Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

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.

I don't think you can find any cosmologist who will say that time began or is infinite. That isn't the argument. The argument is if either is possible. Cosmologists can find no reason that would indicate either is impossible. Modern string theorists that are working on Brane Cosmology make the assumption that time is infinite otherwise their model is nonsense. In modern BB theories it is irrelevant so not addressed. Do you have any evidence other than your incredulity and belief that these cosmologists are idiots.

If you think your conclusions make any sense then you should be able to answer, even if the universe is finite, how far we had to go through the spacial dimensions to get to here? To me, it is a nonsense question but it would be your understanding of time applied to spacial dimensions.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is a human created concept.

And so is "finite"

No, humans defined finite, they didn't make it up whole.

A finite amount of time is something that exists. It is arbitrary but it exists.

There is no evidence an infinite amount of time exists or could exist.

And there is logic showing that to think it exists is to discard the definition of infinity.

 

[untermensche]

I don't think you can find any cosmologist who will say that time began or is infinite. That isn't the argument. The argument is if either is possible. Cosmologists can find no reason that would indicate either is impossible. Modern string theorists that are working on Brane Cosmology make the assumption that time is infinite otherwise their model is nonsense. In modern BB theories it is irrelevant so not addressed. Do you have any evidence other than your incredulity and belief that these cosmologists are idiots.

If you think your conclusions make any sense then you should be able to answer, even if the universe is finite, how far we had to go to get to here? To me, it is a nonsense question but it would be your understanding of time applied to spacial dimensions.

The way science works is that for a hypothesis to have validity there must be evidence.

There is no evidence for the existence of infinite time so the hypothesis has no validity.

But we can make a measurement of a finite amount of time. So we know that finite amounts of time do exist.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think you can find any cosmologist who will say that time began or is infinite. That isn't the argument. The argument is if either is possible. Cosmologists can find no reason that would indicate either is impossible. Modern string theorists that are working on Brane Cosmology make the assumption that time is infinite otherwise their model is nonsense. In modern BB theories it is irrelevant so not addressed. Do you have any evidence other than your incredulity and belief that these cosmologists are idiots.

If you think your conclusions make any sense then you should be able to answer, even if the universe is finite, how far we had to go to get to here? To me, it is a nonsense question but it would be your understanding of time applied to spacial dimensions.

The way science works is that for a hypothesis to have validity there must be evidence.

There is no evidence for the existence of infinite time so the hypothesis has no validity.

But we can make a measurement of a finite amount of time. So we know that finite amounts of time do exist.

And there is no evidence that time itself is finite. The fact that we can measure a defined portion of time does not tell us if it is a portion of a finite time or a portion of an infinite time(cosmologists seem to understand this even if you don't). We can not measure the full extent of time whether it is either finite or infinite time. If we could measure the full extent of time then we would know the answer. But we can't so the answer is unknown.

 

[Juma]

And so is "finite"

No, humans defined finite, they didn't make it up whole.

A finite amount of time is something that exists. It is arbitrary but it exists.

There is no evidence an infinite amount of time exists or could exist.

And there is logic showing that to think it exists is to discard the definition of infinity.

You can obviously not read. One simple sentence, and you failed.

I give up. I really had some hope that you could take reason but since you cannot read the whole thing is useless.

 

[surreptitious57]

If the amount of time before yesterday is uncountable how did it already pass before yesterday occurred

Infinite time cannot by definition have already passed

Infinite time in the past is still stretching towards infinity

And in point of fact it never actually reaches it because it is infinite

You want to count it you have to start from the finite point at the other end

You cannot count from infinity because there is no finite point at which to start from

You are right however to say that it is uncountable because that is a definition of what infinity is

 

[untermensche]

No, humans defined finite, they didn't make it up whole.

A finite amount of time is something that exists. It is arbitrary but it exists.

There is no evidence an infinite amount of time exists or could exist.

And there is logic showing that to think it exists is to discard the definition of infinity.

You can obviously not read. One simple sentence, and you failed.

I give up. I really had some hope that you could take reason but since you cannot read the whole thing is useless.

You're not offering reason. You're offering prejudice.

