Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

It is far from 'tacitly understood'; QFT doesn't contain anything that suggests a preferred direction for time; entropy gives time direction, but entropy is a consequence of statistics, not any fundamental law.

I know; that is exactly why I qualified my argument so many times as time having one direction.

You know it is wrong, and that's why you said it? Are you sure? I am not convinced, but if so, there is no point in discussing anything with you. If we abandon rationality, anything goes.

It is a red herring anyway; time is a dimension. dimensions don't have direction, only objects moving in that dimension have direction. Distance doesn't move, and time doesn't pass. We, as observers move in space and in time, and we might casually characterise this in terms of 'time passing' or 'the miles flying by', but the dimensions themselves are not actually moving; the movement is a property of the objects being measured, not the dimensions with which we measure them.

Why would we assume something incoherent? Dimensions don't 'pass'.

We are talking about quantities of time like days, seconds, etc. not the whole dimension.

I am talking about time being infinite. I am absolutely sure that days, seconds etc. are not infinite in themselves; but I have yet to see a single reason why there shouldn't be an infinite number of them.

Good point untermensche.
If you take out the day you were born, then there are still an infinite number of days in the past: [Infinite number of days] - [bibly's day of birth] = [infinite number of days]. But bilby exists today, so there cannot be an infinite number of days in the past.

What kind of shit is that? Let's change the names to protect the guilty:

If the set of real numbers is infinite, and we take out the number 6, then we are left with the set of real numbers other than 6, which is also infinite. But the number 1 is still part of the set, therefore the set of real numbers cannot be infinite.

Yes, but the point that the number 6 occupies is the same as the other points that the other numbers occupy. Discontinuing a graph at the number 6 does not affect the rest of the graph the same way as taking out the day JFK was assassinated.

This may seem trivial at first, but I think it's actually very important.

Reality doesn't care what you think. Taking out a day isn't possible; but if it were, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether the total number of days is finite or infinite.

This whole line of argument is irrelevant claptrap.

We agree that the past exists (surely?). The question is whether it is bounded by a beginning at some finite point in time, or whether it is unbounded. Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. Why, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'? Fucking around with adding or subtracting points from the timeline at 't+23,825,694,876 seconds' isn't going to get us an answer to this question.

If for all points of time in the past, there is a point one second earlier, then the past is infinite. End of story.

The one and only way to refute the infinitude of the past is to show that there is a time 't' for which there cannot be a time 't-1 second'.

 

[ryan]

Bilby, it's over.

If time goes in one direction and ended tomorrow, then today is the upper bound of days. But there is no upper bound for an infinite number of days.

Don't be so bloody silly.

If you must insist that time cannot be considered in both directions (on the spurious grounds that we don't experience it that way), ...

It is a qualifier, a condition, an assumption.

... the negative integers are an infinite set with an upper bound, just to give one example. A set with no lower bound is infinite, whether or not it has an upper bound.

Uh oh, you're right. Damn math and all its tricks.

This isn't over bilby; it isn't over [Newman's voice]!!!

 

[untermensche]

It is a qualifier, a condition, an assumption.

To say the present becomes the past and the past does not become the present is not an assumption.

 

[bilby]

It is a qualifier, a condition, an assumption.

To say the present becomes the past and the past does not become the present is not an assumption.

Nor is it in any way relevant to the question of whether the past is or is not infinite.

 

[ryan]

It is a qualifier, a condition, an assumption.

To say the present becomes the past and the past does not become the present is not an assumption.

If objects can move in each direction in one dimension, then why can't events?

 

[untermensche]

To say the present becomes the past and the past does not become the present is not an assumption.

If objects can move in each direction in one direction, then why can't events?

Any event is all the matter and energy in the universe changing in a specific way.

No event happens in isolation. As any event is happening the whole universe is changing at the same time.

So for time to move backwards it would require every single aspect of the universe to move backwards in a way that recreated the prior forward movement.

How would we even begin to imagine something like that happening?

I can apply a force to an object to move it back and forth.

What force can you apply to an object to make it move back in time?

 

[ryan]

If objects can move in each direction in one direction, then why can't events?

Any event is all the matter and energy in the universe changing in a specific way.

No event happens in isolation. As any event is happening the whole universe is changing at the same time.

So for time to move backwards it would require every single aspect of the universe to move backwards in a way that recreated the prior forward movement.

