Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

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.

No. That is just a mental model of it. Not how it really works.

 

[untermensche]

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".

This is only an unsupported claim. It isn't logic or argument.

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

You don't have the slightest clue what is required for time to begin.

Again, all you're doing is making things up. You're not using logic or argument.

 

[untermensche]

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.

What would it mean to "exist" outside of time?

To exist in a frozen state unable to move or change?

 

[skepticalbip]

"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.

What would it mean to "exist" outside of time?

To exist in a frozen state unable to move or change?

Apparently Juma is talking about another dimension of time. We only know of (and directly experience) three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. There could be more of each we don't experience (string theorists propose eleven dimensions). The time dimension we know could be a dimension that is folded within a greater time dimension.

ETA:
Then again anything traveling as electromagnetic radiation experiences no time. From the perspective of a photon that was emitted thirteen billion years ago (by our measurement of time) and has been travelling through space ever since, no time has elapsed.

 

[Juma]

"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.

What would it mean to "exist" outside of time?

To exist in a frozen state unable to move or change?

There are many possibilities but pleas remember that we as humans are stuck in time. Everything we experience we experience in time. Thus it is somehow hard to perceive what alternatives there are.

 

[untermensche]

What would it mean to "exist" outside of time?

To exist in a frozen state unable to move or change?

There are many possibilities but pleas remember that we as humans are stuck in time. Everything we experience we experience in time. Thus it is somehow hard to perceive what alternatives there are.

But how can you have movement and not have time?

 

[untermensche]

What would it mean to "exist" outside of time?

To exist in a frozen state unable to move or change?

Apparently Juma is talking about another dimension of time. We only know of (and directly experience) three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. There could be more of each we don't experience (string theorists propose eleven dimensions). The time dimension we know could be a dimension that is folded within a greater time dimension.

ETA:
Then again anything traveling as electromagnetic radiation experiences no time. From the perspective of a photon that was emitted thirteen billion years ago (by our measurement of time) and has been travelling through space ever since, no time has elapsed.

It requires a brain to experience time. It takes a brain to have any experience. If a photon had a brain it would have many tales to tell.

 

[skepticalbip]

Apparently Juma is talking about another dimension of time. We only know of (and directly experience) three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. There could be more of each we don't experience (string theorists propose eleven dimensions). The time dimension we know could be a dimension that is folded within a greater time dimension.

ETA:
Then again anything traveling as electromagnetic radiation experiences no time. From the perspective of a photon that was emitted thirteen billion years ago (by our measurement of time) and has been travelling through space ever since, no time has elapsed.

It requires a brain to experience time. It takes a brain to have any experience. If a photon had a brain it would have many tales to tell.

Hardly. Stars form, age, and die because of time. Trees grow and die, mountains are pushed up and erode away because of time. They all experience the effects of time even if they don't have the capacity to think about it.

Photons are quiet different. Because they travel at c, they do not age as stars, trees or mountains do. They are "outside of time".

 

[Juma]

It requires a brain to experience time. It takes a brain to have any experience. If a photon had a brain it would have many tales to tell.

Hardly. Stars form, age, and die because of time. Trees grow and die, mountains are pushed up and erode away because of time. They all experience the effects of time even if they don't have the capacity to think about it.

Nothing changes BECAUSE of time. There are changes, but the cause is not time. The world is structured after some rules (minimizing energy is one, law of increasing entropy is another).
There are laws. Not causes.

And the experience of time is some else altogether.

Dont confuse the physical concept of time (as in space-time) with the very strange "now" the brain creates.

 

[untermensche]

It requires a brain to experience time. It takes a brain to have any experience. If a photon had a brain it would have many tales to tell.

Hardly. Stars form, age, and die because of time. Trees grow and die, mountains are pushed up and erode away because of time. They all experience the effects of time even if they don't have the capacity to think about it.

Stars change but they do not experience it.

To experience something means to know it is happening. Stars are not able to know anything.

You need a brain to know something is happening.

 

[bilby]

Hardly. Stars form, age, and die because of time. Trees grow and die, mountains are pushed up and erode away because of time. They all experience the effects of time even if they don't have the capacity to think about it.

Stars change but they do not experience it.

To experience something means to know it is happening. Stars are not able to know anything.

You need a brain to know something is happening.

So is this now a philosophy thread? Should we ask for it to be moved out of Natural Science, and into one of the Philosophy fora?

 

[skepticalbip]

Hardly. Stars form, age, and die because of time. Trees grow and die, mountains are pushed up and erode away because of time. They all experience the effects of time even if they don't have the capacity to think about it.

Stars change but they do not experience it.

To experience something means to know it is happening. Stars are not able to know anything.

