Infinte Regress Timeline...

[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?

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.

If you could not die, would you ever look back to your birth as an infinite number of years away?

 

[bilby]

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.

If you could not die, would you ever look back to your birth as an infinite number of years away?

Only if I could not be born.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Even though there is still a failure to communicate, a bunch of eggs to be eaten, and untermensche's refusal to publicly acknowledge acquisition of knowledge, at least he started out at 13.7 billion years of age instead of 6000.

The problem being that the 13.8 billion year mark is basically the equivalent (when dealing with eternity) of the biblical 6000 year mark.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You can't imagine an infinite amount of time in the past finishing.

Infinite amounts of time don't finish.

It's like imagining a fish that is a mammal.

 

[Kharakov]

You're still making the fundamental error of measuring from infinity towards a specific point.

Any measurement from infinity is undefined. And once again, for the infinityeth time, I'll recommend that you read up on indeterminate form to learn the truth.


In other words, your whole idea about infinite amounts of time not finishing is a red herring: an infinite amount of time does not have a well defined starting point. And a red herring is a fish.


I really don't like the idea of letting sloppy thoughts, such as yours, exist out in the wild. Although truthfully, without duhh, there would be no wild to be tamed, and without the wild, there is no humor.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Even though there is still a failure to communicate, a bunch of eggs to be eaten, and untermensche's refusal to publicly acknowledge acquisition of knowledge, at least he started out at 13.7 billion years of age instead of 6000.

The problem being that the 13.8 billion year mark is basically the equivalent (when dealing with eternity) of the biblical 6000 year mark.

If you have some evidence that time existed before the big bang by all means present it.

 

[Kharakov]

If you have some evidence that time existed before the big bang by all means present it.

It's pretty much the most solid inference there is in the freaking universe. Something has always existed, something could not appear out of nothing, although it can exist in a totally imaginary form, like the imaginary non-existence of time before the BB.

 

[untermensche]

You're still making the fundamental error of measuring from infinity towards a specific point.

Any measurement from infinity is undefined. And once again, for the infinityeth time, I'll recommend that you read up on indeterminate form to learn the truth.


In other words, your whole idea about infinite amounts of time not finishing is a red herring: an infinite amount of time does not have a well defined starting point. And a red herring is a fish.


I really don't like the idea of letting sloppy thoughts, such as yours, exist out in the wild. Although truthfully, without duhh, there would be no wild to be tamed, and without the wild, there is no humor.

What you call a red herring is the crucial point of the argument.

Thinking you can dismiss it by calling it a red herring is amusing. And weak.

If the amount of time in the past is claimed to be infinite then it is not a red herring to ask if it can ever finish passing.

Some think it is possible for infinite time to just exist in the past, just be there, like a lamp on a table.

But infinite time in the past means something. It means the passage of infinite time has already occurred. That is what the past is, time that already occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have some evidence that time existed before the big bang by all means present it.

It's pretty much the most solid inference there is in the freaking universe. Something has always existed, something could not appear out of nothing, although it can exist in a totally imaginary form, like the imaginary non-existence of time before the BB.

I asked for evidence not your assurances.

 

[ryan]

If you could not die, would you ever look back to your birth as an infinite number of years away?

Only if I could not be born.

I am sorry to read that, but what about my question?

 

[ryan]

You're still making the fundamental error of measuring from infinity towards a specific point.

No, that is what we are accusing you of doing!

 

[bilby]

Only if I could not be born.

I am sorry to read that, but what about my question?

I answered it.

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

Now enough about me; my life is not in any important way analogous to the existence of time, not least because it is demonstrably finite.

If time never began, would the beginning of time be an infinite number of years away? I would say, yes.

Is that what actually happened? No-one knows. Indeed it is known that it isn't knowable. But it isn't demonstrably impossible either.

 

[skepticalbip]

Even though there is still a failure to communicate, a bunch of eggs to be eaten, and untermensche's refusal to publicly acknowledge acquisition of knowledge, at least he started out at 13.7 billion years of age instead of 6000.

The problem being that the 13.8 billion year mark is basically the equivalent (when dealing with eternity) of the biblical 6000 year mark.

If you have some evidence that time existed before the big bang by all means present it.

There is no evidence for either finite time or infinite time that is why we just don't know (which I have said many times). It is the reason I asked you to show me an uncaused cause to point out that your absolute certainty of finite time was pure nonsense, maybe ego, maybe faith but certainly not knowledge. Nobody knows... unless you are claiming divine revelation.

However cosmologists lean much more toward eternal time and have even made cosmological models to see if they can test the hypothesis. They see a possible physics way around the problem of resetting entropy which would make time no longer limited by entropy so eternal time. However they have not yet found a physics way around the problem of there being no way to model an uncaused cause so finite time has a serious problem.