How would we even begin to imagine something like that happening?

I can apply a force to an object to move it back and forth.

What force can you apply to an object to make it move back in time?

The question is: what makes time move forward? Whatever it is, why can't there be symmetrically negative version of it to make events move backwards?

 

[bilby]

If objects can move in each direction in one direction, then why can't events?

Any event is all the matter and energy in the universe changing in a specific way.

No event happens in isolation. As any event is happening the whole universe is changing at the same time.

So for time to move backwards it would require every single aspect of the universe to move backwards in a way that recreated the prior forward movement.

How would we even begin to imagine something like that happening?

I can apply a force to an object to move it back and forth.

What force can you apply to an object to make it move back in time?

WTF? This thread has nothing to do with time travel.

The past is (or is not) infinite regardless of whether we can travel back in time.

The question is whether the past is bounded by a beginning at some finite point in time, or whether it is unbounded. Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. Why, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'?

Whether or not time 'moves backwards' is completely irrelevant. The past extends backwards from the present. The only question here is, is that extent finite or infinite.

An event is NOT all the matter and energy changing in a specific way; relativity tells us that it doesn't even make sense to consider things in different places and accelerating in different ways as sharing a common 'now'. Most of the rest of the universe cannot be influenced in any way by an event occurring 'now' in our reference frame.

Not that it matters; Even if your definition of an event wasn't hopelessly wrong, it is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the past is infinite. No event has any effect on the answer to this question, other (of course) than the beginning of time itself - if such a thing occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

Any event is all the matter and energy in the universe changing in a specific way.

No event happens in isolation. As any event is happening the whole universe is changing at the same time.

So for time to move backwards it would require every single aspect of the universe to move backwards in a way that recreated the prior forward movement.

How would we even begin to imagine something like that happening?

I can apply a force to an object to move it back and forth.

What force can you apply to an object to make it move back in time?

The question is: what makes time move forward? Whatever it is, why can't there be symmetrically negative version of it to make events move backwards?

No.

The question is "Is the past infinite or finite?". If you have a new question, start a new thread. This one is already over 1,800 posts, it doesn't need any derailing stuff added to it.

 

[untermensche]

The question is: what makes time move forward? Whatever it is, why can't there be symmetrically negative version of it to make events move backwards?

The direction of time is just the way it is.

Like the gravitational attraction to the Earth.

Maybe time will move the other way.

Maybe gravity will repel me from the Earth.

 

[bilby]

The question is: what makes time move forward? Whatever it is, why can't there be symmetrically negative version of it to make events move backwards?

The direction of time is just the way it is.

Like the gravitational attraction to the Earth.

Maybe time will move the other way.

Maybe gravity will repel me from the Earth.

The direction of time is not 'just the way it is'; it is a consequence of statistics, which result in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the number of particle interactions increase, the probability of a high entropy state rapidly comes to massively outweigh the probability of a low entropy state for any closed system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28arrow_of_time%29

... all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, an atom might move to the left, whereas going backward in time the same atom might move to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. It would, however, be an astronomically improbable event if a macroscopic amount of gas that originally filled a container evenly spontaneously shrunk to occupy only half the container.

(my bold)


It's not a mystery; and it's not a fundamental property of the universe. Indeed, like so much of the macroscopic world, at microscopic scales things are very different - and as a result, very unintuitive for humans, who rarely interact other than at the macroscopic scale.


It is also irrelevant to the question of whether the past is or is not infinite. The question is whether the past is bounded by a beginning at some finite point in time, or whether it is unbounded. Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. Why, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'?

 

[ryan]

The question is: what makes time move forward? Whatever it is, why can't there be symmetrically negative version of it to make events move backwards?

Maybe gravity will repel me from the Earth.

And we even have to assume what gravity is for making any new theories that use it.

 

[Juma]

If objects can move in each direction in one dimension, then why can't events?

Why dont you think things through before you post?
Move="different positions in space for different positions in time."
For events, which are positions in time, that would be "different positions in time for different positions in time" which doesnt make sense.

 

[ryan]

If objects can move in each direction in one dimension, then why can't events?

Why dont you think things through before you post?
Move="different positions in space for different positions in time."
For events, which are positions in time, that would be "different positions in time for different positions in time" which doesnt make sense.

