Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Logic says that the claim of infinite time in the past is a contradiction.

Since the past ends at "now", a claim of infinite time in the past is a claim of an infinite series that ends.

If somebody wants to claim an infinite series can have an end they need to produce one.

Why can't the claimers of an infinite series that ends ever seem to be able to produce one that does?

I did. The negative Integers. Your dismissal of this was notable for its absurdity; If you want to claim that the negative integers start at -1 and are infinite (and I agree that that that is one valid way to look at them), then time can equally, and for the same reasons, be said to start now, and stretch back in time WITHOUT END. Time stretching back without end is exactly the same as time stretching forward without beginning.

You're simply ignorant if you think the negative integers are defined as starting from infinity, whatever that means, and ending at negative one.

They are defined as starting from negative one and infinitely extending away from the defined point.

You should be ashamed to even suggest otherwise. It really shows a lack of understanding.

 

[PyramidHead]

How do you know that's how negative integers are defined? What would be different about them if they were defined the other way, or both ways were valid, as bilby suggests?

 

[untermensche]

I did. The negative Integers. Your dismissal of this was notable for its absurdity; If you want to claim that the negative integers start at -1 and are infinite (and I agree that that that is one valid way to look at them), then time can equally, and for the same reasons, be said to start now, and stretch back in time WITHOUT END. Time stretching back without end is exactly the same as time stretching forward without beginning.

Unter will not get this since he confuses series and time. For him the series and the flow of time MUST be the same. That he thereby conflates physics and mathematics is something he cannot see...

It is all so easy: the infinite series for time up to now can be (using seconds as units): now, now-1sec, now-2sec, now-3sec, .... etc. Whether this stops or not has not anything to do with the definition of infinity. But if time has always been going on the there will be (tempus?) positions in time for each of these infinitely many terms.

This argument is pathetic.

It is nothing more than; if infinite time existed infinitely it existed infinitely.

It is an argument I would be ashamed to make.

It assumes the conclusion is true with the initial premise. It goes absolutely nowhere and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

 

[Juma]

Unter will not get this since he confuses series and time. For him the series and the flow of time MUST be the same. That he thereby conflates physics and mathematics is something he cannot see...

It is all so easy: the infinite series for time up to now can be (using seconds as units): now, now-1sec, now-2sec, now-3sec, .... etc. Whether this stops or not has not anything to do with the definition of infinity. But if time has always been going on the there will be (tempus?) positions in time for each of these infinitely many terms.

This argument is pathetic.

It is nothing more than; if infinite time existed infinitely it existed infinitely.

It is an argument I would be ashamed to make.

It assumes the conclusion is true with the initial premise. It goes absolutely nowhere and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

As i said: unter will not get this...

 

[untermensche]

How do you know that's how negative integers are defined? What would be different about them if they were defined the other way, or both ways were valid, as bilby suggests?

Because there is no way to define something as beginning at infinity.

If we look at the positive integers they don't end at infinity. Infinity is just a concept that says they never end.

If they don't end at infinity you can't say they start there. You would have to say the series started at the highest member of the series.

But there is no highest member.

Trying to say something starts at infinity is to talk nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

This argument is pathetic.

It is nothing more than; if infinite time existed infinitely it existed infinitely.

It is an argument I would be ashamed to make.

It assumes the conclusion is true with the initial premise. It goes absolutely nowhere and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

As i said: unter will not get this...

Yeah, because I have a brain.

 

[skepticalbip]

Aha. Back to believing that placing the phrase "logic says" in front of an asinine statement makes it true.

If you want to stick with your position then you need to show me an uncaused cause or quit saying that time can not be infinite in the past.

(This is so much easier if I also use the logical fallacy that you are continually using. Which is sorta fun because you appear incapable of recognizing a logical fallacy though you love to claim that your nonsense is logical. In fact your reasoning displayed so far depends on logical fallacies.)

I've fully addressed your stupid little uncaused cause nonsense. If time had a cause it is not a cause as we understand the word. In no way shape or form does my argument claim that time is uncaused. To think the argument says that is pure ignorance.

If time had no cause then it is an uncaused cause. If time had a cause (a result of a prior event) then it is not a start of time at all. It is a continuation of whatever came before. You are only making an unsupported assertion that time just started. If you don't know how then you can't "logically" say that it did. It is just a statement of faith.

You don't understand that this is a question that cosmologists wrestle with. Despite your misunderstanding of Hawking, he leans toward infinite time. He has contributed to at least two cosmological models that show infinite time. But then, of course, you maintain that your divine revelation trumps cosmologists' understandings.

 

[Juma]

Because there is no way to define something as beginning at infinity.

If we look at the positive integers they don't end at infinity. Infinity is just a concept that says they never end.

