Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

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.

If you walk out of a room, does it cease to exist? Most people stop assuming that at about 5 - 7 months of age.

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.

Have you ever looked at the night sky?

All that really exists is the ever changing present.

Unsupported statement of belief.

Give me evidence of something else.

It is fairly trivial to do this; I can call my cellphone from my VOIP client, and hear myself in the past. It makes an odd echoing sound. It is probably easier for me because of my location - the signal has to travel about 10,000km to get back to my desk. You can fire a laser at the reflectors the Apollo astronauts left on the moon too; the delay is quite obvious. According to Einstein, there is no preferred reference frame; the 'present' is a fiction. Time travels at different rates depending on the acceleration of the observer, and on the chosen reference frame.

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.

So anywhere you have never been doesn't exist. Gotcha.

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.

If the past is infinite, then time has always existed. There is no contradiction in that.

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.

They do if they exist, and if they never started. How could they not?

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.

I didn't suggest that the default position was that time is infinite. I said that you can't claim it isn't unless you can back up your claim.

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.

No, I am saying that because you have not proven infinite time in the past does not exist therefore you are not justified in claiming it does not exist. You have to give valid reasons, based on premises agreed to be true.

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

I have looked at the reasons you have given; and I have shown that each of them is either based on a premise not shown to be true; is based on a circular argument; or is a bald assertion of incredulity. Some were even more than one of these things at the same time.

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.

No, it is like claiming that the amount of time in an infinite future has STARTED passing.

 

[untermensche]

If you walk out of a room, does it cease to exist? Most people stop assuming that at about 5 - 7 months of age.

This is such a non sequitur I don't even know how to respond.

I can search for the past all I want. I will never find it.

Have you ever looked at the night sky?

Have I ever had light hit my eye?

Don't tell me about the light from some distant galaxy and think you have produced the past. That light is striking my eye in the present. That light exists in the present. The light is striking my eye, not the past.

It is fairly trivial to do this; I can call my cellphone from my VOIP client, and hear myself in the past. It makes an odd echoing sound. It is probably easier for me because of my location - the signal has to travel about 10,000km to get back to my desk. You can fire a laser at the reflectors the Apollo astronauts left on the moon too; the delay is quite obvious. According to Einstein, there is no preferred reference frame; the 'present' is a fiction. Time travels at different rates depending on the acceleration of the observer, and on the chosen reference frame.

Give me a break. Any sound that hits your ear is happening at an ever changing now. You haven't moved from an ever changing now. Nothing has. You can't. No matter how fast you move.

So anywhere you have never been doesn't exist. Gotcha.

It's one absurd non sequitur after another.

The question was about the way things work. The way things work in this universe is the present becomes the past.

In this universe if we talk about a moment in the past we are talking about a moment that was the present.

What I think is that when I close my eyes the way the universe works doesn't change. You imagine it does.

You somehow think that time in the past worked differently than it does now.

If the past is infinite, then time has always existed. There is no contradiction in that.

Yes there is.

You can't just say there is only one conclusion to be drawn and the matter is over. You have to look at ALL the conclusions.

Saying the past is infinite is the same as saying the future is infinite in terms of the amount of time.

Saying the future is infinite is to say it has no end. So saying the past is infinite is to say it has no end as well.

To say that infinite time finished passing before any present moment is to say that time that has no end has ended.

Saying something with no end has ended is a contradiction.

No, I am saying that because you have not proven infinite time in the past does not exist therefore you are not justified in claiming it does not exist.

Is that how we conclude things exist? They exist until somebody proves they don't?

And I have given my reasons for believing time was not infinite in the past.

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.

No, it is like claiming that the amount of time in an infinite future has STARTED passing.

Non sequitur.

The claim is that the amount of time that has already passed cannot end.

 

[ryan]

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.

Anyways, here is another argument.

Let's assume that there is some frame of reference that existed a countably infinite number of years ago from today. It would have had a beginning; it would have a first year.

In the beginning, there is no upper bound. If time ended today, then there is an upper bound for the same frame of reference. This is a clear contradiction.

 

[Juma]

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.

No. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end or no start.

 

[ryan]

Yes, since that is a problem, then that is just another example of how it doesn't make sense for a countable infinity to precede today.

The only logic that I can see helps your side of the argument is that a set of an infinite number of the fractions 1/infinity can have a beginning and an end and still be the same infinity. For example, a continuum has 2^(aleph null) points in the space of one centimeter no matter which direction you go.

