Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

If there is no beginning, every point on the timeline has an infinite amount of time before it.

However, from any point on the timeline, one can only measure forwards a finite amount.

It seems like you agree with the fourth premise of my argument. If you don't see any other problems then ...

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.

Not necessarily. Some timelines don't use dates- rather just put events in successive order.

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.

From this point, an infinite amount of units cannot pass (or from any point that we measure from). This doesn't mean that an "infinite amount of units" has not passed.

Infinities are not measurable.

 

[ryan]

It seems like you agree with the fourth premise of my argument. If you don't see any other problems then ...

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.

Not necessarily. Some timelines don't use dates- rather just put events in successive order.

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.

From this point, an infinite amount of units cannot pass (or from any point that we measure from). This doesn't mean that an "infinite amount of units" has not passed.

Infinities are not measurable.

Well, I did the best that I can do; I feel like I made a good enough case.

I am very frustrated, but I really don't know why.

 

[Juma]

[Time] is a succession of changes.

No, it is not. 1) a resting reference frame is always travelling through time with speed c. Whether something changes or not. Thus change is not necessary for time.
2) there is no succession of changes. As we know changes are made continously.

It just isn't an infinite succession.

If time goes on forever then the amount of time before any present moment is an amount that goes on forever.

What I am saying is that elapsed time is not some sort of state variable as energy, speed etc. It is an arbitrary value depending on ehat start point we select.

Infinities do not end. It is illogical to say something that goes on forever has finished going on.

It is not illogical to say that something that has been going on forever has stopped.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, I did the best that I can do; I feel like I made a good enough case.

Well, I think what you said is correct if you say "from any point in time, an infinite amount of units cannot pass". However, you cannot say that eternity started at a specific point. Eternity is.. uhhh.. eternal.

 

[untermensche]

Something that goes on forever can finish going on, if the time elapsed is infinite....

This is amusing.

A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever?

The logic here is too twisted to comment on.

 

[untermensche]

If time goes on forever then the amount of time before any present moment is an amount that goes on forever.

Almost. If time had no beginning then the amount of time before any present moment has gone on forever. So there would have been an infinite number of events that have already occurred in the infinite time preceding any present moment.

So an infinite number of events occurred before any present moment?

A number of events without end occurred before any present moment?

So these events went on without end?

To go on without end means to never reach an end.

If the events that occurred before any present moment never reached an end how exactly did they reach an end at that present moment?

You're talking nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

No, it is not. 1) a resting reference frame is always travelling through time with speed c. Whether something changes or not. Thus change is not necessary for time.
2) there is no succession of changes. As we know changes are made continously.

You confuse some model of time with time itself.

When there is time there is change. That is all that has ever been observed.

I prefer to talk about what we have actually observed as time when I talk about time.

And electrons don't change their "orbits" in a continuous manner. They do it in quantum leaps.

If time goes on forever then the amount of time before any present moment is an amount that goes on forever.

What I am saying is that elapsed time is not some sort of state variable as energy, speed etc. It is an arbitrary value depending on ehat start point we select.

It represents an amount of change. That is why it can be depicted with hands that change position. You create a fixed reference for change, a watch, and then you can measure it. But of course the real world is not a hand running in circles. In the real world every present state is different from the previous state. The passing of time represents something real. It is not some ethereal eternal dimension.

Infinities do not end. It is illogical to say something that goes on forever has finished going on.

It is not illogical to say that something that has been going on forever has stopped.

If it stopped it isn't going on forever.

 

[bilby]

Something that goes on forever can finish going on, if the time elapsed is infinite....

This is amusing.

A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever?

The logic here is too twisted to comment on.

I didn't say 'A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever', though.

I said that an infinite series can end, if it has had an infinite existence already. If time ends now, but has already existed forever, then it's extent is infinite.

A line with only one end is infinite. If time has no beginning, it can end at any point and remain infinite.

Your amusement is misplaced; if you need to rephrase my argument to render it illogical, then perhaps the problem is in your rephrasing, and not my logic?

 

[ryan]

Well, I did the best that I can do; I feel like I made a good enough case.

Well, I think what you said is correct if you say "from any point in time, an infinite amount of units cannot pass". However, you cannot say that eternity started at a specific point. Eternity is.. uhhh.. eternal.

So you agree with my 4th premise. You had an issue with my first premise; for that I will change it to, "A timeline can represent some length divided by equal lengths ..." instead of, "A timeline represents some length divided by equal units ...".

Do you see anything wrong with the other two premises? If you are satisfied with the other two premises, do you agree that all four premises imply the conclusion?

 

[ryan]

This is amusing.

A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever?

The logic here is too twisted to comment on.

I didn't say 'A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever', though.

I said that an infinite series can end, if it has had an infinite existence already. If time ends now, but has already existed forever, then it's extent is infinite.

A line with only one end is infinite. If time has no beginning, it can end at any point and remain infinite.

Your amusement is misplaced; if you need to rephrase my argument to render it illogical, then perhaps the problem is in your rephrasing, and not my logic?

I'll be honest; this might be a problem for my side of the argument.

Energy permitting, if you went into a black hole, you will come out after an infinite amount of time has passed. Forever will pass.

 

[bleubird]

Is this thread an infinite time regression?Or a waste of time?

