Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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?

One is the assumption that there can't be an infinite number of anything based on limited observations.

We know what an hour is.

The problem here is that we don't know what an hour is; we don't know whether it is granular or smooth. And you often say that an hour is an arbitrary unit imagined by humans anyways, so what does this statement of yours really mean to you?

We know that if there are infinite hours we will never reach the end of them.

We will never reach the end in a finite number of hours, but we will in an infinite number of hours.

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.

okay

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.

Here we go again. What indisputable theory are you getting this from? Can you please give a reference because I have never heard of this.

Are you sure you are not mixing up what you think are facts with quantum theories?

An incredibly simple argument if you accept one premise. Infinite time means time that goes on forever.

So what's the premise?

We can't apply infinities that only appear in numbers to time.

We can, but it does not necessarily mean it's right. But you have this audacious claim that you know it's wrong.

You seem to keep thinking that I am the one trying to make the positive claim, but it is you who keeps making them.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The argument has been put forward many times. In this thread of infinite regress I discussed the idea of infinite time having already passed.

The conclusion is that this is impossible because it implies that before yesterday infinite time has already passed. Since infinite time never passes it is illogical to claim that infinite time has already occurred in the past.

I never claimed this was earth shattering, only accurate.

Many have tried to say that it is possible for infinite time to pass. They have only shown that the use of infinities with numbers is different than it is with time.

 

[untermensche]

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?

It is I who has shown patience.

From ridiculous claims about calculus to a complete lack of understanding between scientific models and the thing they model.

And through all of it a dogged determination to not address any of the arguments I make.

 

[untermensche]

What assumptions am I am making that you think could change?

One is the assumption that there can't be an infinite number of anything based on limited observations.

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. The assumption is that if a thing exists it is possible in theory to count it. All things that exist can in theory be counted. Therefore it is logical to conclude there is a countable sum of them. There cannot be an infinite sum if all of the elements can in theory be counted.

The problem here is that we don't know what an hour is; we don't know whether it is granular or smooth.

It makes no difference in this. We know an hour is the passage of an amount of time. So we can conceptualize what an infinite amount of them would be. It would be time that never stops.

Even if time can be broken apart we are not talking about breaking it apart. We are talking about an infinite amount of it. Not a fraction of it.

We will never reach the end in a finite number of hours, but we will in an infinite number of hours.

That is not reaching an end. That is moving in time without end.

Here we go again. What indisputable theory are you getting this from? Can you please give a reference because I have never heard of this.

From Wikipedia.

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

So what's the premise?

Infinite time means time that goes on forever. That premise must be accepted for my argument to make sense.

But of course time that doesn't go on forever is by definition finite. So it's a pretty solid premise.

You seem to keep thinking that I am the one trying to make the positive claim, but it is you who keeps making them.

The claim is imbedded in your arguments. You make arguments about infinities involving numbers. The underlying claim is that numbers are like time in some way.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

The argument has been put forward many times. In this thread of infinite regress I discussed the idea of infinite time having already passed.

The conclusion is that this is impossible because it implies that before yesterday infinite time has already passed. Since infinite time never passes it is illogical to claim that infinite time has already occurred in the past.

I never claimed this was earth shattering, only accurate.

Many have tried to say that it is possible for infinite time to pass. They have only shown that the use of infinities with numbers is different than it is with time.

Nope, no congratulations yet.

You've only shown that you know as little about math as you do about physics.

Since you have demonstrated that you don't want to learn anything about physics, I think it would be a waste of time to try to address this nonsense by trying to teach you some math.

 

[untermensche]

The argument has been put forward many times. In this thread of infinite regress I discussed the idea of infinite time having already passed.

The conclusion is that this is impossible because it implies that before yesterday infinite time has already passed. Since infinite time never passes it is illogical to claim that infinite time has already occurred in the past.

I never claimed this was earth shattering, only accurate.

Many have tried to say that it is possible for infinite time to pass. They have only shown that the use of infinities with numbers is different than it is with time.

Nope, no congratulations yet.

You've only shown that you know as little about math as you do about physics.

Since you have demonstrated that you don't want to learn anything about physics, I think it would be a waste of time to try to address this nonsense by trying to teach you some math.

Wow. The evasion is astounding.

Beg and beg for something then when you get it change the subject entirely.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nope, no congratulations yet.

You've only shown that you know as little about math as you do about physics.

Since you have demonstrated that you don't want to learn anything about physics, I think it would be a waste of time to try to address this nonsense by trying to teach you some math.

Wow. The evasion is astounding.

Beg and beg for something then when you get it change the subject entirely.

