Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

The real world is a dichotomy of mass and energy. It is the same thing but it is the same thing in two different forms.

Are you claiming the covalent bond does not exist?

We perceive things with mass depending on their bonds.

So an object that can be counted is just an observable and recognizable thing held together with covalent bonds.

And it is true that the recognition of these underlying bonds takes place in the brain.

 

[untermensche]

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

This isn't argument from incredulity.

It is argument from a conflict of definition.

Infinity is defined as a never ending set of some kind. If we talk about infinite time we talk about an infinite amount of it. We talk about an unending "supply" of it.

So if we say an unending supply of time occurred before yesterday we are saying that there was an unending amount of time that first occurred then yesterday happened. An unending amount of time completed first.

Within the definition of infinite time it makes no sense. An unending supply of time cannot first occur. It can never occur. It can never complete. It goes on without end.

 

[surreptitious57]

Infinite time does go on without end because it extends into the past infinitely. The mistake you are making is in thinking it ends with yesterday. Which is the wrong end of the infinity spectrum to be looking at. It is not that an infinite amount of time has already past but that it is still passing because infinity by definition cannot end. It should therefore be the present tense that is being used here not the past tense as that is where the confusion is arising from

 

[Juma]

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.

The real world is a dichotomy of mass and energy. It is the same thing but it is the same thing in two different forms.

Are you claiming the covalent bond does not exist?

We perceive things with mass depending on their bonds.

So an object that can be counted is just an observable and recognizable thing held together with covalent bonds.

A solar system is a object. A haystack is an object. A cloud is an object. A shade of gray on a green surface is an object.

 

[Juma]

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.

I wrote "all integers", which includes the zero.

 

[Juma]

It is argument from a conflict of definition.

No, it is an argument about your misunderstanding of the subject.

You should prove that the concept of "time has going on for ever" is logically flawed.

What you are trying to refute is "time started yesterday can run for ever before today", which is obvious bullshit.

 

[George S]

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

Juju
This isn't argument from incredulity.

It is argument from a conflict of definition.

Infinity is defined as a never ending set of some kind. If we talk about infinite time we talk about an infinite amount of it. We talk about an unending "supply" of it.

So if we say an unending supply of time occurred before yesterday we are saying that there was an unending amount of time that first occurred then yesterday happened. An unending amount of time completed first.

Within the definition of infinite time it makes no sense. An unending supply of time cannot first occur. It can never occur. It can never complete. It goes on without end.

Time is not a thing one has a supply of. It is a direction at right angles to the familiar three. There is a natural zero, now, to that direction. It is not independent of space. It cannot be spoken of alone. Instead space is related to time by c. To be 3 minutes from the gate is to be a spatial distance, too.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Bedamned. I thought I had gotten you over the idea that placing the phrase “logic says” or “logic shows” in front of an asinine statement made that statement true.

Logic does not “prove” anything. Logic leads to a conclusion based on the assumptions made. A perfectly valid logical argument (which I haven’t seen you make yet) can reach a completely ridiculous conclusion if the assumptions are ridiculous. In fact logic must reach a ridiculous conclusion given ridiculous assumptions.

Example:
The moon is just light, not a solid body.
Humans can not land on light.
Therefore the US could never have landed on the moon.

This is a valid logical argument. The first assumption is absurd so an absurd, but logically valid, conclusion is reached.

Your assumptions are absurd so your conclusions are absurd. The moon is not just light, it is an orb with a solid surface. Although your "arguments" are generally just circular arguments stating the conclusion you want to reach in slightly different terms as your assumption.

 

[untermensche]

The real world is a dichotomy of mass and energy. It is the same thing but it is the same thing in two different forms.

Are you claiming the covalent bond does not exist?

We perceive things with mass depending on their bonds.

So an object that can be counted is just an observable and recognizable thing held together with covalent bonds.

A solar system is a object. A haystack is an object. A cloud is an object. A shade of gray on a green surface is an object.

No. Colors are not objects. You can't measure somebodies perception of grey. All you can measure is the light that caused it, which is not even close to the same thing.

And theoretically the rest are objects. And they are all recognizable due to covalent bonds.

What is the objection?

 

[untermensche]

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.

I wrote "all integers", which includes the zero.

I don't see the point.

The set of fractions between zero and 1 is infinite.

But it is a conceptual infinity. It is a set with no lowest value or no highest value. It is totally imaginary.

