Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

Isn't that the definition of reality? That which can be perceived in some way? If you can perceive it how is it possible you can't count it?

You can mentally perceive that reality is infinite and countable. It has infinite and finite aspects. 1+1 = 2 may exist eternally (have infinite existence) but it will always be a statement with various finite meanings.

 

[bilby]

Of course it is a model like any "understanding" we have of reality whether that model is formal or informal. Like we have a mental model of an apple for example and that mental model is not an apple.

Calculus enables us to understand reality at the infinitesimal level just as our mental model of an apple enables us to understand the real apple.

Are numbers real?

Can I see them? Not the symbols but the numbers themselves.

Is time real? I can't see time either.

If neither time nor number can be seen, then what is it that prevents the existence of infinite time, but allows the existence of an infinite set of integers?

 

[untermensche]

Look at the statement. No number mentioned. Of course if you cut out the statement that doesn't mention numbers, and throw out a red herring... I feel like you're playing fetch with ideas.

I agree the ideas go nowhere.

All we have is; Infinite time extending into the past is illogical. There is nothing to do with it. A brick wall.

But you also can't deny it is there.

 

[untermensche]

Are numbers real?

Can I see them? Not the symbols but the numbers themselves.

Is time real? I can't see time either.

If neither time nor number can be seen, then what is it that prevents the existence of infinite time, but allows the existence of an infinite set of integers?

Time can be measured. It is relative but it still can be measured. If something can be measured how can we say it isn't real?

Can we measure the number "six"?

 

[bilby]

Is time real? I can't see time either.

If neither time nor number can be seen, then what is it that prevents the existence of infinite time, but allows the existence of an infinite set of integers?

Time can be measured. It is relative but it still can be measured. If something can be measured how can we say it isn't real?

Can we measure the number "six"?

Changes in time can be measured, but only in the same way we can measure changes in number.

A group of objects can be counted, but the objects are needed to do this. A group of seconds can also be counted only via the use of a clock.

In both cases, a physical system is needed to render the abstract observable. You can't directly perceive time, or number.

Both are real, only for a given value of 'real'; neither is demonstrably MORE 'real' than the other.

 

[ryan]

We didn't invent infinity, we discovered it when we observed reality logically.

There are no observed infinities.

If there really are 3 dimensions of space, then it would seem that there must be an infinite number of infinitesimally thin 2 dimensional frames that makeup the third dimension, likewise when constructing the other dimensions.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite time extending into the past is illogical.

No it isn't. If time has no beginning, an infinite past is a logical conclusion (although it may not be the only logical conclusion).

 

[untermensche]

Time can be measured. It is relative but it still can be measured. If something can be measured how can we say it isn't real?

Can we measure the number "six"?

Changes in time can be measured, but only in the same way we can measure changes in number.

We don't measure changes in number. We make rules that define how the changes occur.

A group of objects can be counted, but the objects are needed to do this. A group of seconds can also be counted only via the use of a clock.

All I said is that time can be measured. And it can. I understand that you measure time differently than you measure other things.

In both cases, a physical system is needed to render the abstract observable. You can't directly perceive time, or number.

Time is not abstract. Just because you need to use a device to measure it doesn't make it an abstract concept. It is very real and we all know that. We know that we only have a limited amount of it.

But there is no device to measure the number "six". The idea of measuring it doesn't make any sense.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time extending into the past is illogical.

No it isn't. If time has no beginning, an infinite past is a logical conclusion (although it may not be the only logical conclusion).

Time having no beginning is something that has to be demonstrated in some way.

It is in no way something that can be logically assumed. It makes no sense.

If time never began then it doesn't exist. That is time with no beginning.

 

[Kharakov]

If time has no beginning, an infinite past is a logical conclusion (although it may not be the only logical conclusion).

Time having no beginning is something that has to be demonstrated in some way.

Not for my statement above to be logically valid.

It is in no way something that can be logically assumed. It makes no sense.

What is it with you and the Chewbacca Defense? Are you obsessed with your own cleverness?

In fact the following statement of yours is not true, or valid, or evidenced in any way (in fact, the truth demonstrates that time cannot have had a beginning, and must be eternal).

If time never began then it doesn't exist.

