Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

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?

That wasn't the question. The question was how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbirtary point on an infinite timeline. I have no idea what you mean by "unpassable".

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.

There has been no mention of ending... I think that is the problem you are having in understanding. It seems to be the same problem that Unter- is having and that Zeno had. Both think in terms of ends in infinities which is absurd.

 

[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, by its own definition.

I don't know what you are responding to. I see nothing about "infinite passage" in my post that you linked.

 

[untermensche]

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.

No. The present, by your reasoning, is the now that occurs right after an infinite amount of nows occurs FIRST. To say that the amount of time that has already occurred is infinite means an infinite number of nows must occur BEFORE any now we could observe can occur. In other words we could never observe a now because with infinite time needed to pass first there is always more time that must pass before we can observe one.

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".

I agree now is always arriving. The question is has it always arrived? How is it possible that now arrived without end already?

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"?

Nothing changes. If we say there are an infinite number of configurations of time and matter in the past we still must wait for infinite configurations to occur before any now can occur.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Every now is a different now. Now is not one thing that occurs over and over.

 

[ryan]

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

That wasn't the question. The question was how would you describe the amount of time that had passed at any arbirtary point on an infinite timeline. I have no idea what you me an by "unpassable".

But it wouldn't be arbitrary because we are talking about after an infinite amount of time.

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.

There has been no mention of ending...

The present would be the end of an infinite regress of time.

I think that is the problem you are having in understanding. It seems to be the same problem that Unter- is having and that Zeno had. Both think in terms of ends in infinities which is absurd.

Well there is an end when something approaches a destination by infinitely halving its distance left. This is just the sum of 1/n^2 as n (natural number) goes to infinity. But there is no bound in our case because the subintervals of time, such as hours, are uniform.

Consider a point in time an infinite amount of time before now. Can now ever come for that point in time? In other words, will n ever reach a last number; math proves this to be false. Now would have to be that last number.

 

[Mageth]

I agree now is always arriving. The question is has it always arrived?

You answered your question before you asked it.

Every now is a different now. Now is not one thing that occurs over and over.

I didn't say or even imply that Now is one thing that occurs over and over.

Moreover, read the things you're saying here. They are...confused, or confusing, to say the least ( if not downright contradictory - Now is an "it" that is always arriving, but "every now is a different now"???)

And...

I asked:

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

You answered:

Nothing changes.

Reconsider my question and attempt a meaningful answer.

If we say there are an infinite number of configurations of time and matter in the past we still must wait for infinite configurations to occur before any now can occur.

Nope. Even if there are an infinite number of configurations of time and matter in the past, it is still now, now. Asserting "we must wait for now" is asserting nonsense.

 

[skepticalbip]

NM
this is getting silly.

 

[untermensche]

You answered your question before you asked it.

No. To be always arriving is not the same thing as having always arrived. To be always arriving is a property of time. But if time does not exist that feature also does not exist.

The feature of always arriving means that whenever time exists it has the property of always arriving.

But the question if time has always arrived is a different question. It is a question about the duration of this property of always arriving.

Did this property of always arriving already exist for infinite time?

That is the same contradiction.

If the property of always arriving at a now has already existed for infinite time then that property must be expressed for infinite time before any "now" can occur. There must be an infinite amount of "nows" before the present now, remembering no two "nows" are the same thing.

I didn't say or even imply that Now is one thing that occurs over and over.

This is what you said.

NOW IS ALWAYS OCCURRING.

I guess you also tried to say it loudly so I could hear.

This implies that the same thing is always occurring. What you should say is that now is always changing.

So how is it possible that infinite change occurred before any particular now occurred?

If we say there are an infinite number of configurations of time and matter in the past we still must wait for infinite configurations to occur before any now can occur.

Nope. Even if there are an infinite number of configurations of time and matter in the past, it is still now, now. Asserting "we must wait for now" is asserting nonsense.

I didn't say we must wait for now. I said we must wait for infinite time to pass BEFORE any now could be observed. That is if you are saying infinite time passed before a now you observe.

If we must wait for infinite time to pass before something happens that something will never happen. Even if that something is the observation of a now.

 

[ryan]

NM
this is getting silly.

An unending time that ends is similar to saying that an infinite regress can begin; it's self-contradictory.

 

[George S]

Was there ever a day without a yesterday?

No? Time is infinite in the past.
Yes? Time is finite in the past,

Will there be a day without a tomorrow?
Same.....future.

 

[Juma]

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.

1) the faster something moves in space, the slower its time moves (less amount of their time per your time).

2) in any interval of time there are an infinite of nows.

 

[surreptitious57]

Notions of past and present and future are subjective because they are frames of reference we apply to make temporal sense of the world
we inhabit. But time itself does not require such demarcations. And if it is infinite they would be entirely meaningless. For then time would
have no beginning or middle or end as it would just be time with no frame of reference at all. In a Universe devoid of any matter as I have
already stated there would be nothing by which to subjectively measure its passing anyway

 

[George S]

Exactly.

 

[George S]

Time is only defined by some natural frequency. And frequency implies energy via E = hf. Can't have one without the other. There must be something going on for the first time -- unless there has always been some energy and reality is eternal.

One eternal model is the Carroll-Chen version. There are others.

If there ever was the state of timelessness and spacelessness, but qm applies even "then" then a model of a universe from that initial state is Krauss' universe from nothing. And it matches ours.

