Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

No. Its more of a tautology: if time has been going on for ever, then it has.
It is you that keep on saying that isnt true...

It doesn't explain anything.

that is because there is nothing to explain.

You are hunting a ghost.

What you are claiming is that infinite time exists a priori.

And any logic that contradicts that statement is "hunting a ghost".

The ghost is infinite time. Or at least the idea that infinite time has finished passing in the past.

No infinities finish. Even a two tailed infinity. It doesn't finish at zero. Zero is just a point on the line. The line doesn't finish anywhere.

To claim an infinity has finished is to not understand the concept of infinity.

 

[bilby]

You're trying to go backwards to a beginning. Time does not go backwards, and with infinite time there is no beginning. That is your problem, has been all along.

Looking backwards is just the acknowledgement that there was time that was going forward in the past.

What you are doing is refusing to look backward as if the past is not real.

Look towards the past and imagine somebody walking towards you that has infinite miles to walk.

When does he arrive?

That depends where he started. If he starts at a defined point, he arrives in a finite time. If the point he starts at is not defined, let's just arbitrarily label it 'now' - and oh, look, here he is!

 

[ryan]

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.

It seems deductively true given the property of the set of natural numbers as having no upper bound.

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.

I think that "Pass" can be defined linearly or geographically as a unit that follows another unit.

 

[ryan]

No. Its more of a tautology: if time has been going on for ever, then it has.

Coming from infinity should be similar to going through infinity to the end. So, my question is: starting from now, can an infinite number of uniform subintervals of time ever end, yes or no?

 

[ryan]

Looking backwards is just the acknowledgement that there was time that was going forward in the past.

What you are doing is refusing to look backward as if the past is not real.

Look towards the past and imagine somebody walking towards you that has infinite miles to walk.

When does he arrive?

That depends where he started. If he starts at a defined point, he arrives in a finite time. If the point he starts at is not defined, let's just arbitrarily label it 'now' - and oh, look, here he is!

Same post to as the one I gave to Juma:

Coming from infinity should be similar to going through infinity to the end. So, my question is: starting from now, can an infinite number of uniform subintervals of time ever end, yes or no?

 

[untermensche]

Looking backwards is just the acknowledgement that there was time that was going forward in the past.

What you are doing is refusing to look backward as if the past is not real.

Look towards the past and imagine somebody walking towards you that has infinite miles to walk.

When does he arrive?

That depends where he started. If he starts at a defined point, he arrives in a finite time. If the point he starts at is not defined, let's just arbitrarily label it 'now' - and oh, look, here he is!

If he has infinite miles to walk obviously he is infinite miles away.

He's infinite miles away and he's walking towards you, but he has infinite miles to walk.

He hasn't arrived yet. I wonder why?

 

[Juma]

It seems deductively true given the property of the set of natural numbers as having no upper bound.

Really? Then there should be no problem showing that deduction.
I want to see how you necessarily identify it with the whole set of natural numbers...

 

[ryan]

It seems deductively true given the property of the set of natural numbers as having no upper bound.

Really? Then there should be no problem showing that deduction.
I want to see how you necessarily identify it with the whole set of natural numbers...

This seems incredibly easy, but here goes. Let each natural number represent a unit.

 

[Juma]

Really? Then there should be no problem showing that deduction.
I want to see how you necessarily identify it with the whole set of natural numbers...

This seems incredibly easy, but here goes. Let each natural number represent a unit.

You forgot the "necessarily".

 

[ryan]

This seems incredibly easy, but here goes. Let each natural number represent a unit.

You forgot the "necessarily".

We can make a similar argument as the lemma for the Archimedean property makes, but I am not going to type out the whole proof. Simply put, give me a bounded number of units of time, and I will add one more unit.

 

[Juma]

You forgot the "necessarily".

We can make a similar argument as the lemma for the Archimedean property makes, but I am not going to type out the whole proof. Simply put, give me a bounded number of units of time, and I will add one more unit.

