Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

I see you have completely run out of arguments.

Nope. You're just not posting anything that requires any new ones. Anything I've said on this thread, I hereby stand by.

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

So you resent the suggestion that you consider what you said in the context of what you said. Gotcha.

You have said nothing so there is nothing to address.

Post something worth considering and I'll respond with something. All I see you doing is repeating the same weak assertions that I and others have more than adequately traversed. Amusing, not compelling or otherwise interesting. Hence the satire.

 

[skepticalbip]

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 into the future. Because as a temporal dimension it can exist independently of other phenomena

Warning...
You are about to be sucked into his black hole of simply stating over and over that time had a beginning with no justification other than his nonsense claim that it makes no sense otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You haven't given me anything. You said to read a preface and find it myself.

Again, why should some villager believe anything you say without evidence it is true?

To think they should displays an amazing lack of understanding of what things we should believe are true.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

You haven't given me anything. You said to read a preface and find it myself.

Again, why should some villager believe anything you say without evidence it is true?

To think they should displays an amazing lack of understanding of what things we should believe are true.

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]

Nope. You're just not posting anything that requires any new ones. Anything I've said on this thread, I hereby stand by.

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

So you resent the suggestion that you consider what you said in the context of what you said. Gotcha.

You have said nothing so there is nothing to address.

Post something worth considering and I'll respond with something. All I see you doing is repeating the same weak assertions that I and others have more than adequately traversed. Amusing, not compelling or otherwise interesting. Hence the satire.

The argument you can't even begin to address is simple.

To say it is possible that infinite time passed in the past is logically no different from me saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

These would just be two examples of an infinite amount of something real being realized.

But I bet you won't address the argument. You will simply ignore it completely yet also say it is "weak".

Some simply don't have the ability to examine logical arguments in words.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You gave me nothing. But I'm a better man so I'll answer. Again.

...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 never once heard Krauss or any physicist say they have no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past.

Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence?

 

[skepticalbip]

You gave me nothing. But I'm a better man so I'll answer. Again.

...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 never once heard Krauss or any physicist say they have no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past.

Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence?

I gave you exactly that. All you have to do is re-open that book you claim to have just read and read the preface. Then to boot, you could try to understand Brane Cosmology.

I can't open your head and pour knowledge in for you. I can only tell you where it is.

So 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.

 

[Mageth]

Nope. You're just not posting anything that requires any new ones. Anything I've said on this thread, I hereby stand by.



So you resent the suggestion that you consider what you said in the context of what you said. Gotcha.

You have said nothing so there is nothing to address.

Post something worth considering and I'll respond with something. All I see you doing is repeating the same weak assertions that I and others have more than adequately traversed. Amusing, not compelling or otherwise interesting. Hence the satire.

The argument you can't even begin to address is simple.

To say it is possible that infinite time passed in the past is logically no different from me saying I counted out loud to infinity yesterday.

False. The counting out loud yesterday bit posits a finite, bounded period of time. Which is not "logically" or in any way the same as or even similar to infinite time.

These would just be two examples of an infinite amount of something real being realized.

It's amusing that you believe that your not being able to count to infinity in a day indicates anything at all about the possibility of infinite time.

But I bet you won't address the argument. You will simply ignore it completely yet also say it is "weak".

You're half right this time. In other words, you're improving.

Some simply don't have the ability to examine logical arguments in words.

That's actually what I do for a living. So you give back some of the cred you got for guessing that I'd say your arguments are weak.

 

[untermensche]

You gave me nothing. But I'm a better man so I'll answer. Again.



I have never once heard Krauss or any physicist say they have no logical problem with time extending infinitely into the past.

Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence?

I gave you exactly that. All you have to do is re-open that book you claim to have just read and read the preface. Then to boot, you could try to understand Brane Cosmology.

I can't open your head and pour knowledge in for you. I can only tell you where it is.

So 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.

So I'll immediately go to the library and check out the book again.

While I'm gone, please give me something.

 

[untermensche]

False. The counting out loud yesterday bit posits a finite, bounded period of time. Which is not "logically" or in any way the same as or even similar to infinite time.

It is the realization of a real infinity. And of course the realization of any real infinity must take place in time since that is how reality exists.

At least you tried.

 

[skepticalbip]

I gave you exactly that. All you have to do is re-open that book you claim to have just read and read the preface. Then to boot, you could try to understand Brane Cosmology.

