Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

Imagine an immortal person is born an infinite number of days before today. Would today ever come for him?

Haha... didn't even notice the way Mageth put it. Clever... also have the old way:

Born= started to exist= began. People have said numerous times- if time has a beginning, only a finite amount of time has passed. If time has no beginning (it always existed), an infinite of it has passed:

If time began, there is not an infinite regress.
If time always existed, there is an infinite regress.

Neither of those statements are necessarily true under certain conditions- time loops, etc. In fact, with looping time...

Are you sure untermensche wasn't talking about a Möbius strip?

Or pretending to be one?

 

[ryan]

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

That doesn't follow. An infinite regress is a topological property of a set of points in time; the number of hours before a point is a geometric property. You can put the points in the interval (-infinity, now] into a continuous one-to-one correspondence with the points in the interval (0, now], which means the intervals are topologically identical. So mathematically you can easily fit an infinite regress of time into a bounded number of hours.

Okay, but what about an infinite number of hours?

One might argue that this math has no physical significance -- that just because we can label infinitely many points in time "{...1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1}" doesn't mean there's an infinite chain of physical cause and effect. After all, a physical interaction between two particles takes a certain amount of time. However, if the particles used to be closer together and used to be moving faster than they are now, then an interaction would have taken less time in the past than it does now. And that is in fact the case, since this is an expanding universe. Actually 14 billion years turns out to be plenty of time for a chain of cause and effect containing infinitely many particle interactions. So an infinite regress of time without an infinite number of hours before today is a perfectly viable possibility.

If there are an infinite number of particle interactions in 14 billion years, then aren't there particle interactions during at least one interval of time of any size?

My claim is about uniform intervals of time such as hours, years etc.

 

[ryan]

Haha... didn't even notice the way Mageth put it. Clever... also have the old way:

Born= started to exist= began. People have said numerous times- if time has a beginning, only a finite amount of time has passed. If time has no beginning (it always existed), an infinite of it has passed:

If time began, there is not an infinite regress.
If time always existed, there is an infinite regress.

The problem is that the premise in bold does not make sense.

Here's what I say about your premise in bold. Time moves forward. Today would be a sufficient end to an infinite regress of uniform subintervals of time, but there is no end to infinity.

That is as clear of an argument as I can make.

 

[untermensche]

I've made enough arguments in this thread.

I'm not going to defend what may be worthless arguments from 2006.

It's not worthless- it actually has a bit of solid logic to it. You just happen to be arguing against what you said (although you're approaching the idea from a different angle, which might be why your current statements are incorrect).

It is an argument made before I read Krauss's book.

And in his book he says it is possible for there to be a start to the chain of causality just from empty space.

So it isn't a valid argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not worthless- it actually has a bit of solid logic to it. You just happen to be arguing against what you said (although you're approaching the idea from a different angle, which might be why your current statements are incorrect).

It is an argument made before I read Krauss's book.

And in his book he says it is possible for there to be a start to the chain of causality just from empty space.

So it isn't a valid argument.

Yes, but that is very different than the absolute certainty of a start you have been asserting.

It is possible that there was a start and it is possible that time is infinite (as Krauss makes clear in many quotes). We don't know which.

It is "illogical" to use Krauss as an authority in some statements that you misunderstand then say he is wrong when another of his statements contradict what you want to believe.

 

[untermensche]

Did you read my example about the tunner with a pole in a tunnel? Didnt you understand that?

I don't see how it represents a change in the order of events.

If time stretches out for the observer moving faster then a second is longer for them. So that observer is not experiencing a second in time nobody else is experiencing. They are not experiencing some personal "now". Their seconds, to them, are just longer than the seconds of other observers. But if we recorded that observer's second in time it would appear as a normal second to us in our frame of reference.

No. Events that are simultanious to me does not need to be simultanious to another observer.

Your second is slow.

My second is fast.

It is the same second experienced differently.

 

[untermensche]

It is an argument made before I read Krauss's book.

