Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Mageth]

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?

An infinite past is not a finite period that happened in the past. You fail here at least in part due to the same reason you failed earlier in the thread: you're assuming a beginning for infinite time, trying to put a boundary on infinite time.

Your weak argument as posted a few pages back:

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.

Clearly you are simply asserting that because counting out loud to infinity in a finite period is impossible, then an infinite past is impossible.

An infinite past is not a finite period. That you can't count to infinity in an hour does not indicate anything at all about the possibility of an infinite past. B does not follow from A. Your assertion is prima facie false.

 

[Juma]

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

Au contraire: the two cases are very different.

To count to infinity in a day means that you perform infinitely many actions in a finite time span.
That would indeed require impossible things: parts of your body has to move infinitely fast which the theory of relativity forbids.

But then there is nothing in "infinite time passed before yesterday" that require anything to happen in a certain time and thus must move with a certain speed.

So what is the logical similarity between the two that you deem so important?

 

[Mageth]

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

Au contraire: the two cases are very different.

To count to infinity in a day means that you perform infinitely many actions in a finite time span.
That would indeed require impossible things: parts of your body has to move infinitely fast which the theory of relativity forbids.

But then there is nothing in "infinite time passed before yesterday" that require anything to happen in a certain time and thus must move with a certain speed.

So what is the logical similarity between the two that you deem so important?

Apparently the similarity is that unter declares "both are just as impossible" because both are infinities, and unter has declared that infinities are impossible. So of course both are impossible infinities, which makes them similar. And since unter couldn't count to infinity yesterday, there must be a beginning to time, because if not then time is infinite which is impossible because unter couldn't count to infinity yesterday.

 

[untermensche]

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

Au contraire: the two cases are very different.

To count to infinity in a day means that you perform infinitely many actions in a finite time span.
That would indeed require impossible things: parts of your body has to move infinitely fast which the theory of relativity forbids.

But then there is nothing in "infinite time passed before yesterday" that require anything to happen in a certain time and thus must move with a certain speed.

So what is the logical similarity between the two that you deem so important?

Yes the cases are different but they are both conceptually the same thing. They are both conceptually the idea of a completed real infinity.

You are claiming a completed real infinity happened before yesterday.

Which is just as absurd as saying a completed real infinity happened yesterday.

What is absurd is the idea of a completed infinity.

Imagine a person tells you they have a book with infinite pages and they point to a page in the book. Then they tell you they have already read infinite pages before the page they are showing you. This is no different from saying infinite time passed before yesterday.

The question that arises is how exactly did you complete reading infinite pages?

How exactly did infinite time complete so that yesterday could occur?

The idea of a completed real infinity is absurd. It just shows that the person claiming it has no idea what the concept of infinity means.

 

[skepticalbip]

Au contraire: the two cases are very different.

To count to infinity in a day means that you perform infinitely many actions in a finite time span.
That would indeed require impossible things: parts of your body has to move infinitely fast which the theory of relativity forbids.

But then there is nothing in "infinite time passed before yesterday" that require anything to happen in a certain time and thus must move with a certain speed.

So what is the logical similarity between the two that you deem so important?

Yes the cases are different but they are both conceptually the same thing. They are both conceptually the idea of a completed real infinity.

You are claiming a completed real infinity happened before yesterday.

Which is just as absurd as saying a completed real infinity happened yesterday.

What is absurd is the idea of a completed infinity.

Imagine a person tells you they have a book with infinite pages and they point to a page in the book. Then they tell you they have already read infinite pages before the page they are showing you. This is no different from saying infinite time passed before yesterday.

The question that arises is how exactly did you complete reading infinite pages?

How exactly did infinite time complete so that yesterday could occur?

The idea of a completed real infinity is absurd. It just shows that the person claiming it has no idea what the concept of infinity means.

Your wording is too disjointed and frantically chaotic.

Mageth stated your case much clearer.

Apparently the similarity is that unter declares "both are just as impossible" because both are infinities, and unter has declared that infinities are impossible. So of course both are impossible infinities, which makes them similar. And since unter couldn't count to infinity yesterday, there must be a beginning to time, because if not then time is infinite which is impossible because unter couldn't count to infinity yesterday.

But it is still possible to land on the moon.

 

[Juma]

What is absurd is the idea of a completed infinity.

Who cares what you think is absurd?
You dont argue for anything just by stating that you find it absurd.

You have to show that it actually result in logical contradictions. Otherwise you have done nothing.