You assume infinity is possible yet have not one logical or empirical reason to believe it.

I know that a finite amount of time can exist. It can be observed.

 

[untermensche]

If the amount of time before yesterday is uncountable how did it already pass before yesterday occurred

Infinite time cannot by definition have already passed...

That is the totality of my argument.

You cannot say that infinite time has already passed in the past.

It violates the definition of infinite time.

 

[skepticalbip]

Infinite time cannot by definition have already passed...

That is the totality of my argument.

You cannot say that infinite time has already passed in the past.

It violates the definition of infinite time.

A good example of why I made a point, that you called a nitpick, that time does not "pass".

Even though you admit that time doesn't "pass" when pointed out, you continue to take the metaphor as literal in your argument.

 

[untermensche]

That is the totality of my argument.

You cannot say that infinite time has already passed in the past.

It violates the definition of infinite time.

A good example of why I made a point, that you called a nitpick, that time does not "pass".

Even though you admit that time doesn't "pass" when pointed out, you continue to take the metaphor as literal in your argument.

It is a metaphor that represents something.

The passing of time means the movement from one moment in time to another. Infinite time would mean the movement from one moment to another without end.

You are doing nothing but nitpicking.

 

[skepticalbip]

A good example of why I made a point, that you called a nitpick, that time does not "pass".

Even though you admit that time doesn't "pass" when pointed out, you continue to take the metaphor as literal in your argument.

It is a metaphor that represents something.

The passing of time means the movement from one moment in time to another. Infinite time would mean the movement from one moment to another without end.

You are doing nothing but nitpicking.

Yes it represents how we perceive our experiences. It says nothing about the nature of time itself.

We also perceive that we are the center of the universe. This also says nothing about the nature of the universe. Science tells us a different story just as it tells a different story of time.

 

[Juma]

You can obviously not read. One simple sentence, and you failed.

I give up. I really had some hope that you could take reason but since you cannot read the whole thing is useless.

You're not offering reason. You're offering prejudice.

You assume infinity is possible yet have not one logical or empirical reason to believe it.

I know that a finite amount of time can exist. It can be observed.

Do you know what? We have spent a lot of time on trying to discuss this matter and what do we get in return? you not giving a damn... You dont even take time to read what we write... You are not worth this.

 

[untermensche]

You're not offering reason. You're offering prejudice.

You assume infinity is possible yet have not one logical or empirical reason to believe it.

I know that a finite amount of time can exist. It can be observed.

Do you know what? We have spent a lot of time on trying to discuss this matter and what do we get in return? you not giving a damn... You dont even take time to read what we write... You are not worth this.

I read what you write. You just don't like the implications of what you say.

You have been saying infinite time is possible for a while now.

Yet you have no empirical evidence or logic to support it.

You just keep assuming it.

And when logic shows you that the very definition of infinite time is contradicted by saying that infinite time has already passed you ignore the logic because your prejudice tells you differently.

 

[Underseer]

Do you know what? We have spent a lot of time on trying to discuss this matter and what do we get in return? you not giving a damn... You dont even take time to read what we write... You are not worth this.

I read what you write. You just don't like the implications of what you say.

You have been saying infinite time is possible for a while now.

Yet you have no empirical evidence or logic to support it.

You just keep assuming it.

And when logic shows you that the very definition of infinite time is contradicted by saying that infinite time has already passed you ignore the logic because your prejudice tells you differently.

Wait. Are you referring to the philosophical "disproof" of infinity claimed by Craig with his infinite chairs "paradox"?

 

[untermensche]

I read what you write. You just don't like the implications of what you say.

You have been saying infinite time is possible for a while now.

Yet you have no empirical evidence or logic to support it.

You just keep assuming it.

And when logic shows you that the very definition of infinite time is contradicted by saying that infinite time has already passed you ignore the logic because your prejudice tells you differently.

Wait. Are you referring to the philosophical "disproof" of infinity claimed by Craig with his infinite chairs "paradox"?

I don't know it.

But Craig makes huge jumps and everyone of them amazingly is towards his god.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you know what? We have spent a lot of time on trying to discuss this matter and what do we get in return? you not giving a damn... You dont even take time to read what we write... You are not worth this.