 

[untermensche]

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.

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.

1) the faster something moves in space, the slower its time moves (less amount of their time per your time).

But what does slower time mean?

Does it mean more time or does it mean the same time stretched out.

Does the faster person experience more seconds, or do they experience the same amount of seconds that are longer?

If they experience stretched seconds and not more seconds then there is only one now and nobody is moving back in time relative to another person, they are just experiencing longer seconds. That is why time is moving slower for them.

2) in any interval of time there are an infinite of nows.

If you could demonstrate it I would believe it.

- - - Updated - - -

One eternal model is the Carroll-Chen version. There are others.

How would we confirm such a model?

Do you think we have access to information from so-called negative time?

 

[Juma]

Does the faster person experience more seconds, or do they experience the same amount of seconds that are longer?

It is a relative thing:

The person moving relatively faster than you have slower seconds IN YOUR SYSTEM. If you could see his clock it would go slower than yours.

If two ships meet in space then the case is symmetric for both ships: both captains can say that she is at rest and the other ship is moving with high speed.
And both captains can say that the other ships clock go slower than theirs.

Things traveling at max speed, as for example photons, have no seconds at all. Their seconds are infinitely long in our timeframe.

 

[untermensche]

Does the faster person experience more seconds, or do they experience the same amount of seconds that are longer?

It is a relative thing:

The person going faster in space have less seconds per seconds of the person going slower in space.

Things traveling at max speed, as for example photons, have no seconds at all. Their seconds are infinitely long in our timeframe.

Are you saying that "slower time" must mean more seconds in time?

If we say that a second is a specific amount of time that can be relatively experienced then one can experience the amount of time we call a second as we normally do, due to our velocity, or one can experience that same second as lasting longer if you are moving faster.

It is the same amount of time just experienced differently.

So everybody is experiencing the same time, just experiencing it differently. Nobody is moving forward in time and nobody is moving backward. Some are experiencing the same time one way and some, moving faster, are experiencing it another.

 

[Kharakov]

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

Easily. Don't equate passing time with time that has passed.

It is sneaky logic but seems to be unavoidable.

It's easily avoided if one is not more intrigued by clever wordplay than they are by the truth.


Time is easy. We experience duration- a sense of lasting. We have this because events pass, and we abide.

 

[George S]

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?

Time passes for each at the usual rate.

Twin-clock paradox. Synchronize two atomic clocks. Send one to Sydney and back. It shows less ticks.

There are multiple paths from A(t) to A(t'). Some take less distance; some take less duration.

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

Not really. Now is a local phenomenon. There is no such thing as simultaneous. Time runs just a hairs breath different at your head than at your feet because gravity field density affects duration.

How do you know?

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

The trick is to make time eternal in both directions with the start in the middle.

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

1) the faster something moves in space, the slower its time moves (less amount of their time per your time).

But what does slower time mean?

Does it mean more time or does it mean the same time stretched out.

Does the faster person experience more seconds, or do they experience the same amount of seconds that are longer?

If they experience stretched seconds and not more seconds then there is only one now and nobody is moving back in time relative to another person, they are just experiencing longer seconds. That is why time is moving slower for them.

2) in any interval of time there are an infinite of nows.

If you could demonstrate it I would believe it.

- - - Updated - - -

One eternal model is the Carroll-Chen version. There are others.

How would we confirm such a model?

Do you think we have access to information from so-called negative time?

As far as I know, no. The future? Who knows.

But if what we've been calling 1 Planck time represents a compression point where something has to give and as time runs from the middle compression point in both directions. Either view makes gobs of physics sense. At the tiniest of levels the physics is right when we run a movie backwards.

If we could get information we would see a universe running backwards. From an infinite dispersal of unconfined quarks universal contraction forces these to form the last particles, and so on. They would also see a universe contracting to the single Big Bang we share in common. It seems to be at time 1 for both of us. And we each got time 1 and above all wrapped up.

 

[Juma]

Are you saying that "slower time" must mean more seconds in time?

If we say that a second is a specific amount of time that can be relatively experienced then one can experience the amount of time we call a second as we normally do, due to our velocity, or one can experience that same second as lasting longer if you are moving faster.

It is the same amount of time just experienced differently.

So everybody is experiencing the same time, just experiencing it differently. Nobody is moving forward in time and nobody is moving backward. Some are experiencing the same time one way and some, moving faster, are experiencing it another.

Bloody hell. You really dig your head in the sand. You dont really read what I write, do you? And you are totally ignorant on the theory of relativity.

For a over a century it has been a well known fact that time is different for frames of references with different relative speeds.

How about this:

A very fast runner, holding a long pole, runs through tunnel. At rest relative the tinnel, the pole is longer than the tunnel but as we know from theory of relativity, the faster the rods moves, the shorter it gets . So, for an observer at rest relative the tunnel, if the runner runs fast enough the rod will fit inside the tunnel.

But from the view of the runner the opposite will happen: the tunnel will be shorter since it moves relative her. And to her view the rod will never fit.

Hpw can that be?

The solution is that the timings of the events differ for the different observers.

 

[untermensche]

...At the tiniest of levels the physics is right when we run a movie backwards...

Take any moving system and model it and you can run the model backwards by reversing everything.

Make what attracts in one model repel in the other, and so forth.

I don't think it proves anything.