 

[untermensche]

Juju
This isn't argument from incredulity.

It is argument from a conflict of definition.

Infinity is defined as a never ending set of some kind. If we talk about infinite time we talk about an infinite amount of it. We talk about an unending "supply" of it.

So if we say an unending supply of time occurred before yesterday we are saying that there was an unending amount of time that first occurred then yesterday happened. An unending amount of time completed first.

Within the definition of infinite time it makes no sense. An unending supply of time cannot first occur. It can never occur. It can never complete. It goes on without end.

Time is not a thing one has a supply of. It is a direction at right angles to the familiar three. There is a natural zero, now, to that direction. It is not independent of space. It cannot be spoken of alone. Instead space is related to time by c. To be 3 minutes from the gate is to be a spatial distance, too.

Did you even bother to notice that the first time I used the word I put it in quotes?

You are making no substantive argument to suppose time could be infinite.

And you are COMPLETELY ignoring the logical argument you quoted.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Bedamned. I thought I had gotten you over the idea that placing the phrase “logic says” or “logic shows” in front of an asinine statement made that statement true.

Logic does not “prove” anything. Logic leads to a conclusion based on the assumptions made. A perfectly valid logical argument (which I haven’t seen you make yet) can reach a completely ridiculous conclusion if the assumptions are ridiculous. In fact logic must reach a ridiculous conclusion given ridiculous assumptions.

Example:
The moon is just light, not a solid body.
Humans can not land on light.
Therefore the US could never have landed on the moon.

This is a valid logical argument. The first assumption is absurd so an absurd, but logically valid, conclusion is reached.

Your assumptions are absurd so your conclusions are absurd. The moon is not just light, it is an orb with a solid surface. Although your "arguments" are generally just circular arguments stating the conclusion you want to reach in slightly different terms as your assumption.

Oh no.

More of this crap.

Some villager displays normal skepticism to your claims and you give him no evidence and expect him to believe you.

And the ironic thing is you even wear around "skeptical" as some moniker. Yet you don't even know what the word means.

 

[Speakpigeon]

untermensche Post No. 507
Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end

No. This definition is clearly wrong.
Ok, the subsequent logic is good enough but the premise is false. That’s what is wrong, the premise.
So the definition does not apply to the past.

The past is clearly over and done with so whether finite or infinite it would have to have had an end. At least now it has to have an end.
So the past does not go on at all. It’s finished. Whether finite or infinite, the past is finished. It does not go on.

On the other hand (or end?), counting an infinite past would have a beginning but no end. God could count it, if He could be bothered, but not us. But we’re very clever and we have an infinite amount of time in front of us to find a smart way maybe to count the past.
A possible definition of the past may be time that just ended, so the past definitely has to have an end and this applies to both a finite and an infinite past. A finite past would have a beginning to, while an infinite past wouldn’t.

So that’s it. And pretty much everyone here should be able to agree with that.
EB

 

[Juma]

A solar system is a object. A haystack is an object. A cloud is an object. A shade of gray on a green surface is an object.

No. Colors are not objects. You can't measure somebodies perception of grey. All you can measure is the light that caused it, which is not even close to the same thing.

And theoretically the rest are objects. And they are all recognizable due to covalent bonds.

What is the objection?

A haystack + a haystack = a haystack. How can that be an object?

A cloud is just a volume of specific temperature, pressure and humidity. A cloud is not made of specific atoms (Since They are constantly changed at a high rate)

A solar system is not made up of covalent bounds.

Your obsession with covalent bounds misses the point altogether. Objects are distinguishable structures interesting to man.

Not an intrinsic property of nature.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bedamned. I thought I had gotten you over the idea that placing the phrase “logic says” or “logic shows” in front of an asinine statement made that statement true.

Logic does not “prove” anything. Logic leads to a conclusion based on the assumptions made. A perfectly valid logical argument (which I haven’t seen you make yet) can reach a completely ridiculous conclusion if the assumptions are ridiculous. In fact logic must reach a ridiculous conclusion given ridiculous assumptions.

Example:
The moon is just light, not a solid body.
Humans can not land on light.
Therefore the US could never have landed on the moon.

This is a valid logical argument. The first assumption is absurd so an absurd, but logically valid, conclusion is reached.

Your assumptions are absurd so your conclusions are absurd. The moon is not just light, it is an orb with a solid surface. Although your "arguments" are generally just circular arguments stating the conclusion you want to reach in slightly different terms as your assumption.

