Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

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.

I read his book, 'A universe from nothing", and I have watched him discuss the book and other topics on several YouTube videos. He is very good at showing the faults in many religious arguments.

In his talks he goes over it very superficially because it all comes out of string theory.

What he means by an eternal multiverse is not something I understand but I take him at his word it is something he at least has a conception of.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Nope. If you had paid any attention to my posts you would know that I have continually maintain that we don't know. I even stated the problem cosmologists have with finite time and their problem with infinite time.

I have just been showing how your "absolute knowledge" is nothing but nonsense based on 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.

Your ignorance of what Krauss is saying is one of your problems. You just insert what you believe into any part that you misunderstand - which is most of it.

 

[untermensche]

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

Suppose we say the present is the beginning, not the end of infinite time.

That is saying the past is growing infinitely away from a stationary point. At a present moment the past is growing.

The past is time that has passed already. It is gone. It can't grow. It can't grow away from some fixed point infinitely.

You can't have an ever growing past from a present moment. The concept makes no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Your ignorance of what Krauss is saying is one of your problems. You just insert what you believe into any part that you misunderstand - which is most of it.

I'll take his word over yours.

You are basically saying that Krauss's idea of a multiverse is claiming an uncaused cause.

Your argument is with some modern physicists, not me.

 

[skepticalbip]

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

Suppose we say the present is the beginning, not the end of infinite time.

That is saying the past is growing infinitely away from a stationary point. At a present moment the past is growing.

The past is time that has passed already. It is gone. It can't grow. It can't grow away from some fixed point infinitely.

WTF.
When tomorrow becomes today, there will be one more day in the infinite past

 

[skepticalbip]

Your ignorance of what Krauss is saying is one of your problems. You just insert what you believe into any part that you misunderstand - which is most of it.

I'll take his word over yours.

That would certainly make sense if you understood what he said. Unfortunately, you misunderstand what he is saying and interpret it to fit with what you already believe.

 

[untermensche]

When tomorrow becomes today, there will be one more day in the infinite past

And when the tooth fairy comes he will leave a lollypop.

To think of an infinite past as starting at a present moment and extending backward in time is to imagine at a present moment the past is growing. In fact growing infinitely fast. Faster than the speed of light.

It is first absurd to think that at a present moment the past can grow, but to grow faster than the speed of light is absurdity on top of absurdity.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll take his word over yours.

That would certainly make sense if you understood what he said. Unfortunately, you misunderstand what he is saying in interpret it to fit with what you already believe.

From what you've shown me in this thread I understand that by just knowing the opposite of most of what you say is true, and you don't defend a claim you make, this is good news.

 

[PyramidHead]

Who said anything about the speed of the past?! Does time have a velocity when it whizzes by a police car?

 

[untermensche]

Who said anything about the speed of the past?! Does time have a velocity when it whizzes by a police car?

If you claim that time in the past moves infinitely away from a present moment you are saying the past is growing.

And there is no limit to how fast the past is growing. Which means it can grow faster than the speed of light.

It is an absurd claim.

 

[skepticalbip]

And when the tooth fairy comes he will leave a lollypop.

To think of an infinite past as starting at a present moment and extending backward in time is to imagine at a present moment the past is growing. In fact growing infinitely fast. Faster than the speed of light.

Just damned, dude!

You have really lost it. The velocity of time????

What do you think happens to today when tomorrow comes? It is added to the past whether the past is finite or infinite.

 

[untermensche]

And when the tooth fairy comes he will leave a lollypop.

To think of an infinite past as starting at a present moment and extending backward in time is to imagine at a present moment the past is growing. In fact growing infinitely fast. Faster than the speed of light.

Just damned, dude!

You have really lost it. The velocity of time????

What do you think happens to today when tomorrow comes? It is added to the past whether the past is finite or infinite.

You simply refuse to look at any argument that disrupts your faith.

This is an argument about the conception of time as starting at a present moment and extending infinitely into the past.

It is not an argument about the passing of time and thereby the past grows which is simply a truism and no argument leading anywhere.

If time is conceptualized as starting from a present moment and extending infinitely into the past then the past is growing, and there is no limit to how fast the past is growing.

