Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

Your claiming that the equations are all that is necessary is like saying you can understand French but don't know what any of the words mean.

 

[untermensche]

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.

My point is not all that complicated.

It is the idea that the passage of infinite time is an illogical concept. The concept of infinite time means time that will never stop passing.

I'm not assuming the past is finite or infinite in this formulation. I'm talking about the passage of time and the idea of the passage of time going on without end.

 

[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.

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.

Calculus doesn't describe it. Calculus is a way to make the situation abstract so that sums can be determined.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Your claiming that the equations are all that is necessary is like saying you can understand French but don't know what any of the words mean.

If someone understands the language of physics then they can understand the equation with no other explanation.

If someone understands French they can understand a book written in French with no other explanation.

Those who don't understand either the language of physics or French can't understand physics models or French novels.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

My point is not all that complicated.

It is the idea that the passage of infinite time is an illogical concept.
The concept of infinite time means time that will never stop passing.

And that's a problem, why?

I'm not assuming the past is finite or infinite in this formulation. .

You're using yesterday as an upper limit to an infinite amount of the past. But an 'upper limit' to time directly means there's not an infinite past.
You're assuming your conclusion in setting up your formulation.

 

[Kharakov]

untermensche: you're modeling the infant's perspective of the infinite: because I began, so must have all others.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche: you're modeling the infant's perspective of the infinite: because I began, so must have all others.

That's not my argument.

The argument is about the concept of infinite time. Meaning time that goes on forever. It doesn't mean an hour, or any finite amount.

Time cannot have gone on forever in the past. The concept makes no sense.

The only way to avoid this logic is pretend you don't know what the passage of time means and what infinity means.

 

[ryan]

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.

Calculus doesn't describe it. Calculus is a way to make the situation abstract so that sums can be determined.

Yes, but calculus is also the study of rates of change, and it does so in a continuum. If you care to understand my argument, then try to understand exactly what my last post is saying.

 

[untermensche]

The concept of infinite time means time that will never stop passing.

And that's a problem, why?

If you say infinite time has already passed in the past you are saying something that is impossible. Infinite time never passes. It's a contradiction.

You're using yesterday as an upper limit to an infinite amount of the past. But an 'upper limit' to time directly means there's not an infinite past.
You're assuming your conclusion in setting up your formulation.

What you're saying here is exactly what I'm saying.

You can't say there is infinite time that has passed in the past and also find a place to start looking at it. You can't have any now, not just yesterday, if time stretches infinitely into the past.

 

[ryan]

Your claiming that the equations are all that is necessary is like saying you can understand French but don't know what any of the words mean.

If someone understands the language of physics then they can understand the equation with no other explanation.

If someone understands French they can understand a book written in French with no other explanation.

Those who don't understand either the language of physics or French can't understand physics models or French novels.

I strongly agree with you. There can be a vast amount of complexity given a few simple rules.

One of the most interesting examples of this is demonstrated by Stephen Wolfram here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60P7717-XOQ .

 

[untermensche]

Calculus doesn't describe it. Calculus is a way to make the situation abstract so that sums can be determined.

Yes, but calculus is also the study of rates of change, and it does so in a continuum. If you care to understand my argument, then try to understand exactly what my last post is saying.

Calculus is a method to deal with change.

But the change and calculus are not the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

Your claiming that the equations are all that is necessary is like saying you can understand French but don't know what any of the words mean.

If someone understands the language of physics then they can understand the equation with no other explanation.

If someone understands French they can understand a book written in French with no other explanation.

Those who don't understand either the language of physics or French can't understand physics models or French novels.

Understanding French is knowing what all the words mean. The words are not self-explanatory on their own.

 

[Kharakov]

untermensche: you're modeling the infant's perspective of the infinite: because I began, so must have all others.

That's not my argument.

Yeah, just pointing out that the statements you make accurately model an infant's perspective of the infinite.

The argument is about the concept of infinite time. Meaning time that goes on forever.

Infinite time does not necessarily have a beginning.

Time cannot have gone on forever in the past. The concept makes no sense.

