Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Kharakov]

It's a logical necessity that time (freedom to change) must exist for change to occur. If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot begin to exist, therefore it has always existed.

Your idea that time in the past is needed for time to start is ridiculous.

That is your false claim about what I've said.

I've been arguing that time does not have a beginning. Here is a clarification of what I said above, with the word "start" included:

If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot start (begin to exist). The logical conclusion is that time must be eternal, because it exists.

 

[Kharakov]

Not an object time is part of space. Space is room for energy to do things. Time is room for energy to do things. The verb to do requires both together.

Winnow the do.

 

[untermensche]

How can you know this? This is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. We could have a complete understanding of the universe and still not know if anything else exists that doesn't affect us.

So if we can't know for sure that we know all that exists, then we can't make any positive claims on what else there may be. Who knows; there may be another dimension of time.

I've given my reason many times already.

There is no reason to think any real thing couldn't be counted. If all real things could in theory be counted then there are no infinite quantities of real things. A very large amount is not infinity. An amount too large for a human to count is not infinity. An amount too large for there to be time to count it is not infinity.

Infinity in terms of real things means an uncountable amount. An amount that grows for some reason without end.

Suppose time is continuous. It would pass by with infinitesimal moments. The present would be instantaneous. There doesn't need to be an infinite interval between two points in time; the reason is that an infinite number of infinitesimals can fit inside of a second, hour, year, etc.

There are no real things that are continuous. Real things can only be divided so much. You can only divide an atom so much and it is no longer an atom. The same is true of time.

How do you know this? Physicists and cosmologists certainly don't know this about space-time. They suspect and hope that space-time is quantifiable and not curved, but they don't make positive claims like you are.

Physicists do know this. They know if you break apart an atom too much it isn't an atom anymore. If you break apart a particle too much and it isn't a particle anymore.

Real things can only be broken apart so much before they don't exist anymore. And time is a real thing.

You can't apply imaginary concepts like infinity and continuous to reality. All it shows is a lack of understanding between imaginary concepts like numbers and the real world.

And nobody is saying that what happens in mathematics must happen in reality.

That just isn't true. This thread is filled with people who don't seem to understand that mathematical models are not reality. They are only the way humans understand it.

 

[untermensche]

I am not equivocating. I am using infinite time to mean the same thing every time I say it. An unending supply of time.

It can't mean anything else. There are no other kinds of infinities that apply to real entities than an unending supply of them.

Time is not something there is a supply of. It is an axis with two directions, futureward and pastward. What intervals does nature use to measure units? It is found in frequency in the natural world, and frequency is energy. E = h * f.

So in the real world frequencies are determined after reality makes that calculation?

Too absurd. That formula is an approximation to reality. A good enough approximation so humans find the formula useful.

And of course there is a supply of time. It can be measured. How can you measure something unless there is a supply of it to measure?

 

[untermensche]

Your idea that time in the past is needed for time to start is ridiculous.

That is your false claim about what I've said.

I've been arguing that time does not have a beginning. Here is a clarification of what I said above, with the word "start" included:

If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot start (begin to exist). The logical conclusion is that time must be eternal, because it exists.

That's just a horrible formulation.

Time and the freedom to change can start together. Or the freedom to change can exist before there is anything to change. And with only the freedom and nothing to change time doesn't exist.

 

[Kharakov]

That is your false claim about what I've said.

I've been arguing that time does not have a beginning. Here is a clarification of what I said above, with the word "start" included:

If time (freedom to change) does not exist, it cannot start (begin to exist). The logical conclusion is that time must be eternal, because it exists.

That's just a horrible formulation.

Time and the freedom to change can start together. Or the freedom to change can exist before there is anything to change. And with only the freedom and nothing to change time doesn't exist.

Without time to change, there is no freedom to change. Time is absolutely essential. And it's eternal, so it's not like there is some limited amount of it. And there was always something to change, or else nothing would have changed.

Am I going to need to break out olive oil, sugar, basil, garlic, onion powder, salt, pepper, and vinegar?

 

[untermensche]

That's just a horrible formulation.

Time and the freedom to change can start together. Or the freedom to change can exist before there is anything to change. And with only the freedom and nothing to change time doesn't exist.

