Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Some of the rules of relativity are:

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

If you have three such observers in three different reference frames then one can observe that event A precedes event B, one can observe that events A and B are simultaneous, and one can observe that event B precedes event A. All are equally valid observations.

 

[Juma]

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

Except in that case there are different poles and thus different events.

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.

Yes it has. The two ends of the pole are very much the same. It is the same pole. It is the same tunnel with the same tunnel ends.

I have no idea what would count as same events if these doesnt.

 

[Juma]

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Some of the rules of special relativity are:

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

If you have three such observers in three different reference frames then one can observe that event A precedes event B, one can observe that events A and B are synchronous, and one can observe that event B precedes event A. All are equally valid observations.

Well stated!

 

[ryan]

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?

Of course I don't.

Let's just stick with the scenario of today being the end of time so that we can focus on regression. You said, "And yeah, assuming time does not have an absolute beginning, an infinite amount of time passed before today ...". Forget any number line; where does that put us in the really big picture? Does this seem logically possible?

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).

Okay I admit I was sloppy. I just meant the scenario of time ending today which would technically mean the beginning of conceptualizing time regression.

The question of whether or not time could conceptually regress infinitely is really asking if time began; at least that's what I thought it implied. But I think we are all roughly using "regression/regress" as to go to a past point in time and "infinite regression" to go to a past point that proceeded another.

To be totally honest, I don't like my side of the argument for reasons I can't explain. The logic just seems too slick, and maybe a little vague. But to be as objective as I can I just don't see a better argument - yet.

 

[ryan]

Except in that case there are different poles and thus different events.

A question that interests me is whether or not the contracted length of the moving pole can be considered a different event than the same pole that is longer in the rest frame. Are these actually the same poles? Is it logical to say that a 6 meter long pole is a 5 meter long pole?

 

[untermensche]

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Some of the rules of relativity are:

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

If you have three such observers in three different reference frames then one can observe that event A precedes event B, one can observe that events A and B are simultaneous, and one can observe that event B precedes event A. All are equally valid observations.

I think all you're talking about is a change in the appearance of things not a change in the order of things.

A change in the order of things would be if some observer saw the pole exit the tunnel before it entered.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea what you are trying to say, if anything.

Some of the rules of relativity are:

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

If you have three such observers in three different reference frames then one can observe that event A precedes event B, one can observe that events A and B are simultaneous, and one can observe that event B precedes event A. All are equally valid observations.

I think all you're talking about is a change in the appearance of things not a change in the order of things.

A change in the order of things would be if some observer saw the pole exit the tunnel before it entered.

You didn't read the rules.

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

Your experiences and understandings say little to nothing about the "reality" described by relativity. It was called relativity because various "realities" are relative to the different observers. There is no preferred reference frame so all observations are "real". Reality is relative.

Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?

 

[untermensche]

I think all you're talking about is a change in the appearance of things not a change in the order of things.

A change in the order of things would be if some observer saw the pole exit the tunnel before it entered.

You didn't read the rules.

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

Your experiences and understandings say little to nothing about the "reality" described by relativity. It was called relativity because various "realities" are relative to the different observers. There is no preferred reference frame so all observations are "real". Reality is relative.

Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?

None of this addresses what I said.

The contention was that the order of things can change from one observer to another.

If that were true then one observer could see the pole leave the tunnel before it entered. That is a change in the order of things.

Do you say that is possible. A thing can be where it is going before it gets there?

 

[skepticalbip]

You didn't read the rules.

- There is no preferred reference frame.

- All observations from different observers in different frames are equally valid.

Your experiences and understandings say little to nothing about the "reality" described by relativity. It was called relativity because various "realities" are relative to the different observers. There is no preferred reference frame so all observations are "real". Reality is relative.

Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?

None of this addresses what I said.

The contention was that the order of things can change from one observer to another.

If that were true then one observer could see the pole leave the tunnel before it entered. That is a change in the order of things.

Do you say that is possible. A thing can be where it is going before it gets there?

It wasn't addressed because it is a strawman unless you can show how any observer could possibly see such a thing.

And you didn't address my question... "Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?"

 

[none]

I just thought I add this example of contradictory experience of event due to relativity.
three guys on a train moving along and the guy in the middle sends a beam of light to the guy in the front of the train and a beam of light to the guy in the back of the train.
the middle guy sees the beam reach the guy in the front and the guy in back at the same time, but to an observer outside the train the beam of light that goes to the guy in the back gets there before the beam reaches the guy in the front of the train due to the motion of the train.

 

[untermensche]

It wasn't addressed because it is a strawman unless you can show how any observer could possibly see such a thing.

And you didn't address my question... "Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?"

Every observer, no matter how fast the pole is moving, or how fast the observer is moving, will see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

The order is: Enter first, exit second.

Who sees a change to this order?

How can we say this order is relative if every observer sees the same order?

 

[Kharakov]

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).

Okay I admit I was sloppy. I just meant the scenario of time ending today which would technically mean the beginning of conceptualizing time regression.

The question of whether or not time could conceptually regress infinitely is really asking if time began; at least that's what I thought it implied.

Man, I wrote out a reply to what you wrote above that, and then you said what I said... Anyway, that's why I said either time has a beginning, or it always exists.

But I think we are all roughly using "regression/regress" as to go to a past point in time and "infinite regression" to go to a past point that proceeded another.

I don't think skepticalbip, George, (others earlier in the thread), or I used "infinite regression" to mean going back to a specific point. By definition, infinite regression is undefined (as in "not defined by a specific point", not as in "words without definitions").

A simple scenario would be to wind a clock backwards infinitely. We won't worry about the day, whether it is ante meridiem or post meridiem. At what point does the clock stop winding backwards? Does it stop? What is the defined point that the clock stops winding infinitely?

