Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

?! Have you change your mind?

No, I still think that there are an infinite number of all of the negative real numbers. When I said " between now and all" you just assumed "all" to be exclusive.

How the fuck can "all" be exclusive? You are out of your mind. Probably you meant something else but as usual you dont think things through before you post.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No. Your definition is just plain wrong.

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

What would you want as a reference?

This is set theory 101.

An infinite set is a set defined such that it has no final value. It is a set that goes on forever.

The set of positive integers has no end. It has no highest value. The set of negative integers does not end. It has no lowest value.

We can order all past times according to how far they are from now. Then we have an ordered set that has no higher member for that order, given that for any time in an infinite past there is always a time which is farther from now. So, there is no end to that ordered set. There is no moment in time which would be the farthest from now.

That's what it would mean to have no end in this case. Nothing else.

What could be your problem with that?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Just put what you think are the salient points into your own words.

Specifically: \(\infty - \infty\). That's what you've been trying to do by going from negative infinity to 0. You're trying to add infinity to negative infinity to cancel them out. Neither is well defined, and results in mathematical and logical inconsistencies.

The point is that -infinity + infinity = today, yesterday, the day after tomorrow, 100 years ago, etc.- in other words every possible answer is encompassed, and no point is selected specifically following the rules of logic or mathematics, which is why it is called "indeterminate form".

So today is not well defined in terms of reality's infinite past or future existence. Today is well defined according to yesterday, 1000 years ago, or any finite measurement from today, not any infinite 'measurement' from infinity. Like bilby said, "the timeline is not infinite because it ends at some number labelled 'infinity'", infinity is boundless.

But if I say that time in the future is infinite have I said it will end at some future point?

No.

What you are saying is that infinite time in the future never ends but infinite time in the past does.

You are saying infinity does not equal infinity.

You do understand that at every present moment the past is completed? It is over.

 

[untermensche]

This is just another truism, a definitional truism. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.

Or have been going on for ever.

Show me the conceptual difference.

To be going on forever means to be going on without end.

You have said nothing different.

You are still claiming that time without end ended at any present moment.

That is what a present moment is. An acknowledgement that the past is completed. That is how the present can occur.

You are claiming that which is never completed, time that goes on without end, continually is completed at every present moment.

You're not making any sense.

 

[untermensche]

What would you want as a reference?

This is set theory 101.

An infinite set is a set defined such that it has no final value. It is a set that goes on forever.

The set of positive integers has no end. It has no highest value. The set of negative integers does not end. It has no lowest value.

We can order all past times according to how far they are from now. Then we have an ordered set that has no higher member for that order, given that for any time in an infinite past there is always a time which is farther from now. So, there is no end to that ordered set. There is no moment in time which would be the farthest from now.

That's what it would mean to have no end in this case. Nothing else.

What could be your problem with that?
EB

To have a present moment means the past has finished. It is over.

Because we have present moments we know that the past is continually being completed.

A completed set, a finite set, can be added to. I can have a set with 100 items and continually add to that set. It is never an infinite set. It is at all times a finite set even though it is a set that continually increases.

The past is just a completed set that grows. We know it is completed because we can experience a present moment, but we also know it grows because time is moving forward and always more and more of the past exists.

Some don't know the difference between a finite set that continually grows and an infinite set.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Age is the amount of time that has passed since birth. A being who today would have lived for an infinite amount of time would have never been born. He would therefore have no age.

That being said, the problem with infinity is the possibility of an actual infinity, for example the value of an infinite sum of 1s. I think this is the problem that so exercised mathematicians against the ideas of Cantor and others around 1900. If professional mathematicians at the time felt discomfort at the idea, I think you should be more forbearing of non-mathematician posters here being non-believers.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

We can order all past times according to how far they are from now. Then we have an ordered set that has no higher member for that order, given that for any time in an infinite past there is always a time which is farther from now. So, there is no end to that ordered set. There is no moment in time which would be the farthest from now.

That's what it would mean to have no end in this case. Nothing else.

What could be your problem with that?
EB

To have a present moment means the past has finished. It is over.

Because we have present moments we know that the past is continually being completed.

