Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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

So then time didn't start. What's the problem?

Then an infinite amount of time has passed - infinity can't pass.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The evidence points to the Big Bang. That is evidence of a beginning of time.

That doesn't mean it is impossible for time to have existed before the Big Bang. It only means we have no evidence of it.

And logic says that if finite time in the past passed then it is possible for a present moment to arrive. There is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical. It is not illogical to say that something had a start.

 

[ryan]

I understand timelines. My argument about -infinity to +infinity was similar to yours when I first started in this thread and argued against untermensche. Since then, I realised that starting with an infinite timeline to prove an infinite timeline was a circular argument.

It isn't an argument trying to prove infinite time. It is a only a description of one of the two possibilities for time, either finite or infinite. A similiar description could be made for a finite time.

Sorry, I should have said, "... to prove an infinite timeline is possible ...".

I don't understand what you have in mind when you say an infinite amount of time passing. The past is history. Everything that happened on a day last year happened last year. Everything that happened on a day a thousand years ago happened a thousand years ago. Same for a billion years ago or a trillion years ago. How far back in time is it that it becomes impossible for everything that happened on that day to have happened?

Energy permitting, any integer less than 0 of equal units of time will be finite but not all.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

The evidence points to the Big Bang. That is evidence of a beginning of time.

We have already gone through this. The BB only says that the current state of our universe can be taken as having a stating point. It says nothing about time starting. Even though you tried damned hard to say so by misquoting Hawking despite his statement in the article you linked to the contrary.

That doesn't mean it is impossible for time to have existed before the Big Bang. It only means we have no evidence of it.

Exactly there is no evidence. However cosmologists do not claim that time had a beginning because there is no evidence and it is in violation of our current understandings and the understanding that no uncaused cause can exist is the basis of all our sciences, not just physics.

And logic says that if finite time in the past passed then it is possible for a present moment to arrive. There is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical. It is not illogical to say that something had a start.

Again placing the phrase, "logic says" in front of an inane statement does not make it any less inane.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

That's not true, and the falsehood of your claim has been pointed out several times in this thread alone. You've even been provided direct quotes by Krauss that indicate exactly the opposite in the book A Universe From Nothing.

The preface is available on Amazon, in which he goes through various regression scenarios, ending with laws that give arise to something: "if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness."

 

[untermensche]

Exactly there is no evidence. However cosmologists do not claim that time had a beginning because there is no evidence and it is in violation of our current understandings and the understanding that no uncaused cause can exist is the basis of all our sciences, not just physics.

Bullshit! Everything they say about possible events before the Big Bang is speculation. And they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about ultimate causes.

And logic says that if finite time in the past passed then it is possible for a present moment to arrive. There is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical. It is not illogical to say that something had a start.

Again placing the phrase, "logic says" in front of an inane statement does not make it any less inane.

I said there is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical and as expected you offer none.

 

[untermensche]

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

That's not true, and the falsehood of your claim has been pointed out several times in this thread alone. You've even been provided direct quotes by Krauss that indicate exactly the opposite in the book A Universe From Nothing.

The preface is available on Amazon, in which he goes through various regression scenarios, ending with laws that give arise to something: "if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness."

The idea of infinite time is the idea of something from nothing. No explanation for how time exists. Just a claim that it does and always has. Kind of like some god.

The idea of a start to time is the idea of something from something else, and what that something else could be is unknowable.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bullshit! Everything they say about possible events before the Big Bang is speculation. And they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say about ultimate causes.

I didn't claim that anyone has stated flatly that there was no beginning. I said that all our sciences rely on the understanding that there are no uncaused causes. Go to a doctor with an illness or complaint and they will first look for the cause. Launch a rocket and the acceleration caused by the thrust must be carefully calculated, etc.

And logic says that if finite time in the past passed then it is possible for a present moment to arrive. There is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical. It is not illogical to say that something had a start.

Again placing the phrase, "logic says" in front of an inane statement does not make it any less inane.

I said there is no argument to show that the concept of finite time is illogical and as expected you offer none.

There are no logical arguments asserting absolutely that time had a beginning... unless you want to include the church's assertions which generally contain the logical fallacy of begging the question. Any logical argument has to be conditional (no known facts) as in IF so and so THEN so and so.

As for your assertion that the BB proves the beginning of time per Hawkins, I'll offer a refresher of what Hawking actually said:

Stephen Hawking from your linked article:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

The full two paragraphs were included rather than just the bolded part so you would not claim it was taken out of context.

The first sentence of the second paragraph explains why his conclusion was that time begin at the BB for this particular model, it is only because that is where the model resets the clock to zero since what happened before has no observational effect on what we can observe today.

