Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

Is Kharakov switching zeros? Now this is the clearest case of "changing the goalposts" that I have ever seen.

Nope. He is just parsing your sentence.

Attempting to divide by zero. Attempting.

here:

It's only an "end of infinity" if there is infinite time leading up until today. Today could be the end of time; we would be at the end of infinity.

( 0 to infinity in + direction )
-1 * (0 to infinity in + direction) = -infinity to 0 in - direction = 0 to -infinity <-- reflection

(0 to infinity in + direction) - infinity = -infinity to indeterminate form in + direction = - infinity to Xrfajo2!$@ in the positive direction.


The reflection is Kosher. infinity - infinity is not. The reflection implies a different direction to time. The indeterminate form.. well, it's indeterminate for a reason.

 

[ryan]

Nope. He is just parsing your sentence.

Attempting to divide by zero. Attempting.

here:

It's only an "end of infinity" if there is infinite time leading up until today. Today could be the end of time; we would be at the end of infinity.

( 0 to infinity in + direction )
-1 * (0 to infinity in + direction) = -infinity to 0 in - direction = 0 to -infinity <-- reflection

(0 to infinity in + direction) - infinity = -infinity to indeterminate form in + direction = - infinity to Xrfajo2!$@ in the positive direction.


The reflection is Kosher. infinity - infinity is not. The reflection implies a different direction to time. The indeterminate form.. well, it's indeterminate for a reason.

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Now you are just playing games.

Well if I am, then I have been playing them for days.

But I'll play along. Yes, if time ended today then we would be at the end of an infinite past, but the "right end" - the end where we started counting the days back in time from our zero. Time would still have extended infinitely into the past. Although we would no longer know or care.

It would be the wrong end - the impossible end - because of the direction of time. If time does not have a direction, then I don't know if the argument holds.

Well just bedamned. And here I thought you had finally understood something about the subject.

 

[Kharakov]

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

Time always existing implies the eternal existence of time. This means time extends backwards from now infinitely, and forwards from now infinitely.

(0 to infinity) reflected is (0 to -infinity)

The preceding can be replaced by a variable: (x to infinity) reflected is (-x to -infinity). x can be any point in time.

(0 to infinity) cannot be shifted by -infinity. The shift results in (-infinity to indeterminate form). Same goes for (x to infinity).


You've been doing the shift by -infinity, rather than the reflection.

 

[ryan]

Well if I am, then I have been playing them for days.

But I'll play along. Yes, if time ended today then we would be at the end of an infinite past, but the "right end" - the end where we started counting the days back in time from our zero. Time would still have extended infinitely into the past. Although we would no longer know or care.

It would be the wrong end - the impossible end - because of the direction of time. If time does not have a direction, then I don't know if the argument holds.

Well just bedamned. And here I thought you had finally understood something about the subject.

I am starting to wonder if it's the zero that is making things complicated. Let's use 5 instead of zero as the last day on Earth. Or just to really make things clear, let 1', 2', 3', 4' ... be the negatives, so that we don't get sidetracked with negative anything. If it isn't completely obvious why this change has no effect on my side of the argument, then you are still missing the point.

- - - Updated - - -

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

Time always existing implies the eternal existence of time. This means time extends backwards from now infinitely, and forwards from now infinitely.

(0 to infinity) reflected is (-infinity to 0)

The preceding can be replaced by a variable: (x to infinity) reflected is (-infinity to x). x can be any point in time.

(0 to infinity) cannot be shifted by -infinity. The shift results in (-infinity to indeterminate form). Same goes for (x to infinity).


You've been doing the shift by -infinity, rather than the reflection.

I was afraid of this. Please see my last post to skepticalbip.

 

[Kharakov]

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

Time always existing implies the eternal existence of time. This means time extends backwards from now infinitely, and forwards from now infinitely.

(0 to infinity) reflected is (0 to -infinity)

The preceding can be replaced by a variable: (x to infinity) reflected is (-x to -infinity). x can be any point in time.

(0 to infinity) cannot be shifted by -infinity. The shift results in (-infinity to indeterminate form). Same goes for (x to infinity).

You've been doing the shift by -infinity, rather than the reflection.

I was afraid of this. Please see my last post to skepticalbip.

Yeah. Time's direction has nothing to do with measurement of time from now! We measure backwards from now, or forwards from now.

Either way, your idea that (0 to infinity) equates to (-infinity to 0) is completely, and utterly wrong. One can reflect (0 to infinity) to get (0 to -infinity).