Nope, the subject wasn't changed. You just know so little about math that you don't even realize that your "argument" is math and that you fucked it up.

 

[Kharakov]

Untermensche's statements provide sufficient provocation to sustain the conversation, in addition to providing stark contrast to the truth (although I have seen Untermensche slip up and say something logical and true).

Seeing as untermensche has taken all the dark side, so far, I will now say something completely logical and true.

I have no idea what "It never touches the real world" is even supposed to mean.

"It's fairly obvious" I said in an arrogant manner, while cackling maniacally. Math is not real, and there is no way that reality uses it in any way. In fact, the very idea of mathematical descriptions of reality corresponding to actual reality is an illusion, since one cannot describe reality with words. In fact, words are not symbolic of various things in reality, rather they are imaginary and are not part of what is not non-existent.

One cannot use words to describe things in reality, including other words, for the words are imaginary constructs which do not correspond to actual reality, which was invented by man.

Calculus is simply used to describe how reality works. If you had ever tried to describe physical phenomina in detail that had been observed in a way that you could predict precisely future phenomina then you would understand.

You obviously don't understand that calculus is something that does not describe things in reality since it will not correspond to reality when I use it to describe reality. Once cannot use mathematical concepts to describe reality, since reality does not use math to calculate things, because the amount you eat does not have an effect upon your metabolism because of math. It is reality that math does not calculate when using calculus. So the lack of calculus use in reality corresponds to the randomness of certain variables that do not correspond to the mathematical models that describe, and duplicate the random outcomes of the variables.


Real lies how close you get to the truth.

 

[skepticalbip]

Untermensche's statements provide sufficient provocation to sustain the conversation, in addition to providing stark contrast to the truth (although I have seen Untermensche slip up and say something logical and true).

Seeing as untermensche has taken all the dark side, so far, I will now say something completely logical and true.


"It's fairly obvious" I said in an arrogant manner, while cackling maniacally. Math is not real, and there is no way that reality uses it in any way. In fact, the very idea of mathematical descriptions of reality corresponding to actual reality is an illusion, since one cannot describe reality with words. In fact, words are not symbolic of various things in reality, rather they are imaginary and are not part of what is not non-existent.

One cannot use words to describe things in reality, including other words, for the words are imaginary constructs which do not correspond to actual reality, which was invented by man.

Calculus is simply used to describe how reality works. If you had ever tried to describe physical phenomina in detail that had been observed in a way that you could predict precisely future phenomina then you would understand.

You obviously don't understand that calculus is something that does not describe things in reality since it will not correspond to reality when I use it to describe reality. Once cannot use mathematical concepts to describe reality, since reality does not use math to calculate things, because the amount you eat does not have an effect upon your metabolism because of math. It is reality that math does not calculate when using calculus. So the lack of calculus use in reality corresponds to the randomness of certain variables that do not correspond to the mathematical models that describe, and duplicate the random outcomes of the variables.


Real lies how close you get to the truth.

Well done.

 

[ryan]

One is the assumption that there can't be an infinite number of anything based on limited observations.

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. The assumption is that if a thing exists it is possible in theory to count it. All things that exist can in theory be counted. Therefore it is logical to conclude there is a countable sum of them. There cannot be an infinite sum if all of the elements can in theory be counted.

In your assumption, when you say "a thing", do you mean one thing?

The problem here is that we don't know what an hour is; we don't know whether it is granular or smooth.

It makes no difference in this. We know an hour is the passage of an amount of time. So we can conceptualize what an infinite amount of them would be. It would be time that never stops.

Even if time can be broken apart we are not talking about breaking it apart. We are talking about an infinite amount of it. Not a fraction of it.

But if time is continuous, then a present moment is a point in time. In an hour, we will have passed an infinite number of moments in time. But if time is granular, then we only pass a finite number of quanta.

We will never reach the end in a finite number of hours, but we will in an infinite number of hours.

That is not reaching an end. That is moving in time without end.

If time is infinite, then the hours can be seen as points like the moments I mentioned above.

Here we go again. What indisputable theory are you getting this from? Can you please give a reference because I have never heard of this.

From Wikipedia.

One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10−43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

You are misinterpreting this. It only says that a Planck time is the smallest possible measurement of time. It does not say that there is not a smaller quantity of time. And even that is just a theory, nothing that a positive claim should be built on.

So what's the premise?

Infinite time means time that goes on forever. That premise must be accepted for my argument to make sense.

"Forever" relative to what? Relative to infinity, it is a single arbitrary unit. Relative to larger infinities, if they exist, the countable infinity becomes something smaller than the ratio of 1/infinity (countable infinity).

