Infinte Regress Timeline...

[George S]

We look into the night sky and see the past. The farther out the further back in time. Our telescopes and such extend our view into the past we see in all directions. But there is a wall! The last scattering surface. Farther we cannot see. We peer beyond with math and find that microscope has limits too. A mathematical wall at time zero. If there is any meaning to t less than or equal to zero, no vision nor math can penetrate; it could be anything.

 

[ryan]

That's not circular, you simply don't comprehend.

Suppose we take something like a planet. They are real objects and it is possible to perceive them. Since they can be perceived they can be counted. Since they are real and can be counted it is impossible for there to be infinite planets, since that implies an inability to count them. Infinite planets means a supply of planets without end that can't ever be counted. But planets are real and if one exists it can be counted.

I wonder if you are talking about uncountable infinities? If so, then there is a countable infinity, namely aleph-null. It is the size of the set of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}.

Infinity is an imaginary concept used in mathematics. It does not apply to real entities that can be perceived, like space.

This is not yet known. In fact, the space-time continuum in general relativity is still a well-supported theory.

 

[untermensche]

I wonder if you are talking about uncountable infinities? If so, then there is a countable infinity, namely aleph-null. It is the size of the set of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}.

I am talking about infinite time. Not numbers.

Now some say that time isn't real, it is just the end result of other things that are real. But there is no distinction between the two positions. Whether real in itself or the product of real things, time is something real.

Since time is something real, to say there is an infinite amount of it means only one thing, an unending uncountable supply. Time that stretches into the past with no beginning to it.

But it is impossible for there to be anything real that is uncountable. If it is real it is there. It can in theory be counted. You can't have something real that is impossible to count. Obviously we are stuck on this planet so that makes counting everything in the universe very difficult, but difficult is not impossible. Nearly impossible is not impossible.

Infinity is an imaginary concept used in mathematics. It does not apply to real entities that can be perceived, like space.

This is not yet known. In fact, the space-time continuum in general relativity is still a well-supported theory.

It's a model that works. But all the mathematics is internal to the model. None of it exists in the real world. The real world doesn't work by computing the answers to formulas. That is only how humans make sense of the real world.

 

[ryan]

I am talking about infinite time. Not numbers.

Numbers just symbolize the objects that are being counted. You must use numbers or some other marker to count.

Suppose time is continuous. It would pass by with infinitesimal moments. The present would be instantaneous. There doesn't need to be an infinite interval between two points in time; the reason is that an infinite number of infinitesimals can fit inside of a second, hour, year, etc.

Now some say that time isn't real, it is just the end result of other things that are real.

Don't listen to them. Time is a dimension; it exists, just like space exists. It even has a direction.

This is not yet known. In fact, the space-time continuum in general relativity is still a well-supported theory.

It's a model that works. But all the mathematics is internal to the model. None of it exists in the real world. The real world doesn't work by computing the answers to formulas. That is only how humans make sense of the real world.

Well, like I said above, if time is continuous, then it is logically sound that an infinite number of infinitesimally small units of time can pass by in a finite interval of time.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, like I said above, if time is continuous, then it is logically sound that an infinite number of infinitesimally small units of time can pass by in a finite interval of time.

Actually, your case is stronger than that. If time is continuous, then it is even logically sound that an infinite number of finite small units of time can pass by in a finite interval of time. (untermensche of course will deny that time is continuous; but his reasons for that belief are unscientific.)

 

[Bomb#20]

So you're offering what, proof by pun?!? English happens to use the same word, "infinite", for an ordered set with no beginning, an ordered set with no end, and an ordered set with neither beginning nor end, even though those are three different concepts. And etymologically, the chosen word comes from "no end". And on that basis you propose to deduce that an ordered set with no beginning must also have no end? That's an equivocation fallacy. It's no different from claiming that there can be infinitely many positive integers but there can't be infinitely many negative integers, because -1 is the final negative integer.

I'm not talking about numbers or sets. Those are imaginary mathematical concepts.

I'm talking about an infinite amount of something real, time. And specifically this idea of an infinite amount of time having already occurred in the past.

A logical impossibility.

The circumstance that you're talking about something real rather than numbers or sets doesn't magically make the equivocation fallacy in your argument not be an equivocation fallacy. English uses the word "infinite" to mean both "endless" and "more parts than any specific integer"; your argument jumps from one definition to the other. I brought up the set of numbers just to make the equivocation easier to see. If your line of argument about time were logical, then the same inference procedure would equally show that there are only finitely many negative numbers.

