Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

From any point on the line, an infinite amount of time would have already "passed". So there is no waiting. Jump on and enjoy the ride.

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

I tell you to go to bed after infinite time passes. When do you go to bed?

You tell me to jump on after infinite time passes. I have the same problem. I can never jump on just like you can never go to bed.

 

[Mageth]

From any point on the line, an infinite amount of time would have already "passed". So there is no waiting. Jump on and enjoy the ride.

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

It's already passed.

I tell you to go to bed after infinite time passes. When do you go to bed?

Once again, you assume a beginning. This has been a problem for you all along.

You tell me to jump on after infinite time passes. I have the same problem. I can never jump on just like you can never go to bed.

Once again, you assume a beginning. This has been a problem for you all along.

 

[untermensche]

So your argument is that the past is infinite because you were born?

I suppose that's as good as any I've seen yet.

Your argument appears to be that the past is not infinite because you were born.

No. But close.

The argument boils down to; if there is the experience of any moment in time then there could not have been infinite moments in time preceding it.

If infinite moments in time exist before some present moment then that means infinite moments in time must occur before that moment in time can occur.

So that present moment can never occur because an infinite number of moments will never finish occurring.

 

[untermensche]

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

It's already passed.

That is what you must show is possible. It is not something you can just claim to be the ultimate truth of the matter.

How is it possible for infinite time to have already passed? How is it possible to complete the passing of infinite time?

Just saying it already has is not an argument.

 

[bilby]

If we assume a beginning, then the idea that there's no beginning is nonsense.

But we can't assume a beginning, because that is what we are seeking to demonstrate.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that there's NO beginning.

Where's the problem now?

Every 'problem' so far proposed either implicitly or explicitly includes a beginning. They are not problems; they are just circular arguments.

 

[Kharakov]

The point is that you can keep looking further back (or forwards) from position now- you can't look from negative infinity or positive infinity. In fact there is no specific "position" negative infinity or positive infinity. Position implies a finite distance (within the cardinality of this timeline).

Isn't an infinite number of intervals each with an infinite number of subintervals still an infinite number of subintervals?

Ok, I didn't see where you were going with that.

We can say there is exactly 1 eternity, ascribing it the highest cardinality of all infinities of time measurement. I really don't see how describing the set "all time" as a single unit can help or hinder the argument that eternity exists forever before, and after, every point in eternity? It seems to be a digression, and might not even be a valid way of looking at things anyways.

If so, then a reference frame could have passed an infinite number of subintervals by dilating its time to zero from, say, the beginning of interval A to the end of interval A.

Yeah. A problem arises when we play with cardinality in this way.

Say we divide one of our seconds an infinite amount of times, to create an infinite amount of seconds of lower cardinality. What this does is mean that any amount of time that passes for us (even 10^-9999999999999 seconds= .000..9999999999993 zeros...001 seconds) would be an infinite amount of time for the lower cardinality.

So time from one cardinality is never defined in relation to time with some other cardinality.

However, this does seem like it would imply another dimension of time. So, for example, for some interval of t', an infinite number of intervals go by in our t.

This is the only way I can see how your argument can work.

I'm pretty sure Hawking was thinking of a closed no boundary condition timeline when he referred to imaginary time.

- - - Updated - - -

If we assume a beginning, then the idea that there's no beginning is nonsense.

But we can't assume a beginning, because that is what we are seeking to demonstrate.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that there's NO beginning.

Where's the problem now?

Every 'problem' so far proposed either implicitly or explicitly includes a beginning. They are not problems; they are just circular arguments.

hahaha... the circulator of fallacy has been told that 1000 times. Good luck.

 

[Kharakov]

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

It's already passed.

I tell you to go to bed after infinite time passes. When do you go to bed?

Once again, you assume a beginning. This has been a problem for you all along.

You tell me to jump on after infinite time passes. I have the same problem. I can never jump on just like you can never go to bed.

Once again, you assume a beginning. This has been a problem for you all along.

@ Untermensche: This isn't politics. It's logic. There is only one right answer in this specific case.

 

[untermensche]

If we assume a beginning, then the idea that there's no beginning is nonsense.

But we can't assume a beginning, because that is what we are seeking to demonstrate.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that there's NO beginning.

Where's the problem now?

Every 'problem' so far proposed either implicitly or explicitly includes a beginning. They are not problems; they are just circular arguments.

There are problems with thinking there is no beginning.

