Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

When confronted with someone who makes absurd statements based on nothing but misguided beliefs then what else is there to do but laugh?

I also laugh when some creationist will not accept that the Earth could be more than 6000 years old and goes through some convoluted "argument' to prove it.

So you don't know the difference between claiming the earth is 6000 years old and the claim that an infinite series is defined as a series without end?

You do know that you are allowed to produce arguments showing that an infinite series is not defined as a series without end?

So now you are resorting to red herrings. The discussion was about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end. Or, in other words, if there can be an infinity bounded on one end.

 

[untermensche]

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

Because I (rather presciently, if I may say so myself) stopped actively engaging with you around 1400 posts ago when you claimed that the integers were a finite set. That, and the definition of a series is a basic part of first year calculus...

Never claimed it.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

That is nonsense.

You can define the truth as nonsense of you like.

But putting labels on the truth isn't an argument.

 

[beero1000]

Because I (rather presciently, if I may say so myself) stopped actively engaging with you around 1400 posts ago when you claimed that the integers were a finite set. That, and the definition of a series is a basic part of first year calculus...

Never claimed it.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

That is nonsense.

You can define the truth as nonsense of you like.

But putting labels on the truth isn't an argument.

I'm still waiting for a proof that Thor will never return. Some interesting corollaries might include the whereabouts of Odin and possibly even Jesus.

 

[untermensche]

So you don't know the difference between claiming the earth is 6000 years old and the claim that an infinite series is defined as a series without end?

You do know that you are allowed to produce arguments showing that an infinite series is not defined as a series without end?

So now you are resorting to red herrings. The discussion was about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end.

First you claim that my definition of an infinite series as a series with no end is like claiming the earth is 6000 years old.

Then I say you can defend your claim.

Then you say that actually asking you to defend your claims is a red herring.

You will do many things but defending your claims is not one of them.

 

[untermensche]

I'm still waiting for a proof that Thor will never return. Some interesting corollaries might include the whereabouts of Odin and possibly even Jesus.

Thor will return after infinite time passes.

Which is the same as saying never whether you understand that or not.

 

[skepticalbip]

So now you are resorting to red herrings. The discussion was about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end.

First you claim that my definition of an infinite series as a series with no end is like claiming the earth is 6000 years old.

Then I say you can defend your claim.

Then you say that actually asking you to defend your claims is a red herring.

You will do many things but defending your claims is not one of them.

You are going to chase your red herring? I wait for your answer to The discussion about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end. Or, in other words, can there be an infinity bounded on one end?

 

[untermensche]

First you claim that my definition of an infinite series as a series with no end is like claiming the earth is 6000 years old.

Then I say you can defend your claim.

Then you say that actually asking you to defend your claims is a red herring.

You will do many things but defending your claims is not one of them.

You are going to chase your red herring? I wait for your answer to The discussion about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end. Or, in other words, can there be an infinity bounded on one end?

They start at that end and are unbounded on the other.

The infinity is the unbounded end. The infinity is the end that has no end.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are going to chase your red herring? I wait for your answer to The discussion about the possibility of an infinite number of events happening in an infinite amount of time bounded on one end. Or, in other words, can there be an infinity bounded on one end?

They start at that end and are unbounded on the other.

The infinity is the unbounded end. The infinity is the end that has no end.

The infinity is between the bounded and unbounded "ends". This is where the infinite number of events occur. They don't all occur at the unbounded "end" because that is nothing but nonsene of assuming that the unbounded "end" is an actual end that we call infinity.

 

[Kharakov]

The infinity is the unbounded end. The infinity is the end that has no end.

That's not even remotely correct. Eternity is unbounded in both directions (there isn't an end to it). Now isn't an end, it isn't even a well defined middle.

 

[untermensche]

They start at that end and are unbounded on the other.

The infinity is the unbounded end. The infinity is the end that has no end.

The infinity is between the bounded and unbounded "ends". This is where the infinite number of events occur. They don't all occur at the unbounded "end" because that is nothing but nonsene of assuming that the unbounded "end" is an actual end.

You are getting warm.

It is nonsense to say that something that doesn't end, ends.

It is nonsense to say that infinite time ended yesterday.

 

[untermensche]

The infinity is the unbounded end. The infinity is the end that has no end.

That's not even remotely correct. Eternity is unbounded in both directions (there isn't an end to it). Now isn't an end, it isn't even a well defined middle.

