Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

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.

Why??

 

[untermensche]

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.

It makes no difference.

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

 

[Juma]

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

It makes no difference.

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

No i do not!. The past never started. The past ends now.

 

[untermensche]

It makes no difference.

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

No i do not!. The past never started. The past ends now.

To not start is to have no limit to your size. Time with no limit to it's size is the same as saying time that does not end.

To say time doesn't start is to say it can't end.

You at least understand one thing some people don't seem to understand. "Now" represents the point the amount of time in the past has ended.

Saying any amount of time has ended is to say it is finite. An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never ends. That's what an infinite amount of time in the future means.

 

[Juma]

Saying any amount of time has ended is to say it is finite.

No. It is not. Not if it is has been going on for ever.

 

[Mageth]

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

It makes no difference.

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

No, it's saying that infinite time in the past had no beginning.

 

[PyramidHead]

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

Amounts don't end, so you still have a problem with your English.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

We're not talking about us or about how we relate to time. We're talking about the metaphysical concept of absolute time. So this bit is irrelevant.

If you are saying the past has no beginning that is merely saying it goes on without end.

No, it is merely saying that the past has no beginning. All the more so since I'm also saying that the past does have an end, which is now. Something I just explained very clearly but that you decided to ignore.

Counting time backward would indeed have no end (assuming the past is infinite), something I already explained very clearly. This is not a discussion, this is just you ignoring what I say. That counting time backward would have no end is a very different idea from the idea that time goes on without end. I think you are mixing the two ideas and you are just very confused even about such a simple thing.

To not begin means your existence can be pushed back forever. It means there is no limit to your existence.

Mind boggling derail! We are talking about the metaphysical concept of absolute time not about my own existence.

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

I think I already told you that amounts are not the kind of things of which we want to say they have or have not ends. An amount is what it is. Actual infinity, i.e. infinity seen as a particular value, a concept invented by creative mathematicians, is not something that is without an end. It's also not something that has an end. It's just inappropriate to associate "end" and "amount" or "end" and infinity in the sense of an actual infinity.

Similarly, the king of things that are said to occur are events in time, not time itself.

Moments are said to come and go. To arrive, to pass, to slither by, etc.

So, is it the case that to say that time has no beginning is to say that moments that have already passed are without end? Clearly not unless you want to muddy the waters and get stuck. Clearly, to say that time has no beginning is to say that moments that have already passed do not include a moment which would be the beginning of time. This is fine and it does not entail, or even imply, that there is not one moment among them that is the last moment. Talking about the past, there is necessarily such a last moment since the past ends now. Now the past ends now and it has been infinite because it had no beginning. So simple.

Again, counting time backward would indeed have no end, but I already explained this very clearly. And again, that counting time backward would have no end is a very different idea from the idea that time goes on 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.

I'm certainly not going to accept as true such an idiotic idea!



Ok, I think I've done my best to clarify the ordinary concept of time and yet it is just as clear that you still don't understand. So, there is no need to continue this conversation. My best guess is that you are somehow a very confused person. Many people on these forums are but you are in a league of your own. The idea that something that has no beginning is ipso facto in some way infinite is a completely trivial idea and I don't know how you can fail to understand it. It is entirely intuitive so maybe it has to do with how your brain works. It's been noted, maybe by Bertrand Russell, that you can't explain the fundamental mechanisms of logic to someone who is fundamentally illogical. So, this is definitely a cause perdue.

You should also work on your English. It really doesn't help and we don't need that kind of distractions. Again, you're not the only one in these forums but that's no excuse.

Good luck.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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 knew I could count on you to come up with a good one!

Still, a few people on FRDB at the time couldn't stop themselves arguing his claim made sense...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

No. Read his book again. He starts with a big-mouth tirade against philosophers and theologians so he must have read on the philosophy of nothingness and how something could possibly have come from nothing, although apparently he didn't read not enough on it. He also come back on this idea several times in the book and towards the end he becomes definite about what his point was: he had a scientific theory showing that it was possible that the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all. Still, this was a story within a story in his book. He could have told the science of it for the general public without going into this idiotic philosophically tainted discussion. But clearly he thought he was going to settle an old score with the clergy, you know like Galileo or something, and instead he flunked the basics on the philosophy of it. And he made a whole book of it! No excuse whatsoever.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is a qualifier, a condition, an assumption.

