Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

An infinite amount of time would have to pass to get to now from when? Certainly not yesterday, last week, last year, etc. So from when? You seem to be trying to put a starting point on an infinite past, a logical impossibility given the definition of infinity.

Wow. Even you are getting warm.

If infinite time must pass before now can occur then now will never occur.

You clipped the part about any arbitrary point can be chosen along an infinite timeline.

I am an arbitrary point. Before my dad had a twinkle in his eye, I didn't exist. Suddenly I existed and had an infinite past behind me and an infinite future before me.

So, an infinite time between when and now? You are still trying to put a start to infinite time, demonstrating no comprehension of infinities.

 

[untermensche]

Wow. Even you are getting warm.

If infinite time must pass before now can occur then now will never occur.

Right. So what shall we make of negative time? (Hint: see above about Sean Carroll)

As far as I can tell from that model negative time is not the same thing as time.

I am talking about time. I don't have the slightest idea what negative time is.

But if negative time is not time then that model shows that time in the past is finite.

 

[untermensche]

Wow. Even you are getting warm.

If infinite time must pass before now can occur then now will never occur.

You clipped the part about any arbitrary point can be chosen along an infinite timeline.

I am an arbitrary point. Before my dad had a twinkle in his eye, I didn't exist. Suddenly I existed and had an infinite past behind me and an infinite future before me.

So, an infinite time between when and now? You are still trying to put a start to infinite time, demonstrating no comprehension of infinities.

You're getting warmer.

There can be no now if infinite time must pass before "now" occurs.

And I'm not trying to put any start in. There is no start to put in if we say that the past is infinite. There is no start and no now.

The idea is a contradiction. It's ridiculous.

 

[George S]

Although counting to infinity seems impossible, it can be done quite easily. In the mind consider a line of finite length.

______________________________________________________________________

Move a pencil point from one end to the other smoothly. When you get half way, count 1. When you get half way from there count 2, when half way from there count 3, and so on. When you've reached the end you've counted to infinity.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am starting to feel like untermensche is the holdout from 12 Angry Men.

I think more like the bearded guy on the city sidewalk wearing a sandwich board saying, "The end is near". Stop and try to talk to this bearded guy and he will regale you with a long string of nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Although counting to infinity seems impossible, it can be done quite easily. In the mind consider a line of finite length.

______________________________________________________________________

Move a pencil point from one end to the other smoothly. When you get half way, count 1. When you get half way from there count 2, when half way from there count 3, and so on. When you've reached the end you've counted to infinity.

This assumes space can be infinitely divided. But space is not a number.

The world cannot be broken apart infinitely.

 

[ryan]

You clipped the part about any arbitrary point can be chosen along an infinite timeline.

I am an arbitrary point. Before my dad had a twinkle in his eye, I didn't exist. Suddenly I existed and had an infinite past behind me and an infinite future before me.

So, an infinite time between when and now? You are still trying to put a start to infinite time, demonstrating no comprehension of infinities.

You're getting warmer.

There can be no now if infinite time must pass before "now" occurs.

But how can there be instantaneous "blips" and still have succession/causation and quantities of time? I know this isn't your problem, but it might give us a clue as to what the actual answer is.

 

[untermensche]

I am starting to feel like untermensche is the holdout from 12 Angry Men.

If everybody pointed to one part of the argument and said, "see right there, that is where you are wrong and this is why" I would think that something was wrong with the argument.

But that's not what has happened.

The criticisms are all over the place and inconsistent with other criticisms. Many are not even criticisms of the argument.

I am not certain the argument is good because of this but it is evidence there is no one glaring flaw.

 

[Kharakov]

If infinite time must pass before now can occur then now will never occur.

If the time, or the causal chain, is unending (time did not begin, there is no first cause), then time existed infinitely (without end) before now.

 

[ryan]

Although counting to infinity seems impossible, it can be done quite easily. In the mind consider a line of finite length.

______________________________________________________________________

Move a pencil point from one end to the other smoothly. When you get half way, count 1. When you get half way from there count 2, when half way from there count 3, and so on. When you've reached the end you've counted to infinity.

This assumes space can be infinitely divided. But space is not a number.

The world cannot be broken apart infinitely.

Instead of just stating this, you should explain how this argument assumes its conclusion. This argument seems to be saying that if infinities exist, then infinities exist. But I think you're right that the more fundamental problem is if it is even logical to even assume infinities exist.

 

[untermensche]

You're getting warmer.

There can be no now if infinite time must pass before "now" occurs.

