Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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 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?

I have not heard one cosmologist address this argument.

And nobody in this thread has either because I just thought it up.

If we are going to talk about realized real infinities then we should look at one.

I counted out loud to infinity yesterday, do you believe me, if not why?

It's not impossible. I counted real fast. In fact I counted at an infinite speed.

 

[skepticalbip]

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 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?

I have not heard one cosmologist address this argument.

And nobody in this thread has either because I just thought it up.

If we are going to talk about realized real infinities then we should look at one.

I counted out loud to infinity yesterday, do you believe me, if not why?

It's not impossible. I counted real fast. In fact I counted at an infinite speed.

Of course they haven't addressed your arguement because it is such an absurd argument that it would never occur to anyone who understood anything about reality. I also have never seen anyone address the Vietnamese villiger's argument that we can't land on the moon because the moon is only light and no one can land on light.

Your "argument" is answered by how cosmologists do describe the possibility of an infinite past from a perspective of recognizing reality.

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?

 

[untermensche]

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 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?

I have not heard one cosmologist address this argument.

And nobody in this thread has either because I just thought it up.

If we are going to talk about realized real infinities then we should look at one.

I counted out loud to infinity yesterday, do you believe me, if not why?

It's not impossible. I counted real fast. In fact I counted at an infinite speed.

Of course they haven't addressed your arguement because it is such an absurd argument that it would never occur to anyone who understood anything about reality. I also have never seen anyone address the Vietnamese villiger's argument that we can't land on the moon because the moon is only light and no one can land on light.

Your "argument" is answered by how cosmologists do describe the possibility of an infinite past from a perspective of recognizing reality.

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?

Since you can't seem to address my simple questions maybe you can explain something.

Why doesn't Krauss have a logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

You claim to know he doesn't so I expect a direct quote.

Until then I repeat. It is just as logical to say that infinite time has already passed as it is to say I counted out loud to infinity yesterday. Real infinities are real infinities.

 

[surreptitious57]

You cannot count to infinity in finite time because the point at which you stop counting is not the point at which infinity stops. There is no end to infinity because if there was it would not be infinite. Even if you could count at infinite speed and did so for all of infinity you would still not reach the end since that is a non existent point on the infinite number line. So the notion of counting to infinity in a day - or any period of time be it finite or infinite - is not something which is either logically or physically possible

 

[untermensche]

You cannot count to infinity in finite time because the point at which you stop counting is not the point at which infinity stops. There is no end to infinity because if there was it would not be infinite. Even if you could count at infinite speed and did so for all of infinity you would still not reach the end since that is a non existent point on the infinite number line. So the notion of counting to infinity in a day - or any period of time be it finite or infinite - is not something which is either logically or physically possible

Fine, I agree. A realized real infinity is impossible.

It is impossible for there to have been infinite time that has already passed before yesterday.

 

[George S]

But it can be done analog-fashion.

Pick a unit line and move a pointer continuously from one end to the other. Count 1 mentally when half way along the line, 2 half way to the end from there, 3 half way from there, and so on. When your pointer reaches the end you have counted to infinity.

 

[untermensche]

But it can be done analog-fashion.

Pick a unit line and move a pointer continuously from one end to the other. Count 1 mentally when half way along the line, 2 half way to the end from there, 3 half way from there, and so on. When your pointer reaches the end you have counted to infinity.

When does that happen?

 

[skepticalbip]

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 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?

I have not heard one cosmologist address this argument.

And nobody in this thread has either because I just thought it up.

If we are going to talk about realized real infinities then we should look at one.

I counted out loud to infinity yesterday, do you believe me, if not why?

It's not impossible. I counted real fast. In fact I counted at an infinite speed.

Of course they haven't addressed your arguement because it is such an absurd argument that it would never occur to anyone who understood anything about reality. I also have never seen anyone address the Vietnamese villiger's argument that we can't land on the moon because the moon is only light and no one can land on light.

Your "argument" is answered by how cosmologists do describe the possibility of an infinite past from a perspective of recognizing reality.

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?

Since you can't seem to address my simple questions maybe you can explain something.

Why doesn't Krauss have a logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past?

Simple, because there is no logical problem. Why do you not have a problem with the idea that people can land on the moon?

Cosmologists don't make a big thing about it because it is not something that is knowable with our present physics. Our physics only deals with the universe as we see it now and how it got here. However, there is nothing in our physics or in logic that prevents infinite past time. M theory does assume that it is infinite in their Brane Cosmology model though.

You claim to know he doesn't so I expect a direct quote.

You claim to have read his "A Universe from Nothing". Go back and read the preface. In a short section of it he addresses infinite regress... though you likely won't be able to understand it.

Until then I repeat. It is just as logical to say that infinite time has already passed as it is to say I counted out loud to infinity yesterday. Real infinities are real infinities.

More nonsense. And that Vietnamese villager, if he is still alive, likely will still say that no one can land on the moon because it is only light and no one can land on light.

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?