A completed set, a finite set, can be added to. I can have a set with 100 items and continually add to that set. It is never an infinite set. It is at all times a finite set even though it is a set that continually increases.

The past is just a completed set that grows. We know it is completed because we can experience a present moment, but we also know it grows because time is moving forward and always more and more of the past exists.

Some don't know the difference between a finite set that continually grows and an infinite set.

Yes we wouldn't know but we are not talking about whether the past or the future are actually infinite or not. We wouldn't know in either case unless we've just been missing the evidence.

We are talking instead about a possible concept of an infinite past, i.e. whether it is illogical as you claimed. Your definition of an infinite past as past that goes on without end is just pathetic and plain absurd. Nobody is using it so it's a strawman. The past ends now, whether infinite or not, and if the past has no beginning then it is infinite. It would be infinite not because it would have no end but because it has no beginning. This is quite simple to understand but somehow it seems you don't.

As to the past that continually grows this is a red herring. The past is defined relative to a given present. The past tomorrow will not be entirely the same as the past today. Today the past ends today. Tomorrow, it will end tomorrow. How could that be a problem since we are talking about two different pasts? I also fail to see how considering this aspect is necessary to this concersation.
EB

 

[untermensche]

To have a present moment means the past has finished. It is over.

Because we have present moments we know that the past is continually being completed.

A completed set, a finite set, can be added to. I can have a set with 100 items and continually add to that set. It is never an infinite set. It is at all times a finite set even though it is a set that continually increases.

The past is just a completed set that grows. We know it is completed because we can experience a present moment, but we also know it grows because time is moving forward and always more and more of the past exists.

Some don't know the difference between a finite set that continually grows and an infinite set.

Yes we wouldn't know but we are not talking about whether the past or the future are actually infinite or not. We wouldn't know in either case unless we've just been missing the evidence.

We do know. We have present moments, so we know that the amount of the past is finite. That is the only way to have present moments. To have a present moment the amount of the past has to have already completed. If the amount of the past is without end it can't end at a present moment.

We are talking instead about a possible concept of an infinite past, i.e. whether it is illogical as you claimed. Your definition of an infinite past as past that goes on without end is just pathetic and plain absurd. Nobody is using it so it's a strawman. The past ends now, whether infinite or not, and if the past has no beginning then it is infinite. It would be infinite not because it would have no end but because it has no beginning. This is quite simple to understand but somehow it seems you don't.

I think they are using my definition and pretending they aren't.

To say time has no beginning is to say the amount of it has no end.

If we visualize the past stretching away from us, the amount of the past grows. If we say it stretches away from us forever, it has no beginning, then that is to say the amount of it has no limit. Time without limit is time that goes on without end.

What is pathetic and absurd is that people think they are saying something different when they aren't.

As to the past that continually grows this is a red herring. The past is defined relative to a given present. The past tomorrow will not be entirely the same as the past today. Today the past ends today. Tomorrow, it will end tomorrow. How could that be a problem since we are talking about two different pasts? I also fail to see how considering this aspect is necessary to this concersation.
EB

Talking about the past as if it is a thing is a problem. All that exists is the ever present "now". The past and the future have no existence.

But conceptually the past represents prior "nows".

To say that the past is infinite is to say that the amount of "nows" that have existed were infinite.

It is to say that before any present "now" infinite "nows" occurred first.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes we wouldn't know but we are not talking about whether the past or the future are actually infinite or not. We wouldn't know in either case unless we've just been missing the evidence.

We do know. We have present moments, so we know that the amount of the past is finite. That is the only way to have present moments. To have a present moment the amount of the past has to have already completed. If the amount of the past is without end it can't end at a present moment.

Today the past ends today whether the past has been infinite or not. What's wrong with that?

No we don't know that necessarily the past has been finite. The definition you use of an infinite past as past that goes on without end is all invented and idiotic. Now, the past ends now whether it is infinite or not so your insistence that an infinite past is a past that goes on without end is moronic. Time may be going on without end but now the past ends now.

We are talking instead about a possible concept of an infinite past, i.e. whether it is illogical as you claimed. Your definition of an infinite past as past that goes on without end is just pathetic and plain absurd. Nobody is using it so it's a strawman. The past ends now, whether infinite or not, and if the past has no beginning then it is infinite. It would be infinite not because it would have no end but because it has no beginning. This is quite simple to understand but somehow it seems you don't.

