Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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

You clearly don't know what a logical analogy is.

When people have difficulty grasping the logical structure of one argument you can introduce an analogy that better illustrates the point.

You claim that it is possible for there to be infinite time that has already passed in the past.

That is no different from claiming somebody has already read infinite pages in the past.

As I said, infinite time is logically the same as saying infinite events in time. Since if time is infinite and events happen in time that means there is the possibility for infinite events.

So you are claiming to have a book with infinite pages. This is conceptually no different from claiming there was infinite time in the past.

Then you are pointing to a page and saying you read infinite pages to get to this page. This is conceptually no different from saying that yesterday occurred after infinite time passed first.

But infinite pages would mean pages without end, so it is impossible to have already read them.

Just as infinite time means time without end, so it is impossible for it to have already passed before yesterday.

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.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

An object is a unique thing. Every number "one" is the exact same thing.

There is no logical consistency between objects and numbers. Numbers are conceptual. They are imaginary.

 

[untermensche]

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

You clearly can't read.

 

[ryan]

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.

I hope this was a mistake Juma because in your next post you put, "It is not something you find in the real world", which seems to imply that you believe there is a real world.

 

[surreptitious57]

There is no such thing as infinite time having already passed because infinity can never pass as it is by definition never ending. And this is where any such argument trying to disprove it fails. One can use maths to prove this : the infinite set of all negative integers begins at minus one then extends backwards along the horizontal number line for all of infinity. There is no point at which that set passes since it is infinite and so any notion of passing is non existent As to whether time actually does extends to infinity in the past or not is not known but that is an entirely separate issue from what is being discussed here

 

[Juma]

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.

And the contradiction? You realize that there are such things as half open intervals? As for example the set of negative whole numbers? Put a ruler in front of you: it indicates, at least, two infinit sets: one going out to the right (from 0 to the positive infinity) and one coming in from left (negative infinity to 0).
For the latter interval 0 is indeed the end of infinity.

 

[Juma]

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.

I hope this was a mistake Juma because in your next post you put, "It is not something you find in the real world", which seems to imply that you believe there is a real world.

Of course there is a real world (that is that is the origin of the input sensed by our senses).
What I say is that the grouping of that data into objects is an effect if the brain. It is really pretty obvious but since we have a hard time thinking of unorganized data we take it for granted. But if you have ever worked with debeloping software for image recognizers etc you would not find the fact suprising.

 

[Juma]

You clearly don't know what a logical analogy is.

When people have difficulty grasping the logical structure of one argument you can introduce an analogy that better illustrates the point.

You claim that it is possible for there to be infinite time that has already passed in the past.

That is no different from claiming somebody has already read infinite pages in the past.

As I said, infinite time is logically the same as saying infinite events in time. Since if time is infinite and events happen in time that means there is the possibility for infinite events.

So you are claiming to have a book with infinite pages. This is conceptually no different from claiming there was infinite time in the past.

Then you are pointing to a page and saying you read infinite pages to get to this page. This is conceptually no different from saying that yesterday occurred after infinite time passed first.

But infinite pages would mean pages without end, so it is impossible to have already read them.

Just as infinite time means time without end, so it is impossible for it to have already passed before yesterday.

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.

You are desperately grasping at straws.

An object is a unique thing. Every number "one" is the exact same thing.

There is no logical consistency between objects and numbers. Numbers are conceptual. They are imaginary.

Do you agree that the set of negative integers are an infinite set? And that before we get to 0 there are infinitely many negative numbers? the set of negative numbers are a set that starts in negative infinity and ends in 0?

There are no logical problems with an infinity that ends. That is a very well known concept.

I mean, assume that universe is infinitely big, then you are surrounded in infinities that ends in you.

 

[ryan]

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.

And the contradiction? You realize that there are such things as half open intervals? As for example the set of negative whole numbers? Put a ruler in front of you: it indicates, at least, two infinit sets: one going out to the right (from 0 to the positive infinity) and one coming in from left (negative infinity to 0).
For the latter interval 0 is indeed the end of infinity.

The number line is not real. We are talking about the real world. And please don't try to convolute "real" this time.

