Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

I will assume that you agree.

No assuming; instead, accept the fact that I'm not playing your game.

I never play games; I only want to clear this up. I am trying to find where the disconnect is.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

That makes no sense.

What do you imagine the point of your word game that you're playing with yourself is, ryan?

How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

 

[Juma]

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

Yes. As is the claim that time had a beginning.

Which of them that is true must be decided from evidence, not logical deductions.

Whatcan be done is to ensure that your position is without logical contradictions.

 

[untermensche]

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

Yes. As is the claim that time had a beginning.

Which of them that is true must be decided from evidence, not logical deductions.

I mean logical support. An argument has to made to show how it is possible that time without end has already ended.

 

[untermensche]

It's a bait-and-switch. You use the word 'end' to mean 'limit'; and then later you use it to mean 'upper limit', as if these were the same thing.

To end means to finish. If infinite time in the past were to end, say at every present moment as it does, that is to say it finishes at every present moment.

Infinite time doesn't finish or end.

Infinite time is time without limits. If we consider the past as finishing today, then that only establishes an upper limit; It says nothing about the existence or otherwise of a lower limit, so it is inadequate to settle the question of whether or not the past is finite.

If we say time is without limits then we are saying it is an amount of time that never ends. Time without limits in the future is time that never ends.

You are claiming that time that never ends finishes today.

It is ridiculous.

 

[untermensche]

[
How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

This to me seems to be the last resort of people that don't like the arguments.

They don't address them at all. They pretend they can't make sense of them. They feign ignorance. It is pathetic.

 

[Juma]

Yes. As is the claim that time had a beginning.

Which of them that is true must be decided from evidence, not logical deductions.

I mean logical support. An argument has to made to show how it is possible that time without end has already ended.

We are talking about time without start. I have no idea why you talk about time without end

 

[Juma]

[
How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

This to me seems to be the last resort of people that don't like the arguments.

They don't address them at all. They pretend they can't make sense of them. They feign ignorance. It is pathetic.

Problem is that we do adress them but you simply ignore our counter arguments.

 

[Mageth]

Whaaaat?

Is there a point to that nonsense?

Both you and ryan appear to be randomly throwing darts hoping you'll eventually hit something.

You obviously have some dissonance.

This is a simple complete argument.

It has to be read.

I did read your assertion in which you clumsily and comically declare that the present must come before the past. Simple is correct. Complete is not.

Your latest attempt once again does not exclude the possibility of an infinite past. An infinite past has no beginning; there is no point in an infinite past that is not a finite distance from the present or any other point in the past, and there is no point in an infinite past before which there is not an infinite past.

So the requirement that I can parse out of your clumsily worded assertion that "you can't have a past without the present first" is met by an infinite past, as any stretch of time that you consider in an infinite past is bounded by a "present" in the past, as well as the present in the present, so to speak. (Clumsiness of wording inherited from you.)

The same is true if considering change instead of time; if the past is eternal, then there is no present state before which there wasn't a prior state, and there is no prior state before which there wasn't a prior state (i.e., your "present state"). So your again clumsily worded "You can't have a prior state of the universe without a present state first" does not exclude an eternal past.

The only argument I see you making is one from incredulity, as echoed in your latest attempt which is nothing more than an assertion that time MUST have had a beginning, and that there MUST have been a first state.

 

[skepticalbip]

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

No one is claiming that time had no beginning. They are claiming that it is one of the two only possibilities. We don't know which is reality. (However cosmologists think an infinite past is most likely)

Since your whole "proof" is supposedly logic then you need to learn some of the rules of logic.

Pointing out that one of the two possibilities can not be proven does not prove that the other is reality. That is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance that I have explained to you at least a dozen times, likely a hell of a lot more.

If either could be proven then we would no longer say that we just don't know.

It is you that is making the positive claim that time had a finite beginning so it is you that needs to support such a claim with positive evidence.

 

[Mageth]

No assuming; instead, accept the fact that I'm not playing your game.

I never play games; I only want to clear this up. I am trying to find where the disconnect is.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

That makes no sense.

What do you imagine the point of your word game that you're playing with yourself is, ryan?

How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

It's not that I don't think you're sincere. It's that I'm not playing "20 questions" with you in your attempt to wrangle words in a way which you think makes some kind of point. If you have a point to this, just post it. With all due respect, you do tend to obfuscate and confuse yourself with your attempts at arguments.

Meanwhile, I'm in the present, and time is passing, which is where I would be and what time would be doing whether the past is finite or infinite.

 

[skepticalbip]

Saying time had no beginning is a claim in need of support.

No one is claiming that time had no beginning. They are claiming that it is one of the two only possibilities. We don't know which is reality. (However cosmologists think an infinite past is most likely)

Since your whole "proof" is supposedly logic then you need to learn some of the rules of logic.

