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

Infinte Regress Timeline...

It doesnt have to, if it has already.
Imagine that you are this reference frame that you claim could have existed for an infinite amount of time. How could you have got to this point if you knew an infinitely long time ago that this point would never come?

Any point in an infinite past where you could know something would be a finite amount of time from this point in time. (So you wouldn't know in the past that this point in time would never come.)
 
Yes. I'm familiar with this brilliant argument. Time is infinite in the past because time is infinite in the past.
Nope. Time is infinite in the past because things do not appear out of nothing, so something has always existed. Always existed = existed for an infinite amount of time- an amount of time that cannot be measured.

It is saying time without end has ended at every present moment.
That is a pretty sloppy way of saying it, because obviously existence continues past every moment. In fact "moments" are simply a convenient, sloppy way of referring to parts of the eternal continuum. Moments are not truly separate from eternity.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that something that doesn't end can't have an end?
Of course eternal existence does not end. Even when we say that the end of a day is right before 00:00, this doesn't mean that time has ended. In eternity, and even reality, a day does not have a well defined beginning or end. We just set semi-vague boundaries...

I make no claims to know how time came about. I only know it is illogical to think it always existed.
You "know" something which isn't true. I don't see how "knowing" something that is untrue is useful for anything. I can see how one can create certain interesting ideas from a fictional idea, but to purport it as an actual truth muddies the water.

The idea "time has a beginning" should be taught in creative writing classes, and should not be given equal footing in a philosophical or scientific setting. Creation scientists, who have derived their ideas from a bible hold similar beliefs- you don't find modern cosmologists saying that there is an actual beginning to existence. Something always comes from something. The other side of the equation is that someone can create something out of nothing (but imagination, which is something).

In other words, the idea of nothing existing is created in the imagination. The idea of nothing is something that did not exist, yet was created as an imaginary concept to create the idea of a beginning, to create story lines, to be creative. There is a beginning of nothing- when someone first imagined what it would be to begin from a point at which nothing else existed. Of course nothing never actually existed, except as an imaginary idea.

If an infinite amount of time exists before any present moment in time then infinite time must have passed before any present moment in time. Time in the past is time that has passed. But infinite time never passes so it is impossible for there to have been infinite time before any present moment.
You can't define existence as having a start, because what started existence is not nothing. Nothing does not exist, it never did. It's impossible for it to exist.
 
You can't define existence as having a start, because what started existence is not nothing. Nothing does not exist, it never did. It's impossible for it to exist.

Time is not the same thing as existence. It is a subset of existence.

So saying time started is not saying it started from nothing.

Your argument is ridiculous.
 
The set of real numbers between 1/4 and 1/2, inclusive, ends at 1/2.

You think setting a limit is the same thing as a series ending.

The series is 1/2... 1/3 ... 1/3.1 ... 1/3.9 ... 1/3.99999... 1/3.99999999999999 ...

The series has no highest value.

Yes or no: in a series of that includes 1, 2, and all of the real numbers in between, is there a number in the set higher than 2? If not, how can 2 not be the highest value? Same goes for 1 and the lowest value.

Setting a limit that is never reached is not an end to an infinite series.

It is known that an infinite series can be bounded by a limit.

But that limit is never reached and it is not the highest value of the infinite series bounded by it.

You seem to be under the impression that defining a series involves some sort of movement, like a homunculus climbing a ladder from point A to B. I'm still struggling to understand why you force yourself to think in this way. Nobody is "reaching" anything. The set of integers including 1, 2, and what's in between is static. Nothing is ever added or removed from it, and nobody goes about traversing from one side to the other, at any velocity.

The second part is true of all sets, including the set of past events: nobody is actively filling an imaginary bucket of past events that cannot possibly exist because it never gets full. There's no bucket, and no filling going on, just a series that grows and shrinks. And before you get worried about that terminology, an infinite series can grow and shrink (starting with the set of all the real numbers, remove all the odd ones).
 
Imagine that you are this reference frame that you claim could have existed for an infinite amount of time. How could you have got to this point if you knew an infinitely long time ago that this point would never come?

Any point in an infinite past where you could know something would be a finite amount of time from this point in time. (So you wouldn't know in the past that this point in time would never come.)

:consternation2:

Let me explain it differently. Let time start today with you being immortal. Will infinity ever pass for you?
 
The set of real numbers between 1/4 and 1/2, inclusive, ends at 1/2.

You think setting a limit is the same thing as a series ending.

The series is 1/2... 1/3 ... 1/3.1 ... 1/3.9 ... 1/3.99999... 1/3.99999999999999 ...

The series has no highest value.

The highest value in the set of real numbers between 1/4 and 1/2, inclusive is 1/2.
 
Please, people.

Set - a collection of distinct objects. i.e the set of all rational numbers in [1,2].
Sequence - an ordered list of objects (i.e. a function with the natural numbers as its domain). i.e. the sequence of rational numbers 1, 2, 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, ...
Series - the ordered sum of the terms a sequence. i.e. 1 + 2 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... Formally described as a sequence of partial sums 1, 1 + 2, 1 + 2 + 1/2, 1 + 2 + 1/2 + 1/3, ...
 