 

[untermensche]

What is absurd is the idea of a completed infinity.

Who cares what you think is absurd?
You dont argue for anything just by stating that you find it absurd.

You have to show that it actually result in logical contradictions. Otherwise you have done nothing.

I have.

The perfect example is the book analogy.

You are telling me you have a book with infinite pages. The same as telling me there was infinite time in the past. Two real infinities.

Then you are showing me a page and telling me you have read infinite pages before this one. The same as pointing to yesterday and saying there was infinite time that passed before it.

Your claim is absurd on it's face. It is impossible to read infinite pages. The reading never ends.

Just as it's absurd on it's face to say that there was infinite time before yesterday. The time never ends.

 

[surreptitious57]

Infinite time can exist in three different forms

Extending to infinity in the past from the present

Or extending to infinity in the future from the present

Or extending to infinity in the past and to infinity in the future

The definition of time is the distance between two spacetime events

If one of those events is non existent time can extend to infinity either way

In maths an infinite set can have a finite point at which it starts before extending to infinity

So for example the infinite set of all positive integers would start at one and then extend to infinity

Thus proving infinity does not have to be open ended at both ends in order for it to be so but just at one

 

[Juma]

Your claim is absurd on it's face. It is impossible to read infinite pages. The reading never ends.

Just as it's absurd on it's face to say that there was infinite time before yesterday. The time never ends.

That something is absurd isnt an argument. Anything you dont know the reason for may seem absurd. Quantum Mecanics and thoery of relativity are good examples.

The book example is not the same at all since it implicitely introduces a limited timespan: the age of the reader. if we instead think of a guy that has existed forever, then where is the problem? Since he has existed for an enternity then he has plenty of time to read it all.

I see no logical contradiction. Your gut feeling is not enough. You have to show an actual contradiction.

A better analogy is the whole numbers. There are inifinitely many (negative) numbers before zero.

 

[untermensche]

Your claim is absurd on it's face. It is impossible to read infinite pages. The reading never ends.

Just as it's absurd on it's face to say that there was infinite time before yesterday. The time never ends.

That something is absurd isnt an argument. Anything you dont know the reason for may seem absurd. Quantum Mecanics and thoery of relativity are good examples.

The book example is not the same at all since it implicitely introduces a limited timespan: the age of the reader. if we instead think of a guy that has existed forever, then where is the problem? Since he has existed for an enternity then he has plenty of time to read it all.

I see no logical contradiction. Your gut feeling is not enough. You have to show an actual contradiction.

A better analogy is the whole numbers. There are inifinitely many (negative) numbers before zero.

I see you completely ignore the logic of the analogy.

No analogy is perfect but this one is close.

And again we are talking about real completed infinities, not imaginary completed infinities like infinities involving imaginary things called numbers.

To think infinity exists is the same as thinking the number six exists.

But please address the analogy. You haven't moved me one inch from it.

And the analogy has nothing to do with the reader or the age of the reader.

The analogy has to do with the CLAIM of the reader. A claim you are also making.

To claim infinite pages have turned is the same as claiming infinite time has passed. If there is time then there are events.

But of course infinite pages are never turned there is always one more to turn, just as infinite time never passes there is always more time to pass.

There is no completion to turning infinite pages just as there is no completion to infinite time.

To say there was infinite time that passed before yesterday is to say infinite time completed before yesterday. A clear contradiction and a lack of understanding what infinity means.

Talking about Quantum theory or Relativity doesn't change the definition of infinite time. It is time that passes without end.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time can exist in three different forms

Extending to infinity in the past from the present

Or extending to infinity in the future from the present

Or extending to infinity in the past and to infinity in the future

The definition of time is the distance between two spacetime events

If one of those events is non existent time can extend to infinity either way

In maths an infinite set can have a finite point at which it starts before extending to infinity

So for example the infinite set of all positive integers would start at one and then extend to infinity

Thus proving infinity does not have to be open ended at both ends in order for it to be so but just at one

My claim is that infinities involving imaginary entities like numbers are not the same as infinities involving things that are real.

A real infinity would be to write out on a piece of paper every single positive integer. Not simply write the symbol for infinity.

And the argument is simple.

If you say an infinite amount of time passed before yesterday then that is the same as saying yesterday never occurred because infinite time never passes.

 

[Juma]

My claim is that infinities involving imaginary entities like numbers are not the same as infinities involving things that are real.

There are nothing such as a "real entity".
That is just an instance the usage of the imaginary entity one on a subset of the universe.

