Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

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.

Well, if space and time are actually unified, then the argument would seem to include space too.

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?

I have said to others that the argument relies on the postulate that time goes in one direction.

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?

In a larger interval of time that includes (13.7 + 30) billion years, I will still ask how the event of the Big Bang happened if infinite time came before it. The same problem comes up.

 

[ryan]

[...] 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...

This is a popular description on how time works 3 dimensionally. I thought that I gave an adequately descriptive answer.

 

[Kharakov]

Express yourself.

 

[Juma]

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

This is a popular description on how time works 3 dimensionally. I thought that I gave an adequately descriptive answer.

No, it is not a "popular description", it is nothing. Its fucking bullshit man. How is anyone able to do anything with that shit. You been better off presenting a fucking fairytale.

I have got so fucking tired of this bullshit thread. I thought that a forum like this kept at least a minimum standard on how to reason. These fucking post has no fucking reason at all. It is pure bullshit: Groover has a tighter case than you, man. The Cookie monster makes more sense.

You are supposed to stand up for your cause with good, valid argument, and what are you delivering? Shit man, shit!

Can it be so bloody hard to at least stick to a beginners level of logic when arguing? To actually deliver ANY argument at all?

i believe in discussion where the ones making the statements (in this case "time cannot be infinite") actually presents valid, controllable, arguments backing up these statements.

You and unter just fucking play around like a babies leaving shitposts all over the place.

I'm tired of this. So fucking tired. 1000:ds of posts and not one bloody attempt to actually analyze your own fucking arguments. I, and others, have presented several valid rebuttals of your stance and they have totally ignored or been met by nonsens as : "infinite time cannot pass" in one or another similarily naive formulation.

The proper way is to show a real, concise, properly expressed contradiction. Not just making another statement that "inifinite time cannot pass"... Where is the fucking contradiction in that?

Your fucking duty is to show all stages in the deduction that leads from "time is eternal" to a fucking contradition! for chrissake!

It is like you have no education at all. This is the first thing to learn in any logic class.

If you cant do that then say so, and dont then fucking pretend that you actually have a fucking clue when you havent!

 

[Juma]

Express yourself.

That is what I do. I express myself fittingly for the situation on hand: 1500 posts and no fucking logical response to our rebuttals whatsoever...

That calls for proper use of language.

 

[Kharakov]

Express yourself.

That is what I do. I express myself fittingly for the situation on hand: 1500 posts and no fucking logical response to our rebuttals whatsoever...

That calls for proper use of language.

I'm glad I am not hammered.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u31FO_4d9TY&list=RDu31FO_4d9TY&index=1[/YOUTUBE]

- - - Updated - - -

clame it on ice cube,,,

- - - Updated - - -

Ice cube, should not again to spin, I am expressein my self.

 

[ryan]

This is a popular description on how time works 3 dimensionally. I thought that I gave an adequately descriptive answer.

No, it is not a "popular description", it is nothing. Its fucking bullshit man. How is anyone able to do anything with that shit. You been better off presenting a fucking fairytale.

I have got so fucking tired of this bullshit thread. I thought that a forum like this kept at least a minimum standard on how to reason. These fucking post has no fucking reason at all. It is pure bullshit: Groover has a tighter case than you, man. The Cookie monster makes more sense.

You can make fun of N.W.A., but I'll be damned if I am going to let you underestimate Groover.

Can it be so bloody hard to at least stick to a beginners level of logic when arguing? To actually deliver ANY argument at all?

Yes it can be hard when a topic such as time is not completely understood, never mind infinite time. So we are arguing about an undefined unknown - I think you are underestimating this topic.

Although, I will say that I attempted to qualify time and infinity and deduce from there. Specifically, my argument uses units of time that pass in one direction which recursively means that any unit of time before the present must have passed. And I qualify infinity as not being reachable or passable.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is a popular description on how time works 3 dimensionally. I thought that I gave an adequately descriptive answer.

No, it is not a "popular description", it is nothing. Its fucking bullshit man. How is anyone able to do anything with that shit. You been better off presenting a fucking fairytale.

I have got so fucking tired of this bullshit thread. I thought that a forum like this kept at least a minimum standard on how to reason. These fucking post has no fucking reason at all. It is pure bullshit: Groover has a tighter case than you, man. The Cookie monster makes more sense.

You are supposed to stand up for your cause with good, valid argument, and what are you delivering? Shit man, shit!