 

[bilby]

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 exists in the past has no end.

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

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 exist. 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.

Fixed that for you.

The root of your misunderstanding appears to be the idea that to exist, time must have been experienced; but to imagine that this is so is to conflate a dimension with the thing being measured.

Let's look at your argument another way:

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

So if I merely assume that the amount of space that has passed in the North has no end that means North of any present location an infinite amount of North must pass first.

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

Compare this with my proposed version:

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

So if I merely assume that the amount of space that exists in the North has no end that means North of any present location an infinite amount of North exists.

But this brings us in conflict with the definition of infinity. Because an infinite amount of North is North with no end. It can't exist.​

I hope you can see that the first of these arguments is nonsense - neither 'space' nor 'North' are things that 'pass'; and that the second argument is empty - there is no proof offered that infinite distance is impossible, just a definition followed by an assertion: "an infinite amount of X is X with no end. It can't exist."; Infinite North might well exist, and my presence at this location does nothing to change that. The same is true for infinite past.

Dimensions don't pass; they just exist.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand what you have in mind when you say an infinite amount of time passing.

Can we agree that a property of time is that it passes.

If you agree, then an hour in the past must have passed, right?

If you are still with me, then time without a beginning seems to mean that there is an infinite amount of time before us. So instead of an hour of time like in the example above, we simply replace the hour with an infinite number of hours that passed. If time stopped today, then how could something undefined have a definite end?

 

[ryan]

The root of your misunderstanding appears to be the idea that to exist, time must have been experienced; but to imagine that this is so is to conflate a dimension with the thing being measured. ...

Dimensions don't pass; they just exist.

Units of dimensions pass; units of time pass. Every minute before now that has ever existed must have passed. To argue that there is no beginning of time is to say that an infinite number of minutes have passed. How can we be at the end of infinity?

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't understand what you have in mind when you say an infinite amount of time passing.

Can we agree that a property of time is that it passes.

It doesn't seem so. From your posts, your meaning of "passes" doesn't fit at all with my understanding of the nature of time.

If you agree, then an hour in the past must have passed, right?

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that an hour in the past is an hour further into the past than we are now. It is an hour away along the time axis in the direction of the past.

If you are still with me, then time without a beginning seems to mean that there is an infinite amount of time before us. So instead of an hour of time like in the example above, we simply replace the hour with an infinite number of hours that passed. If time stopped today, then how could something undefined have a definite end?

If time ended now then I would see it as time extending infinitely into the past from the end of time of now.

I don't see time as flowing past us (though that is a common metaphor). I see time as a dimension and we are moving along that dimension, just as we can move along the dimensions of space. This is pretty much the picture of time described by relativity. It doesn't "pass" us. We can mark the positions of past events along the dimension, like I was trying to describe in my analogy of a historic time line. Your earlier example of an hour in the past would be marked as an event and would be an hour along the time axis in the direction of the past. Further along this axis into the past would be the event of my neighbor flashing her boobs.

What is a description of this time that is "passing"?

 

[bilby]

The root of your misunderstanding appears to be the idea that to exist, time must have been experienced; but to imagine that this is so is to conflate a dimension with the thing being measured. ...

Dimensions don't pass; they just exist.

Units of dimensions pass; units of time pass. Every minute before now that has ever existed must have passed. To argue that there is no beginning of time is to say that an infinite number of minutes have passed. How can we be at the end of infinity?

Nope. You might as well say that if space is infinite, we can't be here, because to get here we would have had to travel an infinite distance.

We happen to be travelling along the time dimension as a steady rate; but that doesn't mean that the units of time are passing; we are measuring our progress against them, not the other way around.


ETA: Hey look, we got back to the OP question! Only 1,326 posts after the derail at post #7

 

[ryan]

Can we agree that a property of time is that it passes.

It doesn't seem so. From your posts, your meaning of "passes" doesn't fit at all with my understanding of the nature of time.

A timeline will show an hour, say, 8 hours ago. The hour passed 8 hours ago, and it passed in one direction, presumably. But if time is bidirectional, then it can be seen like having 8 meter sticks. The 8th meter stick (or hour) is either passed or in front of the 8 meter sticks. That would kill my argument.

If you agree, then an hour in the past must have passed, right?

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that an hour in the past is an hour further into the past than we are now. It is an hour away along the time line in the past direction.

If you are still with me, then time without a beginning seems to mean that there is an infinite amount of time before us. So instead of an hour of time like in the example above, we simply replace the hour with an infinite number of hours that passed. If time stopped today, then how could something undefined have a definite end?