 

[surreptitious57]

Infinity does not have to be open ended at both ends in order for it to be so. For example the infinity of all positive integers begins with two and the extends for infinity in one direction. So it is possible for time to begin today and to be infinite in the future though mathematical infinity and actual
infinity are not the same thing. In mathematics it is also possible for infinity to exist between two finite points. Such as the infinity of all decimals
between one and two for example

The so called arrow of time is based on our subjective interpretation with regard to how it affects us. But if time is uniform and absolute then
the notion of an arrow is entirely academic. So the effect that a dimension has on physical matter is not automatically a property of it itself

 

[Kharakov]

The so called arrow of time is based on our subjective interpretation with regard to how it affects us. But if time is uniform and absolute then the notion of an arrow is entirely academic.

The arrow of time is pointing towards us from the past, and away from us into the future, so it is reflected about now. Was fun figuring out what the problem was though.

Hey, you don't gotta hit enter at the end of a line (it wraps). It will make your posts look
nicer. What happens is we all have different
sized browser windows.. and if ours aren't exactly matched to yours, and you hit enter
it results in format errors.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well if I am, then I have been playing them for days.

But I'll play along. Yes, if time ended today then we would be at the end of an infinite past, but the "right end" - the end where we started counting the days back in time from our zero. Time would still have extended infinitely into the past. Although we would no longer know or care.

It would be the wrong end - the impossible end - because of the direction of time. If time does not have a direction, then I don't know if the argument holds.

Well just bedamned. And here I thought you had finally understood something about the subject.

I am starting to wonder if it's the zero that is making things complicated. Let's use 5 instead of zero as the last day on Earth. Or just to really make things clear, let 1', 2', 3', 4' ... be the negatives, so that we don't get sidetracked with negative anything. If it isn't completely obvious why this change has no effect on my side of the argument, then you are still missing the point.

You could be having problems with zero but I see a much more fundamental misunderstanding of time and how we experience it.

Assuming that relativity is correct, time is one of the dimensions of spacetime and no different than the three spacial dimensions except that we only have freedom of movement in one direction along the dimension of time and freedom of movement in two directions in the spacial dimensions. These dimensions simply are and it is us moving along them. So it is us experiencing our movement along the time dimension, not time flowing past us. It extends infinitely from the past to the future. We can not stop our movement along the time dimension but we can slow our rate by increasing our rate of movement along one of the spacial dimensions.

Your ending time is like saying that we come to the end of one of the spacial dimensions and can go no further. The other end still would extend to infinity in the direction that we came from (and we would be on "the right end"). Time is the same. Coming to an end of time would still mean that it still extended to infinity in the direction we came from, the past (and we would be on "the right end").

ETA:
Maybe it would be helpful if you explained what you think time is. It's difficult to discuss time if we have different ideas of what we are talking about.

 

[ryan]

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

Time always existing implies the eternal existence of time. This means time extends backwards from now infinitely, and forwards from now infinitely.

(0 to infinity) reflected is (0 to -infinity)

The preceding can be replaced by a variable: (x to infinity) reflected is (-x to -infinity). x can be any point in time.

(0 to infinity) cannot be shifted by -infinity. The shift results in (-infinity to indeterminate form). Same goes for (x to infinity).

You've been doing the shift by -infinity, rather than the reflection.

I was afraid of this. Please see my last post to skepticalbip.

Yeah. Time's direction has nothing to do with measurement of time from now! We measure backwards from now, or forwards from now.

Yes, yesterday is the first count from now, but it's the last day in a timeline that moved towards today.

Either way, your idea that (0 to infinity) equates to (-infinity to 0) is completely, and utterly wrong. One can reflect (0 to infinity) to get (0 to -infinity).

It is your argument that implies that an infinite regress of time could end today, if time ended today.

 

[ryan]

Well if I am, then I have been playing them for days.

But I'll play along. Yes, if time ended today then we would be at the end of an infinite past, but the "right end" - the end where we started counting the days back in time from our zero. Time would still have extended infinitely into the past. Although we would no longer know or care.

It would be the wrong end - the impossible end - because of the direction of time. If time does not have a direction, then I don't know if the argument holds.

Well just bedamned. And here I thought you had finally understood something about the subject.

I am starting to wonder if it's the zero that is making things complicated. Let's use 5 instead of zero as the last day on Earth. Or just to really make things clear, let 1', 2', 3', 4' ... be the negatives, so that we don't get sidetracked with negative anything. If it isn't completely obvious why this change has no effect on my side of the argument, then you are still missing the point.

