Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

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.

That is your mistaken belief of the definition of the meaning of infinite time so you reach a mistaken conclusion.

Infinite time doesn't "occur". It doesn't pass. It is a dimension like width. We exist within the infinite expanse of the dimensions, if they are infinite. If they are not infinite, then we exist within the finite expanse of them.

But then we have gone over this before at which point you veered off onto some other topic only to return to this nonsense again.

 

[Juma]

You seemed to be implying that our distinctions of objects is imaginary, totally subjective,

You seem to have problem understanding other writers and this is no exception: i have never written something so silly. What i have stated is that the object is a grouping made by the brain. If that grouping was useful then evolution would have made a short story of us...

 

[Kharakov]

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.

One cannot count "from" an infinity (negative or positive) and reach a defined (finite) number. One can pick any location on an infinite timeline and measure from there. The finite measurement is defined by a standard rule of repetitive events such as the velocity of light in a vacuum, the rotation of the Earth, Cesium decay, etc.

Counting from negative infinity to reach some point is the same thing as adding infinity to negative infinity: infinity - infinity =  indeterminate form. It doesn't matter whether you're using mathematics, or applying logic to the concept of something infinite in scope. Something which is infinite does not have a specific finite value associated with it, so one does not arrive at a specific, finite value by counting from it.

One instead picks a location to count from, and uses some form of standard rule to measure with.


So one can count from now, to a finite point in the past (or the future) using repeating events (orbits, rotations, whatever), but one cannot count from an undefined location such as -infinity to a defined location (such as now). One cannot count backwards from an undefined number.

There are neat things one can do with infinities though- but they are not all Kosher or well defined.

 

[untermensche]

You seemed to be implying that our distinctions of objects is imaginary, totally subjective,

You seem to have problem understanding other writers and this is no exception: i have never written something so silly. What i have stated is that the object is a grouping made by the brain. If that grouping was useful then evolution would have made a short story of us...

So you have said nothing.

A grouping made by the brain is what?

Can it be based on something objective like covalent bonds, or is it always totally subjective?

 

[Juma]

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.

If an passing of 1 hour must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was 1 hour before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

If an passing of N hours must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was N hours before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

This is true for ALL N.

Thus for each N there is a N+k where k> 0 for which it is also true

Thus:

If an passing of Infinitely hours must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was Infinitely hours before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

 

[untermensche]

That is your mistaken belief of the definition of the meaning of infinite time so you reach a mistaken conclusion.

Infinite time doesn't "occur". It doesn't pass. It is a dimension like width. We exist within the infinite expanse of the dimensions, if they are infinite. If they are not infinite, then we exist within the finite expanse of them.

But then we have gone over this before at which point you veered off onto some other topic only to return to this nonsense again.

Calling something a dimension is to say next to nothing about it.

Time, whatever it is, can be understood as change. For every "moment" in time, there is a change of some kind in the universe, and perhaps beyond it. Time is linked to space because these changes take place in space.

So it doesn't matter if you say infinite time or infinite change. It means the same thing.

To say that infinite time occurred before yesterday is to say that infinite change occurred before yesterday. So yesterday happened after infinite change occurred first.

So let us wait for infinite change to occur first? When does it stop occurring?

 

[Juma]

You seem to have problem understanding other writers and this is no exception: i have never written something so silly. What i have stated is that the object is a grouping made by the brain. If that grouping was useful then evolution would have made a short story of us...

So you have said nothing.

A grouping made by the brain is what?

Can it be based on something objective like covalent bonds, or is it always totally subjective?

No, the general concept cannot be based on covalent bounds! But that doesnt mean that each instance of it is subjective. We can define what the object "atom" is. But making it objective in this way doesnt mean that there are objects out there. There are structures out and our grouping is arbitrary, but once made it can be objective.

 

[untermensche]

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.

If an passing of 1 hour must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was 1 hour before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

If an passing of N hours must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was N hours before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

This is true for ALL N.

Thus for each N there is a N+k where k> 0 for which it is also true

Thus:

If an passing of Infinitely hours must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was Infinitely hours before yesterday, then yesterday will occur.

All you have said with all of this is that infinite hours can occur because I can define N as infinity.

I agree you can define N as infinity.

But that is not a logical argument. It is making an arbitrary definition.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

You're still making stupid assumptions about infinity: Infinite time having passed only means that one cannot have a well defined (finite) measurement of how much time has passed.

You're arguing against people who have a much firmer grasp of the implications of infinity than you do, because they can communicate in the language of mathematics which allows them to grasp certain concepts about infinity that you cannot if you continue to make stupid assumptions about the relationship of mathematics with reality and your ability to understand reality.

The whole "well, I don't understand the math, but I understand the concepts" shtick is old, stupid, and a reflection of incorrect understanding of the relationship between understanding a concept and understanding the very simple math behind the concept.

You don't understand the concept, and because of this, you don't understand the math. You understand that 1+1=2. You understand that 3+4=7. These are finite operations. What you do not understand is the concept of something undefined (infinite in this case) being added (mathematically, or in reality) to something defined (finite). Undefined +1 = undefined. Undefined -undefined = undefined. Undefined + undefined= undefined. Undefined + defined = undefined. Undefined - define = undefined.

