Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

I am not saying infinite time having already occurred in the past is a contradiction because we are ignorant.

It is a contradiction because two ideas are in contradiction with one another.

It is a contradiction to say that the amount of time that occurred in the past is infinite.

Yes, and time goes forward, and the leading edge of time is NOW. We are, of course, at NOW. In 10 minutes, we will be at NOW. It will always be NOW even if there was no beginning to time.

How does the present now arrive if infinite "nows" must occur first?

Why are you trying to go backwards? Time goes forwards.

The reason I am looking at the past is because that is the topic of this thread. Specifically this illogical idea of infinite time having already occurred in the past.

You are confusing yourself by trying to look backwards in time for a beginning. Time has an "end" or terminus at its leading edge, that we refer to as NOW. This is true whether or not there is a terminus in the other direction.

Every "now" is a different "now" from the last. Looking at the past is nothing more that looking at the different "nows" that have already occurred. And it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of "nows" that have occurred before this "now". To say so makes no sense.

 

[surreptitious57]

At this present point in time it is not known what happened before the Big Bang or even if there was a before since science has no testable hypothesis with which to demonstrate this. The natural default position therefore is one of neutrality on this particular issue. Maybe at some point in the future the answer will be discovered. But for now this is just one of many unanswerable questions in physics pertaining to the Universe. But what is known is that time as a temporal dimension requires nothing else to exist since it is not fundamentally physical. That is to say it has no property or dimension and so does not interact with other phenomena in the standard physical way. The definition of time is the passing of an event or the distance between events but this belies the fact that events have to exist in order for time to. It could just as easily exist without events but then there would be no frame of reference by which to measure it. What is also known is that it cannot stop. Because the only way that could happen is if an object or body could travel beyond light speed. Discounting the Universe which is expanding beyond light speed there is nothing of property or dimension at the classical level that can do this but the Universe can do that because it does not violate the laws of physics. A consequence of something travelling beyond light speed would be a Universe of infinite mass which is a physical impossibility so for that reason too it cannot happen

Regarding infinity : one could argue that physical infinity is an oxymoron and it can only be found in hypothetical models in mathematics. But this does not actually disprove such a hypothesis as physical infinity does actually exist in the form of black hole singularities that are infinite masses condensed into zero volume. So time could very easily be infinite or just as easily be finite. But since that question cannot currently be answered it would be both unwise and unscientific to suggest either / or until there is evidence to support whichever hypothesis

 

[ryan]

Visualize an infinite timeline. Now select any point on that timeline. Time will have existed infinitely into the past and extends infinitely into the future from that point. Now, how many hours have passed along that timeline from the past to your point? Obviously an infinite number of hours.

But you are asking for the infinite timeline to exist already. This presupposes the logical possibility of an infinite timeline; it is circular reasoning.

Given an infinite time (the infinite timeline) ...

You are doing the same thing here. You are literally presupposing what you argue exists; given X, then X. The question about whether or not an infinite timeline is logically possible should come before we see its implications.

 

[ryan]

Regarding infinity : one could argue that physical infinity is an oxymoron and it can only be found in hypothetical models in mathematics. But this does not actually disprove such a hypothesis as physical infinity does actually exist in the form of black hole singularities that are infinite masses condensed into zero volume. So time could very easily be infinite or just as easily be finite. But since that question cannot currently be answered it would be both unwise and unscientific to suggest either / or until there is evidence to support whichever hypothesis

Masses of black holes are finite; their densities are infinite.

 

[Mageth]

No we don't. You assert it.

I demonstrate it.

No, you don't.

If infinite time must occur before we experience some moment in time then we will never experience that moment in time.

"NOW" is always being experienced regardless of what went on before, unter.

Please explain to me how the time that occurred before yesterday had no end. And do it without assuming it.

What you appear to mean is "had no beginning". Maybe it did, maybe it did not, maybe it's pure nonsense to even discuss the topic. Again, we do not know. You are asserting that you do know. But you don't know.

In either case, time does have an end. It's called "yesterday" now, but it was called "now" yesterday.