Bullshit. If time did not exist, it could not have started, therefore it must have always existed, which means it did not start.

 

[ryan]

Calculus was devised to enable us to describe (and understand) reality at the infinitesimal (or continuous) level.

No. Calculus was devised to let us investigate calculus models of reality. Calculus (and infinitesimals) are a model, not reality,

But what about constructing higher dimensions from lower ones? This seems to be a rare case where reality supports calculus.

 

[George S]

If time did not exist, it could not have started, therefore it must have always existed, which means it did not start.

If time is infinite in both directions then whence this whole eternal arch of time?
Nothing could have been going on for an uncountable interval before t=0. Whether negative time was infinite or zero is indistinguishable. At t=1 things had natural frequency over time. Like c.

 

[untermensche]

If time never began then it doesn't exist.

Bullshit. If time did not exist, it could not have started, therefore it must have always existed, which means it did not start.

This doesn't follow logically.

You're only saying that because time exists it must have always existed.

One does not follow the other. Just because time exists that does not in any way mean it has always existed.

If fact if it always existed then we wouldn't be here because infinite time would have to pass first, which is impossible.

 

[Kharakov]

Bullshit. If time did not exist, it could not have started, therefore it must have always existed, which means it did not start.

This doesn't follow logically.

If something begins, it is a change from the previous condition in which the thing has not begun.
Change cannot occur without time for change to occur.
Therefore time must exist prior to any beginning.

Every beginning is preceded by the existence of time. Time cannot have begun.

first time second change <---- Thanks for setting up the easy pun

 

[Kharakov]

If time did not exist, it could not have started, therefore it must have always existed, which means it did not start.

If time is infinite in both directions then whence this whole eternal arch of time?

Whence?? Fore ever. Fore as in "situated in front". Ever as in at all times, always.
First time, forever.

Nothing could have been going on for an uncountable interval before t=0. Whether negative time was infinite or zero is indistinguishable. At t=1 things had natural frequency over time. Like c.

\(t=\infty\)

On an infinite time line, any point can be picked as t=0, with t= ..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 .... situated with the inflection point at 0.

Don't know exactly when t=0 is for a human. Could be prior to birth.

 

[Juma]

It is you that says thst they cannot be counted if they are infinite. So how do you show that they cannot be counted?

That's what infinite means in terms of real objects.

An infinite supply of real objects is an unending supply of them.

You can't count an unending supply. You can't even begin to get close to the end of counting them.

To count means to map a natural number to each object. That process can always be started as long as there is a way to discern between different objects.
Wether this process will end or not is another matter.

 

[untermensche]

This doesn't follow logically.

If something begins, it is a change from the previous condition in which the thing has not begun.
Change cannot occur without time for change to occur.
Therefore time must exist prior to any beginning.

Time going from nonexistence to existence is a kind of change we don't know anything about. It is a kind of change we can't observe.

So to make claims about what is necessary is absurd.

We can't know necessary conditions from ignorance.

Every beginning is preceded by the existence of time. Time cannot have begun.

This doesn't follow. All this means is that time has to be the first beginning.

 

[untermensche]

That's what infinite means in terms of real objects.

An infinite supply of real objects is an unending supply of them.

You can't count an unending supply. You can't even begin to get close to the end of counting them.

To count means to map a natural number to each object. That process can always be started as long as there is a way to discern between different objects.
Wether this process will end or not is another matter.

What force would prevent it from ending?

Not the physical difficulty of trying to count everything, but the notion that if it exists it can in theory be counted. That is what it means to have existence.

 

[Kharakov]

If something begins, it is a change from the previous condition in which the thing has not begun.
Change cannot occur without time for change to occur.
Therefore time must exist prior to any beginning.

Time going from nonexistence to existence is a kind of change we don't know anything about. It is a kind of change we can't observe.

It's not a change. Time didn't "go from nonexistence to existence".

Every beginning is preceded by the existence of time. Time cannot have begun.

This doesn't follow. All this means is that time has to be the first beginning.

Nope. Without time, there would not be time to begin. Time is eternal.

 

[Juma]

One does not follow the other. Just because time exists that does not in any way mean it has always existed.

"Always" means "in all time". There cannot be anything "before time" because "before" also requires time.

That said: nothing prevents us from talking about being outside time.