To say <snip> the past does not become the present is not an assumption.

Of course it is. Maybe time is cyclical. Eternal return. In which case all past moments will become again the present... At some point in the future...

We don't know that this is false or impossible. So saying that the past does not become the present is indeed just an assumption.
EB

 

[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 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.

No. Read his book again. He starts with a big-mouth tirade against philosophers and theologians so he must have read on the philosophy of nothingness and how something could possibly have come from nothing, although apparently he didn't read not enough on it. He also come back on this idea several times in the book and towards the end he becomes definite about what his point was: he had a scientific theory showing that it was possible that the universe had come out of nothing. Nothing at all. Still, this was a story within a story in his book. He could have told the science of it for the general public without going into this idiotic philosophically tainted discussion. But clearly he thought he was going to settle an old score with the clergy, you know like Galileo or something, and instead he flunked the basics on the philosophy of it. And he made a whole book of it! No excuse whatsoever.
EB

I agree he fucked up the philosophy. What the argument that the universe could come from nothing came from was his balancing the equation to produce a flat universe in his model. That is damned near impossible to do as a pop-sci book since the model is only one short equation. How many of the hundreds of thousands of readers of his book that he hoped to sell would or could understand a physics description of a flat universe and the consideration of mass/energy? The purpose of the book was to sell books and make money. Many theoretical physicists have been doing this since the success of Sagan showed that there was a hell of a lot more money in producing pop-sci than there was in science research. Even Hawking has produced a couple pop-sci books that really say nothing significant to get in on the gravy train (it was his name that sold them, not the content). The best pop-sci book I have seen is The God Particle by Leon Lederman. Few of the buyers that I know ever finished reading it because he actually tries to explain a little of the science so they got lost and gave up.

But the fact that Krauss fucked up the philosophy does not mean that balancing the equation of mass/energy and gravity in his model does not produce a flat universe. And if the universe is indeed flat then the total of all the universe could be zero only now it is divided as positive (mass/energy) and negative (gravity). He should have stuck to the science and avoided the philosophy but then he could not have sold enough books to pay for the publishing cost.

 

[untermensche]

It makes no difference.

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

No, it's saying that infinite time in the past had no beginning.

I know what you keep repeating.

I also know there are implications for saying "time had no beginning". All you seem to want to do is run from the implications as fast as you can and hide your head in the sand so they don't find you.

Is somebody claims time had no beginning, whatever that could possibly mean in reality, it does have logical consequences.

If somebody claims that time began an hour ago then the amount of time that would have passed is an hour.

If somebody claims time began a million years ago then the amount of time that would have passed is a million years.

If somebody claims time never started, it has no beginning, then the amount of time that would have passed never ends.

It is saying time that never ends just ended at this moment.

Now you can make arguments or you can continue to hide your head and pretend there are no implications to what you say.

- - - Updated - - -

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

Amounts don't end, so you still have a problem with your English.

Amounts of time do.

An hour of time ends. I assure you.

 

[Mageth]

If somebody claims time never started, it has no beginning, then the amount of time that would have passed never ends.

It is saying time that never ends just ended at this moment.

No, it's saying that infinite time in the past had no beginning.

Your invented notion that "it's saying that time that never ends just ended at this moment" is not an implication of that statement that I need to consider, as my statement clearly does not say or even imply that.

 

[Mageth]

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

Amounts don't end, so you still have a problem with your English.

Amounts of time do.

An hour of time ends. I assure you.

This is quite confusing and a bit comical, because you're actually arguing that an amount of time does not end. (E.g., in the clumsily worded "the amount of time that would have passed never ends").

 

[untermensche]

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.

We're not talking about us or about how we relate to time. We're talking about the metaphysical concept of absolute time. So this bit is irrelevant.

Yes I am talking about us. I am talking about observation. Observation involves us.

Observation shows that first we have a present moment, a specific arrangement of matter and energy and everything else, and then there is change so we have a different present moment.

When that happens the prior present moment, the prior arrangement of the universe, doesn't exist anymore, so we call that arrangement the past.

That is the way it works. An existing arrangement of the universe is called the present and arrangements that existed but don't exist anymore are called the past.

There is nothing metaphysical about it. An arrangement and a change to that arrangement is not a metaphysical concept.

