Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

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.

I've got drunk friends like that. My one buddy, love the dude, but he's a fucking asshole. Always wants to be able to tell you a boring story (although they are occasionally funny), like he never grew out of that little kid stage of needing someone to focus their attention on their thoughts.

Although truthfully, I sort of enjoy untermensche's bullshit. Ambiguously worded statements are fun to pick apart, and with minds like ours, we can see tons of ways the statements could be true or false.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Time as we define it does not run away from the big bang. It starts at the big bang and moves forward.

Backward moving time is not time as we know it. It is something else. Probably imaginary but who knows.

In this model time is finite and negative time is finite. Neither are infinite.

 

[George S]

Whoosh.

In the Carroll-Chen model time from zero to 1 and -1 to zero is cut out and 1 and -1 abutted. Ain't no time zero to worry about. Time running our direction sees time running away from 1 getting bigger. Time running backwards sees time running away from -1 and getting smaller (larger in absolute value). In this model time is infinite in both directions but has a peculiar middle. (Bryanton's 10th dimension)

 

[untermensche]

Although truthfully, I sort of enjoy untermensche's bullshit. Ambiguously worded statements are fun to pick apart, and with minds like ours, we can see tons of ways the statements could be true or false.

When might you start picking things apart?

It's a tiny argument and all it is is pointing out an obvious contradiction.

You don't think it's a contradiction to say time without end has already passed?

- - - Updated - - -

Whoosh.

To buy this argument we have to say that time and negative time are the same thing.

Are they? Please demonstrate since it didn't sail over your head.

 

[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.

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

No. My argument is that we don't know. It is why I point out that you are making a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance in your supposed "logic". Look up the fallacy. Time could have had a beginning or could be infinite. In either case, we would see exactly what we now see.

Other than that your incredulity is not an argument. It is just a statement of belief (not unlike religous "statements of fact"), certainly not established fact.

 

[ryan]

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.

Perhaps you think that I am trying to set you up; I'm not. It does seem to be illogical, at least on the surface, to say that an interval of time passed that would never pass.

The argument against you is that space-time might be continuous. This boils down to saying that if an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist, then an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist. The logical fallacy should undermine the premise and conclusion.

 

[untermensche]

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.

No. My argument is that we don't know. It is why I point out that you are making a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance in your supposed "logic". Look up the fallacy. Time could have had a beginning or could be infinite. In either case, we would see exactly what we now see.

Other than that your incredulity is not an argument. It is just a statement of belief, certainly not established fact.

It's nothing more than pointing out an obvious contradiction.

It's a contradiction to say that infinite time has already passed in the past because infinite time never passes.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Perhaps you think that I am trying to set you up; I'm not. It does seem to be illogical, at least on the surface, to say that an interval of time passed that would never pass.

The argument against you is that space-time might be continuous. This boils down to saying that if an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist, then an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist. The logical fallacy should undermine the premise and conclusion.

What would possibly make you think an infinite amount of anything could exist?

Because we invented the concept of infinity and any invented concept must exist?

 

[George S]

In the Carroll-Chen model time from zero to 1 and -1 to zero is cut out and 1 and -1 abutted. Ain't no time zero to worry about. Time running our direction sees time running away from 1 getting bigger. Time running backwards sees time running away from -1 and getting smaller (larger in absolute value). In this model time is infinite in both directions but has a peculiar middle. (Bryanton's 10th dimension)

after edit

 

[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.

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

No. My argument is that we don't know. It is why I point out that you are making a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance in your supposed "logic". Look up the fallacy. Time could have had a beginning or could be infinite. In either case, we would see exactly what we now see.

Other than that your incredulity is not an argument. It is just a statement of belief, certainly not established fact.

It's nothing more than pointing out an obvious contradiction.

There is no contridiction, only your lack of understanding. "The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine."

It's a contradiction to say that infinite time has already passed in the past because infinite time never passes.

Only in your mind because you don't understand infinities.

 

[ryan]

Perhaps you think that I am trying to set you up; I'm not. It does seem to be illogical, at least on the surface, to say that an interval of time passed that would never pass.

The argument against you is that space-time might be continuous. This boils down to saying that if an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist, then an infinite number of subintervals of time can exist. The logical fallacy should undermine the premise and conclusion.

What would possibly make you think an infinite amount of anything could exist?

Because we invented the concept of infinity and any invented concept must exist?

Math beats it into our heads that infinities are perfectly logical for abstract geometry and are even necessary. It would seem reasonable to assume that the universe might behave like the abstract universe. But the point about infinity made me second guess this.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

No, infinite time = time that always passes, always has passed, and always will pass. Means that every point in time has an infinite amount of time before it, and an infinite amount after it.

 

[untermensche]

Only in your mind because you don't understand infinities.

Neither I nor you know everything about set theory and all the conceptual infinities. They come in many sizes.

But we are not talking about conceptual infinities. We are talking about real infinities.

What the hell do you know about real infinities that I don't?

 

[untermensche]

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.

No, infinite time = time that always passes, always has passed, and always will pass. Means that every point in time has an infinite amount of time before it, and an infinite amount after it.

Saying time has always passed is another way of saying time that has occurred in the past has no end. It is the same concept I'm already using.

If it is true that time stretches into the past without end then time without end must pass before any now can occur.

 

[untermensche]

What would possibly make you think an infinite amount of anything could exist?

Because we invented the concept of infinity and any invented concept must exist?

Math beats it into our heads that infinities are perfectly logical for abstract geometry and are even necessary. It would seem reasonable to assume that the universe might behave like the abstract universe. But the point about infinity made me second guess this.

Math makes use of infinities that is true.

But the question remains. Why would anybody think this imaginary mathematical concept actually has existence in anything besides mathematics?

 

[Kharakov]

You don't think it's a contradiction to say time without end has already passed?

It can be, if you purposefully ignore what everyone is talking about.

The point is that infinite time (time that has always passed, and always will pass), has passed forever before this point and will pass forever after this point. From any point in infinite time, only a finite amount of time will ever pass. From the day you became aware, you will only ever live a finite amount of time, even if you live forever.

 

[Kharakov]

Why would anybody think this imaginary mathematical concept actually has existence in anything besides mathematics?

Why would you think that the imaginary mathematical concept "finiteness" actually has existence in anything besides mathematics?

You need to look at both sides of a statement, look at the way they can be switched around.

The universe cannot have begun out of nothing, so something must have always existed, the implication is that unending existence obviously exists- that is what reality is. Now, we have finites, infinites, and tons of ideas to play with. But any claim that infinites do not exist is totally untrue.

 

[George S]

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.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Quantum/localepr.html

Feynman noted that whether you say you have a particle moving forward in time with negative energy, or its antiparticle moving backward in time with positive energy, is really quite arbitrary at the fundamental level.

 

[skepticalbip]

Only in your mind because you don't understand infinities.

Neither I nor you know everything about set theory and all the conceptual infinities. They come in many sizes.

But we are not talking about conceptual infinities. We are talking about real infinities.

What the hell do you know about real infinities that I don't?

That is an odd question since you apparently know nothing about infinities real or otherwise. If I know one thing about real infinities then I would know infinitely more than you (1/0 = infinity).

Since you seem to be hooked on time and have already stated that time is real then time is a good real infinity that should get no argument. It may be bounded on one end or maybe not but the other end (the future) extends infinitly, which makes it a real infinity.

 

[untermensche]

Why would anybody think this imaginary mathematical concept actually has existence in anything besides mathematics?

Why would you think that the imaginary mathematical concept "finiteness" actually has existence in anything besides mathematics?

Observation.