Again, you're confusing yourself by trying to go backwards to a beginning. Whether or not there's a beginning to time, there is a "now".

If you say "I don't know" then you admit the logic is sound.

Bullshit. Your logic is sophomoric.

 

[Juma]

Every "now" is a different "now" from the last. Looking at the past is nothing more that looking at the different "nows" that have already occurred.

There are no "nows". There are event horizons. And event horizons are relative to the observer. What is in the past for one observer can be in the future of another.

And it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of "nows" that have occurred before this "now".

How do you know?

 

[skepticalbip]

But you are asking for the infinite timeline to exist already. This presupposes the logical possibility of an infinite timeline; it is circular reasoning.

Given an infinite time (the infinite timeline) ...

You are doing the same thing here. You are literally presupposing what you argue exists; given X, then X. The question about whether or not an infinite timeline is logically possible should come before we see its implications.

No. I am saying that either time had a start or is infinite. I am examining one of the two possiblities. No presupposition. IF the timeline extends from our now infinitely from the past, that is the case being examined. IF there is infinite time then an infinite amount of time has already passed prior to our now.

The other case is assuming that time had a beginning. In this assumption then the timeline does not extend infinitely into the past. This is the case that Unter- is making in arguing that infinite time could not preceed our now. Unter- can't seem to grasp that all his argument is presupposing a start to time somewhere.

IF time did have a beginning then an infinite amount of time could not have preceeded our now.

IF time is infinite then an infinite amount of time did pass before our now.

This is a major question that cosmologists consider. The contridiction that Unter- finds is only his confusion. I have never seen that any cosmologist saw such a contridiction and such questions are their life's work.

 

[Mageth]

Yes, and time goes forward, and the leading edge of time is NOW. We are, of course, at NOW. In 10 minutes, we will be at NOW. It will always be NOW even if there was no beginning to time.

How does the present now arrive if infinite "nows" must occur first?

Unter, think about what you just said. REAL hard. Maybe, just maybe, it'll finally sink in.

Every "now" is a different "now" from the last. Looking at the past is nothing more that looking at the different "nows" that have already occurred.

There is only one "now". It's the leading edge, the terminus, of time that we experience.

And it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of "nows" that have occurred before this "now". To say so makes no sense.

It is NOW now (or now NOW?) whether or not time had a beginning.

 

[surreptitious57]

The notions of yesterday and tomorrow in time are entirely subjective because it is dependent on the fact that the planet we inhabit rotates on its axis every twenty four hours. But this is of course completely arbitrary. If you inhabited a planet whose orbit took longer than the entirety of your physical existence then the notions of yesterday and tomorrow would be completely academic. So there is a difference between the subjective demarcations of time and the objective fact of its existence. We think of time as being divisible but it is not known to be and so should be regarded as being seamless unless evidence suggests otherwise. A Planck unit which is the smallest divisible measurement of a segment of time is not physically disconnected from other Planck units of time. We only split it up into its constituent parts for reasons of practicality. But that does not mean that time actually is like that While it can measure an ageing process that does not mean that time itself ages. It is therefore important to be aware of the subtle difference between these two phenomena. In a Universe devoid of all matter where only space existed there would still be time even if its passing could not be measured because of zero frames of reference

 

[ryan]

But you are asking for the infinite timeline to exist already. This presupposes the logical possibility of an infinite timeline; it is circular reasoning.

You are doing the same thing here. You are literally presupposing what you argue exists; given X, then X. The question about whether or not an infinite timeline is logically possible should come before we see its implications.

No. I am saying that either time had a start or is infinite. I am examining one of the two possiblities. No presupposition. IF the timeline extends from our now infinitely from the past, that is the case being examined. IF there is infinite time then an infinite amount of time has already passed prior to our now.

The other case is assuming that time had a beginning. In this assumption then the timeline does not extend infinitely into the past. This is the case that Unter- is making in arguing that infinite time could not preceed our now. Unter- can't seem to grasp that all his argument is assuming a start to time somewhere. IF time did have a beginning then an infinite amount of time could not have preceeded our now.

The question about whether or not an infinite timeline even makes sense is the fundamental issue here.