Pointing out that one of the two possibilities can not be proven does not prove that the other is reality. That is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance that I have explained to you at least a dozen times, likely a hell of a lot more.

If either could be proven then we would no longer say that we just don't know.

It is you that is making the positive claim that time had a finite beginning so it is you that needs to support such a claim with positive evidence.

To add to this, since you refuse to look up "argument from ignorance"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam in its most formal definition is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true.

In this case you are arguing that, since there are only two possibilities, the fact that one has not be proven true means that it must be false so the other possibility that you firmly believe must be true.

 

[ryan]

I never play games; I only want to clear this up. I am trying to find where the disconnect is.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

That makes no sense.

What do you imagine the point of your word game that you're playing with yourself is, ryan?

How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

It's not that I don't think you're sincere. It's that I'm not playing "20 questions" with you in your attempt to wrangle words in a way which you think makes some kind of point. If you have a point to this, just post it. With all due respect, you do tend to obfuscate and confuse yourself with your attempts at arguments.

Meanwhile, I'm in the present, and time is passing, which is where I would be and what time would be doing whether the past is finite or infinite.

Since you don't want to answer the question, I will. I think that time passes by a frame of reference or a reference frame passes through time. For the purposes of this argument, I don't think it matters which is actually true. If you disagree, please give your definitions now.

I also want to make a distinction between "passing time" and "passed time".

I think that "passing time" is an unfinished arbitrary amount of time. And "passed time" means that some amount of time existed in some reference frame from start to finish. Again, if you disagree, please give your definitions now.

The reason that I bring this all up is because you said in post #1890, "Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite.". If all of infinity passed by some reference frame, then there is a unit of time an infinite number of units away from the present.

And even more important, an infinite number of units would have had a beginning and an end if you can agree with me on what "passed by" means. This would be fine if the units of time were infinitesimals, but we can clearly see that they are not.

 

[Mageth]

I never play games; I only want to clear this up. I am trying to find where the disconnect is.

Now, what does this infinite number of sequential units of time pass by?

That makes no sense.

What do you imagine the point of your word game that you're playing with yourself is, ryan?

How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

It's not that I don't think you're sincere. It's that I'm not playing "20 questions" with you in your attempt to wrangle words in a way which you think makes some kind of point. If you have a point to this, just post it. With all due respect, you do tend to obfuscate and confuse yourself with your attempts at arguments.

Meanwhile, I'm in the present, and time is passing, which is where I would be and what time would be doing whether the past is finite or infinite.

Since you don't want to answer the question, I will. I think that time passes by a frame of reference or a reference frame passes through time. For the purposes of this argument, I don't think it matters which is actually true. If you disagree, please give your definitions now.

I also want to make a distinction between "passing time" and "passed time".

I think that "passing time" is an unfinished arbitrary amount of time. And "passed time" means that some amount of time existed in some reference frame from start to finish. Again, if you disagree, please give your definitions now.

So in your argument you assume the past had a beginning and an end. Argument FAIL.

Again, the simple definition of an infinite past is a past that had no beginning. That's it.

The reason that I bring this all up is because you said in post #1890, "Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite.". If all of infinity passed by some reference frame, then there is a unit of time an infinite number of units away from the present.

Nonsense. If there is no beginning to the past, there is a unit of time before your alleged "unit of time an infinite number of units away from the present", and before that one, and so on. And that unit is a finite distance of time from the unit after it, and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on to the present. Turns out that that unit is actually a finite distance away from the present. The present is reachable from any given point in the past, whether the past is finite or infinite. Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite. In addition, if there was no beginning to time, then for any given unit in the past, there is an infinity of time before it.

And even more important, an infinite number of units would have had a beginning and an end if you can agree with me on what "passed by" means.

So if I agree with you that the past had a beginning and and end, then the past had a beginning and an end. Gotcha.

This would be fine if the units of time were infinitesimals, but we can clearly see that they are not.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that time is in "sequential units" that march by us as on parade. A useful analogy, perhaps, but...

Again, you strain yourself too hard. It's quite simple. I'm in the present, and time is passing, which is where I would be and what time would be doing whether the past is finite or infinite.

 

[ryan]

I never play games; I only want to clear this up. I am trying to find where the disconnect is.

How frustrating, I try to dig deeper into this problem, and you suddenly can't play "word games"? Exactly what reason have I ever given to make you think that I don't post sincerely?

It's not that I don't think you're sincere. It's that I'm not playing "20 questions" with you in your attempt to wrangle words in a way which you think makes some kind of point. If you have a point to this, just post it. With all due respect, you do tend to obfuscate and confuse yourself with your attempts at arguments.