I think they are using my definition and pretending they aren't.
To say time has no beginning is to say the amount of it has no end.

No. To say that time has no beginning is to say that if we could go backward in time we would never find a time which would be the beginning of time. Nothing else and nothing difficult to grasp I think.

Even if the past has been infinite there isn't necessarily an actual amount of time that has passed. The past is finished, so the amount of time that has passed is not an actual amount of time. It's just an abstract notion. I don't think there could be any physical device that would have counted the passage of time throughout an infinite past.

That being said, we could think in the abstract of a universe where there would be a time counting machine that would have always existed and that would be counting each day for example. I don't see what would be illogical in that. It's just that the result would be somewhat unusual (nothing like what mathematicians seem to say though).

If we visualize the past stretching away from us, the amount of the past grows. If we say it stretches away from us forever, it has no beginning, then that is to say the amount of it has no limit. Time without limit is time that goes on without end.

No. This is uterly zany. You have to decide which you want to discuss, the amount of time or time itself, and if time whether the past or the future. Now the past ends now, whether it is infinite or not, so your are plain wrong to say that an infinite past is a past that goes on without end. Only the future would go on without end if it was indeed infinite.

As to the past that continually grows this is a red herring. The past is defined relative to a given present. The past tomorrow will not be entirely the same as the past today. Today the past ends today. Tomorrow, it will end tomorrow. How could that be a problem since we are talking about two different pasts? I also fail to see how considering this aspect is necessary to this concersation.
EB

All that exists is the ever present "now". The past and the future have no existence.
But conceptually the past represents prior "nows".
To say that the past is infinite is to say that the amount of "nows" that have existed were infinite.
It is to say that before any present "now" infinite "nows" occurred first.

Ok but there is no problem whatsoever with that in principle.

Maybe the past is actually finite, may be the future is too, we just don't know. I'm fine with both. But there is no logical problem that I know of with either a finite or an infinite past. Your insistence on the infinite past as past that goes on without end is completely whacky.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then your point is pointless.

Now, do you still think that an infinite number of days can be completed by numbering each one with natural numbers?

It is evidently possible to devise an effective scheme to number an infinite number of days in an infinite past using only natural numbers. It would be obviously impossible to do that in practice, at least in our universe, at least as we think we know it, but this is perfectly doable in the abstract, as a mathematical problem.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

To say there was infinite time in the past is to say an amount of time that doesn't end is in the past.

Oh I see you are improving your English as you go. Excellent!

Yet, this is still wrong.

To say that the past has been infinite is to say that the amount of time in the past didn't begin (not "that doesn't end" as ou said).

So you see, now the past ends now, whether infinite or not. So to have a past that would have been infinite would just require that the past had no beginning. As we think of it of course.

So your claim is still wrong. It's a bit better and it will rmeain better if you stay away from your initial claim that an infinite past "goes on without end".

And an amount of time does not "go on" either. Time goes on, not the past, and not amounts of time either.

So your problem may be just that you don't understand the concept of an infinite number of days or years or centuries in the past. But think, in the abstract, of counting past days backward, starting now, counting one past day every minute. If the past is infinite you will have to count for an infinite time. Your counting will be without end (if you could stay alive I'm sorry to add).

Sooo, what would be the problem now?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The truth is that "nothing" never existed, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing.

I would agree with you on that but I thought it had been Krauss' notorious point that he had a good scientific theory that said the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all!

Or has he recanted since? I'd be surprise.
EB

 

[untermensche]

No. To say that time has no beginning is to say that if we could go backward in time we would never find a time which would be the beginning of time. Nothing else and nothing difficult to grasp I think.

The way we have a past is because we have a present first. You can't have any moment in the past unless that moment was a moment in the present first.

If you are saying the past has no beginning that is merely saying it goes on without end. To not begin means your existence can be pushed back forever. It means there is no limit to your existence.

To say that time has no beginning is to say the amount of moments that have already occurred are without end.

Moments without end are moments that go on forever.

