Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

Argument from logic.

It makes no logical sense.

 

[George S]

Argument from ignorance.

Argument from logic.

It makes no logical sense.

To you.

To experts it does. Now. As a number of possibilities. Which I outlined.

Of course it is mind boggling. A particle moving backward in time is an anti-particle. A photon 'sees' future space ahead of it with wave-like vision to determine its path. Density of the gravity field affects time. Only effects time as seen from outside. At all times time passes locally such that the speed of light is constant.

What rate do the clocks on GPS sats go at? We count the clicks and the count disagrees with ours.

Two synchronized atomic clocks, A and B are on a table. One is moved an inch and then back. It has aged very slightly less yet both experience time passing at the same rate. The only rate. The one that makes light go c.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

But that assumes a starting point, right?
To count an infinite amount of days or years or eons before yesterday, we'd have to start somewhere.
But doesn't the very idea of infinite regress assume there's no starting point?

 

[untermensche]

Argument from logic.

It makes no logical sense.

To you.

To experts it does. Now. As a number of possibilities. Which I outlined.

Of course it is mind boggling. A particle moving backward in time is an anti-particle. A photon 'sees' future space ahead of it with wave-like vision to determine its path. Density of the gravity field affects time. Only effects time as seen from outside. At all times time passes locally such that the speed of light is constant.

What rate do the clocks on GPS sats go at? We count the clicks and the count disagrees with ours.

Two synchronized atomic clocks, A and B are on a table. One is moved an inch and then back. It has aged very slightly less yet both experience time passing at the same rate. The only rate. The one that makes light go c.

Logic is logic.

Physicists don't have a special logic. They have ordinary logic like the rest of us.

And ordinary logic says that the concept of infinite time extending into the past is a contradiction. If infinite time must pass before yesterday arrives then yesterday will never arrive.

 

[untermensche]

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.

But that assumes a starting point, right?
To count an infinite amount of days or years or eons before yesterday, we'd have to start somewhere.
But doesn't the very idea of infinite regress assume there's no starting point?

That's the idea behind the concept of infinite regress. Time has no beginning. It extends into the past for an infinitely long period of time.

But as I've said this idea makes no sense. If infinite time must pass before yesterday occurs then yesterday will not occur.

 

[George S]

To you.

To experts it does. Now. As a number of possibilities. Which I outlined.

Of course it is mind boggling. A particle moving backward in time is an anti-particle. A photon 'sees' future space ahead of it with wave-like vision to determine its path. Density of the gravity field affects time. Only effects time as seen from outside. At all times time passes locally such that the speed of light is constant.

What rate do the clocks on GPS sats go at? We count the clicks and the count disagrees with ours.

Two synchronized atomic clocks, A and B are on a table. One is moved an inch and then back. It has aged very slightly less yet both experience time passing at the same rate. The only rate. The one that makes light go c.

Logic is logic.

Physicists don't have a special logic. They have ordinary logic like the rest of us.

And ordinary logic says that the concept of infinite time extending into the past is a contradiction. If infinite time must pass before yesterday arrives then yesterday will never arrive.

The character of negative time in the Carroll-Chen proposal is to see that it works if time works the same but in the opposite direction. Start at Planck time 1... Expand both ways.

 

[untermensche]

Logic is logic.

Physicists don't have a special logic. They have ordinary logic like the rest of us.

And ordinary logic says that the concept of infinite time extending into the past is a contradiction. If infinite time must pass before yesterday arrives then yesterday will never arrive.

The character of negative time in the Carroll-Chen proposal is to see that it works if time works the same but in the opposite direction. Start at Planck time 1... Expand both ways.

I don't see how the model escapes the logic?

 

[Keith&Co.]

But that assumes a starting point, right?
To count an infinite amount of days or years or eons before yesterday, we'd have to start somewhere.
But doesn't the very idea of infinite regress assume there's no starting point?

That's the idea behind the concept of infinite regress. Time has no beginning. It extends into the past for an infinitely long period of time.

But as I've said this idea makes no sense. If infinite time must pass before yesterday occurs then yesterday will not occur.

But if we have infinite time for days to pass before yesterday, than an infinite number of days passing is not a problem. It's only a problem if we have two boundaries, yesterday and a start.

If there's no start, then the yesterday deadline isn't any different than a deadline that's infinite days in the future.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

No one said it was.

Mathematics is the language of physics. Physics models are written in that language but of course physics has many standard "words" like c for time m for mass F for force, etc. The models don't need translating into common language for a physicist because they understand the language of the model. The models themselves are the description.

So yes, you are right. Anyone can understand them if they learn enough physics and math, like you can't understand and appreciate a French poem unless you first learn French. But if they don't learn the physics and math then a translation of the model from the math into common language would not really help them really understand. For example, almost everyone thinks they know Einstein's equivalence of energy and mass because they have heard it explained for years. If you tell the average person that you have a wad of used chewing gum that has exactly one gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it, all you will get is a blank stare.

 

[untermensche]

That's the idea behind the concept of infinite regress. Time has no beginning. It extends into the past for an infinitely long period of time.

But as I've said this idea makes no sense. If infinite time must pass before yesterday occurs then yesterday will not occur.

But if we have infinite time for days to pass before yesterday, than an infinite number of days passing is not a problem. It's only a problem if we have two boundaries, yesterday and a start.

If there's no start, then the yesterday deadline isn't any different than a deadline that's infinite days in the future.