For someone who makes a lot of typos, you sure make a big stink when I do.

 

[untermensche]

Whether or not time 'moves backwards' is completely irrelevant. The past extends backwards from the present. The only question here is, is that extent finite or infinite.

Conceptually one can imagine the past as extending somewhere, but it doesn't.

The past exists only in the memory. It is a non-entity.

All that really exists is the ever changing present.

So if one claims the past is infinite they are also claiming the ever changing present is infinite as well.

They are saying the present has always exited. They are saying there is no end or limit to the number of present moments that have existed.

Once again for the thousandth time, if there is no limit to the moments that have existed in the past that means before any present moment an amount of moments with no limit occurred first. How does an amount of moments without limit occur first?

The question is whether the past is bounded by a beginning at some finite point in time, or whether it is unbounded. Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. Why, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'?

We do not know if every second was preceded by another second.

That is for you to prove in some way.

It is not enough to disprove my arguments, which hasn't been done, but the believers in infinity have to present some kind of argument showing it is so.

That would be along the lines of; The amount of time that has passed already is infinite because..............

And saying it was infinite because we can imagine it was infinite is not true. We can't imagine it was infinite.

The second we actually take the claim seriously we run into problem after problem.

Like, how can an infinite number of past moments have already occurred? How does an infinite series end? Not how can it be manipulated to appear to equal something else, how can it end?

 

[bilby]

Conceptually one can imagine the past as extending somewhere, but it doesn't.

Unsupported statement of belief.

The past exists only in the memory.

Unsupported statement of belief.

It is a non-entity.

Unsupported statement of belief.

All that really exists is the ever changing present.

Unsupported statement of belief.

So if one claims the past is infinite they are also claiming the ever changing present is infinite as well.

er, No.

They are saying the present has always exited.

er, No.

They are saying there is no end or limit to the number of present moments that have existed.

er, No.

Once again for the thousandth time, if there is no limit to the moments that have existed in the past that means before any present moment an amount of moments with no limit occurred first.

Yes. And?

How does an amount of moments without limit occur first?

How can it NOT?

The question is whether the past is bounded by a beginning at some finite point in time, or whether it is unbounded. Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. Why, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'?

We do not know if every second was preceded by another second.

Indeed we do not. And yet you claim to. You claim that the answer is 'No'.

That is for you to prove in some way.

No, it isn't. You made a claim - that the past is finite - and you have either to prove it or accept that it is not necessarily true.

It is not enough to disprove my arguments, which hasn't been done, but the believers in infinity have to present some kind of argument showing it is so.

No, they don't. You made a claim - that the past is finite - and you have either to prove it or accept that it is not necessarily true.

That would be along the lines of; The amount of time that has passed already is infinite because..............

Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. You have given us no reason to think that, for any given time 't', we should accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'. The burden of proof is on the claimant - you. You started the thread with a claim. You haven't proved your claim. I make no claim as to the infinitude or otherwise of the past; I have seen no proof of either case. I would say that the balance of probability is that the past is infinite. But if you were to offer a proof that it was not - an actual valid argument, with premises that we both agree are true - then I would accept it. So far, you have spent over 1,800 posts failing to provide such an argument.

And saying it was infinite because we can imagine it was infinite is not true. We can't imagine it was infinite.

Speak for yourself.

The second we actually take the claim seriously we run into problem after problem.

And yet the only problems you have presented are all either arguments from incredulity, circular arguments, or both. If there is 'problem after problem', then why not show us at least one of those problems? Set it out as a valid argument with premises that we both agree are true, and your work is done. But here we are, 1,814 posts in, and still no such argument has been seen...

Like, how can an infinite number of past moments have already occurred? How does an infinite series end? Not how can it be manipulated to appear to equal something else, how can it end?

O.... K....

I apologise for attempting to de-construct your religious beliefs using reason.

I will just be over here backing slowly away without making any sudden movements, and maintaining eye contact...

Pay no attention to those men sneaking up behind you with the straitjacket...

 

[untermensche]

The direction of time is not 'just the way it is'; it is a consequence of statistics, which result in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As the number of particle interactions increase, the probability of a high entropy state rapidly comes to massively outweigh the probability of a low entropy state for any closed system.

What you have said here is that time is the way it is due to the way things are.