I read what you write. You just don't like the implications of what you say.

You have been saying infinite time is possible for a while now.

Yet you have no empirical evidence or logic to support it.

You just keep assuming it.

And when logic shows you that the very definition of infinite time is contradicted by saying that infinite time has already passed you ignore the logic because your prejudice tells you differently.

Again you go back to taking a very poor metaphor of "time passing" as a reality to try to make a point.

The point is that there is no evidence to declare either infinite time or finite time is fact. Either is possible.

 

[untermensche]

I read what you write. You just don't like the implications of what you say.

You have been saying infinite time is possible for a while now.

Yet you have no empirical evidence or logic to support it.

You just keep assuming it.

And when logic shows you that the very definition of infinite time is contradicted by saying that infinite time has already passed you ignore the logic because your prejudice tells you differently.

Again you go back to taking a very poor metaphor of "time passing" as a reality to try to make a point.

The point is that there is no evidence to declare either infinite time or finite time is fact. Either is possible.

How many times do you have to be told that you are doing nothing but nitpicking?

And there is evidence of finite amounts of time.

No evidence of infinite amounts of anything.

One exists in fact the other is fantasy.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again you go back to taking a very poor metaphor of "time passing" as a reality to try to make a point.

The point is that there is no evidence to declare either infinite time or finite time is fact. Either is possible.

How many times do you have to be told that you are doing nothing but nitpicking?

And there is evidence of finite amounts of time.

No evidence of infinite amounts of anything.

One exists in fact the other is fantasy.

You have an annoying style of ignoring any post you don't like and forgetting any post that demonstrate that your same repeated arguments are nonsense.

Now you are using "passing time" in your "argument" as a reality yet again that you earlier had to admit was nonsense and only a metaphor.

An now you are yet again using that we can measure a portion of time as proof of something.

reread:

The way science works is that for a hypothesis to have validity there must be evidence.

There is no evidence for the existence of infinite time so the hypothesis has no validity.

But we can make a measurement of a finite amount of time. So we know that finite amounts of time do exist.

And there is no evidence that time itself is finite. The fact that we can measure a defined portion of time does not tell us if it is a portion of a finite time or a portion of an infinite time(cosmologists seem to understand this even if you don't). We can not measure the full extent of time whether it is either finite or infinite time. If we could measure the full extent of time then we would know the answer. But we can't so the answer is unknown.

I could ask again if this is complete ignorance, extremely short attention span, Dunning-Kruger effect, or a possible sign of trolling?

 

[Kharakov]

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?

Infinite time having passed means the amount of time that has passed is not well defined. A finite amount of time that has passed is well defined.

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.

No doubt. A correct claim for you to make would be that you do not understand the concept of infinity. You need to back off from your claims for a bit, take a deep breath, and try to come to an understanding of the implications of  indeterminate form. Indeterminate form does not simply apply to mathematics- it applies to the relation of anything infinite to anything which is finite in relation to the specific infinite.

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.

The problem with your statements is they indicate you don't understand infinity (or time for that matter)- math is simply another language with which to describe infinity (and time).

People were talking about infinity and eternal time way before modern calculus, or other mathematical treatments of infinity.

Mathematics is not only a branch of science, it is also a computationally precise language that allows us to further analyze various infinities. It's like modal logic is a tool set by which to further analyze logical statements.


Of course, a certain understanding of being may indicate to you that you can spout an infinite amount of falsehoods and not change the truth, in which case, you do have an understanding of a certain aspect of being, and perhaps you do understand infinities. Without your incorrect bullshit, this thread may have petered out long ago.

 

[untermensche]

I could ask again if this is complete ignorance, extremely short attention span, Dunning-Kruger effect, or a possible sign of trolling?

You forgot one.

You don't have the capacity to understand the arguments so you keep repeating the same nitpicking nonsense over and over.

"Time doesn't pass! Time doesn't pass!..................................It doesn't pass!"

As has been explained to you several times saying that time "passes" is just a metaphor that means the state of the universe passes from one thing to another. It is a metaphor meaning change is occurring.

Saying that time passes changes absolutely nothing about my argument. I could express it differently but it would mean the same thing.