 

[surreptitious57]

One must be careful about conflating mathematical infinity and physical infinity as the two are not the same. The former can be used as an analogy for the latter although analogies are not always perfect. The problem with physical infinity is that it can not be observed so can not be proved. This is why mathematical infinity is used to demonstrate it instead. There is nothing in the laws of physics which states that physical infinity can not exist although that does not mean that it necessarily does

 

[untermensche]

One must be careful about conflating mathematical infinity and physical infinity as the two are not the same. The former can be used as an analogy for the latter although analogies are not always perfect. The problem with physical infinity is that it can not be observed so can not be proved. This is why mathematical infinity is used to demonstrate it instead. There is nothing in the laws of physics which states that physical infinity can not exist although that does not mean that it necessarily does

There is no law of nature showing that infinity is impossible.

But logic shows the notion applied to time extending infinitely into the past is absurd.

It is absurd to think infinite time already passed before yesterday.

The ideas of infinite time and a completed amount of time are incompatible.

 

[untermensche]

Do you agree that the set of negative integers are an infinite set? And that before we get to 0 there are infinitely many negative numbers? the set of negative numbers are a set that starts in negative infinity and ends in 0?

There are no logical problems with an infinity that ends. That is a very well known concept.

I mean, assume that universe is infinitely big, then you are surrounded in infinities that ends in you.

The set of negative integers starts at negative one and extends infinitely towards the remaining negative integers.

 

[Juma]

Do you agree that the set of negative integers are an infinite set? And that before we get to 0 there are infinitely many negative numbers? the set of negative numbers are a set that starts in negative infinity and ends in 0?

There are no logical problems with an infinity that ends. That is a very well known concept.

I mean, assume that universe is infinitely big, then you are surrounded in infinities that ends in you.

The set of negative integers starts at negative one and extends infinitely towards the remaining negative integers.

Where do the set of all integers (postive and negative) start?

When you have answered that please state the logical contradiction you think arise if we allow a infinite set with an upper limit.

For the n:th time: the fact that you find something absurd is not a proof of anything.

Your analogy fails because there is nothing problamatic with a infinitely old guy that has finished turning infinitely many pages today.

Exactly as there are no problem with an infinitely old guy that has walked infinitely many steps and stops in front of your door.

You may find it absurd but you will find that there are no logical contradictions in that!

 

[Juma]

The number line is not real.

So what?

We are talking about the real world.

No, you are not. You are talking about countable objects. To have countable objects you need a information processing unit that decides what is a object and what is not (your brain).

The real world is a continuum. Things is in our head only.

And please don't try to convolute "real" this time.

I'm not. You are.

 

[ryan]

We are talking about the real world.

No, you are not. You are talking about countable objects. To have countable objects you need a information processing unit that decides what is a object and what is not (your brain).

If the environment manifests in our brains digitally, as in objects/subsets/units, how does that help your argument for a continuum? The environment could still be digital or a continuum.

 

[surreptitious57]

There is no law of nature showing that infinity is impossible

But logic shows the notion applied to time extending infinitely into the past is absurd

Where there is a conflict between logic and physical reality then the latter has to be true by default

Infinity only has to have one infinite point for it to be true so an infinity before yesterday is entirely possible

Argument from incredulity is irrelevant because reality does not have to conform to our required expectations of it

 

[dystopian]

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

You clearly can't read.

You clearly don't have a sense of humor.

 

[ryan]

There is no law of nature showing that infinity is impossible

But logic shows the notion applied to time extending infinitely into the past is absurd

Where there is a conflict between logic and physical reality then the latter has to be true by default

Infinity only has to have one infinite point for it to be true so an infinity before yesterday is entirely possible

You seem to be on both sides of the argument. You put in page 107, "There is no such thing as infinite time having already passed because infinity can never pass as it is by definition never ending.".

 

[Juma]

Where there is a conflict between logic and physical reality then the latter has to be true by default

Infinity only has to have one infinite point for it to be true so an infinity before yesterday is entirely possible

You seem to be on both sides of the argument. You put in page 107, "There is no such thing as infinite time having already passed because infinity can never pass as it is by definition never ending.".

Page numbers depend on forum reader used. You have to specify post by number.

 

[surreptitious57]

What I meant by infinite time not having passed is that there is no point at which that would happen. That is not the same as saying that it cannot or does not exist. If there is infinite time in the past then it is still receding in to it now and will carry on doing so for all of eternity. So the notion of passing is non existent. Infinity by definition has to be in the present because it never stops. It therefore makes zero difference in what direction it is actually proceeding

 

[untermensche]

Where do the set of all integers (postive and negative) start?

The set of positive integers starts at one. The set of negative integers starts at negative one. Neither set contains zero.

So the set of all the integers, positive and negative, has two starts.

This is pretty elementary.