Why would a 8 ft. tall Wookie hang out with a 3 ft. tall Ewok on Endor? It makes no sense! Why am I even talking about an 8 ft. tall Wookie, when the conversation is about time? It makes no sense! Therefore, ladies and gentlemen of the alleged jury, you must vote to acquit my client, time, for the act of always existing. Because it makes no sense!

The only way to avoid this logic is pretend you don't know what the passage of time means and what infinity means.

By pretending within yourself that you don't understand what infinity means, you avoid the logic that indicates that infinite time does not have to have a beginning.

No beginning of time = infinite time has passed.

 

[ryan]

Yes, but calculus is also the study of rates of change, and it does so in a continuum. If you care to understand my argument, then try to understand exactly what my last post is saying.

Calculus is a method to deal with change.

But the change and calculus are not the same thing.

If we assume that we live in a space-time continuum, then we are in the same four dimensions that calculus uses.

 

[George S]

untermensche: you're modeling the infant's perspective of the infinite: because I began, so must have all others.

That's not my argument.

The argument is about the concept of infinite time. Meaning time that goes on forever. It doesn't mean an hour, or any finite amount.

Time cannot have gone on forever in the past. The concept makes no sense.

The only way to avoid this logic is pretend you don't know what the passage of time means and what infinity means.

Okay, define passage of time. (increase of entropy?)

And infinity. (Take one apple. Now reduce that number by zero. The number of times that can be done and still not reach zero is dividing by zero. One kind here.) (there is no last in the sequence (1,2,3,...) but we pretend there is and name it infinity.) (if we add .9 + .09 + .009 ... We never quite reach 1, and we call that infinite sum 1 anyway.)

 

[untermensche]

Calculus is a method to deal with change.

But the change and calculus are not the same thing.

If we assume that we live in a space-time continuum, then we are in the same four dimensions that calculus uses.

No we are not.

The 4 dimensions used in calculus are an abstraction. They are a way to use math to arrive at useable answers.

Just because an answer is useable does not mean it conforms exactly with reality. It only means it conforms enough to be useable.

 

[untermensche]

That's not my argument.

The argument is about the concept of infinite time. Meaning time that goes on forever. It doesn't mean an hour, or any finite amount.

Time cannot have gone on forever in the past. The concept makes no sense.

The only way to avoid this logic is pretend you don't know what the passage of time means and what infinity means.

Okay, define passage of time. (increase of entropy?)

Are you saying that time as we experience it is something different than what time really is?

I'm talking about the passage of time as we experience it. I don't see how we can say that is not really what time is.

It may be other things but what we experience is time also.

So we can conceptually try to extend our experience forever. That is infinite time.

And infinity. (Take one apple. Now reduce that number by zero. The number of times that can be done and still not reach zero is dividing by zero. One kind here.) (there is no last in the sequence (1,2,3,...) but we pretend there is and name it infinity.) (if we add .9 + .09 + .009 ... We never quite reach 1, and we call that infinite sum 1 anyway.)

I have pointed out many times that infinities involving numbers are very different than infinities of real things.

And reducing something like time by zero is to do nothing. And there are no fractions of time to consider. It is not something that can be taken apart.

 

[Juma]

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.

Definition of infinitesimal requires that it shall be less than any value. Thus something with a value (as finite size) can never be infinitesimal, not in any context.

 

[skepticalbip]

If someone understands the language of physics then they can understand the equation with no other explanation.

If someone understands French they can understand a book written in French with no other explanation.

Those who don't understand either the language of physics or French can't understand physics models or French novels.

Understanding French is knowing what all the words mean. The words are not self-explanatory on their own.

No shit!

That is what I said.

If you understand the language of physics then you know what the terms mean.

If you understand French then you know what the French terms mean.

Those who don't have a clue what either are talking about but want to understand have a lot of work to do before they master the language.

 

[untermensche]

Understanding French is knowing what all the words mean. The words are not self-explanatory on their own.

No shit!

That is what I said.

If you understand the language of physics then you know what the terms mean.

If you understand French then you know what the French terms mean.

Those who don't have a clue what either are talking about but want to understand have a lot of work to do before they master the language.

No what you said was the equations speak for themselves.