philosophers.

My argument is not that the models don't work.

But calculus is something internal to the models. It doesn't explain reality. It is a human created method to come up with answers when data is plugged into equations. Reality does not plug in numbers or make calculations or have anything to do with equations.

We are back to the fact that you don't have a clue what a model is. As I said, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation (even showed you one) so if the model describes anything it is calculus describing it. Maxwell's equations happen to be nothing but four calculus equations that describe electromagnetic radiation. Please tell me why you think the world's physicists are so misguided as to believe that Maxwell described electromagnetic radiation in his calculus equations.

Reality knows absolutely nothing of human calculus. It operates without it.

No shit! And the Solar system is not words in a section of Wikipedia.

We are now back to.

from skepticalbip post #284 above.

Of course you are now going to claim that I believe reality is calculus but that's because you have difficulty understanding the difference between reality and a description of how reality works.

How about thinking and reasoning a little rather than going over and over the same nonsense that illustrates that you apparently have no capacity for learning.

 

[untermensche]

My argument is not that the models don't work.

But calculus is something internal to the models. It doesn't explain reality. It is a human created method to come up with answers when data is plugged into equations. Reality does not plug in numbers or make calculations or have anything to do with equations.

We are back to the fact that you don't have a clue what a model is. As I said, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation (even showed you one) so if the model describes anything it is calculus describing it. Maxwell's equations happen to be nothing but four calculus equations that describe electromagnetic radiation. Please tell me why you think the world's physicists are so misguided as to believe that Maxwell described electromagnetic radiation in his calculus equations.

I will just say that it is you who doesn't have a clue what a model is.

No single equation is a model. There must be explanation beyond the equations to make any use of a model. The model is both the equations and the accompanying explanations.

And all calculus is is a method, like division, to arrive at sums.

 

[skepticalbip]

We are back to the fact that you don't have a clue what a model is. As I said, many, many models are nothing but a calculus equation (even showed you one) so if the model describes anything it is calculus describing it. Maxwell's equations happen to be nothing but four calculus equations that describe electromagnetic radiation. Please tell me why you think the world's physicists are so misguided as to believe that Maxwell described electromagnetic radiation in his calculus equations.

I will just say that it is you who doesn't have a clue what a model is.

No single equation is a model. There must be explanation beyond the equations to make any use of a model. The model is both the equations and the accompanying explanations.

And all calculus is is a method, like division, to arrive at sums.

Nothing quite like someone who revels in their ignorance.

You apparently believe that those models that are loosly translated from the math into common language by pop-sci (and usually completely misunderstood by the public) is how models are formulated.

ETA;
Just for your edification, I'll give you a very basic model that is a basis for a hell of a lot.

F=dP/dt

That needs no explanation. Any physicist knows exactly what that means.

 

[untermensche]

I will just say that it is you who doesn't have a clue what a model is.

No single equation is a model. There must be explanation beyond the equations to make any use of a model. The model is both the equations and the accompanying explanations.

And all calculus is is a method, like division, to arrive at sums.

Nothing quite like someone who revels in their ignorance.

You apparently believe that those models that are loosly translated into common language by pop-sci (and usually completely misunderstood by the public) is how models are formulated.

Once again you don't even attempt to address the arguments.

This is completely unresponsive.

Your claim that a single equation minus the accompanying explanations is a model is laughable.

 

[beero1000]

Some people here have an amazing amount of patience. I was at 'crazy pills' way back at post 65 and my hat is off to you. Dude still doesn't understand how arithmetic works, and doesn't realize that by claiming that time must have a beginning he's claiming to have solved a major open problem in cosmology. He's not even a crank. At least cranks see the revolutionary implications of things they have claimed to 'prove' and think they're fighting the establishment.

You may proceed, but surely at least some of you must have something better to do, right?

 

[skepticalbip]

Nothing quite like someone who revels in their ignorance.

You apparently believe that those models that are loosly translated into common language by pop-sci (and usually completely misunderstood by the public) is how models are formulated.

Once again you don't even attempt to address the arguments.

This is completely unresponsive.

Your claim that a single equation minus the accompanying explanations is a model is laughable.

Whenever you are capable of making a coherent argument that has anything to do with the real world, let me know and I'll address it. I may even congratulate you if it is meaningful.

ETA:
By the way, Most models are single equations. No explanation in words are required because, for any physicist, the equation is the explanation. The fact that you don't understand it is of no concern to physicists because they do understand it and you couldn't understand it even if it was explained to you.

 

[skepticalbip]

Some people here have an amazing amount of patience. I was at 'crazy pills' way back at post 65 and my hat is off to you. Dude still doesn't understand how arithmetic works, and doesn't realize that by claiming that time must have a beginning he's claiming to have solved a major open problem in cosmology. He's not even a crank. At least cranks see the revolutionary implications of things they have claimed to 'prove' and think they're fighting the establishment.

You may proceed, but surely at least some of you must have something better to do, right?

For a while I thought it may be a bot, but I haven't run into bots (that I know of) that make such outrageous, unfounded assertions. They usually actually present some accepted facts in their "arguments".... so I dunno. I'm reserving judgement.

But you are probably right that there are better things to do but, to tell the truth, I kinda get a kick out of the hubris. It isn't often that I run into people so misguided and yet so sure.