When does an infinite amount of time pass?

How can we say an infinite amount of time has already passed?

 

[untermensche]

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.

No one said it was.

Mathematics is the language of physics. Physics models are written in that language but of course physics has many standard "words" like c for time m for mass F for force, etc. The models don't need translating into common language for a physicist because they understand the language of the model. The models themselves are the description.

So yes, you are right. Anyone can understand them if they learn enough physics and math. But if they don't learn the physics and math then a translation of the model from the math into common language would not really help them really understand. For example, almost everyone thinks they know Einstein's equivalence of energy and mass because they have heard it explained for years. If you tell the average person that you have something that has a gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it, all you will get is a blank stare.

Any variable in a model needs a very specific definition.

Just because working physicists already know the definitions doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When does an infinite amount of time pass?

If it's infinite in the past and infinite in the future, then at any point in time, an infinite amount of time has passed, and an infinite amount remains to pass.

How can we say an infinite amount of time has already passed?

Well, if the theory is that the past is infinite, it would be part of the theory, that it has passed.

 

[skepticalbip]

No one said it was.

Mathematics is the language of physics. Physics models are written in that language but of course physics has many standard "words" like c for time m for mass F for force, etc. The models don't need translating into common language for a physicist because they understand the language of the model. The models themselves are the description.

So yes, you are right. Anyone can understand them if they learn enough physics and math. But if they don't learn the physics and math then a translation of the model from the math into common language would not really help them really understand. For example, almost everyone thinks they know Einstein's equivalence of energy and mass because they have heard it explained for years. If you tell the average person that you have something that has a gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it, all you will get is a blank stare.

Any variable in a model needs a very specific definition.

Just because working physicists already know the definitions doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

WTF?

That is what I said. You need to know the language for the model to be meaningful. The "language" is the specific definitions. To understand a model you need to first know the physics and math. Explaining it to someone who doesn't know either means nothing to them.

Like I explained. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence formula has been explained to the general public for years. Tell the average person that you have a wad of used chewing gum that has exactly one gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Like I explained. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence formula has been explained to the general public for years.

I think it would be better to say that the formula has been quoted at us for years upon years. '

 

[skepticalbip]

Like I explained. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence formula has been explained to the general public for years.

I think it would be better to say that the formula has been quoted at us for years upon years. '

You're right. But more accurately, may be to say that the formula has been translated from the math/physics into common language.

 

[untermensche]

If it's infinite in the past and infinite in the future, then at any point in time, an infinite amount of time has passed.

So if infinite time exists in the past it exists in the past?

You must see how this is not much of an argument.

Well, if the theory is that the past is infinite, it would be part of the theory, that it has passed.

If your theory says it is logical for there to have been infinite time that has already passed that theory is mistaken. It is not a logical proposition.

 

[untermensche]

Any variable in a model needs a very specific definition.

Just because working physicists already know the definitions doesn't mean they aren't necessary.

WTF?

That is what I said. You need to know the language for the model to be meaningful. The "language" is the specific definitions. To understand a model you need to first know the physics and math. Explaining it to someone who doesn't know either means nothing to them.

Like I explained. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence formula has been explained to the general public for years. Tell the average person that you have a wad of used chewing gum that has exactly one gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it.

WTF?

The "language" of the model is not only the math.

Simply having a formula is not a model.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if infinite time exists in the past it exists in the past?

You must see how this is not much of an argument.

It's no worse than your objection that we can't have had an infinite past, because there wouldn't have been enough time to have an infinite past.

"infinite" is without boundaries. You're assuming a finite past and claiming that refutes an infinite past.

If your theory says it is logical for there to have been infinite time that has already passed that theory is mistaken. It is not a logical proposition.

I don't think the assumptions in your logical analysis of the theory apply, though.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF?

That is what I said. You need to know the language for the model to be meaningful. The "language" is the specific definitions. To understand a model you need to first know the physics and math. Explaining it to someone who doesn't know either means nothing to them.

Like I explained. Einstein's mass/energy equivalence formula has been explained to the general public for years. Tell the average person that you have a wad of used chewing gum that has exactly one gram of mass and ask them what that equation specifically tells them about it.

WTF?

The "language" of the model is not only the math.

Simply having a formula is not a model.

You are stuck on replaying your ignorance about models. Most models are nothing but a single equation (as I have not only explained to you several times but showed you with examples). That equation is written in math/physics which is in itself a definition. Nothing else is necessary for someone who understands the language.

ETA:
Your insistance that you have to understand it for it to be a model is like saying that a book written in French isn't a book until it is translated into English so you can understand it.

 

[ryan]

But that assumes a starting point, right?
To count an infinite amount of days or years or eons before yesterday, we'd have to start somewhere.
But doesn't the very idea of infinite regress assume there's no starting point?

That's the idea behind the concept of infinite regress. Time has no beginning. It extends into the past for an infinitely long period of time.

But as I've said this idea makes no sense. If infinite time must pass before yesterday occurs then yesterday will not occur.

Calculus describes very logically how rates of changes work in a continuum, and we know rates of changes occur in reality. So if we assume that we are in a continuum, then we can let calculus take the wheel.

By assuming a continuum, there is an infinite number of moments that pass in an hour, second, day, etc.

Since that we may actually be in this continuum, one cannot say for sure if our days are infinitesimal to infinity many days in a finite subinterval of a larger interval.

Your logic must at least assume that there is no space-time continuum.