To say that "eternity" is unbounded time in the past is to say the amount of time in the past has no limit.

So if we say the amount of time we must wait to pass for the previous moment to arrive has no limit then the previous moment will never arrive.

 

[skepticalbip]

The infinity is between the bounded and unbounded "ends". This is where the infinite number of events occur. They don't all occur at the unbounded "end" because that is nothing but nonsene of assuming that the unbounded "end" is an actual end.

You are getting warm.

It is nonsense to say that something that doesn't end, ends.

It is nonsense to say that infinite time ended yesterday.

So you want to ignore that this has already been explained and return to your word salad argument?

No one is saying that except you (as has been explaianed). We are saying that something that doesn't have a beginning is infinite. It doesn't matter whether it has an end or not. In either case, it is still infinite.

ETA:
This is the reason I mentioned the creationist's "arguments" about a 6000 year old Earth. They too ignore all previous arguments and keep returning to their same inane "arguments".

 

[Mageth]

That's not even remotely correct. Eternity is unbounded in both directions (there isn't an end to it). Now isn't an end, it isn't even a well defined middle.

To say that "eternity" is unbounded time in the past is to say the amount of time in the past has no limit.

So if we say the amount of time we must wait to pass for the previous moment to arrive has no limit then the previous moment will never arrive.

You're still asserting this nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us???

We don't have to wait for the previous moment to arrive. Each moment in time arrives. And that's where we are. This is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

 

[untermensche]

You are getting warm.

It is nonsense to say that something that doesn't end, ends.

It is nonsense to say that infinite time ended yesterday.

So you want to ignore that this has already been explained and return to your word salad argument?

No one is saying that except you (as has been explaianed). We are saying that something that doesn't have a beginning is infinite. It doesn't matter whether it has an end or not.

I've answered this.

There are two kinds of infinite series. Those with beginnings and those without beginnings.

There are no infinite series that have ends.

Please show me an infinite series that ends.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you want to ignore that this has already been explained and return to your word salad argument?

No one is saying that except you (as has been explaianed). We are saying that something that doesn't have a beginning is infinite. It doesn't matter whether it has an end or not.

I've answered this.

There are two kinds of infinite series. Those with beginnings and those without beginnings.

There are no infinite series that have ends.

Please show me an infinite series that ends.

And I have already told you I am not going to chase your red herring. Can there be an infinity bounded on one end?

 

[untermensche]

To say that "eternity" is unbounded time in the past is to say the amount of time in the past has no limit.

So if we say the amount of time we must wait to pass for the previous moment to arrive has no limit then the previous moment will never arrive.

You're still asserting this nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us???

We don't have to wait for the previous moment to arrive. Each moment in time arrives. And that's where we are. This is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

If there is the claim that infinite time occurred first then we would have to wait for infinite time to pass first.

I agree the claim is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I've answered this.

There are two kinds of infinite series. Those with beginnings and those without beginnings.

There are no infinite series that have ends.

Please show me an infinite series that ends.

And I have already told you I am not going to chase your red herring. Can there be an infinity bounded on one end?

Show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

 

[skepticalbip]

Show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

Show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that time had a beginning.

 

[untermensche]

Show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

Show me an uncaused cause or stop saying that the universe had a beginning.

It is every physicist I ever read that said the universe had a beginning.

Now again, either show me an infinite series that ends or stop saying it is possible.

 

[Mageth]

You're still asserting this nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us???

We don't have to wait for the previous moment to arrive. Each moment in time arrives. And that's where we are. This is true whether the past is finite or infinite.

If there is the claim that infinite time occurred first then we would have to wait for infinite time to pass first.

I take that as a "Yes", you're still asserting the nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us (or rather, with the present).

I agree the claim is absurd.

Then why do you keep asserting it?


Your entire argument still appears to be that you find things "absurd, impossible!" and nothing more.

 

[untermensche]

I take that as a "Yes", you're still asserting the nonsense about waiting for the past to catch up with us (or rather, with the present).

Saying time in the past is infinite because we can experience the present is not a logical argument.

The only way to experience a present moment is if the past is finite.

If a finite amount of time passed before a present moment then that moment can occur.

If it is required for infinite time to pass first then that present moment will never occur because infinite time will never pass first.

Infinite time goes on and on. It can't pass first.