You could be having problems with zero but I see a much more fundamental misunderstanding of time and how we experience it.

Let me pretend to be Feynman and say that those who think they understand time don't understand it.

Assuming that relativity is correct, time is one of the dimensions of spacetime and no different than the three spacial dimensions except that we only have freedom of movement in one direction along the dimension of time and freedom of movement in two directions in the spacial dimensions. These dimensions simply are and it is us moving along them. So it is us experiencing our movement along the time dimension, not time flowing past us. It extends infinitely from the past to the future. We can not stop our movement along the time dimension but we can slow our rate by increasing our rate of movement along one of the spacial dimensions.

Not that we know it's possible, special and general relativity allows us to move both ways in time. We may be able to weave through -1s, -2s, -3s ...

Your ending time is like saying that we come to the end of one of the spacial dimensions and can go no further. The other end still would extend to infinity in the direction that we came from (and we would be on "the right end"). Time is the same. Coming to an end of time would still mean that it still extended to infinity in the direction we came from, the past (and we would be on "the right end").

For some reason, the physicists that be claim that time could have begun at the Big Bang and could theoretically end. So, we can only trust that they are accurate.

ETA:
Maybe it would be helpful if you explained what you think time is. It's difficult to discuss time if we have different ideas of what we are talking about.

I guess I have a typical notion of time. I am a frame of reference that permeates through a 3 dimensional "slideshow" of structures.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your ending time is like saying that we come to the end of one of the spacial dimensions and can go no further. The other end still would extend to infinity in the direction that we came from (and we would be on "the right end"). Time is the same. Coming to an end of time would still mean that it still extended to infinity in the direction we came from, the past (and we would be on "the right end").

For some reason, the physicists that be claim that time could have begun at the Big Bang and could theoretically end. So, we can only trust that they are accurate.

You would be damned hard pressed to find any cosmologists who would state such a thing with any certainty. They speak with more certainty about infinite time i.e. M theory's Brane cosmology, etc. etc. Also the "Big crunch" ending time is pretty much dead with the finding that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. Fifty or sixty years ago your claim could have been truer.

Though I agree with Feynman, that is the reason for the qualification, "Assuming that relativity is correct".

 

[untermensche]

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

Lets look at the two events
A) The leading end of the pole leaves the tunnel
B) the trailing end enters the tunnel.

For the runner A happens before B.
For the observer at rest B happens before A.

Is the size of a pole an order of events?

Yes longer things appear differently than shorter things. Longer things appear differently passing through tunnels. Their fronts exist before their backs enter.

A change of appearance is not a change in the order of events. It is a change in the appearance of events.

When you talk about changes in the order of events you have to talk about a change in the same event. A long pole moving through a tunnel is not the same event as a short pole moving through. Even if it is the same pole.

 

[Kharakov]

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about or how this relates to my argument.

Time always existing implies the eternal existence of time. This means time extends backwards from now infinitely, and forwards from now infinitely.

(0 to infinity) reflected is (0 to -infinity)

The preceding can be replaced by a variable: (x to infinity) reflected is (-x to -infinity). x can be any point in time.

(0 to infinity) cannot be shifted by -infinity. The shift results in (-infinity to indeterminate form). Same goes for (x to infinity).

You've been doing the shift by -infinity, rather than the reflection.

I was afraid of this. Please see my last post to skepticalbip.

Yeah. Time's direction has nothing to do with measurement of time from now! We measure backwards from now, or forwards from now.

Yes, yesterday is the first count from now, but it's the last day in a timeline that moved towards today.

Well, remember, we can measure towards infinity and get a well defined result, but measuring from infinity does not give us a well defined result.

And yeah, assuming time does not have an absolute beginning, an infinite amount of time passed before today, and will pass after today.

Check out this number line:

....+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1...

By picking an arbitrary inflection point (a zero point), anywhere on the infinite number line, one gets:

....-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...

Do you think that (0,0) on an infinite plane represents anything other than where we decided to measure from?

Either way, your idea that (0 to infinity) equates to (-infinity to 0) is completely, and utterly wrong. One can reflect (0 to infinity) to get (0 to -infinity).

It is your argument that implies that an infinite regress of time could end today, if time ended today.