If time ended now then I would see it as time extending infinitely into the past from the end of time of now.

Can you put this differently?

I don't see time as flowing past us (though that is a common metaphor). I see time as a dimension and we are moving along that dimension, just as we can move along the dimensions of space. This is pretty much the picture of time described by relativity. It doesn't "pass" us. We can mark the positions of past events along the dimension, like I was trying to describe in my analogy of a historic time line.

We are talking about units of time, not the whole dimension.

What is a description of this time that is "passing"?

Feynman said that the universe may only have one electron that goes through time like a snake. Though he didn't specify, but it would seem as though there would actually be 3 snakes that go through each of the three dimensions at different rates of time. Time would be like a 3 dimensional "spotlight" that lets a frame of reference observe all 4 of these motions of particles instantaneously. Something is shinning a light on the three paths of an electron, and we are able to observe all 3 paths simultaneously as well as time spent in each dimension in relation to one another.

 

[ryan]

Units of dimensions pass; units of time pass. Every minute before now that has ever existed must have passed. To argue that there is no beginning of time is to say that an infinite number of minutes have passed. How can we be at the end of infinity?

Nope. You might as well say that if space is infinite, we can't be here, because to get here we would have had to travel an infinite distance.

Uh oh, you are not going to like this, but the argument goes for space too, that is if you say an infinite distance in one direction of space.

We happen to be travelling along the time dimension as a steady rate; but that doesn't mean that the units of time are passing; we are measuring our progress against them, not the other way around.

Okay, then how could have our frame of reference passed by an infinite number of units; the problem remains.

ETA: Hey look, we got back to the OP question! Only 1,326 posts after the derail at post #7

I justified it by using an argument with space-time and the reasons above. Maybe there is a derailment, but somehow, the train is still getting to it destination.

 

[bilby]

Nope. You might as well say that if space is infinite, we can't be here, because to get here we would have had to travel an infinite distance.

Uh oh, you are not going to like this, but the argument goes for space too, that is if you say an infinite distance in one direction of space.

Why? If we have always been right here, then what difference does it make whether space is finite or infinite? We don't care about having to travel at all, much less about having to travel an infinite distance. We were always here.

We happen to be travelling along the time dimension as a steady rate; but that doesn't mean that the units of time are passing; we are measuring our progress against them, not the other way around.

Okay, then how could have our frame of reference passed by an infinite number of units; the problem remains.

Nonsense. This wouldn't be true for a large finite number of units, much less an infinite number, unless all possible reference frames are constrained to constant motion in one direction. Can you prove that such a constraint exists?

At time now - 13.7 billion, matter starts doing its thing; right now, we are discussing it; perhaps at now + 30 billion matter ceases doing anything interesting. This might or might not be a description of all of time; or of a portion of a larger finite time; or of a portion of an infinite amount of time. How could you tell which?

ETA: Hey look, we got back to the OP question! Only 1,326 posts after the derail at post #7

I justified it by using an argument with space-time and the reasons above. Maybe there is a derailment, but somehow, the train is still getting to it destination.

Post #7 wasn't yours; I am not accusing you of anything.

 

[Kharakov]

That's not true, and the falsehood of your claim has been pointed out several times in this thread alone. You've even been provided direct quotes by Krauss that indicate exactly the opposite in the book A Universe From Nothing.

The preface is available on Amazon, in which he goes through various regression scenarios, ending with laws that give arise to something: "if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness."

The idea of infinite time is the idea of something from nothing. No explanation for how time exists. Just a claim that it does and always has. Kind of like some god.

That's retarded. You don't need an explanation for why existence is, stuff exists. There is no mystery, except for when you are going to have a massive freaking orgasm, or when you are going to have a fun conversation with a friend, and that's not a problem, it's just awesome.

 

[Juma]

It was at around this point about 1200 posts ago that I realized it was turtles all the way down.

I agree.

The people that talk about infinite time in the past might as well be talking about turtles all the way down.

It's just as imaginary.

[irony]
Except that... We really see time one hour ago, fove hours ago, a day ago, 100 years ago, 10000 years ago, millions of years ago, billions of years ago.

How come we can be here if time had to pass billions of years first?
[/irony]

 

[Juma]

What is a description of this time that is "passing"?

[...] Time would be like a 3 dimensional "spotlight" that lets a frame of reference observe all 4 of these motions of particles instantaneously. Something is shining a light on the three paths of an electron, and we are able to observe all 3 paths simultaneously as well as time spent in each dimension in relation to one another.

what the fuck? How is that question and that text related? It is shure as hell no answer...

 

[Kharakov]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31FO_4d9TY[/YOUTUBE]