But once you allow for multiple observers, "if it can be perceived it can be counted" is no longer a valid inference. Just because Alice can perceive three rooms and count them and get three, while Bob can perceive two rooms and count them and get two, it does not follow that anyone can count all the rooms collectively perceivable by Alice and Bob and get five. In order for the whole set of rooms to be counted, the different observers would have to communicate their totals to each other and add them up. But if two observers happen not to be in each other's respective light-cones, it will be impossible for them to communicate.

I am using "can be perceived" as can be perceived in theory. There is no reason to think it couldn't be perceived.

If something is real there is no reason to think it couldn't be perceived. No reason to think it couldn't be counted.

Dude! I just gave you a reason to think something can't be counted even though it can be perceived: perceiving all of it requires more observers than there are in any one light-cone, and going from a collection of perceptions to a single count requires communication. So don't just assert that there's no reason. If I'm wrong, show where the error in my reasoning is. What, are you denying that the universe continues beyond our light-cone? That would mean the Earth is fortuitously in the exact geometric center of the universe, Mr. Ptolemy!

No reason to think that the amount of any real objects is this imaginary mathematical concept called infinity.

When there's no reason to think the amount is infinite and no reason to think the amount is finite, that means we don't know if there are infinitely many. Let us forthrightly admit our ignorance.

 

[Bomb#20]

I wonder if you are talking about uncountable infinities? If so, then there is a countable infinity, namely aleph-null. It is the size of the set of the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}.

Calling aleph-null "countable" is mathematicians' jargon; untermensche is a normal person, so he's using "countable" to mean something you could in principle count all of, i.e. finite. No reason he shouldn't use it that way. When we make up technical jargon we have to be prepared to translate.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Now space is different. Space, unlike time, is tangible. It has weight.

Isn't the problem that we are in this beastie "spacetime" so it is false to separate space and time, so they both are tangible? I thought the big bang created spacetime.

So time also has "weight".

 

[Clivedurdle]

I thought spacetime was understood as emergent, like water is emergent - not predictable - from hydrogen and oxygen interacting?

E=mc squared states that energy mass and time are completely intertwined.

 

[untermensche]

Numbers just symbolize the objects that are being counted. You must use numbers or some other marker to count.

Numbers are imaginary. You can do things with imaginary objects that you can't do with real objects. It is illogical to think that everything that applies to numbers also applies to the real world.

Infinity is just an imaginary concept contained within the imaginary world of numbers. It has no application in the real world. There are no real infinities.

Suppose time is continuous. It would pass by with infinitesimal moments. The present would be instantaneous. There doesn't need to be an infinite interval between two points in time; the reason is that an infinite number of infinitesimals can fit inside of a second, hour, year, etc.

There are no real things that are continuous. Real things can only be divided so much. You can only divide an atom so much and it is no longer an atom. The same is true of time.

You can't apply imaginary concepts like infinity and continuous to reality. All it shows is a lack of understanding between imaginary concepts like numbers and the real world.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not talking about numbers or sets. Those are imaginary mathematical concepts.

I'm talking about an infinite amount of something real, time. And specifically this idea of an infinite amount of time having already occurred in the past.

A logical impossibility.

The circumstance that you're talking about something real rather than numbers or sets doesn't magically make the equivocation fallacy in your argument not be an equivocation fallacy. English uses the word "infinite" to mean both "endless" and "more parts than any specific integer"; your argument jumps from one definition to the other. I brought up the set of numbers just to make the equivocation easier to see. If your line of argument about time were logical, then the same inference procedure would equally show that there are only finitely many negative numbers.

I am not equivocating. I am using infinite time to mean the same thing every time I say it. An unending supply of time.

It can't mean anything else. There are no other kinds of infinities that apply to real entities than an unending supply of them.

To disprove this you have to show another kind of infinity for something real like time, not this continuous error of saying time and numbers are equivalent.

Dude! I just gave you a reason to think something can't be counted even though it can be perceived: perceiving all of it requires more observers than there are in any one light-cone, and going from a collection of perceptions to a single count requires communication. So don't just assert that there's no reason. If I'm wrong, show where the error in my reasoning is. What, are you denying that the universe continues beyond our light-cone? That would mean the Earth is fortuitously in the exact geometric center of the universe, Mr. Ptolemy!