You seem to be under the impression that defining a series involves some sort of movement, like a homunculus climbing a ladder from point A to B. I'm still struggling to understand why you force yourself to think in this way. Nobody is "reaching" anything. The set of integers including 1, 2, and what's in between is static. Nothing is ever added or removed from it, and nobody goes about traversing from one side to the other, at any velocity.

That would be an existence without time. Time does move forward in the fourth dimension. The past does get longer. The "buckets" of historical events do fill up.
 
Any point in an infinite past where you could know something would be a finite amount of time from this point in time. (So you wouldn't know in the past that this point in time would never come.)

:consternation2:

Let me explain it differently. Let time start today with you being immortal. Will infinity ever pass for you?

That's a completely different question, Ryan. In the first attempt at formulation, you defined a bounded (finite) amount of time, with some point of knowledge as a lower boundary, and with the present moment as the upper boundary.

As for this question, taking it in the light of your first question just for grins, there would be no point in the future of which I could say that that point would never come.
 
:consternation2:

Let me explain it differently. Let time start today with you being immortal. Will infinity ever pass for you?

As for this question, taking it in the light of your first question just for grins, there would be no point in the future of which I could say that that point would never come.

I just want to know if an endless arithmetic series of days could ever pass for an immortal being born today.
 
As for this question, taking it in the light of your first question just for grins, there would be no point in the future of which I could say that that point would never come.

I just want to know if an endless arithmetic series of days could ever pass for an immortal being born today.

We measure time differences as a metric - a real number. Infinity is not a real number.

Instead of saying an infinite amount of time will pass (or has passed), why not say that an unbounded amount of time will pass (or has passed). Just like there isn't a maximum number of days an immortal born today could live, why should there be a maximum age an immortal could be today?

If every finite age is possible, then there was no beginning of time. There is no need to invoke infinity.
 
You think setting a limit is the same thing as a series ending.

The series is 1/2... 1/3 ... 1/3.1 ... 1/3.9 ... 1/3.99999... 1/3.99999999999999 ...

The series has no highest value.

The highest value in the set of real numbers between 1/4 and 1/2, inclusive is 1/2.

Again that is just a defined limit it isn't the highest member of an infinite series.

Setting a limit and calling it inclusive is not a magic spell that makes an infinite series end.

The infinite series between 1/4 and 1/2 are the fractions that exist between those endpoints.

That infinite series has no highest member. It is expressed as ...0.49....0.499....0.49999...0.4999999999999999...

In that series the nines never end. It never becomes 0.5.

If you're going to point to an infinite series you should first understand what the infinite series is you point to.
 
As for this question, taking it in the light of your first question just for grins, there would be no point in the future of which I could say that that point would never come.

I just want to know if an endless arithmetic series of days could ever pass for an immortal being born today.

Any given day in that series would come to pass.
 
The highest value in the set of real numbers between 1/4 and 1/2, inclusive is 1/2.

Again that is just a defined limit it isn't the highest member of an infinite series.

Setting a limit and calling it inclusive is not a magic spell that makes an infinite series end.

The infinite series between 1/4 and 1/2 are the fractions that exist between those endpoints.

That infinite series has no highest member. It is expressed as ...0.49....0.499....0.49999...0.4999999999999999...

In that series the nines never end. It never becomes 0.5.

If you're going to point to an infinite series you should first understand what the infinite series is you point to.

Oh. Oh dear. I didn't think it was possible, but this just got worse.
 
The set of integers including 1, 2, and what's in between is static.

It is undefined.

What is the highest fraction between 1 and 2?

All these fractions only exist in theory. You can't write them out.

I don't know what you mean by "static".

But in this case it means undefined and unobservable.
 
Again that is just a defined limit it isn't the highest member of an infinite series.

Setting a limit and calling it inclusive is not a magic spell that makes an infinite series end.

The infinite series between 1/4 and 1/2 are the fractions that exist between those endpoints.

That infinite series has no highest member. It is expressed as ...0.49....0.499....0.49999...0.4999999999999999...

In that series the nines never end. It never becomes 0.5.

If you're going to point to an infinite series you should first understand what the infinite series is you point to.

Oh. Oh dear. I didn't think it was possible, but this just got worse.

That was my thought when I asked for an infinite series that ended and not one that had a limit.

Why do I have to waste my time showing people they are merely giving me an infinite series with a predefined limit?
 
I just want to know if an endless arithmetic series of days could ever pass for an immortal being born today.

We measure time differences as a metric - a real number. Infinity is not a real number.

Okay, then this seems to agree with me and untermensche. Everyone else thinks that it is possible for an infinite number of days to exist before today.

Instead of saying an infinite amount of time will pass (or has passed), why not say that an unbounded amount of time will pass (or has passed).

Many pages ago I mentioned that an infinite number of days before today would be an unbounded bound which is obviously contractory.

Just like there isn't a maximum number of days an immortal born today could live, why should there be a maximum age an immortal could be today?

If every finite age is possible, then there was no beginning of time. There is no need to invoke infinity.

Every finite age is possible, but the opposing argument suggests that an immortal today would have already lived an infinite number of years.
 
Would it end?

You defined it as endless. Sheesh!

That's one of the commonly accepted properties of infinity. It is not just my definition.

No matter how large the natural number is, it still will be like starting from 1; there will be no progress towards finishing the set of natural numbers. That is just how unimaginably large the smallest infinite number is.
 
Back
Top Bottom