If they don't end at infinity you can't say they start there. You would have to say the series started at the highest member of the series.

But there is no highest member.

Trying to say something starts at infinity is to talk nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

This argument is pathetic.

It is nothing more than; if infinite time existed infinitely it existed infinitely.

It is an argument I would be ashamed to make.

It assumes the conclusion is true with the initial premise. It goes absolutely nowhere and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

As i said: unter will not get this...

Yeah, because I have a brain.

Then why dont you start using it?

 

[untermensche]

If time had no cause then it is an uncaused cause.

Great. This is no part of my argument. Start a thread and discuss it.

If time had a cause (a result of a prior event) then it is not a start of time at all.

If time had a cause it is not a cause as you know a cause. It is not a cause in time it is a cause from beyond time.

What you are doing is claiming there is nothing beyond time. You claim to know this.

You don't.

Your argument is simply a claim from complete ignorance. It is a waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why dont you start using it?

It's hard when the arguments I get are so bad.

Saying time can exist infinitely if it existed infinitely is not an argument that strains the brain except in the fact it is so bad.

 

[skepticalbip]

This argument is pathetic.

It is nothing more than; if infinite time existed infinitely it existed infinitely.

It is an argument I would be ashamed to make.

It assumes the conclusion is true with the initial premise. It goes absolutely nowhere and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

As i said: unter will not get this...

But then that wasn't a very deep prophecy. Unter doesn't get anything that he doesn't already want to believe. Since this was contrary to his divinely inspired belief, he had no choice but to think it was nonsense.

 

[Juma]

Great. This is no part of my argument. Start a thread and discuss it.

If time had a cause (a result of a prior event) then it is not a start of time at all.

If time had a cause it is not a cause as you know a cause. It is not a cause in time it is a cause from beyond time.

What you doing is claiming there is nothing beyond time. You claim to know this.

You don't.

Your argument is simply a claim from complete ignorance. It is a waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why dont you start using it?

It's hard when the arguments I get are so bad.

Saying time can exist infinitely if it existed infinitely is not an argument that strains the brain except in the fact it is so bad.

It shows that your idea that the definition of infinity somehow refutes that time can have been going on forever, is wrong

But as i said, you will not get it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

On the other hand (or end?), counting an infinite past would have a beginning but no end. God could count it, if He could be bothered, but not us. But we’re very clever and we have an infinite amount of time in front of us to find a smart way maybe to count the past.

One cannot count "from" an infinity (negative or positive) and reach a defined (finite) number. One can pick any location on an infinite timeline and measure from there. The finite measurement is defined by a standard rule of repetitive events such as the velocity of light in a vacuum, the rotation of the Earth, Cesium decay, etc.

Counting from negative infinity to reach some point is the same thing as adding infinity to negative infinity: infinity - infinity =  indeterminate form. It doesn't matter whether you're using mathematics, or applying logic to the concept of something infinite in scope. Something which is infinite does not have a specific finite value associated with it, so one does not arrive at a specific, finite value by counting from it.

One instead picks a location to count from, and uses some form of standard rule to measure with.


So one can count from now, to a finite point in the past (or the future) using repeating events (orbits, rotations, whatever), but one cannot count from an undefined location such as -infinity to a defined location (such as now). One cannot count backwards from an undefined number.

There are neat things one can do with infinities though- but they are not all Kosher or well defined.

Right. I take this to mean you agree with me then...

Or are you saying that even God couldn't count infinity?

Or that somebody really smarter than you couldn't ever find a way of counting infinitely many things?

You do like mathematics don't you?
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Great. This is no part of my argument. Start a thread and discuss it.

It is your argument even if you can't grasp it. If you maintain that infinite time is impossible then you are asserting that time had an uncaused beginning.

So back to my post:

If time had no cause then it is an uncaused cause. If time had a cause (a result of a prior event) then it is not a start of time at all. It is a continuation of whatever came before. You are only making an unsupported assertion that time just started. If you don't know how then you can't "logically" say that it did. It is just a statement of faith.

You don't understand that this is a question that cosmologists wrestle with. Despite your misunderstanding of Hawking, he leans toward infinite time. He has contributed to at least two cosmological models that show infinite time. But then, of course, you maintain that your divine revelation trumps cosmologists' understandings.

Repeat: If you don't know how "time started" then you can't "logically" say that it did. It is just a statement of faith.

 

[untermensche]

It shows that your idea that the definition of infinity somehow refutes that time can have been going on forever, is wrong

But as i said, you will not get it.

So you claim yet can't demonstrate.

Great.

- - - Updated - - -

If you maintain that infinite time is impossible then you are asserting that time had an uncaused beginning.

This is nonsense.

It is a worthless claim with nothing to support it.

