Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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?

I think it takes a few.

We have to agree that saying something is real means there is some way to perceive it. We also have to agree that if something can be perceived it can be counted.

So what follows is that real things can be counted.

This doesn't mean that I myself am able to count all the grains of dust on the moon. It only means that it is logically possible because logic tells us that moon dust is real and can therefore be counted.

 

[ryan]

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

I think it takes a few.

We have to agree that saying something is real means there is some way to perceive it. We also have to agree that if something can be perceived it can be counted.

So what follows is that real things can be counted.

This doesn't mean that I myself am able to count all the grains of dust on the moon. It only means that it is logically possible because logic tells us that moon dust is real and can therefore be counted.

Your examples use finite objects in finite spaces. For this to be a proper comparison, you should assume that finite objects are in a finite universe, right?

 

[George S]

We perceive spacetime. It is an ongoing concern. Time runs. At each location it runs so that light travels exactly c.

There is time for change and space to do it in.

Consider the timeline alone. In concept space it looks infinite in the future direction. At t=0 our math breaks down. We might apply the idea of symmetry and suppose a negative time extending to negative infinity. Entropy there runs away from t=0, too.

Or it had a beginning at t=0. "Before" t=0 there was no time for anything to happen. Then spacetime happened. Or magic happened. Or the miracle of spacetime happened. Language sort of fails.

Either case is passing strange. Time passing strangely. As an external observer, Bob, listens to Alice as she goes past a black hole event horizon, she never appears to him to reach it. Signals get slower and slower from her. While, to Alice, she passes the event horizon, to her a point of no returning to Bob.

Where is Alice? That depends on where you are looking from! Language sort of fails.

 

[untermensche]

I think it takes a few.

We have to agree that saying something is real means there is some way to perceive it. We also have to agree that if something can be perceived it can be counted.

So what follows is that real things can be counted.

This doesn't mean that I myself am able to count all the grains of dust on the moon. It only means that it is logically possible because logic tells us that moon dust is real and can therefore be counted.

Your examples use finite objects in finite spaces. For this to be a proper comparison, you should assume that finite objects are in a finite universe, right?

If the universe is something real then it isn't infinite.

The idea of something existing already for infinite time makes no sense. The idea of infinite space makes no sense.

And why would we ever apply this imaginary concept we invented, infinity, to the real universe?

 

[skepticalbip]

Your examples use finite objects in finite spaces. For this to be a proper comparison, you should assume that finite objects are in a finite universe, right?

If the universe is something real then it isn't infinite.

The idea of something existing already for infinite time makes no sense. The idea of infinite space makes no sense.

And why would we ever apply this imaginary concept we invented, infinity, to the real universe?

You seem to be trying to apply logic to a problem where we have no premis to base it on so are making the odd argument of I can't imagine the universe is infinite therefore the universe is finite.

As Sir Arthur Eddington aptly put it, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

 

[untermensche]

If the universe is something real then it isn't infinite.

The idea of something existing already for infinite time makes no sense. The idea of infinite space makes no sense.

And why would we ever apply this imaginary concept we invented, infinity, to the real universe?

You seem to be trying to apply logic to a problem where we have no premis to base it on so are making the odd argument of I can't imagine the universe is infinite therefore the universe is finite.

As Sir Arthur Eddington aptly put it, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

That's not my argument at all.

This comment about using an imaginary concept and trying to apply it to the real world is an aside.

 

[skepticalbip]

You seem to be trying to apply logic to a problem where we have no premis to base it on so are making the odd argument of I can't imagine the universe is infinite therefore the universe is finite.

As Sir Arthur Eddington aptly put it, "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

That's not my argument at all.

This comment about using an imaginary concept and trying to apply it to the real world is an aside.

There are still major problems with your contention of a finite time and universe unless you are proposing some concept of the universe very different from the standard. An example of one problem - if you accept the current model of a universe that is expanding and increasing that rate of expansion, then you have to accept infinite time. It will continue, unlimited, to expand spacetime in the forward time direction. There is a similar problem, if you accept the description of time dilation in relativity, for the “beginning”. Moving back in time, the density of the universe would continually increase which would continue to increase the curvature of spacetime, slowing time. As the singularity is approached our physics breaks down but the passage of time (due to time dilation) is approaching infinity. A "singularity" is physics for "this is an infinity and our physics can't currently handle that."

 

[Kharakov]

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

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

I don't see numbers mentioned in my statement above.

 

[Kharakov]

If the universe is something real then it isn't infinite.

Got any evidence or logic to support the claim that various infinite objects/entities are not real?

I'm not looking for one of your standard  Chewbacca defense style statements.

The idea of something existing already for infinite time makes no sense. The idea of infinite space makes no sense.

I don't understand your failure to comprehend either or those concepts, unless you are simply pretending lack of understanding to perpetuate the conversation. Do you mind stating whether or not you are purposefully pretending not to understand the concepts? (yes or no will suffice)

And why would we ever apply this imaginary concept we invented, infinity, to the real universe?

