Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

All we have is logic. And logic says that it is impossible for infinite time to have already passed. A contradiction in terms.

It is illogical to claim that infinite time hasn't passed if time has always passed.

Infinite consciousnesses have emerged over infinite time, each settling into place after others. They don't notice the passage of time until they emerge... dinner time!

 

[skepticalbip]

I meant the end and beginning of everything.

If everything comes down to granularity, then we only experience things as they are, never their ends or beginnings. Each moment in time would just be a new moment; a moment that is an end and a beginning simultaneously.

You're right we have never observed the beginning or end of everything.

So we can't make any conclusions from observation.

All we have is logic. And logic says that it is impossible for infinite time to have already passed. A contradiction in terms.

No. Logic doesn't say that. It is only your belief. That statement is akin to a Bible thumper saying, "Logic says that god created the universe." - And they do say that.

Adding the words, "logic says" does not strengthen your argument, which isn't really an argument but a statement of belief.

 

[Underseer]

[...]

Infinite consciousnesses have emerged over infinite time, each settling into place after others. They don't notice the passage of time until they emerge... dinner time!

 

[Kharakov]

[...]

Infinite consciousnesses have emerged over infinite time, each settling into place after others. They don't notice the passage of time until they emerge... dinner time!

Literally lol. I really don't want to clarify why I wrote the statement, because it would spoil the hilarity of the statement.

 

[surreptitious57]

Time is a temporal dimension and as such is not actually dependent on anything else in order for it to exist and it can therefore exist in theory for all of
infinity. I say in theory because there is no actual frame of reference for testing such a hypothesis in reality though it could be possible to demonstrate
it mathematically. But what is known is what would cause time to stop : that would be any object or body travelling beyond light speed. This is actually impossible because in order for this to happen the object or body in question would have to possess infinite mass which would be greater than that of the Universe. Although the Universe itself is actually expanding at beyond light speed but this does not violate the laws of physics because what happens to it and what happens with in it are not the same thing. There are also massless particles such as tachyons for example which in theory can travel faster than light but because they are massless they too do not violate any of the laws of physics. Furthermore they do not exist infinitely and the laws of physics are not the same anyway at the quantum level as they are at the classical level

 

[untermensche]

Bad math is giving me something?

The uncanny ability to misunderstand the implications of math's relationship to reality.

Yes. That is your problem.

You are religious. You think this imaginary thing humans invented called infinity exists in the real world.

 

[untermensche]

You're right we have never observed the beginning or end of everything.

So we can't make any conclusions from observation.

All we have is logic. And logic says that it is impossible for infinite time to have already passed. A contradiction in terms.

No. Logic doesn't say that. It is only your belief. That statement is akin to a Bible thumper saying, "Logic says that god created the universe." - And they do say that.

Adding the words, "logic says" does not strengthen your argument, which isn't really an argument but a statement of belief.

You write a lot of words but not one that examines the contradiction.

It is very simple.

It is a contradiction to say that infinite time has already passed.

Infinite I realize is only an imaginary invented concept but it is a concept that has a definition. Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end.

You cannot say something that goes on without end has an end, a clear contradiction. If we are talking about time that has already occurred we can't say it goes on without end and then have any now. If any now requires time without end to occur before it occurs then no now will ever occur. Since we have a now we can't say that time without end occurred before the ever moving now occurred. Another clear contradiction.

And none of this leads to or points at or hints at or suggests the existence of imaginary beings called gods. Adding these imaginary creatures to any argument can only be done irrationally.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite I realize is only an imaginary invented concept but it is a concept that has a definition. Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end.

Infinite time means time has always "gone on", and will continue to "go on" without end. You know, like your misunderstanding of infinite time.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. Logic doesn't say that. It is only your belief. That statement is akin to a Bible thumper saying, "Logic says that god created the universe." - And they do say that.

Adding the words, "logic says" does not strengthen your argument, which isn't really an argument but a statement of belief.

You write a lot of words but not one that examines the contradiction.

I have examined what you call "the contradiction" and found it to be only your lack of understanding of the nature of infinities. In fact, I and others have tried to explain to you why there is no contridiction each time you made that same assertion. I and others would not have been able to tell you specifically where your assertion goes astray if we had not examaned your stated belief in this "contradiction".

Other than that, if there were such an obvious contridiction, then there are a lot of cosmologists who should be fired and forced to work at McDonalds cooking burgers for not recognizing it.

It is very simple.

It is a contradiction to say that infinite time has already passed.

Infinite I realize is only an imaginary invented concept but it is a concept that has a definition. Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end.

You cannot say something that goes on without end has an end, a clear contradiction. If we are talking about time that has already occurred we can't say it goes on without end and then have any now. If any now requires time without end to occur before it occurs then no now will ever occur. Since we have a now we can't say that time without end occurred before the ever moving now occurred. Another clear contradiction.

Yes, so you have asserted in almost exactly the same words quiet a few times, maybe dozens. Each time, people have tried to explain your misunderstanding.

And none of this leads to or points at or hints at or suggests the existence of imaginary beings called gods. Adding these imaginary creatures to any argument can only be done irrationally.

I didn't imply that your claiming "logic says" before stating your mistaken understanding pointed to gods. I simply made the statement that people who believe something so strongly that they will not examine their beliefs often claim "logic says" before stating their belief. The religious is but one example.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite I realize is only an imaginary invented concept but it is a concept that has a definition. Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end.