A complete waste of time.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you maintain that infinite time is impossible then you are asserting that time had an uncaused beginning.

This is nonsense.

Yes, I understand that you consider anything contrary to your faith is nonsense. I hear the same shit from creationists when any evidence is shown that the Earth is older than 6000 years.

 

[untermensche]

This is nonsense.

Yes, I understand that you consider anything contrary to your faith is nonsense. I hear the same shit from creationists when any evidence is shown that the Earth is older than 6000 years.

You are the believer in things with no evidence. You are the one spouting your faith.

My argument parallels Lawrence Krauss's argument.

He claims the multiverse is eternal, what that means I don't know, and that time and space and energy and everything somehow sprung into being from the multiverse.

He is claiming that time had a beginning that was outside of time.

You may claim that Krauss is just spewing shit like some creationist, but I see the man differently.

 

[Speakpigeon]

untermensche Post No. 507
Infinite time means time, whatever that is, that goes on without end

No. This definition is clearly wrong.
Ok, the subsequent logic is good enough but the premise is false. That’s what is wrong, the premise.
So the definition does not apply to the past.

The past is clearly over and done with so whether finite or infinite it would have to have had an end. At least now it has to have an end.
So the past does not go on at all. It’s finished. Whether finite or infinite, the past is finished. It does not go on.

On the other hand (or end?), counting an infinite past would have a beginning but no end. God could count it, if He could be bothered, but not us. But we’re very clever and we have an infinite amount of time in front of us to find a smart way maybe to count the past.
A possible definition of the past may be time that just ended, so the past definitely has to have an end and this applies to both a finite and an infinite past. A finite past would have a beginning to, while an infinite past wouldn’t.

So that’s it. And pretty much everyone here should be able to agree with that.
EB

Yes the past is finished but the past represents the passing of time.

So infinite time in the past would mean the infinite passing of time in the past. If an infinite passing of time must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was infinite time before yesterday, then yesterday will never occur.

Try again.

Yes the past is finished?! We all agree with that, yes? Do you also agree that even if infinite the past is finished?

My point was that infinite time is not defined as something that goes on without end, as you repeatedly claimed. So your argument that the notion of infinite time is logically inconsistent is without merit.

At any point in time the past is finished and it has no beginning. So for today to arrive we only need that the past ended yesterday.

Yes the past is finished but the past represents the passing of time.

The past does not represent anything. The past is the part of time, if it ever existed, that's already passed. That's all there is to say.

So infinite time in the past would mean the infinite passing of time in the past.

No. Time, infinite or not, does not pass "in the past". The past is the time that's already passed.

If an infinite passing of time must first occur before yesterday occurs, because there is a claim that there was infinite time before yesterday, then yesterday will never occur.

Why is that?

If I understand your logic it's about like saying that an infinite road couldn't possibly end somewhere because there would need to be an infinitely long way to go before reaching the end. This is an absurdity.
EB

 

[Juma]

So you claim yet can't demonstrate.

Great.

- - - Updated - - -

If you maintain that infinite time is impossible then you are asserting that time had an uncaused beginning.

This is nonsense.

It is a worthless claim with nothing to support it.

A complete waste of time.

I gave all details needed in that post. If you are not capable of understanding them then this indeed is a waste of time.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, I understand that you consider anything contrary to your faith is nonsense. I hear the same shit from creationists when any evidence is shown that the Earth is older than 6000 years.

You are the believer in things with no evidence. You are the one spouting your faith.

My argument parallels Lawrence Krauss's argument.

He claims the multiverse is eternal, what that means I don't know, and that time and space and energy and everything somehow sprung into being from the multiverse.

He is claiming that time had a beginning that was outside of time.

You may claim that Krauss is just spewing shit like some creationist, but I see the man differently.

I don't follow the thinking that a multiverse is eternal. If it is true in every dimensional arrangement that things are neither created nor destroyed but that things are interchangeable to some degree then it should seem to follow that everything winds down.

What are Krauss's parameters or what is a good source for your take on Krauss.

 

[untermensche]

Yes the past is finished?! We all agree with that, yes? Do you also agree that even if infinite the past is finished?....

No. Here lies the problem. If it were infinite it would never have ended. There could be no end to it at this ever present moment we call "now".

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never ends. So it is hard to agree that it finished.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes the past is finished?! We all agree with that, yes? Do you also agree that even if infinite the past is finished?....

No. Here lies the problem. If it were infinite it would never have ended. There could be no end to it at this ever present moment we call "now".

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never ends. So it is hard to agree that it finished.

In a reply to one of my posts, you said that if an infinite series is bounded on one side, that side is the beginning.

The bounded end is the beginning.

So, the present could be the beginning of an infinite series, right?