Can it be so bloody hard to at least stick to a beginners level of logic when arguing? To actually deliver ANY argument at all?

i believe in discussion where the ones making the statements (in this case "time cannot be infinite") actually presents valid, controllable, arguments backing up these statements.

You and unter just fucking play around like a babies leaving shitposts all over the place.

I'm tired of this. So fucking tired. 1000:ds of posts and not one bloody attempt to actually analyze your own fucking arguments. I, and others, have presented several valid rebuttals of your stance and they have totally ignored or been met by nonsens as : "infinite time cannot pass" in one or another similarily naive formulation.

The proper way is to show a real, concise, properly expressed contradiction. Not just making another statement that "inifinite time cannot pass"... Where is the fucking contradiction in that?

Your fucking duty is to show all stages in the deduction that leads from "time is eternal" to a fucking contradition! for chrissake!

It is like you have no education at all. This is the first thing to learn in any logic class.

If you cant do that then say so, and dont then fucking pretend that you actually have a fucking clue when you havent!

I understand fully. I have approached the same a few times but then realized that this whole thread is funny as hell. Unter is a real trip. I have been trying to figure if it is that his complete ignorance plus his arrogance has him believing that he actually understands something since he apparently doesn't understand enough to realize that he is posting nonsense. Or, alternately, if he is just trolling.

What is funny is that there is actually a good scientific argument against eternal time though Unter's so called arguments are just poorly formed statements of his unsupported belief and have nothing to do with science or logic. However, there are a few models that has been offered by cosmologists to overcome the problem.

There is also a good scientific argument against time having a start. But, as far as I know, there are no currently considered models addressing this problem.

This is a problem for cosmology because there is good arguments against both eternal time and finite time but one of them has to be a fit for reality. We just can't prove which.

But anyway, I hope you enjoyed expressing your frustration. I enjoyed it. Thanks.

 

[ryan]

That is what I do. I express myself fittingly for the situation on hand: 1500 posts and no fucking logical response to our rebuttals whatsoever...

That calls for proper use of language.

Okay, maybe it does call for bad language, but does it call for multiple posts with an N.W.A. video?

To Juma: You and Ice Kharakube can rip on our rebuttals all you want, but neither untermensche nor I have yet to rebut with N.W.A. videos.

 

[ryan]

No, it is not a "popular description", it is nothing. Its fucking bullshit man. How is anyone able to do anything with that shit. You been better off presenting a fucking fairytale.

I have got so fucking tired of this bullshit thread. I thought that a forum like this kept at least a minimum standard on how to reason. These fucking post has no fucking reason at all. It is pure bullshit: Groover has a tighter case than you, man. The Cookie monster makes more sense.

You are supposed to stand up for your cause with good, valid argument, and what are you delivering? Shit man, shit!

Can it be so bloody hard to at least stick to a beginners level of logic when arguing? To actually deliver ANY argument at all?

i believe in discussion where the ones making the statements (in this case "time cannot be infinite") actually presents valid, controllable, arguments backing up these statements.

You and unter just fucking play around like a babies leaving shitposts all over the place.

I'm tired of this. So fucking tired. 1000:ds of posts and not one bloody attempt to actually analyze your own fucking arguments. I, and others, have presented several valid rebuttals of your stance and they have totally ignored or been met by nonsens as : "infinite time cannot pass" in one or another similarily naive formulation.

The proper way is to show a real, concise, properly expressed contradiction. Not just making another statement that "inifinite time cannot pass"... Where is the fucking contradiction in that?

Your fucking duty is to show all stages in the deduction that leads from "time is eternal" to a fucking contradition! for chrissake!

It is like you have no education at all. This is the first thing to learn in any logic class.

If you cant do that then say so, and dont then fucking pretend that you actually have a fucking clue when you havent!

I understand fully.

Read my last paragraph in post #1347. How much more clearer can I put it?

 

[Juma]

I understand fully.

Read my last paragraph in post #1347. How much more clearer can I put it?

You could, instead of referering and presenting a summary of it, present your actual argument. Moreover post #1347 doesnt present any contradiction whatsoever. You seem to believe that there is acontradiction but you have not shown any.

 

[ryan]

Read my last paragraph in post #1347. How much more clearer can I put it?

You could, instead of referering and presenting a summary of it, present your actual argument. Moreover post #1347 doesnt present any contradiction whatsoever. You seem to believe that there is acontradiction but you have not shown any.

Is there an infinite regression in a real timeline?