You need a brain to know something is happening.

That kind of argument belongs in the philosophy forum (where semantics and mental masturbation is considered studious) not in the science forum.

ETA:
I just noticed that this post wasn't necessary. While I was typing it, bilby noticed the same rambling bullshit and made essentially the same comment I was struggling to type.

 

[untermensche]

Stars change but they do not experience it.

To experience something means to know it is happening. Stars are not able to know anything.

You need a brain to know something is happening.

That kind of argument belongs in the philosophy forum (where semantics and mental masturbation is considered studious) not in the science forum.

You don't think semantics is serious?

Knowing what things mean is as important to scientists as it is to philosophers.

And to experience something would fall into the field of cognitive science as much as philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

Stars change but they do not experience it.

To experience something means to know it is happening. Stars are not able to know anything.

You need a brain to know something is happening.

So is this now a philosophy thread? Should we ask for it to be moved out of Natural Science, and into one of the Philosophy fora?

This thread has been mostly philosophical for a while.

It is a philosophical question that touches on science though.

Is the idea of infinity an invented concept, as I believe, and can it be applied to real things as well as conceptual entities like numbers?

 

[skepticalbip]

That kind of argument belongs in the philosophy forum (where semantics and mental masturbation is considered studious) not in the science forum.

You don't think semantics is serious?

Knowing what things mean is as important to scientists as it is to philosophers.

And to experience something would fall into the field of cognitive science as much as philosophy.

Hell yes semantics is serious but not semantic games. That is why, in science, words have one specific meaning unlike in philosophy where six different people will argue for years, each using their own meanings and then changing them when they see they are about to be boxed in just to keep the argument going.

In science, when it is said that some object experiences something it means that it it physically effected by that something.

 

[untermensche]

You don't think semantics is serious?

Knowing what things mean is as important to scientists as it is to philosophers.

And to experience something would fall into the field of cognitive science as much as philosophy.

Hell yes semantics is serious. That is why, in science, words have one specific meaning unlike in philosophy where six different people will argue for years, each using their own meanings and then changing them when they see they are about to be boxed in just to keep the argument going.

In science, when it is said that some object experiences something it means that it it physically effected by that something.

Words don't have one specific meaning in science.

Words are specifically defined by each discipline of science, with some overlap and many differences.

But what you say about philosophy is not my experience of the field. To me it is much more ordered than you describe.

Of course there is unending argument at the edges. Just like science.

 

[Kharakov]

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

This is only an unsupported claim. It isn't logic or argument.

It's a logical necessity that time (freedom to change) must exist for change to occur. If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot begin to exist, therefore it has always existed.

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

That is completely incorrect: we know that time (freedom to change) must exist for change to occur. We also know that time (freedom to change) must have always existed because there is time (freedom to change), and something that lacks time (freedom to change) cannot gain time (freedom to change) unless it is given by an outside agency that is free to change (which may be the case).

Of course, if some being is conferring freedom to change, it has time to confer to others. And I am out of time- people are here for BBQ right as I finish this post.

 

[untermensche]

This is only an unsupported claim. It isn't logic or argument.

It's a logical necessity that time (freedom to change) must exist for change to occur. If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot begin to exist, therefore it has always existed.

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

That is completely incorrect: we know that time (freedom to change) must exist for change to occur. We also know that time (freedom to change) must have always existed because there is time (freedom to change), and something that lacks time (freedom to change) cannot gain time (freedom to change) unless it is given by an outside agency that is free to change (which may be the case).

Of course, if some being is conferring freedom to change, it has time to confer to others. And I am out of time- people are here for BBQ right as I finish this post.

Does a clock need time in the past to start ticking?

Does one have to have moved in the past to start moving?

Does one have to have always existed to be born?

Your idea that time in the past is needed for time to start is ridiculous.

 

[Bomb#20]

And here you conclude there isn't an infinite amount of time before a given moment, offering as evidence that if there were it would mean there was an infinite amount of time before a given moment. What kind of argument is that? For those of us who take seriously the possibility of infinity days before today, why on earth wouldn't we regard infinity days before yesterday as possible too?

All I did was take the idea of infinite time to it's logical conclusion. If one says that time stretches infinitely into the past that means that infinite time has occurred in the past already. But infinite time never occurs. It is time without end. So the idea of infinite time stretching into the past is illogical. The concept contradicts itself.

So you're offering what, proof by pun?!? English happens to use the same word, "infinite", for an ordered set with no beginning, an ordered set with no end, and an ordered set with neither beginning nor end, even though those are three different concepts. And etymologically, the chosen word comes from "no end". And on that basis you propose to deduce that an ordered set with no beginning must also have no end? That's an equivocation fallacy. It's no different from claiming that there can be infinitely many positive integers but there can't be infinitely many negative integers, because -1 is the final negative integer.