You seem to keep thinking that I am the one trying to make the positive claim, but it is you who keeps making them.

The claim is imbedded in your arguments. You make arguments about infinities involving numbers. The underlying claim is that numbers are like time in some way.

How do you know for sure that we can't assign numbers to units in time? It has worked perfectly up until now.

 

[untermensche]

Wow. The evasion is astounding.

Beg and beg for something then when you get it change the subject entirely.

Nope, the subject wasn't changed. You just know so little about math that you don't even realize that your "argument" is math and that you fucked it up.

More evasion. It seems to be the only thing you're capable of.

All these comments directed towards me and not once have you even addressed my arguments.

A bad joke.

 

[George S]

The argument has been put forward many times. In this thread of infinite regress I discussed the idea of infinite time having already passed.

The conclusion is that this is impossible because it implies that before yesterday infinite time has already passed. Since infinite time never passes it is illogical to claim that infinite time has already occurred in the past.

I never claimed this was earth shattering, only accurate.

Many have tried to say that it is possible for infinite time to pass. They have only shown that the use of infinities with numbers is different than it is with time.

There are 3 possibilities. 1) There is no "before" to time 0. what came before has the same answer as what points on earth's surface are north of the North Pole. 2) time 'passed' for the longest (or shortest) time before the Big Bang. Time running with no meaningful events. No energy, no frequency, no things. 3) the Carrol-Chen model.

In Sean Carrol's model everything is symmetric about time 1. Yes, time extends beyond Planck time 1 and time goes away from the Big Bang, t = 1. Expanding both ways.

See picture from this video at 9 minutes. (Also discussed is the 'beginning' to time.) http://youtu.be/Z-K85WW4fNg

 

[untermensche]

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion. The assumption is that if a thing exists it is possible in theory to count it. All things that exist can in theory be counted. Therefore it is logical to conclude there is a countable sum of them. There cannot be an infinite sum if all of the elements can in theory be counted.

In your assumption, when you say "a thing", do you mean one thing?

Just put the word "tree" in instead. If a tree exists it is possible to count it.

Do you disagree? Do you think a tree could exist that couldn't possibly be counted? If it couldn't be counted how could we say it exists?

But if time is continuous, then a present moment is a point in time. In an hour, we will have passed an infinite number of moments in time. But if time is granular, then we only pass a finite number of quanta.

A point is the conception of having no dimension. Time cannot be dimensionless. It cannot be a point just as there cannot be a point of space. It makes no sense.

An infinite amount of points is not the passage of time. It is dimensionless. It is the passage of nothing.

You are misinterpreting this. It only says that a Planck time is the smallest possible measurement of time. It does not say that there is not a smaller quantity of time. And even that is just a theory, nothing that a positive claim should be built on.

First of all I don't see how this ties into my arguments, but if change cannot be detected how can we say time is present?

"Forever" relative to what? Relative to infinity, it is a single arbitrary unit. Relative to larger infinities, if they exist, the countable infinity becomes something smaller than the ratio of 1/infinity (countable infinity).

Time going on forever can be conceptualized since we have experienced time. We extend our experience of time out without end. That is infinite time. There is only one kind.

How do you know for sure that we can't assign numbers to units in time? It has worked perfectly up until now.

Of course we can assign numbers to units of time.

We can talk about infinite time.

But the talk doesn't mean it is something that could ever exist.

 

[ryan]

In your assumption, when you say "a thing", do you mean one thing?

Just put the word "tree" in instead. If a tree exists it is possible to count it.

Do you disagree? Do you think a tree could exist that couldn't possibly be counted? If it couldn't be counted how could we say it exists?

I just wanted to know for sure.

Will you agree that an infinite number of objects can be counted given an infinite amount of time? Of course we are still arguing below about whether or not an infinite amount of time is possible.

1st tree, 2nd tree, ... nth tree (as n goes to infinity)
1 second, 2 second, ... n second (as n goes to infinity)

But if time is continuous, then a present moment is a point in time. In an hour, we will have passed an infinite number of moments in time. But if time is granular, then we only pass a finite number of quanta.

A point is the conception of having no dimension. Time cannot be dimensionless. It cannot be a point just as there cannot be a point of space. It makes no sense.

The interesting thing is that a higher dimension is constructed from lower dimensions. So you're right; a point in time is not time, but it is necessary for time to be continuous, likewise with space.

An infinite amount of points is not the passage of time. It is dimensionless. It is the passage of nothing.

This depends on if you're willing to accept mathematical logic and therefore physics for what a dimension is.