P(1) A timeline represents some length divided by equal units for some frame of reference.

P(2) A timeline has only units of time that have passed for some frame of reference.

P(3) Each unit passes in one direction.

P(4) An infinite number of units of time cannot pass.

Q(1) The present in some frame of reference must have a finite number of units preceding it.

 

[none]

@ryan & untermensche
how about this: Is history a duration?
if history is a duration then it has a beginning and end, but if history is not a duration then history doesn't have a beginning.

 

[Juma]

You could, instead of referering and presenting a summary of it, present your actual argument. Moreover post #1347 doesnt present any contradiction whatsoever. You seem to believe that there is acontradiction but you have not shown any.

Is there an infinite regression in a real timeline?

P(1) A timeline represents some length divided by equal units for some frame of reference.

P(2) A timeline has only units of time that have passed for some frame of reference.

P(3) Each unit passes in one direction.

P(4) An infinite number of units of time cannot pass.

Q(1) The present in some frame of reference must have a finite number of units preceding it.

Some preliminary objections:
1) p(4) must be proven first. As i see it p(4) is false if we have infinite time, which we have if time has been forever. Thus p(4) is actually what we discuss and must be proven.

In light of this the rest of my ibjections are rather moot but here is some of them anyway:

2) there are no indication of how p(1-4) leads to q(1). I shouldnt have to guess that.
3) you have not defined what "pass" is supposed to mean. Seems that you implicitly uses some sort of "now" or other time position.

 

[untermensche]

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.

If there is time there is change. To say there was infinite time is the same as saying there was infinite change. It is much more than saying some dimension exists.

 

[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.

If there is time there is change. To say there was infinite time is the same as saying there was infinite change. It is much more than saying some dimension exists.

Time and change are related, but not synonymous.

Not that it matters; infinite change is not contradictory or impossible. Even if you are correct, and infinite time is the same as infinite change, you have not demonstrated the impossibility of either.

Nonetheless, change is measured over time. At any fixed point on the time dimension, there is no change.

Time is no more change, than space is movement.

 

[untermensche]

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.

We don't NEED an explanation.

But basically this argument is nothing more than you saying time is infinite in the past because you say so.

- - - Updated - - -

If there is time there is change. To say there was infinite time is the same as saying there was infinite change. It is much more than saying some dimension exists.

Time and change are related, but not synonymous.

Not that it matters; infinite change is not contradictory or impossible. Even if you are correct, and infinite time is the same as infinite change, you have not demonstrated the impossibility of either.

Nonetheless, change is measured over time. At any fixed point on the time dimension, there is no change.

Time is no more change, than space is movement.

If there is time there is change. You can't say time exists without also saying change exists as well.

One does not exist without the other.

 

[untermensche]

@ryan & untermensche
how about this: Is history a duration?
if history is a duration then it has a beginning and end, but if history is not a duration then history doesn't have a beginning.

The story of his? History?

History is the story of humans. It had a beginning.

 

[bilby]

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.

We don't NEED an explanation.

But basically this argument is nothing more than you saying time is infinite in the past because you say so.

- - - Updated - - -

If there is time there is change. To say there was infinite time is the same as saying there was infinite change. It is much more than saying some dimension exists.

Time and change are related, but not synonymous.

Not that it matters; infinite change is not contradictory or impossible. Even if you are correct, and infinite time is the same as infinite change, you have not demonstrated the impossibility of either.

Nonetheless, change is measured over time. At any fixed point on the time dimension, there is no change.

Time is no more change, than space is movement.

If there is time there is change. You can't say time exists without also saying change exists as well.

One does not exist without the other.

If there is movement there is space. One does not exist without the other. That doesn't mean they are the same thing.

The difference you are ignoring is important.

Time and change are related, but not synonymous.

 

[untermensche]

Express yourself.

That is what I do. I express myself fittingly for the situation on hand: 1500 posts and no fucking logical response to our rebuttals whatsoever...

That calls for proper use of language.

Calling them rebuttals means they rebut the arguments made.

They don't. They ignore the arguments made.

The proper way is to show a real, concise, properly expressed contradiction. Not just making another statement that "inifinite time cannot pass"... Where is the fucking contradiction in that?

The contradiction is in saying infinite time has already finished passing. Infinite time goes on and on. It never finishes passing. So if I say infinite time already finished passing in the past I have made a contradiction.

If you actually addressed the arguments made you might be less frustrated.