... all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, an atom might move to the left, whereas going backward in time the same atom might move to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. It would, however, be an astronomically improbable event if a macroscopic amount of gas that originally filled a container evenly spontaneously shrunk to occupy only half the container.

How do we say an atom is either going forward in time or going backward in time if there is no direction?

The equations work if you reverse time.

That does not mean time actually reverses.

To say time can move backward means some macroscopic object could move backward in time.

When the data of that happening arrives I'll believe it. Don't tell me it's a rare event. I want evidence.

 

[bilby]

What you have said here is that time is the way it is due to the way things are.

... all physical processes occurring at the microscopic level, such as mechanics, do not pick out an arrow of time. Going forward in time, an atom might move to the left, whereas going backward in time the same atom might move to the right; the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. It would, however, be an astronomically improbable event if a macroscopic amount of gas that originally filled a container evenly spontaneously shrunk to occupy only half the container.

How do we say an atom is either going forward in time or going backward in time if there is no direction?

We dont.

The equations work if you reverse time.

Yes.

That does not mean time actually reverses.

Doesn't it?

To say time can move backward means some macroscopic object could move backward in time.

No, it doesn't. At the macroscopic level, entropy prevents this.

When the data of that happening arrives I'll believe it. Don't tell me it's a rare event. I want evidence.

It isn't rare, it's non-existent. Fortunately for the concept of an infinite past, it is also wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the past is infinite.

Time travel is no more a prerequisite for understanding the past than space travel is a prerequisite for finding exo-planets. If we had to go there to find out, we would be fucked; but fortunately we have some special things called 'science' and 'logic' to help us out. You may have heard of them.

 

[untermensche]

Conceptually one can imagine the past as extending somewhere, but it doesn't.

Unsupported statement of belief.

No. It is a fact. It can be imagined.

And the past is not some kind of residue floating in the ether. It is nothing. A non-entity. To talk about it is to talk about something that does not exist.

The universe changes. The past is an arrangement of the universe that existed at some time but does not exist anymore.

To talk about the past is to talk about a thing that existed but will never exist again.

It is a non-entity.

Unsupported statement of belief.

Produce this entity you claim exists. Produce the past and present it if you claim it exists.

Any fool can claim things that don't exist do.

All that really exists is the ever changing present.

Unsupported statement of belief.

Give me evidence of something else.

So if one claims the past is infinite they are also claiming the ever changing present is infinite as well.

er, No.

er, Yes.

The only way any moment can become a past moment is if it was a present moment first.

Once again, if you disagree produce the evidence. Show me a past moment that wasn't a present moment first. Talk to me of that event in the past that didn't occur in the present first.

They are saying the present has always exited.

er, No.

er, Yes again. If every moment in the past was a present moment first then to say the past always existed is to say the present always existed too.

How does an amount of moments without limit occur first?

How can it NOT?

Because it has no limit. To occur before something means to have finished before something. Things with no limit do not finish.

No, they don't. You made a claim - that the past is finite - and you have either to prove it or accept that it is not necessarily true.

First of all that's not how it works. Even if my valid arguments that haven't been shown to be faulty were shown to be flawed it wouldn't mean that the default position is that time is infinite.

The people who claim time is infinite have to prove it. None have even tried. They think claiming it is all that is necessary.

Every second we know about was preceded by a different second. You have given us no reason to think that, for any given time 't', should we accept that there cannot be a time 't-1 second'

This is pathetic. You are saying that because I have not proven infinite time in the past doesn't exist therefore it does.

But of course I have given you a reason. You simply refuse to look at the reason.

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.

 

[untermensche]

When the data of that happening arrives I'll believe it. Don't tell me it's a rare event. I want evidence.

It isn't rare, it's non-existent. Fortunately for the concept of an infinite past, it is also wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the past is infinite.

First you claim time has no direction.

Then when I ask you to prove it by having something move backwards in time you say it is impossible.

You are all over the place. I'm beginning to think you are just jerking off.

 

[Juma]

Why dont you think things through before you post?
Move="different positions in space for different positions in time."
For events, which are positions in time, that would be "different positions in time for different positions in time" which doesnt make sense.

For someone who makes a lot of typos, you sure make a big stink when I do.

Typo? How can "events move in time" be a typo?
I dont care if you make a typo, i have no idea what gizmo you are writing on, but this was no typo.