Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Point taken.

Then would it be fair to say that an object basically jumps from the beginning of D to the end of D in some very small ratio of a Planck time?

Yes. But the whole thing is very hypotetical. Unter is blurring the subject by introducing his magical word "meaningful". Who is to judge what is meaningful or not?

Whether something is discrete or continuos is not discovered by measuring the smallest possible change directly, but by other means. The realization that radiation is delivered in quanta from the spectrum of black body radiation is a famous example.

Yeah, this is all getting to be too much.

 

[untermensche]

Point taken.

Then would it be fair to say that an object basically jumps from the beginning of D to the end of D in some very small ratio of a Planck time?

Yes. But the whole thing is very hypotetical. Unter is blurring the subject by introducing his magical word "meaningful". Who is to judge what is meaningful or not?

Whether something is discrete or continuos is not discovered by measuring the smallest possible change directly, but by other means. The realization that radiation is delivered in quanta from the spectrum of black body radiation is a famous example.

"Meaningful" is just the concept of quantum space.

It isn't anything magical.

And if you watched the video of Richard Feynman I posted you will see he had a lot of trouble with the idea of continuous space as well.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah, this is all getting to be too much.

That's because so little is known.

We don't know what 90% of the universe is.

We don't know what the forces are. We only know how they behave.

Some seem to think we have figured out everything. We haven't scratched the surface.

 

[Juma]

"Meaningful" is just the concept of quantum space.

Either you move, or you doesnt. "Meaningful" doesnt come i to it at all since that would imply that there really was som movement but we ignore it. That is definitely not was would be going on in a discrete space.

But i am still waiting for you to stop waving your hands and actually present what these problems with infinite number of atoms are ...

You waste a lot of effort speaking about them but you havent presented a single real problem.

It is also very telling that you didnt care to even comment the demise of your "infinite energy" argument.

Collect your wits and make an effort to actually present a real argument. You really must be getting tired in your arms from all thay waving...

 

[ryan]

Yeah, this is all getting to be too much.

That's because so little is known.

We don't know what 90% of the universe is.

We don't know what the forces are. We only know how they behave.

Some seem to think we have figured out everything. We haven't scratched the surface.

What about my question from my last response to you?

 

[untermensche]

"Meaningful" is just the concept of quantum space.

Either you move, or you doesnt. "Meaningful" doesnt come i to it at all since that would imply that there really was som movement but we ignore it. That is definitely not was would be going on in a discrete space.

But i am still waiting for you to stop waving your hands and actually present what these problems with infinite number of atoms are ...

You waste a lot of effort speaking about them but you havent presented a single real problem.

It is also very telling that you didnt care to even comment the demise of your "infinite energy" argument.

Collect your wits and make an effort to actually present a real argument. You really must be getting tired in your arms from all thay waving...

I never said, there was some movement but we just ignore it.

I said there may be limit in which talking about movement is meaningless. If space is quantized then any movement smaller than the smallest amount of space possible is meaningless. It doesn't happen. It can't happen.

And if you want to talk about the impossibility of there being an infinite amount of real things a few concepts have to be understood.

To be countable has to be understood. I've explained what I mean by it about ten times already, yet this simple concept seems to create confusion.

To be countable means that something can be observed and it can be seen as a discrete entity.

If that is understood I can go on.

 

[untermensche]

What about my question from my last response to you?

You know the answer, at least you understand the problem.

If we imagine space is continuous then we can run into all kinds of difficulties. We are plagued with problems when we say that space can be divided infinite times.

This doesn't prove space isn't continuous. But but these problems with infinity led Richard Feynman to say he thinks space is quantized not infinite. I posted the video.

The matter will not be decided here.

Really all I'm looking at here is the idea of infinite time having already passed. A clear logical inconsistency.

It is logically no different from me saying I will count out loud to infinity before I go to bed.

 

[skepticalbip]

What about my question from my last response to you?

You know the answer, at least you understand the problem.

If we imagine space is continuous then we can run into all kinds of difficulties. We are plagued with problems when we say that space can be divided infinite times.

This doesn't prove space isn't continuous. But but these problems with infinity led Richard Feynman to say he thinks space is quantized not infinite. I posted the video.

The matter will not be decided here.

Really all I'm looking at here is the idea of infinite time having already passed. A clear logical inconsistency.

It is logically no different from me saying I will count out loud to infinity before I go to bed.

The "logical inconsistency" is in your head because of your erroneous beliefs.

The moon is not an unreachable light. It is an orb made of stone and dust just like the Earth and is ~240,000 miles away. We can land on it because it isn't just light, it is solid. You can be skeptical of the fact that we did land there but not because the idea is absurd since we can't land on light - that reason for not believing is just a world view contrary to reality, that wouldn't be skeptcism but would be denial.

 

[ryan]

What about my question from my last response to you?