Just because we have a statement or word to describe something, doesn't mean that something has finite definition.

To be totally honest, I don't like my side of the argument for reasons I can't explain. The logic just seems too slick, and maybe a little vague. But to be as objective as I can I just don't see a better argument - yet.

I thought I was on your side of the infinity argument in the past (years ago), but I looked through my posts, and they basically look like I was on this side. Maybe it was when I was trying to come up with a way to divide by zero...hehe..

 

[skepticalbip]

It wasn't addressed because it is a strawman unless you can show how any observer could possibly see such a thing.

And you didn't address my question... "Given the three observers above, how do you determine which, if any, is "real" if reality isn't relative?"

Every observer, no matter how fast the pole is moving, or how fast the observer is moving, will see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

The order is: Enter first, exit second.

Who sees a change to this order?

How can we say this order is relative if every observer sees the same order?

So you say that you are trying to argue by strawman in your original question?

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative? They didn't see the same order.

 

[untermensche]

Every observer, no matter how fast the pole is moving, or how fast the observer is moving, will see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

The order is: Enter first, exit second.

Who sees a change to this order?

How can we say this order is relative if every observer sees the same order?

So you say that you are trying to argue by strawman in your original question?

No.

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative?

I answered. We know the order of things. We know something that isn't relative. Broken plates don't jump off the floor and put themselves back together for any observer.

All observers see the order of events the same.

In the example all observers see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

 

[Kharakov]

Hehe... we need Wiploc in this thread. He closed out the original "...uncaused, eternal and infinite. (both universe and thread)... " thread.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you say that you are trying to argue by strawman in your original question?

No.

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative?

I answered. We know the order of things. We know something that isn't relative. Broken plates don't jump off the floor and put themselves back together for any observer.

All observers see the order of events the same.

In the example all observers see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

This post is damned funny.

You really should have read that super simplistic description of special relativity (apparently written for pre-teens with short attention spans) that I tried to encourage you to read.

 

[untermensche]

No.

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative?

I answered. We know the order of things. We know something that isn't relative. Broken plates don't jump off the floor and put themselves back together for any observer.

All observers see the order of events the same.

In the example all observers see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

This post is damned funny.

You really should have read that super simplistic description of special relativity (apparently written for pre-teens with short attention spans) that I tried to encourage you to read.

Order of events can be defined in such a way to not refer to the order of events but instead to the appearance of events.

We know that a short pole appears differently passing through a tunnel than a long one. But we don't call this a change in the order of events. Nobody would call it that.

The order of events, in terms of a pole moving though a tunnel, is the pole enters before it leaves.

Show me using your vast knowledge of relativity how this order can change.

 

[Kharakov]

Tachy on bro. Tachyon.

 

[ryan]

Okay I admit I was sloppy. I just meant the scenario of time ending today which would technically mean the beginning of conceptualizing time regression.

The question of whether or not time could conceptually regress infinitely is really asking if time began; at least that's what I thought it implied.

Man, I wrote out a reply to what you wrote above that, and then you said what I said... Anyway, that's why I said either time has a beginning, or it always exists.

But I think we are all roughly using "regression/regress" as to go to a past point in time and "infinite regression" to go to a past point that proceeded another.

I don't think skepticalbip, George, (others earlier in the thread), or I used "infinite regression" to mean going back to a specific point. By definition, infinite regression is undefined (as in "not defined by a specific point", not as in "words without definitions").

Wait, infinite regress does not necessarily mean no past point of reference. It may just be a cyclical proposition such as 5 days ago always comes after 6 days ago. This proposition will regress infinitely every 5 days.

Arguments for free will sometimes infinitely regress, "I chose A because B", "I chose C because D" ....

A simple scenario would be to wind a clock backwards infinitely. We won't worry about the day, whether it is ante meridiem or post meridiem. At what point does the clock stop winding backwards? Does it stop? What is the defined point that the clock stops winding infinitely?

Just because we have a statement or word to describe something, doesn't mean that something has finite definition.

Can you explain the last sentence here differently? It seems like an interesting take on infinity.

To be totally honest, I don't like my side of the argument for reasons I can't explain. The logic just seems too slick, and maybe a little vague. But to be as objective as I can I just don't see a better argument - yet.

I thought I was on your side of the infinity argument in the past (years ago), but I looked through my posts, and they basically look like I was on this side. Maybe it was when I was trying to come up with a way to divide by zero...hehe..

Yeah, the quicker I forget about my old posts the better.

 

[skepticalbip]

No.

You still haven't addressed my question. How can you determine which, if any, of my three observers were describing reality if reality isn't relative?

I answered. We know the order of things. We know something that isn't relative. Broken plates don't jump off the floor and put themselves back together for any observer.

All observers see the order of events the same.

In the example all observers see the pole enter the tunnel before it leaves.

This post is damned funny.

You really should have read that super simplistic description of special relativity (apparently written for pre-teens with short attention spans) that I tried to encourage you to read.

Order of events can be defined in such a way to not refer to the order of events but instead to the appearance of events.

We know that a short pole appears differently passing through a tunnel than a long one. But we don't call this a change in the order of events. Nobody would call it that.

The order of events, in terms of a pole moving though a tunnel, is the pole enters before it leaves.

Show me using your vast knowledge of relativity how this order can change.

I prefer to watch you waving arms, flailing, and asserting nonsense than try to explain something to you. It is a hell of a lot funnier (and I do enjoy a good giggle). I have learned that anything that you don't already believe just rolls off and you keep asserting the same nonsense. I offered a link that simply describes special relativity which you refuse to read so it is obvious that you don't really want to learn anything.