Plenty of individuals here do understand this very simple concept, but you do not, and this is the root of the stupid idea that one can count from -infinity. One can count from a defined location like now towards -infinity, and one will never reach it because defined + defined never = undefined. No defined amount of time passing will reach an undefined location in the past. It's a fact.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is your mistaken belief of the definition of the meaning of infinite time so you reach a mistaken conclusion.

Infinite time doesn't "occur". It doesn't pass. It is a dimension like width. We exist within the infinite expanse of the dimensions, if they are infinite. If they are not infinite, then we exist within the finite expanse of them.

But then we have gone over this before at which point you veered off onto some other topic only to return to this nonsense again.

Calling something a dimension is to say next to nothing about it.

Time, whatever it is, can be understood as change. For every "moment" in time, there is a change of some kind in the universe, and perhaps beyond it. Time is linked to space because these changes take place in space.

So it doesn't matter if you say infinite time or infinite change. It means the same thing.

To say that infinite time occurred before yesterday is to say that infinite change occurred before yesterday. So yesterday happened after infinite change occurred first.

So let us wait for infinite change to occur first? When does it stop occurring?

Twisted understanding here. Time does not occur.

If an infinite universe exists then how far do you have to go before you can to get to here? A nonsense question just as the one you asked is.

 

[untermensche]

So you have said nothing.

A grouping made by the brain is what?

Can it be based on something objective like covalent bonds, or is it always totally subjective?

No, the general concept cannot be based on covalent bounds! But that doesnt mean that each instance of it is subjective. We can define what the object "atom" is. But making it objective in this way doesnt mean that there are objects out there. There are structures out and our grouping is arbitrary, but once made it can be objective.

So I can't classify something as a bottle based on it's covalent bonds that make it something I can hold in my hand?

What am I observing about the bottle then to make the determination?

 

[untermensche]

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.

You're still making stupid assumptions about infinity: Infinite time having passed only means that one cannot have a well defined (finite) measurement of how much time has passed.

So a finite amount of time, if we have trouble measuring it, is infinite?

That's laughable.

You're arguing against people who have a much firmer grasp of the implications of infinity than you do, because they can communicate in the language of mathematics which allows them to grasp certain concepts about infinity that you cannot if you continue to make stupid assumptions about the relationship of mathematics with reality and your ability to understand reality.

I am not claiming to know everything. But some don't seem to understand the difference between totally conceptual entities like numbers and things that exist in the world like time. They think that the things they say about one somehow applies to the other.

Maybe not laughable but ridiculous.

 

[Juma]

No, the general concept cannot be based on covalent bounds! But that doesnt mean that each instance of it is subjective. We can define what the object "atom" is. But making it objective in this way doesnt mean that there are objects out there. There are structures out and our grouping is arbitrary, but once made it can be objective.

So I can't classify something as a bottle based on it's covalent bonds that make it something I can hold in my hand?

What am I observing about the bottle then to make the determination?

Read what I actually wrote and come back when you have thought it through...

 

[surreptitious57]

One can count from a finite point towards infinity

One cannot count from infinity towards a finite point

It is possible to go from the present towards an infinite past

It is not possible to go from an infinite past towards the present

[ saying towards instead of to as infinity can never actually be reached ]

 

[untermensche]

So I can't classify something as a bottle based on it's covalent bonds that make it something I can hold in my hand?

What am I observing about the bottle then to make the determination?

Read what I actually wrote and come back when you have thought it through...

After you answer the simple questions.

 

[untermensche]

One can count from a finite point towards infinity

One cannot count from infinity towards a finite point

It is possible to go from the present towards an infinite past

It is not possible to go from an infinite past towards the present

[ saying towards instead of to as infinity can never actually be reached ]

Exactly. One cannot say that an infinity stretched towards the past and then count back to any any stationary point, yesterday as an example.

If the amount if time before yesterday is uncountable how did it already pass before yesterday occurred? How does an uncountable amount become completed?

 

[skepticalbip]

One can count from a finite point towards infinity

One cannot count from infinity towards a finite point

It is possible to go from the present towards an infinite past

It is not possible to go from an infinite past towards the present

[ saying towards instead of to as infinity can never actually be reached ]

Exactly. One cannot say that an infinity stretched towards the past and then count back to any any stationary point, yesterday as an example.

If the amount if time before yesterday is uncountable how did it already pass before yesterday occurred? How does an uncountable amount become completed?

It doesn't "pass".

If the universe is infinite then how far did we have to go to get to here? A nonsense question just as your question is a nonsense question?

 

[Juma]

Read what I actually wrote and come back when you have thought it through...

After you answer the simple questions.

Read the post and you will have the answer!
:-/

 

[untermensche]

Exactly. One cannot say that an infinity stretched towards the past and then count back to any any stationary point, yesterday as an example.

If the amount if time before yesterday is uncountable how did it already pass before yesterday occurred? How does an uncountable amount become completed?

It doesn't "pass".

If the universe is infinite then how far did we have to go to get to here? A nonsense question just as your question is a nonsense question?

You are just nitpicking.

Saying time passes is just saying that every moment in time is different from the previous. You continually pointing out that the way we talk about time elucidates nothing about time.

And yes, if infinity exists then infinity exists. That's quite an argument.

Infinity is a human created concept.

To think it exists is no different from thinking the gods exist.

 

[Juma]

Infinity is a human created concept.

And so is "finite"