I can't open your head and pour knowledge in for you. I can only tell you where it is.

So 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.

So I'll immediately go to the library and check out the book again.

While I'm gone, please give me something.

Good. Look for his short discussion of infinite regress. Turtles all the way down is likely more reasonable than an uncaused cause.

I'll give you the hope that you can overcome your blind spot when it comes to anything that you don't already believe.

But the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

 

[untermensche]

So I'll immediately go to the library and check out the book again.

While I'm gone, please give me something.

Good. Look for his short discussion of infinite regress. Turtles all the way down is likely more reasonable than an uncaused cause.

I'll give you the hope that you can overcome your blind spot when it comes to anything that you don't already believe.

But the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

Krauss says "turtles all the way down" to dismiss the argument with a flick of the wrist, not address it.

He doesn't address the problem at all. He simply dismisses it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Good. Look for his short discussion of infinite regress. Turtles all the way down is likely more reasonable than an uncaused cause.

I'll give you the hope that you can overcome your blind spot when it comes to anything that you don't already believe.

But the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

Krauss says "turtles all the way down" to dismiss the argument with a flick of the wrist, not address it.

He doesn't address the problem at all. He simply dismisses it.

Read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

 

[Mageth]

False. The counting out loud yesterday bit posits a finite, bounded period of time. Which is not "logically" or in any way the same as or even similar to infinite time.

It is the realization of a real infinity. And of course the realization of any real infinity must take place in time since that is how reality exists.

Equivocation on time. A finite, bounded period of time is not the same as infinite time in the past. That you can't count to infinity in a finite period indicates nothing at all about the possibility of infinite time.

At least you tried.

Oh yeah. And you say "the realization of any real infinity must take place in time since that is how reality exists." But we're supposedly discussing the possibility of infinite time. So this statement of yours appears to be not well thought out, as "the realization of infinite time must take place in time since that is how reality exists" doesn't appear to make sense.

 

[untermensche]

It is the realization of a real infinity. And of course the realization of any real infinity must take place in time since that is how reality exists.

Equivocation on time. A finite, bounded period of time is not the same as infinite time in the past. That you can't count to infinity in a finite period indicates nothing at all about the possibility of infinite time.

What difference does that make?

They are both real infinities.

How do you say one is possible and one is not?

Because the one that is impossible happened yesterday as opposed to in the past?

 

[untermensche]

Krauss says "turtles all the way down" to dismiss the argument with a flick of the wrist, not address it.

He doesn't address the problem at all. He simply dismisses it.

Read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

I don't have to. I've heard Krauss use the phrase several times.

He is saying that claiming there are infinite turtles is illogical. He is laughing at those who claim there are infinite turtles.

As I laugh at those who claim there was infinite time.

 

[skepticalbip]

Read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

I don't have to. I've heard Krauss use the phrase several times.

He is saying that claiming there are infinite turtles is illogical. He is laughing at those who claim there are infinite turtles.

As I laugh at those who claim there was infinite time.

Making up what you believe he said is no substitute for reading it.

So I repeat, read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

 

[untermensche]

I don't have to. I've heard Krauss use the phrase several times.

He is saying that claiming there are infinite turtles is illogical. He is laughing at those who claim there are infinite turtles.

As I laugh at those who claim there was infinite time.

Making up what you believe he said is no substitute to reading it.

So I repeat, read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

You are simply telling me what you believe.

I don't believe you. You offer no evidence or logic.

When you have some you have an argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Making up what you believe he said is no substitute to reading it.

So I repeat, read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

You are simply telling me what you believe.

I don't believe you. You offer no evidence or logic.

When you have some you have an argument.

I offer Krauss' own words. All you have to do is read them.

So I repeat, read the fucking preface. He isn't ambiguous although he does use his typical humor. The book was written for lay people, not physicists, so he tried to write in terms they could understand. What he clearly dismisses in that part of the preface is the idea of an uncaused cause.

So the question remains, if you can understand that he doesn't find a logical reason that time had to have a beginning then is he an idiot or were you wrong about an infinite past being illogical?

 

[Wiploc]

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

Where's the inconsistency in that?

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

Well, sure, it's inconsistent to count to infinity in a finite time. How is it inconsistent to assume that infinity has passed in an infinite amount of time?