And in his book he says it is possible for there to be a start to the chain of causality just from empty space.

So it isn't a valid argument.

Yes, but that is very different than the absolute certainty of a start you have been asserting.

It is possible that there was a start and it is possible that time is infinite (as Krauss makes clear in many quotes). We don't know which.

I am only certain of the logic.

And the logic to me is somewhat extraneous because I believe infinity is a human construct that has no existence in reality.

It is absurd we are even considering it could exist in reality. Something that goes on without end? Too religious for my tastes.

To postulate something like this could exist in reality would require extraordinary argument. Not just empty speculation and appeals to the existence of various kinds of infinity in mathematics.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, but that is very different than the absolute certainty of a start you have been asserting.

It is possible that there was a start and it is possible that time is infinite (as Krauss makes clear in many quotes). We don't know which.

I am only certain of the logic.

And the logic to me is somewhat extraneous because I believe infinity is a human construct that has no existence in reality.

Exactly, belief. The fact that we don't know which is reality means that any argument asserting one is real and the other false is argument from ignorance. Either is possible.

It is absurd we are even considering it could exist in reality. Something that goes on without end? Too religious for my tastes.

To postulate something like this could exist in reality would require extraordinary argument. Not just empty speculation and appeals to the existence of various kinds of infinity in mathematics.

That is just a statement of belief.

ETA:
I just thought that your saying that infinite time is "too religious for your taste" is rather ironic. Religious doctrine (at least Christian doctrine) is that, "time had to have had a beginning, ergo: god."

 

[Kharakov]

If time began, there is not an infinite regress.
If time always existed, there is an infinite regress.

The problem is that the premise in bold does not make sense.

It makes sense to me (and others). Although I presented the dichotomy: time began (in the first statement)/ time always existed (in the second), because I was presenting 2 scenarios that are logically possible.

Here's what I say about your premise in bold. Time moves forward.

We always experience states moving from one to another- that's how we perceive the elapse of time.

Today would be a sufficient end to an infinite regress of uniform subintervals of time, but there is no end to infinity.

Today isn't an end.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not worthless- it actually has a bit of solid logic to it. You just happen to be arguing against what you said (although you're approaching the idea from a different angle, which might be why your current statements are incorrect).

It is an argument made before I read Krauss's book.

And in his book he says it is possible for there to be a start to the chain of causality just from empty space.

So it isn't a valid argument.

For one thing, Krauss says he doesn't know whether or not there is an infinite regress.

Another thing, in an interview about "A Universe From Nothing" he says he doesn't know where the principles of QM, which allow "something from nothing", came from. They aren't nothing.

And another thing, even if Krauss did say there was not an infinite regress, it doesn't mean that he is correct. That's like accepting that the Earth is flat because the Pope decreed it.

And if you analyze your 2006 statement, you're going to be hard pressed to find a hole in it. What you said in that 2006 statement is pretty much a given.

 

[ryan]

The problem is that the premise in bold does not make sense.

It makes sense to me (and others). Although I presented the dichotomy: time began (in the first statement)/ time always existed (in the second), because I was presenting 2 scenarios that are logically possible.

Your premise seems illogical. It's like saying, "assume a black object that isn't black ...". We are making the claim that the premise is self-contradictory. We must deal with this below, so I will begin by saying that it essentially means, assume an end of something that doesn't end, then ....

Today would be a sufficient end to an infinite regress of uniform subintervals of time, but there is no end to infinity.

Today isn't an end.

Now this is the absolute crux of my issue.

Why isn't today an end of an infinite number of hours in the past? Just like 17 is the end of an infinite number of integers that lead up to 17 (infinity, 17]. 17 would be the "end" of infinity.

Now can be an end to an infinite number of subintervals of time.

 

[Kharakov]

It makes sense to me (and others). Although I presented the dichotomy: time began (in the first statement)/ time always existed (in the second), because I was presenting 2 scenarios that are logically possible.

Your premise seems illogical. It's like saying, "assume a black object that isn't black ...".