Infinite time means time has always "gone on", and will continue to "go on" without end. You know, like your misunderstanding of infinite time.

You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

Time that has "always gone on" is the same as saying time in the past without end.

You do know what the word "always" means?

 

[untermensche]

You write a lot of words but not one that examines the contradiction.

I have examined what you call "the contradiction" and found it to be only your lack of understanding of the nature of infinities. In fact, I and others have tried to explain to you why there is no contridiction each time you made that same assertion. I and others would not have been able to tell you specifically where your assertion goes astray if we had not examaned your stated belief in this "contradiction".

I agree you have CLAIMED there is no contradiction. Yet you have not demonstrated that claim in the least.

You seem to think that many claims amount to an argument.

Other than that, if there were such an obvious contridiction, then there are a lot of cosmologists who should be fired and forced to work at McDonalds cooking burgers for not recognizing it.

Argument from incredulity.

Yes, so you have asserted in almost exactly the same words quiet a few times, maybe dozens. Each time, people have tried to explain your misunderstanding.

Another claim that is supposed to be an argument.

You do nothing but make worthless unsupported claims. You are an immense waste of time.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite time means time has always "gone on", and will continue to "go on" without end. You know, like your misunderstanding of infinite time.

You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

Time that has "always gone on" is the same as saying time in the past without end.

Finite amounts and specific locations in infinite time:
<--........................................... 10^39 AD.................................-->
<--............................................10^39 BC ................................-->
<--....................................10^39 BC->10^39 AD.........................-->
<--..............................................now.......................................-->
<--..........................................yesterday...................................-->
<--..........................................tomorrow....................................-->
<--.........................................this month...................................-->
<--........................................this decade...................................-->
<--..........................................anytime......................................-->

 

[untermensche]

What do you think that shows beyond time without end having already occurred in the past?

You have an arrow pointing to the past. That mean a past without end. Time that has already occurred without end.

You are not saying something else.

 

[skepticalbip]

You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying.

Time that has "always gone on" is the same as saying time in the past without end.

Finite amounts and specific locations in infinite time:
<--........................................... 10^39 AD.................................-->
<--............................................10^39 BC ................................-->
<--....................................10^39 BC->10^39 AD.........................-->
<--..............................................now.......................................-->
<--..........................................yesterday...................................-->
<--..........................................tomorrow....................................-->
<--.........................................this month...................................-->
<--........................................this decade...................................-->
<--..........................................anytime......................................-->

Just hope he doesn't write a paper proving his idea or we will never have been.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have examined what you call "the contradiction" and found it to be only your lack of understanding of the nature of infinities. In fact, I and others have tried to explain to you why there is no contridiction each time you made that same assertion. I and others would not have been able to tell you specifically where your assertion goes astray if we had not examaned your stated belief in this "contradiction".

I agree you have CLAIMED there is no contradiction. Yet you have not demonstrated that claim in the least.

You seem to think that many claims amount to an argument.

Other than that, if there were such an obvious contridiction, then there are a lot of cosmologists who should be fired and forced to work at McDonalds cooking burgers for not recognizing it.

Argument from incredulity.

Yes, so you have asserted in almost exactly the same words quiet a few times, maybe dozens. Each time, people have tried to explain your misunderstanding.

Another claim that is supposed to be an argument.

You do nothing but make worthless unsupported claims. You are an immense waste of time.

Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of time has already passed before our now. And given the nature of infinities, another infinite amount of time is still ahead.

 

[Kharakov]

xkcd needs to do a comic of this thread, but they never will, because it will never be then, because it isn't even now yet.

 

[untermensche]

Just hope he doesn't write a paper proving his idea or we will never have been.

What kind of paper do you think is necessary?

According to physicists, at least according to Lawrence Krauss, time begins with the big bang. There is no evidence it existed before that.

There is no evidence that an infinite amount of time has already occurred in the past.

And the concept itself is a contradiction.

 

[skepticalbip]

Just hope he doesn't write a paper proving his idea or we will never have been.

What kind of paper do you think is necessary?

According to physicists, at least according to Lawrence Krauss, time begins with the big bang. There is no evidence it existed before that.

There is no evidence that an infinite amount of time has already occurred in the past.

Correct. And there is no evidence that it hasn't. We don't know. However, in either case, the universe would look exactly like it looks now.

And the concept itself is a contradiction.

Your mother must be so proud.

It is hilarious that you think anyone who does not agree with you about this asinine assertion is an idiot, just as you thought anyone was an idiot who didn't agree with you that time could be counted like grains of sand for the many, many pages that you made that "argument".

 

[Kharakov]

According to physicists, at least according to Lawrence Krauss, time begins with the big bang. There is no evidence it existed before that.

Weird, he's quoted as saying:

I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down.

Excerpt from NYTimes review of "A Universe From Nothing":

Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every*thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.”

 

[untermensche]

Weird, he's quoted as saying:

I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down.

Excerpt from NYTimes review of "A Universe From Nothing":

Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every*thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. “I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,” he writes, “or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.”

Here's a whole segment of Krauss talking about time. And I misquoted him. He said time may have begun in the big bang. He sees a start to time as corresponding to known physics.

At about 18:50 he's asked if there is a beginning to time. He also says that time may not have existed before the big bang. He does not assume time in the past is infinite.

Krauss would probably say that my logical argument may be logical but the universe doesn't care about human logic. And that may be true. But the contradiction is still a contradiction.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyRIvMUqUb8[/YOUTUBE]