Without time to change, there is no freedom to change. Time is absolutely essential. And it's eternal, so it's not like there is some limited amount of it. And there was always something to change, or else nothing would have changed.

Am I going to need to break out olive oil, sugar, basil, garlic, onion powder, salt, pepper, and vinegar?

It is theoretically possible for the freedom to change to exist before time exists.

What prevents it?

 

[Kharakov]

Without time to change, there is no freedom to change. Time is absolutely essential. And it's eternal, so it's not like there is some limited amount of it. And there was always something to change, or else nothing would have changed.

Am I going to need to break out olive oil, sugar, basil, garlic, onion powder, salt, pepper, and vinegar?

It is theoretically possible for the freedom to change to exist before time exists.

Look, outline how it is logically possible for freedom of change to exist without time to change.

You aren't going to convince me of something that appears completely incorrect without putting together a coherent, logical argument.

What prevents it?

From being theoretically possible, like you claim? For one, a coherent argument that shows that change can occur without time to change. You know- an argument that could show how a ball could roll and bounce down a hill in no time.

 

[untermensche]

It is theoretically possible for the freedom to change to exist before time exists.

Look, outline how it is logically possible for freedom of change to exist without time to change.

Freedom to change can exist before there is anything to change. Freedom is just a possibility.

So without anything to change even with the freedom to change time would not exist. Time is more than the ability to change. It requires actual change.

 

[Kharakov]

You can't have freedom to change without something or someone to change.

 

[untermensche]

You can't have freedom to change without something or someone to change.

That's like saying you can't have the freedom of religion unless you have a religion.

 

[ryan]

I've given my reason many times already.

There is no reason to think any real thing couldn't be counted.

There are two reasons. So far, a curved space-time has not been ruled out in physics. Second, we don't know if there is anything else beside the universe, and we certainly don't know how many other things may exist.

Another thing, why can't there be an infinite number of, say, grains of sand that keep going in one direction?

How do you know this? Physicists and cosmologists certainly don't know this about space-time. They suspect and hope that space-time is quantifiable and not curved, but they don't make positive claims like you are.

Physicists do know this. They know if you break apart an atom too much it isn't an atom anymore. If you break apart a particle too much and it isn't a particle anymore.

I was talking about space-time, not particles. Ideally speaking, it is possible that space-time can be divided infinitely many times. Space-time may be real, and it may be continuous.

 

[untermensche]

There are two reasons. So far, a curved space-time has not been ruled out in physics. Second, we don't know if there is anything else beside the universe, and we certainly don't know how many other things may exist.

Another thing, why can't there be an infinite number of, say, grains of sand that keep going in one direction?

I am not saying that it is possible for us here on this planet to count every real thing. But if it is real then there is no reason to think it couldn't be counted. That is what being real means. Being real means it can be perceived in some way. If it can be perceived, even if not by us here, then it can theoretically be counted.

If a grain of sand exists then it can theoretically be counted. The number of real grains of sand cannot be an uncountable number.

I was talking about space-time, not particles. Ideally speaking, it is possible that space-time can be divided infinitely many times. Space-time may be real, and it may be continuous.

Space is something real. It contains energy. Break it apart too much and you will disrupt that energy and you will not have space anymore.

 

[ryan]

I am not saying that it is possible for us here on this planet to count every real thing. But if it is real then there is no reason to think it couldn't be counted. That is what being real means. Being real means it can be perceived in some way. If it can be perceived, even if not by us here, then it can theoretically be counted.

If a grain of sand exists then it can theoretically be counted. The number of real grains of sand cannot be an uncountable number.

Why can't I count without the prospect of ever finishing?

I was talking about space-time, not particles. Ideally speaking, it is possible that space-time can be divided infinitely many times. Space-time may be real, and it may be continuous.

Space is something real. It contains energy. Break it apart too much and you will disrupt that energy and you will not have space anymore.

It's not that simple. Please see, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/#OSR . Here are a few important quotes from the link,

"In a rather informal sense QFT is the extension of quantum mechanics (QM), dealing with particles, over to fields, i.e. systems with an infinite number of degrees of freedom."