But this is sidestepping the argument a little by considering an observer in a higher dimension.

No, the problem is much simpler than that; there is no point a countably infinite distance along an infinite line. All points on the line are a finite distance from the origin.

All points are not a finite distance from the origin. Any point is a finite distance from the origin.

 

[bilby]

No, the problem is much simpler than that; there is no point a countably infinite distance along an infinite line. All points on the line are a finite distance from the origin.

All points are not a finite distance from the origin. Any point is a finite distance from the origin.

Indeed. Thank you for the correction.

 

[ryan]

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end.

No. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end or no start.

Don't you think it's troubling that an infinite number of days before today does not have to have last week in it?

 

[Juma]

No. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that has no end or no start.

Don't you think it's troubling that an infinite number of days before today does not have to have last week in it?

Do you refer to the set of all days before last week? What is troubling with that?

 

[ryan]

Don't you think it's troubling that an infinite number of days before today does not have to have last week in it?

Do you refer to the set of all days before last week? What is troubling with that?

No, starting from the present, an infinite number of days before today does not need last week. But we know that last week must be in the past.

 

[ryan]

All points are not a finite distance from the origin. Any point is a finite distance from the origin.

Indeed. Thank you for the correction.

So if time ends today, how could it go through an infinite number of units and end on a day that should never have come?

 

[Juma]

Do you refer to the set of all days before last week? What is troubling with that?

No, starting from the present, an infinite number of days before today does not need last week. But we know that last week must be in the past.

What on earth are talking about? All previous days without last week could be infinite (if time has gone on for ever) but it is not the past days until now. So why do you bring tjat up?

 

[Juma]

Indeed. Thank you for the correction.

So if time ends today, how could it go through an infinite number of units and end on a day that should never have come?

What? Fitst: Units are our measurement of time, not time itself.
Second: any distance between two days are finite. Capice?

 

[ryan]

No, starting from the present, an infinite number of days before today does not need last week. But we know that last week must be in the past.

What on earth are talking about? All previous days without last week could be infinite (if time has gone on for ever) but it is not the past days until now. So why do you bring tjat up?

An infinite number of days does not account for any specific days in the past. In reality all days in the past must be in the past. The total past is unique, but infinity is not.

 

[Juma]

What on earth are talking about? All previous days without last week could be infinite (if time has gone on for ever) but it is not the past days until now. So why do you bring tjat up?

An infinite number of days does not account for any specific days in the past. In reality all days in the past must be in the past. The total past is unique, but infinity is not.

Yes. So what is your point?

 

[ryan]

So if time ends today, how could it go through an infinite number of units and end on a day that should never have come?

What? Fitst: Units are our measurement of time, not time itself.
Second: any distance between two days are finite. Capice?

How about the distance of all days in a past with an infinite number of days?

 

[ryan]

An infinite number of days does not account for any specific days in the past. In reality all days in the past must be in the past. The total past is unique, but infinity is not.

Yes. So what is your point?

Well if all of the past is unique but not an infinite number of days, then all of the past is not an infinite number of days.

 

[Juma]

Yes. So what is your point?

Well if all of the past is unique but not an infinite number of days, then all of the past is not an infinite number of days.

Let me paraphrae this so you see where you went wrong:

If Paris is unique but not a french city, then Paris is not a french city.

 

[ryan]

Well if all of the past is unique but not an infinite number of days, then all of the past is not an infinite number of days.

Let me paraphrae this so you see where you went wrong:

If Paris is unique but not a french city, then Paris is not a french city.

Okay, but what about my other post? How do all of an infinite number of days pass since all days before today must have passed?

 

[Juma]

Let me paraphrae this so you see where you went wrong:

If Paris is unique but not a french city, then Paris is not a french city.

Okay, but what about my other post? How do all of an infinite number of days pass since all days before today must have passed?

That is not a problem. That is a tautology.
If time has been for ever, then an infinite number of units has already passed.

 

[ryan]

Okay, but what about my other post? How do all of an infinite number of days pass since all days before today must have passed?

That is not a problem. That is a tautology.
If time has been for ever, then an infinite number of units has already passed.

Then it seems necessary for larger infinities or more temporal dimensions to exist.

If an infinite number of units can pass by, then there must be a much larger domain that they pass by in.