The past cannot grow away from a present moment. At a present moment all the moments in the past have finished happening. That is how you can have a present moment.

To conceptualize infinite time as starting at a present moment and extending infinitely into the past makes no sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

Just damned, dude!

You have really lost it. The velocity of time????

What do you think happens to today when tomorrow comes? It is added to the past whether the past is finite or infinite.

To conceptualize infinite time as starting at a present moment and extending infinitely into the past makes no sense.

Only to you because it is contrary to your firm belief. Sorta like radio-carbon dating makes no sense to creationists.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Kharakov]

And when the tooth fairy comes he will leave a lollypop.

To think of an infinite past as starting at a present moment and extending backward in time is to imagine at a present moment the past is growing. In fact growing infinitely fast. Faster than the speed of light.

Just damned, dude!

You have really lost it. The velocity of time????

That's a little meta for me.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

I read his book, 'A universe from nothing", and I have watched him discuss the book and other topics on several YouTube videos. He is very good at showing the faults in many religious arguments.

In his talks he goes over it very superficially because it all comes out of string theory.

What he means by an eternal multiverse is not something I understand but I take him at his word it is something he at least has a conception of.

Obviously we both need to know more about why he calls his Multiverse eternal. Presuming there are unlimited universes exhibiting unlimited laws of physics I'll put my constraint about entropy on hold. However if there is quantum energy that may or may not be expressed and if it is expressed in our universe it winds down is suggestive.

 

[untermensche]

To conceptualize infinite time as starting at a present moment and extending infinitely into the past makes no sense.

Only to you because it is contrary to your firm belief. Sorta like radio-carbon dating makes no sense to creationists.

I showed how it makes no sense.

You simply are unable to understand most things.

To say time extends infinitely from a fixed present moment is to say the past is growing at an infinite rate infinitely.

To say the past grows is absurd. The past is gone. It can't grow.

Some people think they can say any stupid thing they want and get away with it. Like claiming the past can grow.

 

[untermensche]

I read his book, 'A universe from nothing", and I have watched him discuss the book and other topics on several YouTube videos. He is very good at showing the faults in many religious arguments.

In his talks he goes over it very superficially because it all comes out of string theory.

What he means by an eternal multiverse is not something I understand but I take him at his word it is something he at least has a conception of.

Obviously we both need to know more about why he calls his Multiverse eternal. Presuming there are unlimited universes exhibiting unlimited laws of physics I'll put my constraint about entropy on hold. However if there is quantum energy that may or may not be expressed and if it is expressed in our universe it winds down is suggestive.

The multiverse is a product of string theorists.

You have to understand string theory first.

Of course it is very hypothetical at this point. And trying to find a sign of the multiverse may be like trying to find the sign of a ship in the middle of the ocean by looking at the waves on the shore.

 

[skepticalbip]

Only to you because it is contrary to your firm belief. Sorta like radio-carbon dating makes no sense to creationists.

I showed how it makes no sense.

You simply are unable to understand most things.

To say time extends infinitely from a fixed present moment is to say the past is growing at an infinite rate infinitely.

To say the past grows is absurd. The past is gone. It can't grow.

Some people think they can say any stupid thing they want and get away with it. Like claiming the past can grow.

You are stuck in your mindset and refuse to accept anything else even though your heros like Hawking and Krauss have no problem accepting that time could be eternal. Apparently you would call them idiots if they were here in this discussion.

And creationists argue just as convincingly as you do that carbon-dating is nonsense because time started only 6000 years ago so dates showing twenty thousand years ago are nonsense. The only difference I see is you give time only 13.7billion years.

 

[ryan]

The past is the time that's already passed.

So how many units/intervals of time would have passed in an infinite regression of time?

 

[ryan]

If an infinite number of minutes cannot occur after some point in time, then how can an infinite number of minutes precede that same point in time?

 

[bilby]

If an infinite number of minutes cannot occur after some point in time, then how can an infinite number of minutes precede that same point in time?

Who cares? There is no evidence that either case is true; I can easily imagine an infinite number of minutes existing in both future and past.