Meanwhile, I'm in the present, and time is passing, which is where I would be and what time would be doing whether the past is finite or infinite.

Since you don't want to answer the question, I will. I think that time passes by a frame of reference or a reference frame passes through time. For the purposes of this argument, I don't think it matters which is actually true. If you disagree, please give your definitions now.

I also want to make a distinction between "passing time" and "passed time".

I think that "passing time" is an unfinished arbitrary amount of time. And "passed time" means that some amount of time existed in some reference frame from start to finish. Again, if you disagree, please give your definitions now.

So in your argument you assume the past had a beginning and an end. Argument FAIL.

In the possibility of no beginning, does an infinite number of units of time pass by a frame of reference?

Again, the simple definition of an infinite past is a past that had no beginning. That's it.

Some on your side of the argument will say that it did have a beginning infinitely long ago.

The reason that I bring this all up is because you said in post #1890, "Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite.". If all of infinity passed by some reference frame, then there is a unit of time an infinite number of units away from the present.

Nonsense. If there is no beginning to the past, there is a unit of time before your alleged "unit of time an infinite number of units away from the present", and before that one, and so on. And that unit is a finite distance of time from the unit after it, and the one after that, and the one after that, and so on to the present. Turns out that that unit is actually a finite distance away from the present. The present is reachable from any given point in the past, whether the past is finite or infinite. Any given unit in the past is a finite distance from today, whether the past is finite or infinite. In addition, if there was no beginning to time, then for any given unit in the past, there is an infinity of time before it.

What about all of the units of time that passed; that is not a finite number of units.

And even more important, an infinite number of units would have had a beginning and an end if you can agree with me on what "passed by" means.

So if I agree with you that the past had a beginning and and end, then the past had a beginning and an end.

If all infinite units of time had to pass by a frame of reference up until the present, then how could there not be a start and finish?

Gotcha.

Don't be cynical.

This would be fine if the units of time were infinitesimals, but we can clearly see that they are not.

BTW, I don't necessarily agree that time is in "sequential units" that march by us as on parade. A useful analogy, perhaps, but...

And I already bent on this. I think that I need to assume that time goes in one direction for my side of the argument to hold.

 

[untermensche]

This to me seems to be the last resort of people that don't like the arguments.

They don't address them at all. They pretend they can't make sense of them. They feign ignorance. It is pathetic.

Problem is that we do adress them but you simply ignore our counter arguments.

I have tried not to ignore anything.

If there was some clear refutation then everybody would be continually making it and they would simply put it forth every time I put forth my argument.

But no such thing is occurring.

The arguments are all over the place and even when I show the problems with the arguments they arise again at some later time as a zombie.

The major problem you are having is you think there can be any limit to the amount of time that has passed if we say time has always existed.

You are basically saying infinite time does not equal infinite time.

Infinite time in the future is time without end. It is time that never finishes.

Yet you somehow think time in the past is a different amount of time. You think it is time that can finish passing.

Because the only way to have a present moment in time is if all the previous moments in time have finished passing. If they have come and gone. If they have ALL completed.

But if the amount of time in the past is infinite then it must be the same amount of time as an infinite future. It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying the amount of time in the past is without end yet it ended at the present moment.

Infinite time in the past is an illogical belief that contradicts itself.

 

[Mageth]

If all infinite units of time had to pass by a frame of reference up until the present, then how could there not be a start and finish?

Infinity is not a number. "Infinite units" does not denote some finite number of units that you can have "all" of and stick a start and finish on.

Time is unbounded assuming an infinite past, i.e. there is no "start" to time assuming an infinite past. So an unbounded amount of time could have passed assuming an infinite past.

In any case, the past has passed; this is true whether the past is finite or infinite. Neither you nor unter has come anywhere near demonstrating that the past couldn't have passed if the past is infinite.

 

[Mageth]

Because the only way to have a present moment in time is if all the previous moments in time have finished passing. If they have come and gone. If they have ALL completed.

And given an infinite past, the past would have passed, and we would be at the present moment. Where else would we be? What's your problem?

But if the amount of time in the past is infinite then it must be the same amount of time as an infinite future.

This??? This is complete, total, and utter bollocks, based on a misunderstanding of/butchering of the concept of infinity.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying the amount of time in the past is without end yet it ended at the present moment.

One more time, no one is saying that but you.

One more time: If the past is infinite, then there was no beginning to time in the past. Yet we are, of course, are still here. As we would be if the past is finite. Where else would we be?

 

[ryan]

If all infinite units of time had to pass by a frame of reference up until the present, then how could there not be a start and finish?

Infinity is not a number. "Infinite units" does not denote some finite number of units that you can have "all" of and stick a start and finish on.

Time is unbounded assuming an infinite past, i.e. there is no "start" to time assuming an infinite past. So an unbounded amount of time could have passed assuming an infinite past.