Dude, what don't you understand by the term "in theory"?

It is a perfectly good idea and can logically be applied to real world situations.

When there's no reason to think the amount is infinite and no reason to think the amount is finite, that means we don't know if there are infinitely many. Let us forthrightly admit our ignorance.

I am not concerning myself here with whether or not it is possible for time to be finite. I have heard no good argument showing how it can't. I am only showing how it is illogical to think that time extends infinitely into the past. That concept makes no sense.

 

[Juma]

like water is emergent - not predictable - from hydrogen and oxygen

emergent does not mean unpredictable.

 

[Juma]

Well, like I said above, if time is continuous, then it is logically sound that an infinite number of infinitesimally small units of time can pass by in a finite interval of time.

Actually, your case is stronger than that. If time is continuous, then it is even logically sound that an infinite number of finite small units of time can pass by in a finite interval of time.

Please explain how.

 

[George S]

The circumstance that you're talking about something real rather than numbers or sets doesn't magically make the equivocation fallacy in your argument not be an equivocation fallacy. English uses the word "infinite" to mean both "endless" and "more parts than any specific integer"; your argument jumps from one definition to the other. I brought up the set of numbers just to make the equivocation easier to see. If your line of argument about time were logical, then the same inference procedure would equally show that there are only finitely many negative numbers.

I am not equivocating. I am using infinite time to mean the same thing every time I say it. An unending supply of time.

It can't mean anything else. There are no other kinds of infinities that apply to real entities than an unending supply of them.

Time is not something there is a supply of. It is an axis with two directions, futureward and pastward. What intervals does nature use to measure units? It is found in frequency in the natural world, and frequency is energy. E = h * f.

Now we have marks to count. But count from where. Nature has provided a zero 13.72 Byo. It seems we could count forever on the future axis, but wonder what negative time means.

 

[George S]

Not an object time is part of space. Space is room for energy to do things. Time is room for energy to do things. The verb to do requires both together.

 

[ryan]

Infinity is just an imaginary concept contained within the imaginary world of numbers. It has no application in the real world. There are no real infinities.

How can you know this? This is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. We could have a complete understanding of the universe and still not know if anything else exists that doesn't affect us.

So if we can't know for sure that we know all that exists, then we can't make any positive claims on what else there may be. Who knows; there may be another dimension of time.

Suppose time is continuous. It would pass by with infinitesimal moments. The present would be instantaneous. There doesn't need to be an infinite interval between two points in time; the reason is that an infinite number of infinitesimals can fit inside of a second, hour, year, etc.

There are no real things that are continuous. Real things can only be divided so much. You can only divide an atom so much and it is no longer an atom. The same is true of time.

How do you know this? Physicists and cosmologists certainly don't know this about space-time. They suspect and hope that space-time is quantifiable and not curved, but they don't make positive claims like you are.

You can't apply imaginary concepts like infinity and continuous to reality. All it shows is a lack of understanding between imaginary concepts like numbers and the real world.

And nobody is saying that what happens in mathematics must happen in reality.

 

[George S]

And nobody is saying that what happens in mathematics must happen in reality.

I respectfully disagree.

Everywhere E = m * c * c. And E = h * f, too.

 

[ryan]

And nobody is saying that what happens in mathematics must happen in reality.

I respectfully disagree.

Everywhere E = m * c * c. And E = h * f, too.

I am not saying that what happens in mathematics can't happen in reality; I was just saying that it does not have to happen in reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

I respectfully disagree.

Everywhere E = m * c * c. And E = h * f, too.

I am not saying that what happens in mathematics can't happen in reality; I was just saying that it does not have to happen in reality.

For pure mathematics, you are right. However, mathematics is used in physics as simply a language describing reality. And as such is a much more precise, truer, and clearer description of reality than common language could ever approach.

 

[ryan]

I am not saying that what happens in mathematics can't happen in reality; I was just saying that it does not have to happen in reality.

For pure mathematics, you are right. However, mathematics is used in physics as simply a language describing reality. And as such is a much more precise, truer, and clearer description of reality than common language could ever approach.

Yeah I totally agree. We can even go one step further and say that math helps physics sort out hidden variables that cause irregularities to what the math predicts. In other words, if a system is not following a mathematical description, then we know that there is something else to know about the system.

As you probably know, theoretical physics and even string theory rely on math to help make predictions and explanations for various phenomena in the universe.