No, infinite regress starts from today, it doesn't "end" today. You're equivocating "end" again, or maybe, like I did in the past, you're having problems with the word regress (and it might be due to a bit of ambiguity in the relation to the title of this thread to the OP).

 

[Kharakov]

You would be damned hard pressed to find any cosmologists who would state such a thing with any certainty. They speak with more certainty about infinite time i.e. M theory's Brane cosmology, etc. etc. Also the "Big crunch" ending time is pretty much dead with the finding that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. Fifty or sixty years ago your claim could have been truer.

Well.. if old wrong opinions become truer towards the past, about 500 years ago, the Ptolemaic system of motion was truer.

 

[skepticalbip]

You would be damned hard pressed to find any cosmologists who would state such a thing with any certainty. They speak with more certainty about infinite time i.e. M theory's Brane cosmology, etc. etc. Also the "Big crunch" ending time is pretty much dead with the finding that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing. Fifty or sixty years ago your claim could have been truer.

Well.. if old wrong opinions become truer towards the past, about 500 years ago, the Ptolemaic system of motion was truer.

You are right. But the statement that I was referring to as "truer" is his, "the physicists that be claim that time could have begun at the Big Bang and could theoretically end." Fifty years ago there were probably more physicist that would claim that.

But I think that I have finally figured out what his argument is and, if I'm right, all this discussion of how we measure time from our NOW is just a derail. The crux of his argument seems to be starting with an assumption that time has a beginning and there is only a possibility of the past becoming infinite if we ever reach an infinite future. Of course, this would be riddled with fallacies. The definition of an infinite past is that there is no beginning to time so the argument would have to assume as true the opposite of what is meant by infinity and is what he is trying to argue to be true.

ETA:
I just re-read that and realized that the wording is awfully awkward. Hope you can make sense of it.

 

[Kharakov]

Well.. if old wrong opinions become truer towards the past, about 500 years ago, the Ptolemaic system of motion was truer.

You are right. But the statement that I was referring to as "truer" is his, "the physicists that be claim that time could have begun at the Big Bang and could theoretically end." Fifty years ago there were probably more physicist that would claim that.

But I think that I have finally figured out what his argument is and, if I'm right, all this discussion of how we measure time from our NOW is just a derail. The crux of his argument seems to be starting with an assumption that time has a beginning and there is only a possibility of the past becoming infinite if we ever reach an infinite future. Of course, this would be riddled with fallacies. The definition of an infinite past is that there is no beginning to time so the argument would have to assume as true the opposite of what is meant by infinity and is what he is trying to argue to be true.

Yeah, but the whole time I've presented the dichotomy of time that has a beginning, and time that does not!

If time began, an infinite amount of it has not elapsed.
If time did not begin / time is eternal then an infinite amount of time has elapsed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, but the whole time I've presented the dichotomy of time that has a beginning, and time that does not!

If time began, an infinite amount of it has not elapsed.
If time did not begin / time is eternal then an infinite amount of time has elapsed.

Agreed. I'm just not sure that he is aware that his argument assumes that time had a beginning but that is the only way that he could argue that we are on the "wrong end".

 

[Juma]

Lets look at the two events
A) The leading end of the pole leaves the tunnel
B) the trailing end enters the tunnel.

For the runner A happens before B.
For the observer at rest B happens before A.

Is the size of a pole an order of events?

Yes longer things appear differently than shorter things. Longer things appear differently passing through tunnels. Their fronts exist before their backs enter.

A change of appearance is not a change in the order of events. It is a change in the appearance of events.

When you talk about changes in the order of events you have to talk about a change in the same event. A long pole moving through a tunnel is not the same event as a short pole moving through. Even if it is the same pole.

Each of the events A and B are exactly the same events for both the runner and for the observer at rest. There is no difference.

 

[untermensche]

Is the size of a pole an order of events?

Yes longer things appear differently than shorter things. Longer things appear differently passing through tunnels. Their fronts exist before their backs enter.

A change of appearance is not a change in the order of events. It is a change in the appearance of events.

When you talk about changes in the order of events you have to talk about a change in the same event. A long pole moving through a tunnel is not the same event as a short pole moving through. Even if it is the same pole.

Each of the events A and B are exactly the same events for both the runner and for the observer at rest. There is no difference.

The velocity varied.

It is no different than having two people moving at the same speed going through the tunnel with poles of different lengths.

With poles of different lengths you get a different appearance.

All that has changed is the length of the pole. That causes a different appearance. Nothing has happened in terms of the order of events.