Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

And my original argument still stands as stated.

It's still completely incorrect, and is still worthless, except as contrast to the truth.

The truth is that "nothing" never existed, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing. In other words, something always existed. The fact that something always existed means that the duration of existence of something (which may not always have been in the exact same form) is eternal.

There is absolutely no way that nothing ever existed, or will exist, except in the miniscule failure of any imagination unable to capture the grandeur of eternal reality.

You keep trying to sell this worthless argument.

Saying time started is not saying existence started from nothing. It is only saying time started. And if it started it started from something that can start time.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you seriously still not understand? There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days away from today.

So time that had points in it does not anymore? Time is usually defined to have points in it. What does this say about the prospect of time being infinite?

omfg... rofl...

 

[untermensche]

The argument stands.

If one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite they are claiming the amount of time that has passed in the past is infinite.

They are claiming there is no end to the amount of time that has passed in the past.

If an amount of time that has no end must finish passing before a present moment can exist then no present moment can exist because an amount of time that has no end never finishes passing.

If the past is infinite it will pass in the same amount of time an infinite future will pass. If one claims an infinite past can finish passing they are claiming an infinite amount of time in the future will finish passing.

Something tells me you won't address a word of it, once again.

How the fuck does anyone address illogical word salad to someone who refuses to even acknowledge logical fallacies when pointed out to them?

Once again you don't even try to address it.

You don't even seem to be able to read it.

 

[Kharakov]

And my original argument still stands as stated.

It's still completely incorrect, and is still worthless, except as contrast to the truth.

The truth is that "nothing" never existed, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing. In other words, something always existed. The fact that something always existed means that the duration of existence of something (which may not always have been in the exact same form) is eternal.

There is absolutely no way that nothing ever existed, or will exist, except in the miniscule failure of any imagination unable to capture the grandeur of eternal reality.

You keep trying to sell this worthless argument.

Saying time started is not saying existence started from nothing. It is only saying time started. And if it started it started from something that can start time.

The duration of existence is eternal, and duration is the time measurement of existence. Every single scientist you have cited, and misunderstood, has said things that are opposite of what you say.

 

[skepticalbip]

I didn't question that you believe it. I just showed that those who actually understand something about the subject and have the knowledge of physics to back their understanding disagree with you. You can believe whatever you want. 9-11 truthers also hold their beliefs. However, unsupported beliefs have nothing to do with reality. Reality doesn't give a shit what people believe.

You are making the totally unsupported claim that the past can be infinite.

You are the one selling nonsense.

Your argument amounts to; It can be infinite because it can be infinite.

Ah, you are making a second shot at my same post in the hopes that you can make at least one post that makes sense?

You are misstating my argument (apparently so you can seem to make a point). My argument is we don't know in contrast to your absolute certainty. The argument that infinite time is possible is that time has to be either eternal or finite. There is no known way finite time can be supported by our current physics so that leaves eternal time a possibility especially since it can be supported by our current physics, though that doesn't mean that it necessarily is eternal. We can't say what future advances in physics will tell us.

 

[Kharakov]

How the fuck does anyone address illogical word salad to someone who refuses to even acknowledge logical fallacies when pointed out to them?

Once again you don't even try to address it.

You don't even seem to be able to read it.

It's nice to see that untermensche has mastered the art of being incorrect. I haven't read them say anything correct in quite some time.

 

[bilby]

I didn't question that you believe it. I just showed that those who actually understand something about the subject and have the knowledge of physics to back their understanding disagree with you. You can believe whatever you want. 9-11 truthers also hold their beliefs. However, unsupported beliefs have nothing to do with reality. Reality doesn't give a shit what people believe.

The argument stands.

If one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite they are claiming the amount of time that has passed in the past is infinite.

They are claiming there is no end to the amount of time that has passed in the past.

If an amount of time that has no end must finish passing before a present moment can exist then no present moment can exist because an amount of time that has no end never finishes passing.

If the past is infinite it will pass in the same amount of time an infinite future will pass. If one claims an infinite past can finish passing they are claiming an infinite amount of time in the future will finish passing.

Something tells me you won't address a word of it, once again.

So you are arguing that space cannot be infinite either, because:

If one claims the amount of distance in the East is infinite they are claiming the amount of distance that has passed in the East is infinite.

They are claiming there is no end to the amount of distance that has passed in the East.

If an amount of distance that has no end must finish passing before a present location can exist then no present location can exist because an amount of distance that has no end never finishes passing.

If the East is infinite it will pass in the same amount of distance an infinite West will pass. If one claims an infinite East can finish passing they are claiming an infinite amount of distance in the West will finish passing.
​

To me, this argument looks like a mess of category errors; what does it mean for an amount of distance that has no end to finish passing? What does any of this have to do with whether or not the East is infinite?

It is, word for word, the exact same argument you are making about time. I have changed 'past' to East; 'future' to West; 'moment' to location; and 'time' to distance. When a logical argument becomes a stinking pile of crap, when only the names of the variables are changed, the argument was a stinking pile of crap before the names of the variables were changed.

 

[ryan]

There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days away from today

So time that had points in it does not anymore? Time is usually defined to have points in it. What does this say about the prospect of time being infinite?

What?

An infinite number of days ago, there were points in the timeline. Fast-forward an infinite number of days, and now those points are not an infinite number of days away. You seem to be all over the place.

 

[beero1000]

The argument stands.

If one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite they are claiming the amount of time that has passed in the past is infinite.

They are claiming there is no end to the amount of time that has passed in the past.

If an amount of time that has no end must finish passing before a present moment can exist then no present moment can exist because an amount of time that has no end never finishes passing.