You are misinterpreting this. It only says that a Planck time is the smallest possible measurement of time. It does not say that there is not a smaller quantity of time. And even that is just a theory, nothing that a positive claim should be built on.

First of all I don't see how this ties into my arguments, ...

The point is to show you that it is unknown whether or not space-time is continuous.

... but if change cannot be detected how can we say time is present?

I have no idea why anyone would say that. If it's unknown, why would anyone say that time is present? Similarly, why would they say it's not?

How do you know for sure that we can't assign numbers to units in time? It has worked perfectly up until now.

Of course we can assign numbers to units of time.

We can talk about infinite time.

But the talk doesn't mean it is something that could ever exist.

Right, and as you know, I am not the one making a positive claim; you are.

You have a tough job here. You must not only falsify the prospect of infinite time - which would probably mean a Nobel Prize - but you must also demonstrate irrefutable logic as to how time couldn't have always existed. Doing so would make you a modern-day Aristotle.

 

[Juma]

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.

Of course it needs "explanation". As it stands it is nothing more than a derivative. You must also define F, P and t. I dont know what you mean by P. Pressure? (Maybe you mean momentum, but that is usually written as lowercase p, p =mv)

Most models also has a domain of validity.

So.

Bottom line is: models needs a lot of context besides the mathematics o be useful.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Of course it needs "explanation". As it stands it is nothing more than a derivative. You must also define F, P and t. I dont know what you mean by P. Pressure? (Maybe you mean momentum, but that is usually written as lowercase p, p =mv)

Most models also has a domain of validity.

So.

Bottom line is: models needs a lot of context besides the mathematics o be useful.

Models are written for people who use them. Try to find a physicist who would be confused by that equation. And likely over 90% of the people who had never taken physics wouldn't know what the hell to do with it even if the equation was explained to them.

 

[Juma]

Of course it needs "explanation". As it stands it is nothing more than a derivative. You must also define F, P and t. I dont know what you mean by P. Pressure? (Maybe you mean momentum, but that is usually written as lowercase p, p =mv)

Most models also has a domain of validity.

So.

Bottom line is: models needs a lot of context besides the mathematics o be useful.

Models are written for people who use them. Try to find a physicist who would be confused by that equation. And likely over 90% of the people who had never taken physics wouldn't know what the hell to do with it even if the equation was explained to them.

Which doesnt contradict what I, or untermensch, argues. So what the heck are you two arguing about? I would say that you are just kicking mud for the sake of it.

 

[untermensche]

The argument has been put forward many times. In this thread of infinite regress I discussed the idea of infinite time having already passed.

The conclusion is that this is impossible because it implies that before yesterday infinite time has already passed. Since infinite time never passes it is illogical to claim that infinite time has already occurred in the past.

I never claimed this was earth shattering, only accurate.

Many have tried to say that it is possible for infinite time to pass. They have only shown that the use of infinities with numbers is different than it is with time.

There are 3 possibilities. 1) There is no "before" to time 0. what came before has the same answer as what points on earth's surface are north of the North Pole. 2) time 'passed' for the longest (or shortest) time before the Big Bang. Time running with no meaningful events. No energy, no frequency, no things. 3) the Carrol-Chen model.

In Sean Carrol's model everything is symmetric about time 1. Yes, time extends beyond Planck time 1 and time goes away from the Big Bang, t = 1. Expanding both ways.

See picture from this video at 9 minutes. (Also discussed is the 'beginning' to time.) http://youtu.be/Z-K85WW4fNg

The scenario of concern is the one saying time passed somehow before the big bang.

The idea of time extending infinitely into the past makes no sense.

 

[untermensche]

Models are written for people who use them. Try to find a physicist who would be confused by that equation. And likely over 90% of the people who had never taken physics wouldn't know what the hell to do with it even if the equation was explained to them.

Models are created so that most people could understand them if they were inclined to do so. For many it would require taking a lot of math classes first.

Understanding a model is no act of genius.

 

[George S]

There are 3 possibilities. 1) There is no "before" to time 0. what came before has the same answer as what points on earth's surface are north of the North Pole. 2) time 'passed' for the longest (or shortest) time before the Big Bang. Time running with no meaningful events. No energy, no frequency, no things. 3) the Carrol-Chen model.

In Sean Carrol's model everything is symmetric about time 1. Yes, time extends beyond Planck time 1 and time goes away from the Big Bang, t = 1. Expanding both ways.

See picture from this video at 9 minutes. (Also discussed is the 'beginning' to time.) http://youtu.be/Z-K85WW4fNg

The scenario of concern is the one saying time passed somehow before the big bang.

The idea of time extending infinitely into the past makes no sense.

Argument from ignorance.