No, it is merely saying that the past has no beginning. All the more so since I'm also saying that the past does have an end, which is now. Something I just explained very clearly but that you decided to ignore.

I just answered this claim about time with no beginning 2 posts up. It means the amount of time that has already occurred has no end. It's an absurd claim.

To not begin means your existence can be pushed back forever. It means there is no limit to your existence.

Mind boggling derail! We are talking about the metaphysical concept of absolute time not about my own existence.

A derail you say?

The existence I'm talking about is the existence of time. Try again.

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

I think I already told you that amounts are not the kind of things of which we want to say they have or have not ends.

All you did was claim this. You somehow think empty claims are dictates from heaven.

Similarly, the king of things that are said to occur are events in time, not time itself.

Yes, which means every moment in time corresponds to a specific and unique arrangement of all that exists.

So to say there was infinite time is to say there were infinite changes to the arrangement of all that exists.

So before any present arrangement you are saying there were infinite arrangements first.

But if I asked you to perform infinite rearrangements you would never finish, but you somehow think infinite rearrangements finished already in the past.

You somehow think infinite time in the future is a different amount of time than infinite time in the past.

Again, counting time backward would indeed have no end, but I already explained this very clearly. And again, that counting time backward would have no end is a very different idea from the idea that time goes on without end.

You haven't explained it one bit.

Infinite time in the future is time without end.

You somehow think infinite time in the past would represent some different amount of time.

Your position is ridiculously simple-minded.

 

[untermensche]

If somebody claims time never started, it has no beginning, then the amount of time that would have passed never ends.

It is saying time that never ends just ended at this moment.

No, it's saying that infinite time in the past had no beginning.

Your invented notion that "it's saying that time that never ends just ended at this moment" is not an implication of that statement that I need to consider, as my statement clearly does not say or even imply that.

It does imply it and you've simply hidden your head in the sand and ignored my argument.

If you don't even address the argument your claims are worthless.

 

[untermensche]

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

Amounts don't end, so you still have a problem with your English.

Amounts of time do.

An hour of time ends. I assure you.

This is quite confusing and a bit comical, because you're actually arguing that an amount of time does not end. (E.g., in the clumsily worded "the amount of time that would have passed never ends").

You'd have to say more than this for me to understand what you're talking about.

Because what I am arguing is the amount of time that has passed already must be finite.

That is the only way to have a present moment. If the amount of time in the past finishes passing.

An amount of time that finishes passing is a finite amount of time.

 

[bilby]

You are still saying the amount of time that passed before any present moment is an amount that never ends.

Amounts don't end, so you still have a problem with your English.

Amounts of time do.

An hour of time ends. I assure you.

This is quite confusing and a bit comical, because you're actually arguing that an amount of time does not end. (E.g., in the clumsily worded "the amount of time that would have passed never ends").

You'd have to say more than this for me to understand what you're talking about.

Because what I am arguing is the amount of time that has passed already must be finite.

That is the only way to have a present moment. If the amount of time in the past finishes passing.

An amount of time that finishes passing is a finite amount of time.

Unless that time has no beginning, in which case it is infinite.

Of course, infinite time couldn't pass - that would take an infinite amount of time. Oh, wait; in this scenario, we HAVE an infinite amount of time for that to happen.

So your argument is that the past cannot be infinite, unless it isn't finite. (And you strongly believe that it is finite, so that 'proves' it).

It is still the same old circular argument from incredulity with which you started. The fact is that all the 'problems' you have raised are only problems if you assume a finite time for the infinite past to occupy. But if the past is infinite, that assumption is false.

 

[untermensche]

Unless that time has no beginning, in which case it is infinite.

This neither addresses the logic of the argument or demonstrates anything.

It is like saying; If god created the universe then he is powerful.

It is a statement of faith that touches on nothing real except the universe exists.

To say time has no beginning is an empty claim. To say it is infinite is an empty claim. Neither are supported by any evidence or logic.

You think stringing together two empty claims amounts to an argument. It is laughable.

Of course, infinite time couldn't pass - that would take an infinite amount of time. Oh, wait; in this scenario, we HAVE an infinite amount of time for that to happen.

The claim is that infinite time already passed.

I am not saying it impossible for infinite time to pass.

I am saying it is impossible for infinite time to have finished passing before any present moment.

I am saying it is impossible for infinite time to finish.