But then you only have all higher values AFTER a specific moment, not before.

We are talking about infinite time up to a specific moment in time. Not after.

 

[ryan]

We can make a similar argument as the lemma for the Archimedean property makes, but I am not going to type out the whole proof. Simply put, give me a bounded number of units of time, and I will add one more unit.

But then you only have all higher values AFTER a specific moment, not before.

We are talking about infinite time up to a specific moment in time. Not after.

You wanted a logical argument, so let's stick with my premises and conclusion. My argument uses the premises,

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.

to conclude that an infinite regress of time is false. Either explain what is wrong with the premises, or explain why they don't imply the conclusion,

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

.

 

[Juma]

Either explain what is wrong with the premises, or explain why they don't imply the conclusion.

You have not shown p(4).

According to your definition of "pass" p(4) means that there cannot be infinitely many units.

Please prove that.

 

[ryan]

Either explain what is wrong with the premises, or explain why they don't imply the conclusion.

You have not shown p(4).

According to your definition of "pass" p(4) means that there cannot be infinitely many units.

Please prove that.

Oxford Dictionary has "infinite" defined as, "Limitless or endless in space, extent or size".

P(1)' The extent to an infinite timeline is endless or limitless.

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

Q(1)' There is no end to an infinite extent of a timeline.

Q(2)'(P(4)) An infinite number of units of time cannot pass.

 

[Juma]

You have not shown p(4).

According to your definition of "pass" p(4) means that there cannot be infinitely many units.

Please prove that.

Oxford Dictionary has "infinite" defined as, "Limitless or endless in space, extent or size".

P(1)' The extent to an infinite timeline is endless or limitless.

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

Q(1)' There is no end to an infinite extent of a timeline.

Q(2)'(P(4)) An infinite number of units of time cannot pass.

1) that something is infinite does not mesn that it does not have any ends. A ray is a line that is delimited by a point. A ray is still infinite.

2) Since you defined "pass" as just adding a interval after another I cannot see how Q2 follows,

 

[ryan]

Oxford Dictionary has "infinite" defined as, "Limitless or endless in space, extent or size".

P(1)' The extent to an infinite timeline is endless or limitless.

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

Q(1)' There is no end to an infinite extent of a timeline.

Q(2)'(P(4)) An infinite number of units of time cannot pass.

1) that something is infinite does not mesn that it does not have any ends. A ray is a line that is delimited by a point. A ray is still infinite.

I think the Oxford definition means that it can still have a beginning but have no end which is what this side issue to the main issue is about.

2) Since you defined "pass" as just adding a interval after another I cannot see how Q2 follows,

The length that we chose for P(1) is an endless length. So starting from now, there is no end to an infinite number of units of time that it would take to cover an infinite length of time.

 

[Juma]

The length that we chose for P(1) is an endless length. So starting from now, there is no end to an infinite number of units of time that it would take to cover an infinite length of time.

Yes. Which is exactly what I stated. An infinite set that is bounded by one point.

 

[ryan]

The length that we chose for P(1) is an endless length. So starting from now, there is no end to an infinite number of units of time that it would take to cover an infinite length of time.

Yes. Which is exactly what I stated. An infinite set that is bounded by one point.

By the definition of "Infinite", an infinite timeline does not end, hence Q(2)'.

 

[bilby]

Yes. Which is exactly what I stated. An infinite set that is bounded by one point.

By the definition of "Infinite", an infinite timeline does not end, hence Q(2)'.

Absence of an end is not necessary for a line to be infinite. As long as it has no beginning, it is infinite even if it has a definite end.

 

[Juma]

Yes. Which is exactly what I stated. An infinite set that is bounded by one point.

By the definition of "Infinite", an infinite timeline does not end, hence Q(2)'.

Infinite just means that it is not bounded everywhere. It says nothing of "start" or "end"