Let's call, "infinite regress of time" statement A. Untermensche and I are concerned with a fundamental problem about statement A. You and others keep saying that if statement A, then .... There is actually nothing wrong with your logic when doing this even if an infinite amount of time isn't possible, but it does not directly consider the more fundamental issue that your logic builds on.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. I am saying that either time had a start or is infinite. I am examining one of the two possiblities. No presupposition. IF the timeline extends from our now infinitely from the past, that is the case being examined. IF there is infinite time then an infinite amount of time has already passed prior to our now.

The other case is assuming that time had a beginning. In this assumption then the timeline does not extend infinitely into the past. This is the case that Unter- is making in arguing that infinite time could not preceed our now. Unter- can't seem to grasp that all his argument is assuming a start to time somewhere. IF time did have a beginning then an infinite amount of time could not have preceeded our now.

The question about whether or not an infinite timeline even makes sense is the fundamental issue here.

Let's call, "infinite regress of time" statement A. Untermensche and I are concerned with a fundamental problem about statement A. You and others keep saying that if statement A, then .... There is actually nothing wrong with your logic when doing this even if an infinite amount of time isn't possible, but it does not directly consider the more fundamental issue that your logic builds on.

But there is nothing that says that an infinite timeline isn't possible. Whether time begin or is infinite is a question studied by cosmologists and they, as yet, have no answer... either is possible. It could, and has been, argued that the idea of time having a beginning is absurd.

The fact is that we don't know.

 

[untermensche]

How does the present now arrive if infinite "nows" must occur first?

Unter, think about what you just said. REAL hard. Maybe, just maybe, it'll finally sink in.

It is a question for you to answer not avoid like this.

There is only one "now". It's the leading edge, the terminus, of time that we experience.

Each now is associated with a specific arrangement of matter and energy. Each now is different.

 

[ryan]

The question about whether or not an infinite timeline even makes sense is the fundamental issue here.

Let's call, "infinite regress of time" statement A. Untermensche and I are concerned with a fundamental problem about statement A. You and others keep saying that if statement A, then .... There is actually nothing wrong with your logic when doing this even if an infinite amount of time isn't possible, but it does not directly consider the more fundamental issue that your logic builds on.

But there is nothing that says that an infinite timeline isn't possible. Whether time begin or is infinite is a question studied by cosmologists and they, as yet, have no answer... either is possible. It could, and has been, argued that the idea of time having a beginning is absurd.

The fact is that we don't know.

The term "infinite passage" doesn't even make sense to begin with. It's like saying "a 1 meter long 3 meter cubic meter (assuming a 3 dimensional space). Infinite time does not pass by, by its own definition.

 

[skepticalbip]

But there is nothing that says that an infinite timeline isn't possible. Whether time begin or is infinite is a question studied by cosmologists and they, as yet, have no answer... either is possible. It could, and has been, argued that the idea of time having a beginning is absurd.

The fact is that we don't know.

The term "infinite passage" doesn't even make sense to begin with. It's like saying "a 1 meter long 3 meter cubic meter (assuming a 3 dimensional space). Infinite time does not pass by its own definition.

It may be awkward language but trying to discuss anything so foreign to our common, everyday experience such as infinities is awkward. Surely you would say that time passes (in common speech) and surely you would say that time passes on a timeline (in common speech). So, since time passes, how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbitrary point along on an infinite timeline?

 

[untermensche]

There are no "nows". There are event horizons. And event horizons are relative to the observer. What is in the past for one observer can be in the future of another.

The question is; when one observer is moving faster than another and for them time is moving slower, is a different amount of time passing, or is the same amount of time passing differently?

If it is the same amount of time passing differently then there is only one now.

And it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of "nows" that have occurred before this "now".

How do you know?

If an infinite amount of "nows" must occur before any 'now' can occur, how does that 'now' occur?

To answer you must assume "nows" exist. If they don't that is another matter.

 

[ryan]

The term "infinite passage" doesn't even make sense to begin with. It's like saying "a 1 meter long 3 meter cubic meter (assuming a 3 dimensional space). Infinite time does not pass by its own definition.

