• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Infinte Regress Timeline...

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."
Yes, that is correct. My future would be infinite, but my past would not, unless I was never born.
Your second line below, "If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite." does not mention birth.
That's right; it doesn't because it needn't. If I will never die then my lifespan is infinite.
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.
My two statements are not contradictory.

If my future is infinite, then my lifespan is infinite; but at no point will my past be infinite, unless it always was.

Infinity is not a number.
 
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.
Who? When? Are you sure you interprete "occur" in the same way?

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.
 
Your second line below, "If I will never die, then my lifespan is infinite." does not mention birth.
That's right; it doesn't because it needn't. If I will never die then my lifespan is infinite.

Okay, now back to my question. Assuming that there are an infinite number of days before today, will you ever come to a point, like we are at today, where you are an infinite number of years old since your birth in the 1900's?

Infinity is not a number.

An infinite number of objects is a transfinite number.
 
That's right; it doesn't because it needn't. If I will never die then my lifespan is infinite.

Okay, now back to my question. Assuming that there are an infinite number of days before today, will you ever come to a point, like we are at today, where you are an infinite number of years old since your birth in the 1900's?

[...]

Yes. At infinity.
 
At least one person on your side of the argument is.
Who? When? Are you sure you interprete "occur" in the same way?

See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.
 
Who? When? Are you sure you interprete "occur" in the same way?

See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.

True. But as long as you never stop, the total number is infinite.
 
Okay, now back to my question. Assuming that there are an infinite number of days before today, will you ever come to a point, like we are at today, where you are an infinite number of years old since your birth in the 1900's?

[...]

Yes. At infinity.

You can't get to infinity by constantly adding 1 more unit which is how time flows. You will always be at a finite number of units. There needs to be another dimension of time that contains an infinite number of our time intervals for any interval of the higher dimension of time; there needs to be a "jump" observed from the higher dimension.
 
Yes. At infinity.

You can't get to infinity by constantly adding 1 more unit which is how time flows. You will always be at a finite number of units. There needs to be another dimension of time that contains an infinite number of our time intervals for any interval of the higher dimension of time; there needs to be a "jump" observed from the higher dimension.

You can't 'get to' infinity, infinity is not a number.

If the addition of extra units never stops, the set of all units is infinite.

No 'higher dimensions' required. Which is probably a good thing, as they sound like a load of bollocks.
 
See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.

True. But as long as you never stop, the total number is infinite.

But you are only ever adding one more; you don't get to add an infinite more. You never reach never.
 
See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.

True. But as long as you never stop, the total number is infinite.

But you are only ever adding one more; you don't get to add an infinite more. You never reach never.

That's right. Infinity is not a number.

So what?
 
You can't get to infinity by constantly adding 1 more unit which is how time flows. You will always be at a finite number of units. There needs to be another dimension of time that contains an infinite number of our time intervals for any interval of the higher dimension of time; there needs to be a "jump" observed from the higher dimension.

You can't 'get to' infinity, infinity is not a number.

The number of natural numbers is the transfinite number aleph null.

If the addition of extra units never stops, the set of all units is infinite.

I don't know if a never ending number of units is the same as an infinite number of units.

No 'higher dimensions' required. Which is probably a good thing, as they sound like a load of bollocks.

Assuming that we are in a spatial and temporal continuum, we need an infinite number of zero dimensional points to construct a single spatial dimension. One centimeter in a continuum would have an infinite number of these points. We are so much larger than these points that we get to jump from one side of infinity to the other side of infinity when we move a finger.

Similarly, an infinite number of units of time would actually create a second dimension of time. Like the points, these units of time would go by infinitely fast for any chosen interval in the higher dimension of time.
 
Last edited:
See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.

True. But as long as you never stop, the total number is infinite.

But you are only ever adding one more; you don't get to add an infinite more. You never reach never.

That's right. Infinity is not a number.

So what?

An infinite number of numbers is a number, just not a real number.

You want to add an infinite number of units of time, but that's not how times works. It goes one unit at a time.
 
One thing we know for certain is that at every present moment in time the amount of time in the past has finished passing. It is over. There is no more of it.

For those who claim the past is infinite all they have to do is present an infinite series that ends, not an infinite series with a limit, but one that ends.

Minus that demonstration the idea that the past is both infinite and it ends at the present moment is an insoluble contradiction.

An infinite series that ends, not one that begins, not one that has a limit but one that ends.

That is what is needed from the believers in the reality of imaginary things like infinity.
 
One thing we know for certain is that at every present moment in time the amount of time in the past has finished passing. It is over. There is no more of it.

For those who claim the past is infinite all they have to do is present an infinite series that ends, not an infinite series with a limit, but one that ends.

Minus that demonstration the idea that the past is both infinite and it ends at the present moment is an insoluble contradiction.

An infinite series that ends, not one that begins, not one that has a limit but one that ends.

That is what is needed from the believers in the reality of imaginary things like infinity.

I wish you all the best in your search for a cure; but I fear your inability to count backwards may be incurable.

Such a shame. :(
 
One thing we know for certain is that at every present moment in time the amount of time in the past has finished passing. It is over. There is no more of it.

For those who claim the past is infinite all they have to do is present an infinite series that ends, not an infinite series with a limit, but one that ends.