Ok.. you've been saying "something that doesn't end ends today". Not sure where you got the idea that this is what I've been pointing towards.

Today would be a sufficient end to an infinite regress of uniform subintervals of time, but there is no end to infinity.

Today isn't an end.

Why isn't today an end of an infinite number of hours in the past? Just like 17 is the end of an infinite number of integers that lead up to 17 (infinity, 17]. 17 would be the "end" of infinity.

17 is the start of the sequence of integers. 17,16,15.... -infinity.... (notice the .... after infinity- you don't reach -infinity, it is unbounded).

You can measure from now towards a point in the past or the future, but you can't measure infinity. You can infer it.

 

[ryan]

Your premise seems illogical. It's like saying, "assume a black object that isn't black ...".

Ok.. you've been saying "something that doesn't end ends today". Not sure where you got the idea that this is what I've been pointing towards.

You said, "If time always existed, there is an infinite regress". My claim is that [If time always existed, then ...] = [if something that doesn't end ends today, then ...]. If time stopped today, then today would be an impossible end (bound) for an infinite number of subintervals of time that moved forward.

Why isn't today an end of an infinite number of hours in the past? Just like 17 is the end of an infinite number of integers that lead up to 17 (infinity, 17]. 17 would be the "end" of infinity.

17 is the start of the sequence of integers. 17,16,15.... -infinity....

I assumed that we are talking about an infinite regress of time moving forward. So today would have to be the unbounded bound - impossible logically and mathematically.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ok.. you've been saying "something that doesn't end ends today". Not sure where you got the idea that this is what I've been pointing towards.

You said, "If time always existed, there is an infinite regress". My claim is that [If time always existed] = [something that doesn't end ends today]. If time stopped today, then today would be an impossible end (bound) for an infinite number of subintervals of time that moved forward.

Why isn't today an end of an infinite number of hours in the past? Just like 17 is the end of an infinite number of integers that lead up to 17 (infinity, 17]. 17 would be the "end" of infinity.

17 is the start of the sequence of integers. 17,16,15.... -infinity....

I assumed that we are talking about an infinite regress of time moving forward.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Infinite regress means looking back for the cause of a subsequent effect infinitely into the past of the cause of the subsequent effect.

So today would have to be the unbounded bound - impossible logically and mathematically.

Let's assume that we use our current calendar and look back in time toward an infinite past. Certainly you would agree that today (now) is here. 24 hours earlier, it was yesterday, 7 days earlier, it was last week, ....... 13.8 billion years earlier, the event of the big bang was at 13.8 billion BC, A trillion years earlier it was 1,013.8 billion BC. etc. etc. For any date you choose to pick in the past, you can always subtract another 24 hours and give it a date of one day earlier. It will continue on to an infinite (though uncountable) past of infinite days.

Then looking to the future, we can keep adding another 24 hours to each date for another day on into an infinite future.

 

[ryan]

I assumed that we are talking about an infinite regress of time moving forward.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Infinite regress means looking back for the cause of a subsequent effect infinitely into the past of the cause of the subsequent effect.

Okay, I edited it to, "an infinite number of subintervals of time that moved forward". I only wanted to make it clear that direction plays a huge role in this. And by "forward" I mean the direction that time currently goes.

So today would have to be the unbounded bound - impossible logically and mathematically.

Let's assume that we use our current calendar and look back in time toward an infinite past. Certainly you would agree that today (now) is here. 24 hours earlier, it was yesterday, 7 days earlier, it was last week, ....... 13.8 billion years earlier, the event of the big bang was at 13.8 billion BC, A trillion years earlier it was 1,013.8 billion BC. etc. etc. For any date you choose to pick in the past, you can always subtract another 24 hours and give it a date of one day earlier. It will continue on to infinity.

Then looking to the future, we can keep adding another 24 hours to each date for another day on into an infinite future.

Assume time stops today. If there are an infinite number of hours before today, then we are at the front end of an infinite number of hours. This front end can't exist mathematically or logically.