We didn't invent infinity, we discovered it when we observed reality logically.

 

[Juma]

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.

How do you know that they can be counted?

 

[untermensche]

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

I don't see numbers mentioned in my statement above.

You talked about the infinitesimal.

That is a concept that only has any meaning with numbers. It has no meaning in the real world.

You can't break the real world infinitely.

And as far as time goes, what would that mean? How does one divide time?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

How do you know that they can be counted?

If it is real what would stop it from being counted?

 

[untermensche]

And why would we ever apply this imaginary concept we invented, infinity, to the real universe?

We didn't invent infinity, we discovered it when we observed reality logically.

We invented it whole.

There are no observed infinities. There are only limits of our power to observe.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't see numbers mentioned in my statement above.

You talked about the infinitesimal.

That is a concept that only has any meaning with numbers. It has no meaning in the real world.

You can't break the real world infinitely.

And as far as time goes, what would that mean? How does one divide time?

You apparently haven’t yet taken calculus. Calculus was devised to enable us to describe (and understand) reality at the infinitesimal (or continuous) level.

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.

How do you know that they can be counted?

If it is real what would stop it from being counted?

If it is real and infinite it couldn’t be counted. You are only making an unbased assertion that the real can't be infinite then using that baseless assertion as a foundation for your argument.

 

[Juma]

If it is real what would stop it from being counted?

It is you that says thst they cannot be counted if they are infinite. So how do you show that they cannot be counted?

 

[Juma]

Calculus was devised to enable us to describe (and understand) reality at the infinitesimal (or continuous) level.

No. Calculus was devised to let us investigate calculus models of reality. Calculus (and infinitesimals) are a model, not reality,

 

[untermensche]

If it is real what would stop it from being counted?

It is you that says thst they cannot be counted if they are infinite. So how do you show that they cannot be counted?

That's what infinite means in terms of real objects.

An infinite supply of real objects is an unending supply of them.

You can't count an unending supply. You can't even begin to get close to the end of counting them.

 

[untermensche]

You apparently haven’t yet taken calculus. Calculus was devised to enable us to describe (and understand) reality at the infinitesimal (or continuous) level.

The infinitesimals in calculus are conceptual. There is no real thing that is infinitesimally small. A real thing has a limit that it can be broken and then it is not that real thing any more. Even elementary particles.

If it is real and infinite it couldn’t be counted.

How could it be real and also not be able to be counted?

How can we have a real thing that can't be counted?

Isn't that the definition of reality? That which can be perceived in some way? If you can perceive it how is it possible you can't count it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Calculus was devised to enable us to describe (and understand) reality at the infinitesimal (or continuous) level.

No. Calculus was devised to let us investigate calculus models of reality. Calculus (and infinitesimals) are a model, not reality,

Of course it is a model like any "understanding" we have of reality whether that model is formal or informal. Like we have a mental model of an apple for example and that mental model is not an apple.

Calculus enables us to understand reality at the infinitesimal level just as our mental model of an apple enables us to understand the real apple. Without our mental model of the apple, we wouldn't be able to identify one if we were knee deep in the suckers.

 

[untermensche]

No. Calculus was devised to let us investigate calculus models of reality. Calculus (and infinitesimals) are a model, not reality,

Of course it is a model like any "understanding" we have of reality whether that model is formal or informal. Like we have a mental model of an apple for example and that mental model is not an apple.

Calculus enables us to understand reality at the infinitesimal level just as our mental model of an apple enables us to understand the real apple.

Are numbers real?

Can I see them? Not the symbols but the numbers themselves.

 

[Kharakov]

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

I don't see numbers mentioned in my statement above.

You talked about the infinitesimal.

Look at the statement. No number mentioned. Of course if you cut out the statement that doesn't mention numbers, and throw out a red herring... I feel like you're playing fetch with ideas.

I did mention infinitesimals though:

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.

The specific reason I didn't say infinitesimal volumes of space was to avoid confusion about infinite infinitesimals summing up to specific finite amounts, instead saying that infinite non-infinitesimal (yet very tiny) volumes add up to an infinite volume.

That is a concept that only has any meaning with numbers. It has no meaning in the real world.

You can't break the real world infinitely.

It's not broken- it's continuous- smooth in some cases. There is a difference- skepticalbip's point about calculus describing the continuous level of reality stands.

In addition, you are describing things with words while arguing against things being described with words (in this case numbers) at the same time. Numbers have meaning in the real world unless you take the stance that the real world is infinite and that one cannot differentiate between one aspect of the infinite and another (which isn't true).

And as far as time goes, what would that mean? How does one divide time?

One doesn't actually divide time. One focuses upon specific periods of time, and defines them in relation to specific events in order to point others to the events. Yesterday is not separate from the rest of the continuum, yet if I tell someone I did something yesterday, they understand the focal point in time I refer to.