If you go back to your nonsense of "it doesn't make sense" therefore what you believe is fact, I think I will split a gut again so please don't... my side still hurts. What you believe or can understand has nothing to do with the reality of the universe.

Or is it that you think that although physicists don't know everything, you alone have access to council with the ultimate god of knowledge ?

ETA:
But to get to your challenge:

If you have some evidence that time existed before the big bang by all means present it.

This is one of the logical fallacies that you keep making and I keep pointing out to you and you keep failing to understand.

This is the classical fallacy of argument from ignorance. Neither possibility is known so neither can be proven. Challenging someone to prove one and their failure does not mean that the other possibility is true because you would also fail at trying to prove the one you believe is true.

It is a real shame that, with all you claims of using logic, you demonstrate that you know diddly-squat about logic.

 

[ryan]

I am sorry to read that, but what about my question?

I answered it.

Oh, I thought you were joking.

Why can't an immortal being be born, say 30 years ago, and then live an infinite number of years?

After all you did say, "I can easily imagine an infinite number of minutes existing in both future and past.".

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

Now enough about me; my life is not in any important way analogous to the existence of time, not least because it is demonstrably finite.

If time never began, would the beginning of time be an infinite number of years away? I would say, yes.

So, are you saying that infinity forces an end?

 

[bilby]

I answered it.

Oh, I thought you were joking.

Why can't an immortal being be born, say 30 years ago, and then live an infinite number of years?

See the bit I bolded below? Did you not read it, or did you not understand that it means that this is perfectly reasonable?

I am happy to debate with someone who disagrees with me, but I don't quite see why I should be debating which of us is in the right, when we both say the exact same thing. That way madness lies.

After all you did say, "I can easily imagine an infinite number of minutes existing in both future and past.".

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

Now enough about me; my life is not in any important way analogous to the existence of time, not least because it is demonstrably finite.

If time never began, would the beginning of time be an infinite number of years away? I would say, yes.

So, are you saying that infinity forces an end?

No; And I am confused as to how you could possibly imagine I was.

Perhaps you don't see that the statement 'Time has no beginning' is synonymous with 'The beginning of time is an infinite number of years away'.

 

[ryan]

Oh, I thought you were joking.

Why can't an immortal being be born, say 30 years ago, and then live an infinite number of years?

See the bit I bolded below? Did you not read it, or did you not understand that it means that this is perfectly reasonable?

I noticed "both", but both directions of infinity being necessary for one infinity does not make sense either. It seems to imply that from now until infinity is not infinity. Why do we need the past infinity and a future infinity to get infinity?

I am happy to debate with someone who disagrees with me, but I don't quite see why I should be debating which of us is in the right, when we both say the exact same thing. That way madness lies.

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

No; And I am confused as to how you could possibly imagine I was.

Perhaps you don't see that the statement 'Time has no beginning' is synonymous with 'The beginning of time is an infinite number of years away'.

I see.

 

[bilby]

See the bit I bolded below? Did you not read it, or did you not understand that it means that this is perfectly reasonable?

I noticed "both", but both directions of infinity being necessary for one infinity does not make sense either. It seems to imply that from now until infinity is not infinity. Why do we need the past infinity and a future infinity to get infinity?

We don't. I never suggested we did.

Perhaps this helps:

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

Perhaps you don't see that the statement 'Time has no beginning' is synonymous with 'The beginning of time is an infinite number of years away'.

I see.

Good.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Even though there is still a failure to communicate, a bunch of eggs to be eaten, and untermensche's refusal to publicly acknowledge acquisition of knowledge, at least he started out at 13.7 billion years of age instead of 6000.

The problem being that the 13.8 billion year mark is basically the equivalent (when dealing with eternity) of the biblical 6000 year mark.

Actually those who argue Last Tuesdayism make much better scientific and logical arguments than either of those two positions being argued today...

That is likely because those responsible for the spoof generally have some science or logic background.

 

[Juma]

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?

What do you mean by "an infinite number of minutes cannot occur after some point in time"?

Is anyone claiming that to be true?

 

[ryan]

I noticed "both", but both directions of infinity being necessary for one infinity does not make sense either. It seems to imply that from now until infinity is not infinity. Why do we need the past infinity and a future infinity to get infinity?

We don't. I never suggested we did.

When I asked, "If you could not die, would you ever look back to your birth as an infinite number of years away?", you said, "Only if I could not be born.". Your second line below, "If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite." does not mention birth.

If I have never been born, and will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite.
If I have never been born, then my lifespan is infinite.
Only if I am both born, and die, can my lifespan be finite.

 

[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?

What do you mean by "an infinite number of minutes cannot occur after some point in time"?

Is anyone claiming that to be true?

At least one person on your side of the argument is. If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.