Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

No beginning. The clock always existed.

Yes.

And you claim it has spun infinite times before yesterday.

Which is impossible. If it has to spin an infinite amount of times before yesterday can arrive, then yesterday will never arrive. There is always one more spin possible.

 

[untermensche]

I do not.

If you say every moment in time to have ever passed is a finite amount of time from yesterday then time is finite.

The difference between any two integers is finite. The set of all integers is infinite. Your conclusion is not a necessary consequence of your premises.

I'm not talking about conceptual entities like integers.

I'm talking about something real, time. Real things are not the same as conceptual things.

You can not divide time infinitely. It is not conceptual.

 

[Kharakov]

No beginning. The clock always existed.

Yes.

And you claim it has spun infinite times before yesterday.

Which is impossible. If it has to spin an infinite amount of times before yesterday can arrive, then yesterday will never arrive. There is always one more spin possible.

What part of "no beginning" don't you understand?

Of course from this point in time (or from any set point in time), while moving forward in time, one will neverreach a point at which an infinite amount of time has passed.

However, if time has no beginning, the implication is that an infinite amount of time has past.

 

[untermensche]

Yes.

And you claim it has spun infinite times before yesterday.

Which is impossible. If it has to spin an infinite amount of times before yesterday can arrive, then yesterday will never arrive. There is always one more spin possible.

What part of "no beginning" don't you understand?

What part of it has to spin an infinite amount of times first don't you?

 

[beero1000]

 

[Kharakov]

beero- got a link with voice? I can imagine, I just want to hear it for fun.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of "no beginning" don't you understand?

What part of it has to spin an infinite amount of times first don't you?

Redo:

Yes.

And you claim it has spun infinite times before yesterday.

Which is impossible. If it has to spin an infinite amount of times before yesterday can arrive, then yesterday will never arrive. There is always one more spin possible.

What part of "no beginning" don't you understand?

Of course from this point in time (or from any set point in time), while moving forward in time, one will neverreach a point at which an infinite amount of time has passed.

However, if time has no beginning, the implication is that an infinite amount of time has past.

 

[untermensche]

So let me get this straight.

Your argument to support infinite time begins with the idea of a clock that has existed for infinite time?

And this supports infinite time extending into the past how?

 

[beero1000]

beero- got a link with voice? I can imagine, I just want to hear it for fun.

Nope. Just the gif, but no doubt it's from some tv appearance.

I don't know if it's just me, but every time 'infinity' comes up on this board I feel like I've started taking crazy pills. My secret suspicion and undying hope is that it's all just survival bias, but damn, that doesn't really help while it's happening.

 

[untermensche]

beero- got a link with voice? I can imagine, I just want to hear it for fun.

Nope. Just the gif, but no doubt it's from some tv appearance.

I don't know if it's just me, but every time 'infinity' comes up on this board I feel like I've started taking crazy pills. My secret suspicion and undying hope is that it's all just survival bias, but damn, that doesn't really help while it's happening.

Infinity is an imaginary concept.

The problems all begin when you try to apply this imaginary concept to the real world.

You can use it in the mathematical models that estimate reality, but you can't use it in the real thing.

 

[bilby]

The difference between any two integers is finite. The set of all integers is infinite. Your conclusion is not a necessary consequence of your premises.

I'm not talking about conceptual entities like integers.

I'm talking about something real, time. Real things are not the same as conceptual things.

You can not divide time infinitely. It is not conceptual.

In what way is time more 'real' and/or less 'conceptual' than integers?

 

[beero1000]

Nope. Just the gif, but no doubt it's from some tv appearance.

I don't know if it's just me, but every time 'infinity' comes up on this board I feel like I've started taking crazy pills. My secret suspicion and undying hope is that it's all just survival bias, but damn, that doesn't really help while it's happening.

Infinity is an imaginary concept.

The problems all begin when you try to apply this imaginary concept to the real world.

You can use it in the mathematical models that estimate reality, but you can't use it in the real thing.

Nonsense. I am not the one claiming to have solved several open cosmological problems (you do know that the question of whether the universe had a beginning in time or not is still open, right?), nor am I the one making obviously false claims about basic properties of numbers.

 

[Kharakov]

beero- got a link with voice? I can imagine, I just want to hear it for fun.

Nope. Just the gif, but no doubt it's from some tv appearance.