But how can there be instantaneous "blips" and still have succession/causation and quantities of time? I know this isn't your problem, but it might give us a clue as to what the actual answer is.

I don't know what an instantaneous blip is.

As far as I know there may be arguments with good logic that show finite time is illogical.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that both infinite time in the past and finite time in the past are illogical.

I do know that the idea of infinite time already having passed in the past is illogical.

 

[Kharakov]

This assumes space can be infinitely divided. But space is not a number.

The world cannot be broken apart infinitely.

Why does all the evidence point toward continuous spacetime? Physical evidence, not numbers. Distant GRBs would be blurred if spacetime was granular (ie- not smooth).

 

[George S]

Right. So what shall we make of negative time? (Hint: see above about Sean Carroll)

As far as I can tell from that model negative time is not the same thing as time.

I am talking about time. I don't have the slightest idea what negative time is.

But if negative time is not time then that model shows that time in the past is finite.

Negative time is time running away from the Big Bang, just as our time runs away from it. Just the opposite direction.

With time running backwards what do we see. Anti-particles. What would the denizens of negative time see? Well, they would put the negative sign on our side of things. They would see (but never see) an infinite universe collapsing into a Big Bang and time running normally from there. We see (but see only with math past the CMBR) a universe collapsing into our Big Bang and time running normally from there.

It works. It is a possibility mathematically. But so is string theory. And Krauss! And others I've never heard of I'm sure. (And Rob Bryanton who attempts to give a meaning to all ten physical dimensions.) there are lots of speculations. Time will tell.

 

[Kharakov]

I do know that the idea of infinite time already having passed in the past is illogical.

I think you're confusing the word "know" with the word "claim".

 

[untermensche]

This assumes space can be infinitely divided. But space is not a number.

The world cannot be broken apart infinitely.

Instead of just stating this, you should explain how this argument assumes its conclusion. This argument seems to be saying that if infinities exist, then infinities exist. But I think you're right that the more fundamental problem is if it is even logical to even assume infinities exist.

I don't assume that this imaginary concept called infinity that was invented not discovered has anything to do with the real world. It is a mathematical concept not a description of anything in the world.

 

[skepticalbip]

There can be no now if infinite time must pass before "now" occurs.

And I'm not trying to put any start in. There is no start to put in if we say that the past is infinite. There is no start and no now.

The idea is a contradiction. It's ridiculous.

Assuming an infinite timeline there is no start but there is a now.

Along an infinite timeline infinite time does pass so there is no problem in assuming an event at some point.

That is unless you are going with Zeno's confused rationalizations.

 

[untermensche]

I do know that the idea of infinite time already having passed in the past is illogical.

I think you're confusing the word "know" with the word "claim".

It is the simplest of simple contradictions.

Infinite time by definition is time that goes on forever, it never passes. So it is a contradiction to say infinite time has already passed in the past. Infinite time never passes.

- - - Updated - - -

There can be no now if infinite time must pass before "now" occurs.

And I'm not trying to put any start in. There is no start to put in if we say that the past is infinite. There is no start and no now.

The idea is a contradiction. It's ridiculous.

Assuming an infinite timeline there is no start but there is a now.

Along an infinite timeline infinite time does pass so there is no problem in assuming an event at some point.

That is unless you are going with Zeno's confused rationalizations.

My argument is that infinite timelines do not exist in the real world. Your argument assumes they do.

 

[untermensche]

This assumes space can be infinitely divided. But space is not a number.

The world cannot be broken apart infinitely.

Why does all the evidence point toward continuous spacetime? Physical evidence, not numbers. Distant GRBs would be blurred if spacetime was granular (ie- not smooth).

Space contains energy. Space can only be divided so many times before that energy is disrupted and space is destroyed.

And time can't be divided at all. It can't be touched.

 

[skepticalbip]

With time running backwards what do we see. Anti-particles.

Just a small correction in terminology, if you don't mind.

Anti-particles don't move backward in time. You are thinking of tachyons. A positron is an anti-particle (an anti-electron). It behaves exactly like an electron except it has a positive charge. Collide it with an electron and both annihilate creating gamma rays. Tachyons only exist faster than light so travel backward in time.

 

[George S]

What is "in" that tiny Big Bang sphere in this model? The most tightly ordered, highest entropy energy I suspect. A perfect yin-yang symbol in 3D. Positive energy all on one side negative all on the other. E=mc². -E in the anti-universe made up of anti-particles moving in anti-time so they appear as particles, and particles moving forward appear as anti-particles. Net of zero.