It is the same problem with thinking that infinite time has already passed. It is just another way of saying infinite time in the past. No beginning to time just means infinite time in the past.

Simply claiming it is possible for there to be no beginning is miles from explaining how such a thing could be possible.

 

[untermensche]

@ Untermensche: This isn't politics. It's logic. There is only one right answer in this specific case.

Are you capable of actually arguing for your claims?

Because things like this are not arguments. They are not insights. They are not informative.

They are hand waving and pretending you have an argument.

 

[Mageth]

Your argument appears to be that the past is not infinite because you were born.

No. But close.

The argument boils down to; if there is the experience of any moment in time then there could not have been infinite moments in time preceding it.

Why not?

If infinite moments in time exist before some present moment then that means infinite moments in time must occur before that moment in time can occur.

No, it means that "infinite moments in time" have occurred before that moment. Sheesh!

So that present moment can never occur because an infinite number of moments will never finish occurring.

That's just a long way of asserting that the past is not infinite because you were born. And it's not an argument. It's an assertion.

The present moment is. We're not "waiting for the present moment to occur". We are at the present moment. What came before "now" has passed - this is true whether time is finite or infinite.

 

[skepticalbip]

From any point on the line, an infinite amount of time would have already "passed". So there is no waiting. Jump on and enjoy the ride.

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

I tell you to go to bed after infinite time passes. When do you go to bed?

You tell me to jump on after infinite time passes. I have the same problem. I can never jump on just like you can never go to bed.

Reread the fucking post and try to actually think.

If time is eternal then at any point in time there will be an infinite past. If time had a beginning then no point on the time line will have an infinite past. We are talking about how the universe would be if time is eternal. Your asserting that you know absolutely that time is finite so would not allow it shows complete ignorance of the topic and is nothing but begging the question of your "logic" that time had a begining... or maybe it is just an expression of religious faith.

But, of course, I still hold out the possibility that you aren't really as ignorant as you present yourself and are just trolling.

 

[bilby]

If we assume a beginning, then the idea that there's no beginning is nonsense.

But we can't assume a beginning, because that is what we are seeking to demonstrate.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument that there's NO beginning.

Where's the problem now?

Every 'problem' so far proposed either implicitly or explicitly includes a beginning. They are not problems; they are just circular arguments.

There are problems with thinking there is no beginning.

It is the same problem with thinking that infinite time has already passed. It is just another way of saying infinite time in the past. No beginning to time just means infinite time in the past.

That's right, The two are synonymous; infinite time in the past. No beginning to time. What's the problem? Let us assume these things - here we are, there is infinite time ahead and behind, both past and future are infinite. What do we observe that is incompatible with this assumption?

Simply claiming it is possible for there to be no beginning is miles from explaining how such a thing could be possible.

I am not claiming that it is possible; I am asking you to show why it is not possible.

All you have done so far is restate your assumption that it isn't. Can we have a reason other than your incredulity, or is that all you've got?

 

[untermensche]

How do you jump onto something that requires infinite time pass first?

I tell you to go to bed after infinite time passes. When do you go to bed?

You tell me to jump on after infinite time passes. I have the same problem. I can never jump on just like you can never go to bed.

Reread the fucking post and try to actually think.

If time is eternal then at any point in time there will be an infinite past. If time had a beginning then no point on the time line will have an infinite past. We are talking about how the universe would be if time is eternal. Your asserting that you know absolutely that time is finite so would not allow it shows complete ignorance of the topic and is nothing but begging the question of your "logic" that time had a begining... or maybe it is just an expression of religious faith.

But, of course, I still hold out the possibility that you aren't really as ignorant as you present yourself and are just trolling.

You think just saying "if time is eternal" is an argument.

The argument would be to show how it is possible for there to be infinite time in the past.

The argument would be to show how it is possible that infinite time already passed in the past.

Just claiming it did, over and over, isn't an argument of any kind.

Saying, "Imagine a timeline" isn't an argument of any kind.

I assure you I have no ulterior motives. I think the idea of infinite time in the past is illogical and I have given my reasons.

 

[untermensche]

Simply claiming it is possible for there to be no beginning is miles from explaining how such a thing could be possible.

I am not claiming that it is possible; I am asking you to show why it is not possible.

All you have done so far is restate your assumption that it isn't. Can we have a reason other than your incredulity, or is that all you've got?

I've answered this claim of argument from incredulity already.

This argument is an argument about applying the concept of infinity to time. Infinity means to go on without end. In terms of the past it means the amount of time that has passed in the past has no end.