I don't know if it's just me, but every time 'infinity' comes up on this board I feel like I've started taking crazy pills. My secret suspicion and undying hope is that it's all just survival bias, but damn, that doesn't really help while it's happening.

You get over it. The tail of mortality will be there until you're ready.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is an imaginary concept.

The problems all begin when you try to apply this imaginary concept to the real world.

You can use it in the mathematical models that estimate reality, but you can't use it in the real thing.

Nonsense. I am not the one claiming to have solved several open cosmological problems (you do know that the question of whether the universe had a beginning in time or not is still open, right?), nor am I the one making obviously false claims about basic properties of numbers.

This isn't responsive.

I haven't solved anything. I've merely stated that the idea of time moving infinitely into the past is illogical. It leads to the illogical idea of having to say that yesterday arrived because infinite time passed first to allow it to happen.

And all I've said about numbers is that they are conceptual, not real entities.

 

[Kharakov]

So let me get this straight.

Your argument to support infinite time begins with the idea of a clock that has existed for infinite time?

I didn't argue to support infinite time. I presented a logical framework in which infinite time could have passed. In other words I described the  logical possibility of infinite time having passed.

 

[untermensche]

So let me get this straight.

Your argument to support infinite time begins with the idea of a clock that has existed for infinite time?

I didn't argue to support infinite time. I presented a logical framework in which infinite time could have passed. In other words I described the  logical possibility of infinite time having passed.

Time is real. Infinite time can only mean an unending supply of it.

If it modeled using a clock it can only mean hands that turn without end.

You haven't shown that time can be infinite.

You haven't shown it is possible for you to be at one point in time and have an unending supply of time that has passed, somehow, already.

 

[Bomb#20]

Ryan already told you where the problem is with the logic: you're making a circular argument. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise.

So you say, yet don't demonstrate.

Post #9:

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.
​

As evidence for the claim that it's illogical to say there's an infinite amount of any entity, you offer the assertion that the number of discrete entities is not infinite. How could an argument be more circular than that?!?

Post #11:

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.​

And here you conclude there isn't an infinite amount of time before a given moment, offering as evidence that if there were it would mean there was an infinite amount of time before a given moment. What kind of argument is that? For those of us who take seriously the possibility of infinity days before today, why on earth wouldn't we regard infinity days before yesterday as possible too?

You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.

You can't have infinite rooms. If there is a room it can in theory be counted, since rooms can be perceived. If an amount of something can be counted it isn't infinite. It is finite.

Huh? Not all rooms can be perceived. A room that's one year old and two lightyears away can't be perceived. If you're introducing perception in order to reason from "We can't perceive infinitely many objects" to "There can't be infinitely many objects", that's not a valid inference. You might as well try to reason from "We can't perceive a trillion objects" to "There can't be a trillion objects." Perception is a limit on us, not a limit on the universe.

...Burden of proof is always on the person making the is claim, never on the person making the might be claim.

No, no, no, no, no.

Everybody must demonstrate their claims or provide some logic why they are true, not just me.

If somebody claims that it is possible for there to be an infinite amount of any real entity they have to demonstrate what that means and how it is so. It is not a given.

That's ridiculous. What, if you say there are no life-bearing planets orbiting Polaris and ryan says maybe there is one and maybe there isn't, you're saying he has burden of proof? Get serious! The fact that nobody has shown there aren't any is all the proof that's needed that there might be one.

 

[Kharakov]

I didn't argue to support infinite time. I presented a logical framework in which infinite time could have passed. In other words I described the  logical possibility of infinite time having passed.

You haven't shown it is possible for you to be at one point in time and have an unending supply of time that has passed, somehow, already.

I included the link to  logical possibility in case you didn't understand what  logical possibility is.

If  time did not have a beginning than an  infinite amount of time has already passed.

If time did have a beginning, than a finite amount of time has passed, and this will always be the case, even in the case that time itself is  eternal.

If both are true (assuming universal symmetry) time has a beginning and does not have a beginning.


And there is also the possibility that an infinite amount of time passes for each second that passes: time passes for every Planck volume in spacetime. If there are an infinite amount of Planck volumes, an infinite number of seconds must pass for every Planck volume to experience a second of time. In fact, even a nanosecond passing for a Planck volume would indicate that an infinite amount of time had passed in all of spacetime.