That's not circular, you simply don't comprehend.

Suppose we take something like a planet. They are real objects and it is possible to perceive them. Since they can be perceived they can be counted. Since they are real and can be counted it is impossible for there to be infinite planets, since that implies an inability to count them. Infinite planets means a supply of planets without end that can't ever be counted. But planets are real and if one exists it can be counted.
...
You can't have infinite rooms. If there is a room it can in theory be counted, since rooms can be perceived. If an amount of something can be counted it isn't infinite. It is finite.

Huh? Not all rooms can be perceived. A room that's one year old and two lightyears away can't be perceived.

You mean it can't be perceived by a person living on this planet. But it most certainly can be perceived. If it is real. That is the definition of real. I can be perceived in some way.

So if something is real it can be perceived. If it can be perceived it can be counted. If it can be counted it is not infinite.

That's another equivocation. When you argue that if planets can be perceived then they can be counted, you're using "can be perceived" as if it means "can be perceived by one person". Sure, a person can count every planet he perceives. But when you say a room that's one year old and two lightyears away from a given observer most certainly can be perceived, you're using "can be perceived" as if it means "can be perceived in theory by at least one member of the set of all observers". But once you allow for multiple observers, "if it can be perceived it can be counted" is no longer a valid inference. Just because Alice can perceive three rooms and count them and get three, while Bob can perceive two rooms and count them and get two, it does not follow that anyone can count all the rooms collectively perceivable by Alice and Bob and get five. In order for the whole set of rooms to be counted, the different observers would have to communicate their totals to each other and add them up. But if two observers happen not to be in each other's respective light-cones, it will be impossible for them to communicate. So your inference is invalid even if the number of observers is finite. And of course if there are infinitely many observers, each of whom perceives one or more rooms,then nobody will be able to count all the rooms even though all of them can be perceived by somebody. So your argument also depends on it being impossible for there to be infinitely many observers. That means it's assuming its conclusion as a premise.

 

[untermensche]

All I did was take the idea of infinite time to it's logical conclusion. If one says that time stretches infinitely into the past that means that infinite time has occurred in the past already. But infinite time never occurs. It is time without end. So the idea of infinite time stretching into the past is illogical. The concept contradicts itself.

So you're offering what, proof by pun?!? English happens to use the same word, "infinite", for an ordered set with no beginning, an ordered set with no end, and an ordered set with neither beginning nor end, even though those are three different concepts. And etymologically, the chosen word comes from "no end". And on that basis you propose to deduce that an ordered set with no beginning must also have no end? That's an equivocation fallacy. It's no different from claiming that there can be infinitely many positive integers but there can't be infinitely many negative integers, because -1 is the final negative integer.

I'm not talking about numbers or sets. Those are imaginary mathematical concepts.

I'm talking about an infinite amount of something real, time. And specifically this idea of an infinite amount of time having already occurred in the past.

A logical impossibility.

You mean it can't be perceived by a person living on this planet. But it most certainly can be perceived. If it is real. That is the definition of real. I can be perceived in some way.

So if something is real it can be perceived. If it can be perceived it can be counted. If it can be counted it is not infinite.

That's another equivocation. When you argue that if planets can be perceived then they can be counted, you're using "can be perceived" as if it means "can be perceived by one person". Sure, a person can count every planet he perceives. But when you say a room that's one year old and two lightyears away from a given observer most certainly can be perceived, you're using "can be perceived" as if it means "can be perceived in theory by at least one member of the set of all observers". But once you allow for multiple observers, "if it can be perceived it can be counted" is no longer a valid inference. Just because Alice can perceive three rooms and count them and get three, while Bob can perceive two rooms and count them and get two, it does not follow that anyone can count all the rooms collectively perceivable by Alice and Bob and get five. In order for the whole set of rooms to be counted, the different observers would have to communicate their totals to each other and add them up. But if two observers happen not to be in each other's respective light-cones, it will be impossible for them to communicate. So your inference is invalid even if the number of observers is finite. And of course if there are infinitely many observers, each of whom perceives one or more rooms,then nobody will be able to count all the rooms even though all of them can be perceived by somebody. So your argument also depends on it being impossible for there to be infinitely many observers. That means it's assuming its conclusion as a premise.

I am using "can be perceived" as can be perceived in theory. There is no reason to think it couldn't be perceived.

If something is real there is no reason to think it couldn't be perceived. No reason to think it couldn't be counted. No reason to think that the amount of any real objects is this imaginary mathematical concept called infinity.

And of course imagining there are an infinite amount of any real object is to imagine the impossible.