"While there are close analogies between quantization in QM and in QFT there are also important differences. Whereas the commutation relations in QM refer to a quantum object with three degrees of freedom, so that one has a set of 15 equations, the commutation relations in QFT do in fact comprise an infinite number of equations, namely for each of the infinitely many space-time 4-tuples (x,t) there is a new set of commutation relations. This infinite number of degrees of freedom embodies the field character of QFT."

"At first sight the field interpretation seems to be much better off, considering that a field is not a localized entity and that it may vary continuously—so no requirements for localizability and countability" .

At least read the second quote posted. Even the last quote seems to address your "countable" problem.

 

[Kharakov]

You can't have freedom to change without something or someone to change.

That's like saying you can't have the freedom of religion unless you have a religion.

You cannot have the freedom of religion unless you have a religion, since the freedom of religion is part of the religion.

That's not the point though: the point is that without time to change, no change would ever occur, so time to change is a quality that has always existed. The eternity of time is an undeniable logically necessary fact (unless one wishes to spout illogical platitudes to spur conversation about the matter- plenty of time for us to provide our unique brand of fertilizer to the donnybrook).

 

[untermensche]

You cannot have the freedom of religion unless you have a religion, since the freedom of religion is part of the religion.

Ridiculous. I have the freedom of religion without any religion. It is possible to have a freedom even if that freedom has no expression, just like having the freedom to change even before there is change.

 

[untermensche]

Why can't I count without the prospect of ever finishing?

There can be a finite amount that you have no prospect of ever finishing counting.

That is why this concept of theoretical counting is used, not actual counting. Theoretical counting means it is out there to count, it exists, it is theoretically possible to count it, but that doesn't mean we can actually count it.

I was talking about space-time, not particles. Ideally speaking, it is possible that space-time can be divided infinitely many times. Space-time may be real, and it may be continuous.

Space is something real. It contains energy. Break it apart too much and you will disrupt that energy and you will not have space anymore.

It's not that simple. Please see...

It is that simple. Space is something real. That is whole underpinning of Lawrence Krauss's book.

 

[George S]

Beginnings have a point in time. The very idea of beginning presupposes time. A beginning of time presupposes a prior state of non-time. But time is merely a dimension. A line in a direction we cannot point to. We can see the past in all directions no matter where we point. We point to the future too in all directions, but only see the past.

The dimensions x,y,z,t are the thing. They are meaningless in isolation. Each is necessary for the other. The drumbeat of reality needs room to grow and time to grow.

There may have been time arunning but no energy gradient. No mass, no photon, no frequency. No way to know how much or how little time before the first change. But if that were the case something happened. There was energy. And the dimensions x, y, z, and t became meaningful for the first time. There were things and shaped space -- space with downhill directions. And energy to flow downhill.

 

[ryan]

There can be a finite amount that you have no prospect of ever finishing counting.

Okay, but what about an infinite amount? Can't I start counting and make no progress?

That is why this concept of theoretical counting is used, not actual counting. Theoretical counting means it is out there to count, it exists, it is theoretically possible to count it, but that doesn't mean we can actually count it.

I wonder if you are using "countable" and "fully counted" interchangeably. You're right that anything that can be fully counted is finite. But we will never know what is infinite because we will never be able to fully count them.

It is that simple. Space is something real. That is whole underpinning of Lawrence Krauss's book.

Lawrence Krauss's book, along with every other book that can be made about science must use certain postulates/assumptions. Science makes no positive claims without them. Unfortunately, we must always build onto uncertainties.

What got everyone excited with your posts is that you made a positive claim without using any assumptions. Lawrence Krauss may have found a complete explanation for how the universe works, but he too must base his claims on many uncertainties.

 

[Kharakov]

You cannot have the freedom of religion unless you have a religion, since the freedom of religion is part of the religion.

Ridiculous. I have the freedom of religion without any religion.

Semantics is important. The freedom of religion comes from religion. Freedom from religion is something your can have without religion (obviously).

The freedom of religion is part of religion.

Back to the topic:

The point is that without time to change, no change would ever occur, so time to change is a quality that has always existed. The eternity of time is a fact.