If the past is infinite it will pass in the same amount of time an infinite future will pass. If one claims an infinite past can finish passing they are claiming an infinite amount of time in the future will finish passing.

Something tells me you won't address a word of it, once again.

So you are arguing that space cannot be infinite either, because:

If one claims the amount of distance in the East is infinite they are claiming the amount of distance that has passed in the East is infinite.

They are claiming there is no end to the amount of distance that has passed in the East.

If an amount of distance that has no end must finish passing before a present location can exist then no present location can exist because an amount of distance that has no end never finishes passing.

If the East is infinite it will pass in the same amount of distance an infinite West will pass. If one claims an infinite East can finish passing they are claiming an infinite amount of distance in the West will finish passing.
​

To me, this argument looks like a mess of category errors; what does it mean for an amount of distance that has no end to finish passing? What does any of this have to do with whether or not the East is infinite?

It is, word for word, the exact same argument you are making about time. I have changed 'past' to East; 'future' to West; 'moment' to location; and 'time' to distance. When a logical argument becomes a stinking pile of crap, when only the names of the variables are changed, the argument was a stinking pile of crap before the names of the variables were changed.

You'll really love the fact that in this thread he has already argued that the universe must be finite in extent. He used the essentially the same logic you used to show how his arguments are fallacious, except he claimed that they were 'logical proof'.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days away from today

So time that had points in it does not anymore? Time is usually defined to have points in it. What does this say about the prospect of time being infinite?

What?

An infinite number of days ago, there were points in the timeline. Fast-forward an infinite number of days, and now those points are not an infinite number of days away. You seem to be all over the place.

There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.

 

[ryan]

So time that had points in it does not anymore? Time is usually defined to have points in it. What does this say about the prospect of time being infinite?

omfg... rofl...

...

 

[untermensche]

If one claims the amount of distance in the East is infinite they are claiming the amount of distance that has passed in the East is infinite.

Am I supposed to deal with the arguments of a six year old?

Only an idiot thinks completely not addressing an argument is addressing an argument.

 

[ryan]

There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days away from today

So time that had points in it does not anymore? Time is usually defined to have points in it. What does this say about the prospect of time being infinite?

What?

An infinite number of days ago, there were points in the timeline. Fast-forward an infinite number of days, and now those points are not an infinite number of days away. You seem to be all over the place.

There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.
There is no point in time that is an infinite number of days ago.

Was there a point in time an infinite number of days ago?

 

[bilby]

If one claims the amount of distance in the East is infinite they are claiming the amount of distance that has passed in the East is infinite.

Am I supposed to deal with the arguments of a six year old?

Only if you think you are up to it; From your performance so far, it seems that that might be setting the bar a little high.

Only an idiot thinks completely not addressing an argument is addressing an argument.

Oh, now, there is no need to be quite so hard on yourself as that. Apart from some regrettable gaps in your education regarding infinities and their implications, you seem quite smart.

 

[untermensche]

Was there a point in time an infinite number of days ago?

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

You know, infinite days ago, right after......right after........

You know right after infinity plus one days ago.

 

[bilby]

Was there a point in time an infinite number of days ago?

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

It really doesn't. Truly. beero1000 has even presented a mathematical proof of this:

Take the real line as our measurement of time. This instant is at 0. For any real number x, that number is only a finite distance from 0. At the same time, for any choice of bound M there are real numbers farther from 0 than M.

 

[beero1000]

Was there a point in time an infinite number of days ago?

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

You know, infinite days ago, right after......right after........

You know right after infinity plus one days ago.

FFS, you can't possibly be this stupid.

 

[skepticalbip]

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

You know, infinite days ago, right after......right after........

You know right after infinity plus one days ago.

FFS, you can't possibly be this stupid.

I think he has given ample evidence that he can be.

 

[ryan]

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

It really doesn't. Truly. beero1000 has even presented a mathematical proof of this:

Take the real line as our measurement of time. This instant is at 0. For any real number x, that number is only a finite distance from 0. At the same time, for any choice of bound M there are real numbers farther from 0 than M.

So then did events that happened an infinite number of days ago never happen? It seems like all of these arguments are pointing towards a finite past.

 

[untermensche]

Am I supposed to deal with the arguments of a six year old?

Only if you think you are up to it; From your performance so far, it seems that that might be setting the bar a little high.

Only an idiot thinks completely not addressing an argument is addressing an argument.

Oh, now, there is no need to be quite so hard on yourself as that. Apart from some regrettable gaps in your education regarding infinities and their implications, you seem quite smart.

You have to decided to not respond at all to the arguments. That is fine with me. It just means you can't.

If one claims the past is infinite. That is the same as saying the amount of time that has already passed is infinite since the past is time that has already passed.

If this can't be understood then people have trouble understanding truisms. It is simply a truism that the past is time that has already passed.

If one claims the amount of time that has already passed is infinite they are saying it is an amount that has no limit or end.

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end. Infinite time in the future is time without end in the future. It is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

So if one claims the amount of time in the past is infinite that means they are claiming the amount of time that has passed before any present moment is an amount of time than never finishes passing.

Their claim is absurd. An amount of time that never finishes passing can't have already passed before any present moment.

It is like claiming the amount of time in an infinite future has finished passing.

This is the argument you have to deal with. This is the argument that hasn't been touched by the believers in infinities all thread.

I doubt you will even try.

 

[ryan]

Was there a point in time an infinite number of days ago?

If the past is infinite that means there is a point in the past that occurred infinite days ago.

You know, infinite days ago, right after......right after........

You know right after infinity plus one days ago.

Don't worry; an infinite number of days into the future, this thread will have never happened.