Minus that demonstration the idea that the past is both infinite and it ends at the present moment is an insoluble contradiction.

An infinite series that ends, not one that begins, not one that has a limit but one that ends.

That is what is needed from the believers in the reality of imaginary things like infinity.

I wish you all the best in your search for a cure; but I fear your inability to count backwards may be incurable.

Such a shame. :(

Counting backwards is to start an infinity.

It is not how one ends.
 
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?


Apparently it can happen if you start your count at the last moment of infinite time in the past and begin counting from there.

Just like you can count the infinite future by starting at the last moment in the infinite future and counting back.
 
See post #1439; I used "occur" to mean "pass".

If you can explain correctly how an infinite number of minutes can pass after today, then I have no argument.
What? Why wouldnt they? Time just keep on passing. So if it never ends then infinite number of minutes will pass. (Which is the same as to say that time never ends. Not that infinite time passed at a specific point in time.)

If not by some reason the entire universe and time with it somehow collapses.

Starting from any whole number of units of time, each unit of time that comes after the next will be another whole number. Going one unit at a time, you will never reach an infinite number of units.

True. But as long as you never stop, the total number is infinite.

But you are only ever adding one more; you don't get to add an infinite more. You never reach never.
Exactly. That is what "for ever" and "infinite" means.
 
One thing we know for certain is that at every present moment in time the amount of time in the past has finished passing. It is over. There is no more of it.

For those who claim the past is infinite all they have to do is present an infinite series that ends, not an infinite series with a limit, but one that ends.

Minus that demonstration the idea that the past is both infinite and it ends at the present moment is an insoluble contradiction.

An infinite series that ends, not one that begins, not one that has a limit but one that ends.

That is what is needed from the believers in the reality of imaginary things like infinity.

You need to pay more attention to Lawrence Krauss...

"Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical. At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not. And much of what Dr. Craig has talked about and will talk about again tonight is the fact that he doesn’t like certain ideas. He doesn’t like the idea of infinity, he doesn’t like the idea of beginning, he doesn’t like the idea of chance. And in fact, it doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t like a universe in which morality is defined as allowing rape; doesn’t make sense to him. But the point is, if we continue to rely on our understanding of the universe on Aristotelian logic, on classical logic, by what we think is sensible, we would still be living in a world where heavier objects, we think, fall faster than light objects, because they’re heavier, as Aristotle use to think, instead of doing the experiment to check it out.

"We cannot rely on what we perceive to be sensible; we have to rely on what the universe tells us is sensible. What we have to do is force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality, rather than the other way around. And the universe just simply isn’t sensible. I think I have an example. I have two quotes from Richard Feynman because I just wrote a book about him which I hope you all buy. But this is really important. This is one of the reasons I’m a scientist, is that crazy ideas end up not being crazy. If you see something that seems impossible, but it happens, the onus is on you to understand why and to force your thinking to conform to that. And it’s been one of the great pleasures of doing 20th and 21st century physics that we’ve been able to do that in many areas from quantum mechanics to relativity. And this idea that something which is completely paradoxical at first, if analyzed to completion in all its details and in all experimental situations, may in fact be paradoxical is of profound . . . may in fact not be paradoxical, I should say, is of profound importance.

...

"Let’s go to some of the things Dr. Craig talked about. In fact, the existence of infinity, which he talked about which is self-contradictory, is not self-contradictory at all. Mathematicians know precisely how to deal with infinity; so do physicists. We rely on infinities. In fact, there’s a field of mathematics called “Complex Variables” which is the basis of much of modern physics, from electro-magnetism to quantum mechanics and beyond, where in fact we learn to deal with infinity; without the infinities we couldn’t do the physics. We know how to sum infinite series because we can do complex analysis. Mathematicians have taught us how. It’s strange and very unappetizing, and in fact you can sum things that look ridiculous. For example, if you sum the series, “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6…” to infinity, what’s the answer? “-1/12.” You don’t like it? Too bad! The mathematics is consistent if we assign that. The world is the way it is whether we like it or not."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university
 
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".
But why is it that an infinite past could not end yesterday? An infinite time is not defined as something that goes on without end so how do you justify your claim that an infinite past could "never have ended"?

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never ends. So it is hard to agree that it finished.
No. Your definition is just plain wrong.

Could you justify it? Does it come from a dictionary? A philosopher? Just your own imagination?



According to our ordinary notions, an infinite future would never end, but an infinite past just ends now. It is infinite because it has no beginning. If you could count backward from now, say you would count just one year of the past every second, it would take you an infinite amount of time, so you would never finish counting. In this sense, counting this infinite past would never end but the infinite past itself would have an end, which is just now, and it would have no beginning, which is why it could be infinite even though it ended just now.
What could possibly be wrong in this view? Can you explain?
EB
 
You need to pay more attention to Lawrence Krauss...

"Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical. At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not."
It was never the case that the universe could have been logical. Logic is a property of our representations, not of the things we try to represent with them. The question will always be to try to produce representations that are both logical and appear to represent reality. Illogical representations would just be shoddy thinking. In this case it's probably just shoddy talking, like so often with big mouths.
EB
 
Back
Top Bottom