Oh no.

More of this crap.

Some villager displays normal skepticism to your claims and you give him no evidence and expect him to believe you.

And the ironic thing is you even wear around "skeptical" as some moniker. Yet you don't even know what the word means.

The point was that logic does not prove anything. It allows us to make conclusions based on assumptions. Your asinine assumptions in your arguments are asinine so your conclusions are asinine.

 

[untermensche]

Oh no.

More of this crap.

Some villager displays normal skepticism to your claims and you give him no evidence and expect him to believe you.

And the ironic thing is you even wear around "skeptical" as some moniker. Yet you don't even know what the word means.

The point was that logic does not prove anything. It allows us to make conclusions based on assumptions. Your asinine assumptions in your arguments are asinine so your conclusions are asinine.

The only helpful conclusion from your story of the villager is that he should have been just as skeptical of the cloud theory as your theory since he had no evidence to support either.

 

[skepticalbip]

The point was that logic does not prove anything. It allows us to make conclusions based on assumptions. Your asinine assumptions in your arguments are asinine so your conclusions are asinine.

The only helpful conclusion from your story of the villager is that he should have been just as skeptical of the cloud theory as your theory since he had no evidence to support either.

That statement was not about some Vietnamese villager. It was about your argument.

You didn't address it so now the question is are you just trolling or are you really too dense to understand that the statement was about logic not proving anything only about reaching conclusion from assumptions? And that your "argument" is based on nothing but asinine assumptions.

 

[untermensche]

No. Colors are not objects. You can't measure somebodies perception of grey. All you can measure is the light that caused it, which is not even close to the same thing.

And theoretically the rest are objects. And they are all recognizable due to covalent bonds.

What is the objection?

A haystack + a haystack = a haystack. How can that be an object?

A cloud is just a volume of specific temperature, pressure and humidity. A cloud is not made of specific atoms (Since They are constantly changed at a high rate)

A solar system is not made up of covalent bounds.

Your obsession with covalent bounds misses the point altogether. Objects are distinguishable structures interesting to man.

Not an intrinsic property of nature.

Yes you take one piece of clay and combine it with another you end up with one piece of clay. A demonstration of how the world is different from numbers.

But you still had two pieces of clay at one time.

And a determination could be made that something is a haystack. One would have to be made. And if it was made that haystack could be counted. If that haystack was combined with another than that is a different situation and new determinations have to be made.

And there is no obsession with covalent bonds, but in ordinary life it is what allows us to examine and measure objects. It is what gives objects distinction from one another. You seemed to be implying that our distinctions of objects is imaginary, totally subjective, but they have a correspondence to the bonds, and other things, like visible light, that are in the world.

 

[untermensche]

The only helpful conclusion from your story of the villager is that he should have been just as skeptical of the cloud theory as your theory since he had no evidence to support either.

That statement was not about some Vietnamese villager. It was about your argument.

You didn't address it so now the question is are you just trolling or are you really too dense to understand that the statement was about logic not proving anything only about reaching conclusion from assumptions? And that your "argument" is based on nothing but asinine assumptions.

Logical arguments are either sound or unsound. They either follow logic or they don't.

The argument is simply saying that claiming infinite time occurred before yesterday is in conflict with the definition of infinite time, which is time without end.

You can't say time without end ended yesterday.

It makes no sense.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche Post No. 507
Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end

No. This definition is clearly wrong.
Ok, the subsequent logic is good enough but the premise is false. That’s what is wrong, the premise.
So the definition does not apply to the past.

The past is clearly over and done with so whether finite or infinite it would have to have had an end. At least now it has to have an end.
So the past does not go on at all. It’s finished. Whether finite or infinite, the past is finished. It does not go on.

On the other hand (or end?), counting an infinite past would have a beginning but no end. God could count it, if He could be bothered, but not us. But we’re very clever and we have an infinite amount of time in front of us to find a smart way maybe to count the past.
A possible definition of the past may be time that just ended, so the past definitely has to have an end and this applies to both a finite and an infinite past. A finite past would have a beginning to, while an infinite past wouldn’t.

So that’s it. And pretty much everyone here should be able to agree with that.
EB

Yes the past is finished but the past represents the passing of time.

So infinite time in the past would mean the infinite passing of time in the past. If an infinite passing of time must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was infinite time before yesterday, then yesterday will never occur.

Try again.