 

[untermensche]

More nonsense. And that Vietnamese villager, if he is still alive, likely will still say that no one can land on the moon because it is only light and no one can land on light.

Your prejudice against the Vietnamese is noted.

How could that villager not believe you after you presented the clear evidence?

You do know the difference between evidence and a claim?

 

[Mageth]

It is impossible for there to have been infinite time that has already passed before yesterday.

Before you make such absolute assertions, maybe you need to consult with the poster who said this earlier, and think about what he said:

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.

Oh, wait...that was you, wasn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

More nonsense. And that Vietnamese villager, if he is still alive, likely will still say that no one can land on the moon because it is only light and no one can land on light.

Your prejudice against the Vietnamese is noted.

How could that villager not believe you after you presented the clear evidence?

You do know the difference between evidence and a claim?

Irony meter broken again. Damn.

 

[skepticalbip]

More nonsense. And that Vietnamese villager, if he is still alive, likely will still say that no one can land on the moon because it is only light and no one can land on light.

Your prejudice against the Vietnamese is noted.

How could that villager not believe you after you presented the clear evidence?

You do know the difference between evidence and a claim?

Wow. You are really stretching to paint my friendship with those Vietnamese villagers as a prejudice against them as a way of avoiding defending your nonsense.

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?

 

[untermensche]

Before you make such absolute assertions, maybe you need to consult with the poster who said this earlier, and think about what he said:

Oh, wait...that was you, wasn't it?

Irony meter broken again. Damn.

I see you have completely run out of arguments.

You instead are reduced to splicing unconnected arguments and removing the context from all of them.

You have said nothing so there is nothing to address.

- - - Updated - - -

Your prejudice against the Vietnamese is noted.

How could that villager not believe you after you presented the clear evidence?

You do know the difference between evidence and a claim?

Wow. You are really stretching to paint my friendship with those Vietnamese villagers as a prejudice against them as a way of avoiding defending your nonsense.

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?

It is simply ignorance to think that a person should believe humans were on the moon without evidence.

 

[surreptitious57]

Time can extend to infinity in the past from the present. Although it could not be measured since there is only one point in spacetime that physically exists in that scenario. And the definition of time is the distance between two events where an event is defined as a point in spacetime. Infinite time would have no points if it was openended and only one point if it extended infinitely into the past or infinitely into the future from the present. Thus temporal infinities by definition are beyond measurement

 

[untermensche]

Time can extend to infinity in the past from the present....

This makes little sense.

Time extends into the future from the present, not the past.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is simply ignorance to think that a person should believe humans were on the moon without evidence.

Are you just pretending ignorance that the problem wasn't that he didn't think Americans landed there but the reason that he believed it. He believed that the moon was only light and not a solid body?

His problem in believing is the same problem that you have in understanding infinities.

And you are still 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?

You should have no problem is claiming that they are idiots if you think they don’t understand and agree with and had already expressed your nonsensical “logic”.

 

[untermensche]

Are you just pretending ignorance that the problem wasn't that he didn't think Americans landed there but that he believed that the moon was only light and not a solid body?

His problem in believing is the same problem that you have in understanding infinities.

And you are still 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?

You should have no problem is claiming that they are idiots if you think they don’t understand and agree with and had already expressed your nonsensical “logic”.

So you presented the evidence to this villager that proved the moon was solid?

Why exactly should this villager believe anything you tell them without evidence?

Because it is you telling them?

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you just pretending ignorance that the problem wasn't that he didn't think Americans landed there but that he believed that the moon was only light and not a solid body?

His problem in believing is the same problem that you have in understanding infinities.

And you are still ignoring my question:


You should have no problem is claiming that they are idiots if you think they don’t understand and agree with and had already expressed your nonsensical “logic”.

So you presented the evidence to this villager that proved the moon was solid?

Why exactly should this villager believe anything you tell them without evidence?

Because it is you telling them?

Please answer, or attempt to, the fucking question that I have continually asked you.

I have given you one source that you asked for and threw in the whole M theory Brane Cosmology to boot.

 

[untermensche]

So you presented the evidence to this villager that proved the moon was solid?

Why exactly should this villager believe anything you tell them without evidence?

Because it is you telling them?

Please answer, or attempt to, the fucking question that I have continually asked you.

What evidence did you present that villager?

Do you somehow believe that your word is good enough?

 

[skepticalbip]

Please answer, or attempt to, the fucking question that I have continually asked you.

What evidence did you present that villager?

Do you somehow believe that your word is good enough?

Please answer, or attempt to, the fucking question that I have continually asked you.

I have given you one source that you asked for and threw in the whole M theory Brane Cosmology to boot.

 

[surreptitious57]

If time does not extend infinitely into the past from the present then that means there was a point at which it began. But since knowledge of the Universe only goes back to the Big Bang this cannot be proven. And so is perfectly possible that it could indeed extend to infinity in the past. In as much as it could extend to infinity in the future. And there is no reason why it cannot be openended extending both infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. For as a temporal dimension it can exist independently of other phenomena