 

[untermensche]

This is amusing.

A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever?

The logic here is too twisted to comment on.

I didn't say 'A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever', though.

I said that an infinite series can end, if it has had an infinite existence already. If time ends now, but has already existed forever, then it's extent is infinite.

A line with only one end is infinite. If time has no beginning, it can end at any point and remain infinite.

Your amusement is misplaced; if you need to rephrase my argument to render it illogical, then perhaps the problem is in your rephrasing, and not my logic?

This is still amusing.

You say an infinite series can end. This is in direct conflict with the definition of an infinite series.

An infinite series is defined as a series that doesn't end. It never has a finalized existence. It goes on forever.

 

[untermensche]

I'll be honest; this might be a problem for my side of the argument.

Energy permitting, if you went into a black hole, you will come out after an infinite amount of time has passed. Forever will pass.

I'll remind you the events you mention have never been observed.

Claims made only by mathematics are not worthless but they should not be accepted as facts either.

There were many mathematical claims of what the Higgs boson would weigh. Most were wrong.

 

[bilby]

I didn't say 'A series that goes on forever can finish if it goes on forever', though.

I said that an infinite series can end, if it has had an infinite existence already. If time ends now, but has already existed forever, then it's extent is infinite.

A line with only one end is infinite. If time has no beginning, it can end at any point and remain infinite.

Your amusement is misplaced; if you need to rephrase my argument to render it illogical, then perhaps the problem is in your rephrasing, and not my logic?

This is still amusing.

You say an infinite series can end. This is in direct conflict with the definition of an infinite series.

An infinite series is defined as a series that doesn't end. It never has a finalized existence. It goes on forever.

Really?

How long is a series with an end, but no beginning?

How many negative integers are there? (Hint: the series ends with -1)

I find it amusing that someone can argue for 1,432 posts about infinity, without once realising that his definition of infinity is wrong.

This word 'infinity'. I do not think it means what I think you think it means.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is this thread an infinite time regression?Or a waste of time?

It is the confusion by one person who can't understand that there are only two possibilities, either finite time or infinite time and both are "illogical" by our common lay understanding of the universe but one must be true. In order to "prove" that time started (an illogical event but one he believes) he is trying to point out that the other is "illogical" (the argument itself a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance).

Oddly he can ignore that cosmologists (those who deal with this kind of shit for a living) have been able to offer physical descriptions of how infinite time could be but haven't been able to overcome the uncaused cause dilemma of finite time.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'll be honest; this might be a problem for my side of the argument.

Energy permitting, if you went into a black hole, you will come out after an infinite amount of time has passed. Forever will pass.

I'll remind you the events you mention have never been observed.

Neither has an uncaused cause.

We have no hard evidence for either infinite time or finite time but one must be true. Your continued claim that one can't be proven does not mean the other is true because it can't be proven either. However, cosmologists think they see a way around the one that you don't believe but not the one you believe.

 

[skepticalbip]

Almost. If time had no beginning then the amount of time before any present moment has gone on forever. So there would have been an infinite number of events that have already occurred in the infinite time preceding any present moment.

So an infinite number of events occurred before any present moment?

Yes, if time had no beginning.

A number of events without end occurred before any present moment?

No, an infininite number of events without beginning occured before any present moment if time had no begining.

So these events went on without end?

No, they went on without beginning if time had no beginning.

To go on without end means to never reach an end.

Therein is your confusion. Infinite past means no beginning. It doesn't mean no end.

If the events that occurred before any present moment never reached an end how exactly did they reach an end at that present moment?

You're talking nonsense.

You're talking nonsense.

 

[Mageth]

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.

The keyword here being "was".

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

The past has passed. It was.

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

When does he arrive?

Now, of course, as did all that was, all that has has passed. It's all arrived together, now. The past is not trying to catch up to the present. That's absurd.

Your analogy is awful. The past has passed. The past was. He has already arrived.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, I think what you said is correct if you say "from any point in time, an infinite amount of units cannot pass". However, you cannot say that eternity started at a specific point. Eternity is.. uhhh.. eternal.

So you agree with my 4th premise.

Not at all, and totally, because it is way to fucking ambiguous.

A point in time is a specific point in time. Eternity did not start at a specific point- it did not start, it is eternal. I said if you changed the 4th premise to "from any point in time, an infinite amount of units cannot pass" it would work.

Change the 4th premise, and then reformulate your conclusion to reflect the new 4th premise.

Or you can reformulate the other premises to specifically imply that you are measuring from a certain point in time, and then have the conclusion reflect that you are referring only to measurements which are finite (from one point to another), and specifically mention that the conclusion has no implications in regards to eternity or eternal time.

Don't leave holes.

 

[Kharakov]

I find it amusing that someone can argue for 1,432 posts about infinity, without once realising that his definition of infinity is wrong.

This word 'infinity'. I do not think it means what I think you think it means.

He's argued against using mathematical concepts to describe infinity as well. Although this thread is about eternal existence, rather than simply the mathematical concept infinity which helps clarify what eternity is.

In fact, I suggested he read about  indeterminate form to get a better understanding of the concept of infinity about 700 posts ago, which is directly related to the series of negative integers you mentioned (the series actually does not start at -infinity).