So, basically, for every single itty bitty (I won't go infinitesimal) finite amount of time I've spent on this post an infinite amount of time has passed, assuming there are an infinite amount of Planck volumes. Which once again, I'm willing to bet that neither of us knows whether or not there are. The big bang could have been the beginning expansion of a new Planck volume of spacetime- spacetime is expanding, so maybe each new Planck volume that appears has its own BB within it.

 

[untermensche]

And as any entity it is illogical to say that there is an infinite amount of it. A cubic meter of space is a discreet entity. So any amount that actually exists is a discreet number, not infinity.

As evidence for the claim that it's illogical to say there's an infinite amount of any entity, you offer the assertion that the number of discrete entities is not infinite. How could an argument be more circular than that?!?

That's not circular, you simply don't comprehend.

Suppose we take something like a planet. They are real objects and it is possible to perceive them. Since they can be perceived they can be counted. Since they are real and can be counted it is impossible for there to be infinite planets, since that implies an inability to count them. Infinite planets means a supply of planets without end that can't ever be counted. But planets are real and if one exists it can be counted.

Infinity is an imaginary concept used in mathematics. It does not apply to real entities that can be perceived, like space.

If there is infinite time in the past then the amount of time before yesterday is infinite. But if there is infinite time before yesterday then it never could have occurred because for it to occur infinite time must pass first.

And here you conclude there isn't an infinite amount of time before a given moment, offering as evidence that if there were it would mean there was an infinite amount of time before a given moment. What kind of argument is that? For those of us who take seriously the possibility of infinity days before today, why on earth wouldn't we regard infinity days before yesterday as possible too?

All I did was take the idea of infinite time to it's logical conclusion. If one says that time stretches infinitely into the past that means that infinite time has occurred in the past already. But infinite time never occurs. It is time without end. So the idea of infinite time stretching into the past is illogical. The concept contradicts itself.

You wouldn't be able to if the number of room-sized volumes in the universe is infinite. It might be infinite. Therefore you might not be able to count every particle.

You can't have infinite rooms. If there is a room it can in theory be counted, since rooms can be perceived. If an amount of something can be counted it isn't infinite. It is finite.

Huh? Not all rooms can be perceived. A room that's one year old and two lightyears away can't be perceived.

You mean it can't be perceived by a person living on this planet. But it most certainly can be perceived. If it is real. That is the definition of real. I can be perceived in some way.

So if something is real it can be perceived. If it can be perceived it can be counted. If it can be counted it is not infinite.

 

[untermensche]

You haven't shown it is possible for you to be at one point in time and have an unending supply of time that has passed, somehow, already.

I included the link to  logical possibility in case you didn't understand what  logical possibility is.

If  time did not have a beginning than an  infinite amount of time has already passed.

If time did have a beginning, than a finite amount of time has passed, and this will always be the case, even in the case that time itself is  eternal.

If both are true (assuming universal symmetry) time has a beginning and does not have a beginning.


And there is also the possibility that an infinite amount of time passes for each second that passes: time passes for every Planck volume in spacetime. If there are an infinite amount of Planck volumes, an infinite number of seconds must pass for every Planck volume to experience a second of time. In fact, even a nanosecond passing for a Planck volume would indicate that an infinite amount of time had passed in all of spacetime.

So, basically, for every single itty bitty (I won't go infinitesimal) finite amount of time I've spent on this post an infinite amount of time has passed, assuming there are an infinite amount of Planck volumes. Which once again, I'm willing to bet that neither of us knows whether or not there are. The big bang could have been the beginning expansion of a new Planck volume of spacetime- spacetime is expanding, so maybe each new Planck volume that appears has its own BB within it.

Until you understand that time is real and it is not anything like a number you will never understand. Infinite numbers can fit on the head of a pin, because they are not real and do not possess the attributes of real things.

Real things cannot be infinitesimally small. A real entity can only be broken apart so much until that real entity is no longer there.

Your whole argument is simply one huge confusion between numbers and things that are real.

 

[ryan]

That's not circular, you simply don't comprehend.

Suppose we take something like a planet. They are real objects and it is possible to perceive them. Since they can be perceived they can be counted. Since they are real and can be counted it is impossible for there to be infinite planets, since that implies an inability to count them. Infinite planets means a supply of planets without end that can't ever be counted. But planets are real and if one exists it can be counted.

Do you agree that your argument requires or assumes a beginning?