 

[Juma]

I see you completely ignore the logic of the analogy.

No, i didnt ignore it. You never presented it. The analogy didnt contain any logic point at all.

And again we are talking about real completed infinities, not imaginary completed infinities like infinities involving imaginary things called numbers.

everything you experience is something created by your brain. It is a adjusted, simplified, enhanced REPRESENTATION of what is out there. "Object" is a feature created by the brain to represent a subset of the universe that seems reasonsble to treat as a common entity. It is not something you find in the real world. Thus numbers is as real as objects. In fact, an object is just an instance of number one.

To say there was infinite time that passed before yesterday is to say infinite time completed before yesterday. A clear contradiction and a lack of understanding what infinity means.

Ah. Eh. What? Please show me where tjere is a contradiction?

Do you agree that in mathematics there are three types of intervals: finite (the values between two limits) Half opened (the values than greater than a single limit or the values that are less than a single limit) and open (all values, no limits)?

 

[skepticalbip]

To say there was infinite time that passed before yesterday is to say infinite time completed before yesterday. A clear contradiction and a lack of understanding what infinity means.

Ah. Eh. What? Please show me where tjere is a contradiction?

Do you agree that in mathematics there are three types of intervals: finite (the values between two limits) Half opened (the values than greater than a single limit or the values that are less than a single limit) and open (all values, no limits)?

Unter can't get past his belief (maybe religious) that time had to have a beginning. His belief is so ingrained that he doesn't even realize that that is the basis of his argument. So his argument is that since time obviously had a beginning then an infinite amount of time couldn't have passed before today. So time had a beginning. A really stupid circular argument. Either that or he has absolutely no idea of the nature of infinity but thinks he does. In which case this is an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect since it has been explained to him for more than a hundred pages now.

But then it could just be a case of trolling.

 

[dystopian]

a 106 pages? looks like this thread might end up proving infinite time is real.

 

[fromderinside]

Ah. Eh. What? Please show me where tjere is a contradiction?

Do you agree that in mathematics there are three types of intervals: finite (the values between two limits) Half opened (the values than greater than a single limit or the values that are less than a single limit) and open (all values, no limits)?

Unter can't get past his belief (maybe religious) that time had to have a beginning. His belief is so ingrained that he doesn't even realize that that is the basis of his argument. So his argument is that since time obviously had a beginning then an infinite amount of time couldn't have passed before today. So time had a beginning. A really stupid circular argument. Either that or he has absolutely no idea of the nature of infinity but thinks he does. In which case this is an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect since it has been explained to him for more than a hundred pages now.


But then it could just be a case of trolling.

So how does one resolve dividing the interval between two points into infinitesimals, uh yano, like computing the result for a definite integral?

 

[skepticalbip]

Unter can't get past his belief (maybe religious) that time had to have a beginning. His belief is so ingrained that he doesn't even realize that that is the basis of his argument. So his argument is that since time obviously had a beginning then an infinite amount of time couldn't have passed before today. So time had a beginning. A really stupid circular argument. Either that or he has absolutely no idea of the nature of infinity but thinks he does. In which case this is an amazing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect since it has been explained to him for more than a hundred pages now.


But then it could just be a case of trolling.

So how does one resolve dividing the interval between two points into infinitesimals, uh yano, like computing the result for a definite integral?

Unter claims that it is impossible nonsense. Newton disagrees with Unter by formulating calculus.

 

[Kharakov]

In regards to the smoothness of spacetime:

Some people think that the smoothness and continuity of the conscious experience is imaginary.... and mistakenly believe that their individuality is separate from a continuum of consciousness and consciousnesses.

They forget that the conscious experience is real. And now the continuum of the burrito is...

 

[ryan]

To say there was infinite time that passed before yesterday is to say infinite time completed before yesterday. A clear contradiction and a lack of understanding what infinity means.

Ah. Eh. What? Please show me where tjere is a contradiction?

We have mentioned this already; however, I am not sure if you were part of the discussion.

Infinity doesn't pass. If it did, then yesterday could be considered to be the end of infinity.

 

[untermensche]

My claim is that infinities involving imaginary entities like numbers are not the same as infinities involving things that are real.

There are nothing such as a "real entity".
That is just an instance the usage of the imaginary entity one on a subset of the universe.

Oh my. This is what you have been reduced to?

"There is no reality. Things existing only in the imagination are no different from things we can observe and measure."

And the second sentence is incoherent.