You know the answer, at least you understand the problem.

I really don't know your answer.

If we imagine space is continuous then we can run into all kinds of difficulties. We are plagued with problems when we say that space can be divided infinite times.

This doesn't prove space isn't continuous. But but these problems with infinity led Richard Feynman to say he thinks space is quantized not infinite. I posted the video.

The matter will not be decided here.

Really all I'm looking at here is the idea of infinite time having already passed. A clear logical inconsistency.

It is logically no different from me saying I will count out loud to infinity before I go to bed.

I am with you on the logical argument, but I am not sure about your "countable" argument. And I am trying to understand if quantized space-time makes any sense either.

 

[untermensche]

I am with you on the logical argument, but I am not sure about your "countable" argument. And I am trying to understand if quantized space-time makes any sense either.

To understand the countable argument you have to understand that being countable is a property of a thing. It isn't a property of humans.

So no matter where the thing is that is countable it is still countable. Even if no human can get to where it is to observe it.

So all the countable things are out there with the possibility to count them.

How is it possible to have some amount of countable entities that can't be counted?

If you say because the amount is infinite then you are saying that there are some countable objects that can't even theoretically be counted.

So to say "infinite" you have to explain how something can be countable yet can't be theoretically counted.

 

[untermensche]

You know the answer, at least you understand the problem.

If we imagine space is continuous then we can run into all kinds of difficulties. We are plagued with problems when we say that space can be divided infinite times.

This doesn't prove space isn't continuous. But but these problems with infinity led Richard Feynman to say he thinks space is quantized not infinite. I posted the video.

The matter will not be decided here.

Really all I'm looking at here is the idea of infinite time having already passed. A clear logical inconsistency.

It is logically no different from me saying I will count out loud to infinity before I go to bed.

The "logical inconsistency" is in your head because of your erroneous beliefs.

The moon is not an unreachable light. It is an orb made of stone and dust just like the Earth and is ~240,000 miles away. We can land on it because it isn't just light, it is solid. You can be skeptical of the fact that we did land there but not because the idea is absurd since we can't land on light - that reason for not believing is just a world view contrary to reality.

The logic is there to see if anybody has the eyes to see it.

There is no logical difference between saying an infinite amount of time has already passed and saying I will count out loud to infinity before dinner. Both are just as impossible.

You would say that counting out loud to infinity is not impossible if you count real fast.

 

[skepticalbip]

The "logical inconsistency" is in your head because of your erroneous beliefs.

The moon is not an unreachable light. It is an orb made of stone and dust just like the Earth and is ~240,000 miles away. We can land on it because it isn't just light, it is solid. You can be skeptical of the fact that we did land there but not because the idea is absurd since we can't land on light - that reason for not believing is just a world view contrary to reality.

The logic is there to see if anybody has the eyes to see it.

There is no logical difference between saying an infinite amount of time has already passed and saying I will count out loud to infinity before dinner. Both are just as impossible.

You would say that counting out loud to infinity is not impossible if you count real fast.

As I said the moon is a solid. You "logical" argument is based on just as absurd a belief as the Vietnamese villagers had for not believing the moon landing.

You should ask yourself why your assumed authority on such things, Krauss, or any other cosmologist doesn't also see such an obvious logical contriditction. Is it your contention that they are all idiots? Are you the only person who sees truth?

 

[untermensche]

The logic is there to see if anybody has the eyes to see it.

There is no logical difference between saying an infinite amount of time has already passed and saying I will count out loud to infinity before dinner. Both are just as impossible.

You would say that counting out loud to infinity is not impossible if you count real fast.

As I said the moon is a solid. You "logical" argument is based on just as absurd a belief as the Vietnamese villagers had for not believing the moon landing.

You should ask yourself why your assumed authority on such things, Krauss, or any other cosmologist doesn't also see such an obvious logical contriditction. Are they all idiots? Are you the only person who sees truth?

I haven't discussed the matter with Lawrence Krauss.

But working physicists are not experts on logic.

They are experts on known physics.

And again, even though you either don't understand or care, there is no logical difference between saying infinite time passed before yesterday and saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

Both logically mean the same thing. A real infinity was realized yesterday.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said the moon is a solid. You "logical" argument is based on just as absurd a belief as the Vietnamese villagers had for not believing the moon landing.

You should ask yourself why your assumed authority on such things, Krauss, or any other cosmologist doesn't also see such an obvious logical contriditction. Are they all idiots? Are you the only person who sees truth?

I haven't discussed the matter with Lawrence Krauss.

But working physicists are not experts on logic.

They are experts on known physics.

And again, even though you either don't understand or care, there is no logical difference between saying infinite time passed before yesterday and saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

Both logically mean the same thing. A real infinity was realized yesterday.