It may be awkward language but trying to discuss anything so foreign to our common, everyday experience such as infinities is awkward. Surely you would say that time passes (in common speech) and surely you would say that time passes on a timeline (in common speech). So, since time passes, how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbitrary point along on an infinite timeline?

But your question seems to be self-contradictory. How can an unpassable amount of time (infinite time) pass?

Wouldn't it be fair to analogise your question to this: can there be an end to an unending length??

It is sneaky logic but seems to be unavoidable.

 

[Mageth]

Unter, think about what you just said. REAL hard. Maybe, just maybe, it'll finally sink in.

It is a question for you to answer not avoid like this.

I'm not avoiding anything. You said 'How does the present now arrive if infinite "nows" must occur first?' Assuming the notion of granular time with discrete "nows" that you imply, and ignoring the nonsense wording of "the present now arriving" for now, the "present now" would of course just be a particular one of those "infinite nows" that you mention.

Moreover, "now" is always arriving because time passes, and "now" is the leading edge of time. This is true whether or not time has a "beginning".

And you're still mistakenly trying to project backwards in time, looking for a "beginning", and asserting that because you can't find a beginning in infinite time by looking backwards that infinite time is impossible. That's your fundamental error. Time goes forward, and there is only one "now". This is true whether or not time is infinite.

There is only one "now". It's the leading edge, the terminus, of time that we experience.

Each now is associated with a specific arrangement of matter and energy. Each now is different.

So, what are the implications of this if one assumes the notion that there was once a first "now"?

 

[untermensche]

It may be awkward language but trying to discuss anything so foreign to our common, everyday experience such as infinities is awkward. Surely you would say that time passes (in common speech) and surely you would say that time passes on a timeline (in common speech). So, since time passes, how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbitrary point along on an infinite timeline?

That is pretending the line is infinite. No infinite line can be drawn or even imagined.

So when we are pretending to be dealing with infinity we can put a point on a finite line with an arrow pointing to the past and pretend we have a now.

But if we were to logically look at the situation we would realize that putting a point on the line is only make believe, a convenience. It is proof of nothing. The situation is not a finite line with an arrow on it. The situation is the passage of infinite time. And if infinite time must pass before a now can occur then that now will never occur.

 

[Mageth]

It may be awkward language but trying to discuss anything so foreign to our common, everyday experience such as infinities is awkward. Surely you would say that time passes (in common speech) and surely you would say that time passes on a timeline (in common speech). So, since time passes, how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbitrary point along on an infinite timeline?

But your question seems to be self-contradictory. How can an unpassable amount of time (infinite time) pass?

Why are you asserting "unpassable" in your question? Note again that it is NOW. Time has passed before now. This is true whether or not time can be said to have a "beginning." (You're making the mistake of looking backwards at the problem as well).

Wouldn't it be fair to analogise your question to this: can there be an end to an unending length??

Assuming infinite time going forwards (which time tends to do, eh?) then of course there is an end. It's called NOW. (Again, you're making the mistake of assuming that because you can't go backwards and reach a beginning on an infinite timeline, that there can't be an end on this end. That's, well, wrong).

It is sneaky logic but seems to be unavoidable.

No, your logic is flawed.

 

[Mageth]

It may be awkward language but trying to discuss anything so foreign to our common, everyday experience such as infinities is awkward. Surely you would say that time passes (in common speech) and surely you would say that time passes on a timeline (in common speech). So, since time passes, how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbitrary point along on an infinite timeline?

That is pretending the line is infinite. No infinite line can be drawn or even imagined.

So when we are pretending to be dealing with infinity we can put a point on a finite line with an arrow pointing to the past and pretend we have a now.

But if we were to logically look at the situation we would realize that putting a point on the line is only make believe, a convenience. It is proof of nothing. The situation is not a finite line with an arrow on it. The situation is the passage of infinite time. And if infinite time must pass before a now can occur then that now will never occur.

IF infinite time is passing, then the leading edge of that time is now. NOW IS ALWAYS OCCURRING.

This is, of course, also true if time is finite in the past.