 

[skepticalbip]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Infinite regress means looking back for the cause of a subsequent effect infinitely into the past of the cause of the subsequent effect.

Okay, I edited it to, "an infinite number of subintervals of time that moved forward". I only wanted to make it clear that direction plays a huge role in this. And by "forward" I mean the direction that time currently goes.

So today would have to be the unbounded bound - impossible logically and mathematically.

Let's assume that we use our current calendar and look back in time toward an infinite past. Certainly you would agree that today (now) is here. 24 hours earlier, it was yesterday, 7 days earlier, it was last week, ....... 13.8 billion years earlier, the event of the big bang was at 13.8 billion BC, A trillion years earlier it was 1,013.8 billion BC. etc. etc. For any date you choose to pick in the past, you can always subtract another 24 hours and give it a date of one day earlier. It will continue on to infinity.

Then looking to the future, we can keep adding another 24 hours to each date for another day on into an infinite future.

Assume time stops today. If there are an infinite number of hours before today, then we are at the front end of an infinite number of hours. This front end couldn't exist mathematically or logically.

That is a meaningless statement.

Besides, that wasn't the argument. You and Unter- were arguing that time had to have a beginning because an infinite past would mean that today could never come.

 

[ryan]

Assume time stops today. If there are an infinite number of hours before today, then we are at the front end of an infinite number of hours. This front end couldn't exist mathematically or logically.

That is a meaningless statement.

Besides, that wasn't the argument. You and Unter- were arguing that time had to have a beginning because an infinite past would mean that today could never come.

The wording is tricky here. By "front end", I meant the last or final hour. I call it "the front" instead of the "back end" because I think of "back" as "back in time". In other words, "the tenth hour" of ten hours would be the front of 10 hours - yeah this is f***ing with me.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is a meaningless statement.

Besides, that wasn't the argument. You and Unter- were arguing that time had to have a beginning because an infinite past would mean that today could never come.

The wording is tricky here. By "front end", I meant the last or final hour. I call it "the front" instead of the "back end" because I think of "back" as "back in time". In other words, "the tenth hour" of ten hours would be the front of 10 hours - yeah this is f***ing with me.

Apparently...

However, I fail to see how whatever you are saying has anything to do with the argument by you and Unter- that time had to have a beginning because an infinite past would mean that today could never come.

 

[ryan]

The wording is tricky here. By "front end", I meant the last or final hour. I call it "the front" instead of the "back end" because I think of "back" as "back in time". In other words, "the tenth hour" of ten hours would be the front of 10 hours - yeah this is f***ing with me.

Apparently...

However, I fail to see how whatever you are saying has anything to do with the argument by you and Unter- that time had to have a beginning because an infinite past would mean that today could never come.

Infinite time just like infinite numbers can have one end, namely the beginning. If time stopped today, we would be at the wrong end. We would be at a boundless bound.

 

[Kharakov]

]
My claim is that [If time always existed, then ...] = [if something that doesn't end ends today, then ...].

Ok, that's wrong right there.

[time always existed] does not equate to [time that always exists stops existing today]

]If time stopped today, then today would be an impossible end (bound) for an infinite number of subintervals of time that moved forward.

Time doesn't move. We measure relative displacement in spacetime (1 Earth orbit, 1 Earth rotation, 1 light second, etc.). We can set any point to 0 and measure from there using standard measurements.

Infinity is not a point, however. It is undefined. -Infinity is likewise undefined- it has no bound, there is no specific point to measure from.

I assumed that we are talking about an infinite regress of time moving forward. So today would have to be the unbounded bound - impossible logically and mathematically.

We were talking about the following, from the OP:

... now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

We cannot measure an infinite, but we can measure from now, til a finite point, using standards such as Cesium decay, the speed of light in a vacuum, the rotation of the Earth, the orbital period of the Earth, etc.

And yes, the same logic applies to location in infinite space. Measuring from infinity is undefined.