All the physicist that I have ever worked with and have read are much better at logic than you. I have pointed out to you many, many logical fallacies in your "arguments". I haven't found any in the work of the physicists I have worked with or read. And conclusions in physics does require an understanding of logic.

ETA:
So I'll ask again. Is it your contention that all these cosmologists are complete idiots since they overlook such obvious "logical inconsistencies" in reaching their conclusions?

 

[untermensche]

I haven't discussed the matter with Lawrence Krauss.

But working physicists are not experts on logic.

They are experts on known physics.

And again, even though you either don't understand or care, there is no logical difference between saying infinite time passed before yesterday and saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

Both logically mean the same thing. A real infinity was realized yesterday.

All the physicist that I have ever worked with and have read are much better at logic than you. I have pointed out to you many, many logical fallacies in your "arguments". I haven't found any in the work of the physicists I have worked with or read. And conclusions in physics does require an understanding of logic.

ETA:
So I'll ask again. Is it your contention that all these cosmologists are complete idiots since they overlook such obvious "logical inconsistencies" in reaching their conclusions?

Again, either you don't understand or don't care.

Saying that infinite time passed before yesterday is logically no different than saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

It is saying a real infinity was realized yesterday.

This is what I am talking about. Not your opinions about physicists.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the physicist that I have ever worked with and have read are much better at logic than you. I have pointed out to you many, many logical fallacies in your "arguments". I haven't found any in the work of the physicists I have worked with or read. And conclusions in physics does require an understanding of logic.

ETA:
So I'll ask again. Is it your contention that all these cosmologists are complete idiots since they overlook such obvious "logical inconsistencies" in reaching their conclusions?

Again, either you don't understand or don't care.

Saying that infinite time passed before yesterday is logically no different than saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

It is saying a real infinity was realized yesterday.

This is what I am talking about. Not your opinions about physicists.

Repeating the same shit based on the same misunderstanding over and over doesn't make an argument any more than the Vietnamese villager insisting that the moon is only a light and it is impossible to land on light.

The question was, do you think cosmologists (including Krauss) have any idea what they are talking about or are they idiots since they see no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

 

[untermensche]

Again, either you don't understand or don't care.

Saying that infinite time passed before yesterday is logically no different than saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

It is saying a real infinity was realized yesterday.

This is what I am talking about. Not your opinions about physicists.

Repeating the same shit based on the same misunderstanding over and over doesn't make an argument any more than the Vietnamese villager insisting that the moon is only a light and it is impossible to land on light.

The question was, do you think cosmologists (including Krauss) have any idea what they are talking about or are they idiots since they see no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

There is absolutely nothing I can do at this end to actually get you to read and respond to the arguments I make.

You simply ignore every word and wave your hands around.

But it is true.

There is no logical difference between saying infinite time passed before yesterday and saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

 

[surreptitious57]

Physicists are scientists so deal in evidence not logic. And so it does not matter if something is logical or non logical but whether it can be observed. For observation provides evidence and evidence is what determines the truth value of all hypotheses. Logic is what mathematicians and philosophers deal in Which is a form of reasoning and all reasoning by definition is abstract and both mathematics and philosophy are abstract disciplines. For one deals with numbers and the other with ideas. Physics is not because it deals with observable reality

 

[skepticalbip]

Repeating the same shit based on the same misunderstanding over and over doesn't make an argument any more than the Vietnamese villager insisting that the moon is only a light and it is impossible to land on light.

The question was, do you think cosmologists (including Krauss) have any idea what they are talking about or are they idiots since they see no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

There is absolutely nothing I can do at this end to actually get you to read and respond to the arguments I make.

You simply ignore every word and wave your hands around.

But it is true.

There is no logical difference between saying infinite time passed before yesterday and saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

Echo, Echo, Echo.

That shit has been responded to many, many times over the hundred pages of this thread. You are incapable of understanding because of your world view so another repeat of the earlier responses to the same question is useless. The Vietnamese villager couldn't understand and wouldn't accept that the moon was a solid body either.

However you keep ignoring my question:

The question was, do you think cosmologists (including Krauss) have any idea what they are talking about or are they idiots since they see no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

 

[skepticalbip]

Physicists are scientists so deal in evidence not logic. And so it does not matter if something is logical or non logical but whether it can be observed. For observation provides evidence and evidence is what determines the truth value of a hypothesis. Logic is what mathematicians and philosophers deal in Which is a form of reasoning and all reasoning by definition is abstract and both mathematics and philosophy are abstract disciplines. For one deals with numbers and the other with ideas. Physics is not because it deals with observable reality

The logic is not in the observations but in determining what those observations tell us. We start with facts (the observation) as the first premise. The second premise is the laws of physics. The conclusion is drawn from the two premises. This conclusion tells what the observations mean. This is the logical process though we don't express them as formal syllogisms.

This is applied logic, not the mental masturbation so popular in our philosophy forum.