This will go nowhere until you either admit or demonstrate otherwise that saying time has no beginning is the same as saying it is time that goes on forever.

 

[Kharakov]

The truth is that "nothing" never existed, because it is impossible for something to come out of nothing.

I would agree with you on that but I thought it had been Krauss' notorious point that he had a good scientific theory that said the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all!

Or has he recanted since? I'd be surprise.
EB

It appears that he's been shifting the goalposts since he made the ridiculous claim.

In the preface of "A Universe From Nothing" Krauss says "But then if I argue that the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may gave arisen is not true nothingness"

In other words, people call him on his bullshit and say "It's not good enough for you to say that "laws existed that caused everything" because the laws are something" so 'what caused the laws?'

He says "A system" and people say "the system is something, right?" etc. etc.

In other words, he has nothing to back up his claims. Which is a joke- although I sincerely doubt the joke was one that Krauss came up with- instead it was pulled on him by God.

 

[Kharakov]

It just means that there would be a second temporal dimension that our intervals would be its infinitesimals. In one of its seconds, an infinite number of units of our time would go by. That's the only way that I can see an infinite regress being logically possible. And even then, this argument would literally be changing the goalposts from the original position.

I was right.

Hawkins actually proposes an imaginary (as in i) axis of time in some theory that untermensche brought up some time ago. Now technically, if you pass by an orthogonal infinite timeline, you've passed by an infinite amount of time.

Although I think ryan was referring to "scales" of time, rather than "dimensions", and setting the scale to infinitesimals rather than finite distances. I brought up the idea of hyperreals, which could very well have been a mistake (to introduce additional concepts before certain ideas were completely solidified).

 

[skepticalbip]

I would agree with you on that but I thought it had been Krauss' notorious point that he had a good scientific theory that said the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all!

Or has he recanted since? I'd be surprise.
EB

It appears that he's been shifting the goalposts since he made the ridiculous claim.

In the preface of "A Universe From Nothing" Krauss says "But then if I argue that the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may gave arisen is not true nothingness"

In other words, people call him on his bullshit and say "It's not good enough for you to say that "laws existed that caused everything" because the laws are something" so 'what caused the laws?'

He says "A system" and people say "the system is something, right?" etc. etc.

In other words, he has nothing to back up his claims. Which is a joke- although I sincerely doubt the joke was one that Krauss came up with- instead it was pulled on him by God.

I think that the problem is that Krauss writes pop-sci books to try to give those who know diddly-squat about physics an idea of what cosmologists are doing. What he is actually modeling can not be adequately translated into language that the average person who has never taken physics (or only a little physics) can understand. It is sorta like trying to explain the details of how a television works to an eight year old. The eight year old can maybe form a mental image of a picture flying through the air and landing on the television screen.

 

[Kharakov]

If this thread sounds anything like the following exert from book titled: Psychopath Free: Recovering from Emotionally Abusive Relationships With Narcissists, Sociopaths, & Other Toxic People to anyone who thinks they can make headway, then they may want to reconsider.

You may be another one who underestimates the challenges of the possible implications of using infinity in the real world.

Of course, if you ignore infinity, it just disappears. And then it yells at you for ignoring it. Then it shows up with someone else to make you jealous. Beware of infinity.

 

[Kharakov]

I think that the problem is that Krauss writes pop-sci books to try to give those who know diddly-squat about physics an idea of what cosmologists are doing. What he is actually modeling can not be adequately translated into language that the average person who has never taken physics (or only a little physics) can understand.

It seems a bit irresponsible to throw out wild claims that you can't back up, but perhaps Krauss is on a fishing expedition...

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that the problem is that Krauss writes pop-sci books to try to give those who know diddly-squat about physics an idea of what cosmologists are doing. What he is actually modeling can not be adequately translated into language that the average person who has never taken physics (or only a little physics) can understand.

It seems a bit irresponsible to throw out wild claims that you can't back up, but perhaps Krauss is on a fishing expedition...

Possible. But, if so, he should be fishing in the ocean rather than the bathtub. He works daily with old sea captains like Hawking and Greene who know the seas.

 

[Juma]

To be going on forever means to be going on without end.

You have said nothing different.

I actually did. I used past tense.
Dont you know the difference?