So if I merely assume that the amount of time that has passed in the past has no end that means before any present moment an infinite amount of time must pass first.

But this brings us in conflict with the definition of infinity. Because an infinite amount of time is time with no end. It can't pass first. It never finishes passing.

This is an argument about the consequences of thinking about infinite time in the past. It is not an argument about my incredulity.

 

[Kharakov]

I think the idea of infinite time in the past is illogical and I have given my reasons.

Yeah, but they've all been wrong or illogical.

The question is a matter of logical possibility: if nothing existed, nothing would always exist, because there would be nothing. Instead, there is very clearly something that exists, although I accept that you may not have noticed that anything exists.

Always existing= infinite duration. It doesn't matter if change did not occur for an infinite amount of time or not. The duration of eternity is there. At no point in eternity was there nothing.


Who wants to invoke  Poe's law?

 

[untermensche]

I think the idea of infinite time in the past is illogical and I have given my reasons.

Yeah, but they've all been wrong or illogical.

The question is a matter of logical possibility: if nothing existed, nothing would always exist, because there would be nothing. Instead, there is very clearly something that exists, although I accept that you may not have noticed that anything exists.

Always existing= infinite duration. It doesn't matter if nothing changed for an infinite amount of time before something happened. The duration of eternity is there. At no point in eternity was there nothing.


Who wants to invoke  Poe's law?

The extreme position is the position that time in the past is infinite.

It is a claim devoid of evidence or logic to support it. It is a frivolous claim not really even worthy of consideration.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, but they've all been wrong or illogical.

The question is a matter of logical possibility: if nothing existed, nothing would always exist, because there would be nothing. Instead, there is very clearly something that exists, although I accept that you may not have noticed that anything exists.

Always existing= infinite duration. It doesn't matter if nothing changed for an infinite amount of time before something happened. The duration of eternity is there. At no point in eternity was there nothing.


Who wants to invoke  Poe's law?

The extreme position is the position that time in the past is infinite.

It is a claim devoid of evidence or logic to support it. It is a frivolous claim not really even worthy of consideration.

You should include a "" if you're joking, at this point you're being rude if you don't. Seriously- I can't tell whether you're being a troll, joking, or are having a major brain fart. I've made mistakes in the past, although it's never taken me as long as you've been arguing to back down, and realize that what I'm saying is wrong.

Any claim that something came from nothing is devoid of evidence and logic to support it. Are we supposed to assume you're joking when you make such stupid claims, and assume that you understand the truth?

Your claim that there was a beginning to existence has the implicit requirement that nothing existed before the beginning. It cannot possibly be true.

Therefore, the duration of existence before now is infinite, and will be after now. Like it or not, something cannot become nothing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, but they've all been wrong or illogical.

The question is a matter of logical possibility: if nothing existed, nothing would always exist, because there would be nothing. Instead, there is very clearly something that exists, although I accept that you may not have noticed that anything exists.

Always existing= infinite duration. It doesn't matter if nothing changed for an infinite amount of time before something happened. The duration of eternity is there. At no point in eternity was there nothing.


Who wants to invoke  Poe's law?

The extreme position is the position that time in the past is infinite.

It is a claim devoid of evidence or logic to support it. It is a frivolous claim not really even worthy of consideration.

Both the position that time begin or the position that time is eternal are without evidence so both are without logic since logic requires some known or, at least, conditional assumptions. Both positions can only make conditional assumptions.

Asserting positively that one is "a frivolous claim not really even worthy of consideration" and the other an undeniable truth displays a profound ignorance of the physics that supports neither. However one must be reality but your assertion is just a matter of religious faith.

ETA:
You really should stop appealing to logic. I have seen no evidence that you have any understanding of the field. All your attempts at it are filled with logical fallacies, as I have pointed out for you several times.

 

[untermensche]

Any claim that something came from nothing is devoid of evidence and logic to support it. Are we supposed to assume you're joking when you make such stupid claims, and assume that you understand the truth?

A universe from nothing is Lawrence Krauss's latest hypothesis.

 

[ryan]

We are saying that time could not have started an infinite number of days ago.

You say so, but then give a fucking reason for why not! Describe clearly and concise how you deduce a logical contradiction from the assumption that time has been going on for ever.

One reason is that an infinite regress of time, by definition, does not have a beginning (See what I put in bold.).

Another reason is that negative time is time passed; how can infinity pass?