Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

I make no claims to know how time came about. I only know it is illogical to think it always existed.

Then you should really call Hawking, Krauss, Greene, etc, etc. and tell them they are wasting their time. That they should resign their jobs and try to get a job at McDonalds. It would save them a lot of anguish. They have pretty much given up on trying to model a start to time finding it not only illogical but impossible to support with physics They have been working hard on modeling eternal time and now have a few models to test.

 

[Mageth]

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.

There would be no point in the past (whether bounded or unbounded) from which one could say that said immortal could not have reached today. So I don't grok your objection.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

So what??? There would still be no day in the "endless arithmetic series of days" of which one could say that said immortal could not reach that day.

 

[untermensche]

I make no claims to know how time came about. I only know it is illogical to think it always existed.

Then you should really call Hawking, Krauss, Greene, etc, etc. and tell them they are wasting their time. That they should resign their jobs and try to get a job at McDonalds. It would save them a lot of anguish.

This is not an argument of any kind.

It is an appeal to your opinion on the thoughts of others.

Thanks for the opinion.

 

[Mageth]

Then you should really call Hawking, Krauss, Greene, etc, etc. and tell them they are wasting their time. That they should resign their jobs and try to get a job at McDonalds. It would save them a lot of anguish.

This is not an argument of any kind.

It is an appeal to your opinion on the thoughts of others.

Thanks for the opinion.

Yeah, sorta like "I only know it is illogical to think it always existed."

 

[skepticalbip]

Then you should really call Hawking, Krauss, Greene, etc, etc. and tell them they are wasting their time. That they should resign their jobs and try to get a job at McDonalds. It would save them a lot of anguish.

This is not an argument of any kind.

It is an appeal to your opinion on the thoughts of others.

Thanks for the opinion.

No. It is a comment about your absolute certainty.

 

[ryan]

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.

There would be no point in the past (whether bounded or unbounded) from which one could say that said immortal could not have reached today. So I don't grok your objection.

Your side of the argument implies that an infinite number - not a finite number - of days could have passed. You want to use finite numbers to support this, but no finite number will even make progress towards now from an infinite regression of time. You need to argue that an infinite set of units denoted by the natural numbers can pass, but that takes some creativity with adding dimensions or using larger infinities.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

So what??? There would still be no day in the "endless arithmetic series of days" of which one could say that said immortal could not reach that day.

"That day" is the "infinityith" day - even spellcheck knows this day does not exist. Time goes by in finite intervals; there is no finite number of intervals that will fill up an infinite set of units of time.

 

[untermensche]

This is not an argument of any kind.

It is an appeal to your opinion on the thoughts of others.

Thanks for the opinion.

Yeah, sorta like "I only know it is illogical to think it always existed."

I offer an argument, not an opinion.

If infinite time exists in the past then that means at any given moment the amount of time that has passed is infinite.

It is saying an infinity has ended.

That is to not understand what an infinity is.

 

[beero1000]

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.

Absolutely not. Calling something unbounded infinite is common parlance. I tried to distinguish between the notions because you seem to think you can pick a point an infinite amount of time ago. That is not possible. You can pick a point any amount of time ago, but that amount of time is always finite. The set of all moments of time can still be infinite. Do you see the difference?

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.

Mentioning something does not make it true.

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.

If every finite age is possible then the amount of time before today must be unbounded. Every moment of time is still only a finite amount from today.

 

[untermensche]

This is not an argument of any kind.

It is an appeal to your opinion on the thoughts of others.

Thanks for the opinion.

No. It is a comment about your absolute certainty.

I'm absolutely certain you have not addressed the logic of my argument in the least.

 

[bilby]

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. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

 

[skepticalbip]

No. It is a comment about your absolute certainty.

I'm absolutely certain you have not addressed the logic of my argument in the least.

Go back to the beginning and reread. I have addressed what you call logic by pointing out the logical fallacies many times. It never took. You wouldn't even look up the fallacies I asked you to so you could see. So since you have proven to be impervious to corrections in your "logic", I gave up and am now just pointing out the nonsense of your "statements of fact". You don't "know" that time had to have a beginning even though you assume divine revelation apparently. No one knows if time is finite or eternal. That is why cosmologists are designing models to enable them to explore.

If you KNOW then tell them and save them a hell of a lot of work.

 

[Mageth]

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.

There would be no point in the past (whether bounded or unbounded) from which one could say that said immortal could not have reached today. So I don't grok your objection.

Your side of the argument implies that an infinite number - not a finite number - of days could have passed. You want to use finite numbers to support this, but no finite number will even make progress towards now from an infinite regression of time. You need to argue that an infinite set of units denoted by the natural numbers can pass, but that takes some creativity with adding dimensions or using larger infinities.

What's all this crap about " make progress towards now from an infinite regression of time"? We are at now. That's true whether or not the past is bounded or unbounded.

"Your side" keeps making this same basic mistake - assuming the past is something that must still be traversed. It's already been traversed. That's true whether or not the past is bounded or unbounded.

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.

So what??? There would still be no day in the "endless arithmetic series of days" of which one could say that said immortal could not reach that day.

"That day" is the "infinityith" day - even spellcheck knows this day does not exist.

Why are you bringing up days that don't exist? This is silliness, ryan.

Time goes by in finite intervals; there is no finite number of intervals that will fill up an infinite set of units of time.

So what? There's still no day in the "endless arithmetic series of days" of which one could say that said immortal could not reach that day. Just like there's no point in the past from which one could say that today could not have been reached.

 

[untermensche]

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. 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Do the nines end? If so, after how many?

 

[Kharakov]

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.

You're right, it isn't the same thing as existence. Time is the duration of existence, which is infinite.

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

Saying the duration of existence started is the same thing as saying at one point, nothing existed. Your whole claim relies on nothing existing at some point, and that's not even possible.

 

[untermensche]

I'm absolutely certain you have not addressed the logic of my argument in the least.

Go back to the beginning and reread. I have addressed what you call logic by pointing out the logical fallacies many times. It never took. You wouldn't even look up the fallacies I asked you to so you could see. So since you have proven to be impervious to corrections in your "logic", I gave up and am now just pointing out the nonsense of your "statements of fact". You don't "know" that time had to have a beginning even though you assume divine revelation apparently. No one knows if time is finite or eternal. That is why cosmologists are designing models to enable them to explore.

If you KNOW then tell them and save them a hell of a lot of work.

Saying time is finite isn't saying there isn't a lot to do.

Saying time is finite isn't saying the multiverse can't be discovered some day in some way.

Even if I could prove absolutely, instead of conclude with a logical argument, that time was finite it shouldn't change one thing that modern physicists are doing.

There is no reason to think it should.

 

[untermensche]

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

You're right, it isn't the same thing as existence. Time is the duration of existence, which is infinite.

It's a kind of duration of a kind of existence. Which as far as observation can tell didn't exist before the big bang.

Saying the duration of existence started is the same thing as saying at one point, nothing existed. Your whole claim relies on nothing existing at some point, and that's not even possible.

Saying time started in no way implies it started from nothing, although that is what Lawrence Krauss believes.

 

[skepticalbip]

Go back to the beginning and reread. I have addressed what you call logic by pointing out the logical fallacies many times. It never took. You wouldn't even look up the fallacies I asked you to so you could see. So since you have proven to be impervious to corrections in your "logic", I gave up and am now just pointing out the nonsense of your "statements of fact". You don't "know" that time had to have a beginning even though you assume divine revelation apparently. No one knows if time is finite or eternal. That is why cosmologists are designing models to enable them to explore.

If you KNOW then tell them and save them a hell of a lot of work.

Saying time is finite isn't saying there isn't a lot to do.

Saying time is finite isn't saying the multiverse can't be discovered some day in some way.

Even if I could prove absolutely, instead of conclude with a logical argument, that time was finite it shouldn't change one thing that modern physicists are doing.

There is no reason to think it should.

Then explain that to those poor misguided cosmologists who are wasting so much of their time expoloring something you KNOW is impossible. Have a heart. Don't you care that so much brain power is being wasted chasing the impossible when they could be doing something to help advance science and humanity?

Or is it you KNOW they are idiots so it doesn't matter what they do?

 

[bilby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Do the nines end? If so, after how many?

No. The nines do not end.

 

[untermensche]

Saying time is finite isn't saying there isn't a lot to do.

Saying time is finite isn't saying the multiverse can't be discovered some day in some way.

Even if I could prove absolutely, instead of conclude with a logical argument, that time was finite it shouldn't change one thing that modern physicists are doing.

There is no reason to think it should.

Then explain that to those poor misguided cosmologists who are wasting so much of their time expoloring something you KNOW is impossible.

Saying time is finite in no way says they are wasting any time.

They are looking back. They can't look back beyond the big bang so I haven't stopped anything. The big bang has.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then explain that to those poor misguided cosmologists who are wasting so much of their time expoloring something you KNOW is impossible.

Saying time is finite in no way says they are wasting any time.

They are looking back. They can't look back beyond the big bang so I haven't stopped anything. The big bang has.

How is their exploring the possibility of eternal time not a waste of time if you KNOW time starts at the BB?

Do you even know what they are modeling? I have given you links. Watch them.