If an infinite number of units of time have passed, then all units of time that have passed is also an infinite number. So how can all of something pass without a beginning and an end?

In any case, the past has passed; this is true whether the past is finite or infinite. Neither you nor unter has come anywhere near demonstrating that the past couldn't have passed if the past is infinite.

Can you not see how frustrating it is for us to read that a never-ending length of time passed? That is a paradox, a clear contradiction!

 

[untermensche]

You obviously have some dissonance.

This is a simple complete argument.

It has to be read.

I did read your assertion in which you clumsily and comically declare that the present must come before the past. Simple is correct. Complete is not.

Thank you. I strive for comedy. This is a matter that has absolutely no real world implications.

Are you saying the past comes before the present?

Your latest attempt once again does not exclude the possibility of an infinite past. An infinite past has no beginning; there is no point in an infinite past that is not a finite distance from the present or any other point in the past, and there is no point in an infinite past before which there is not an infinite past.

How many times do I have to say it?

I'm only showing it is illogical to claim that time was infinite in the past. The idea contradicts itself. The amount of time that has already passed must end. It must end at the present moment. That is the only way to get a present moment. You get a present moment when all the previous present moments have finished passing. So saying infinite time in the past is like saying an amount that never finishes finished right before the present moment. The idea directly contradicts itself.

The same is true if considering change instead of time; if the past is eternal, then there is no present state before which there wasn't a prior state, and there is no prior state before which there wasn't a prior state (i.e., your "present state"). So your again clumsily worded "You can't have a prior state of the universe without a present state first" does not exclude an eternal past.

Talking about present and prior states only tells us about how time works. That time is directional.

So all we can say about states is that present states are all that exist. But a present state is a change from a previous state. So in terms of the past, when the present state changes, what it changed from is labeled the past. The past is a state of the universe that existed but no longer exists.

But none of this talk about states leads us to any conclusion about an eternity of states. You simply thrust in the word eternity as a non sequitur and begin to talk about what infinite states would look like. I have no doubt you can describe many aspects of your imaginary conception of infinite states, but none of them are an argument that shows believing their were infinite states in the past is a rational belief.

The only argument I see you making is one from incredulity, as echoed in your latest attempt which is nothing more than an assertion that time MUST have had a beginning, and that there MUST have been a first state.

My argument is as follows.

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.

This is not an argument from incredulity. An argument from incredulity is an argument that states the lack of belief in some thing leads to belief in another.

I am saying an idea contradicts itself. It is self-contradicting.

The only logical argument you can make is to show how there is no contradiction. Labeling it an argument from incredulity is simply throwing shit against the wall and hoping some sticks.

 

[bilby]

Problem is that we do adress them but you simply ignore our counter arguments.

I have tried not to ignore anything.

If there was some clear refutation then everybody would be continually making it and they would simply put it forth every time I put forth my argument.

But no such thing is occurring.

Perhaps there are several things wrong with your argument? That would also explain your observation.

There are a handful of objections we keep raising; they have been said is several different ways, in an attempt to present them in a manner you can comprehend - Clearly you don't comprehend them, because each time they are raised, you ignore or dismiss them.

The arguments are all over the place and even when I show the problems with the arguments they arise again at some later time as a zombie.

The major problem you are having is you think there can be any limit to the amount of time that has passed if we say time has always existed.

That's not a problem; it is a fact. An infinite line can be bounded at one end, and remains infinite. This is not only true; You accept that it is true, with regards to the future. And yet when it comes to the past, you have a mental block that makes you declare that it is 'illogical', despite your inability to articulate why it is illogical.

You are basically saying infinite time does not equal infinite time.

Infinite time in the future is time without end. It is time that never finishes.

Yes. Time with a beginning but no end is infinite time - as is time with an end but no beginning. They are the same object, reflected.

Yet you somehow think time in the past is a different amount of time. You think it is time that can finish passing.

That is an observation; We are here. So the past has finished. It is therefore either time with a beginning and an end (finite); OR time with no beginning, and an end (infinite). Either is possible.

Because the only way to have a present moment in time is if all the previous moments in time have finished passing. If they have come and gone. If they have ALL completed.

Yes. But that tells us nothing about whether (or when) they started. If the past is finite, then there has been finite time for them to pass, which is OK; If the past is infinite, they can never all pass in finite time - the time required for that is infinite. But if the past is infinite, then the time available is infinite. So there is no problem.

The only way there can be a problem with infinite time passing is if there is only finite time available - which is a contradiction (as well as, apparently, your avowed belief).

But if the amount of time in the past is infinite then it must be the same amount of time as an infinite future.

Not necessarily, but it doesn't matter because:

It must be an amount of time that never finishes.

This is completely wrong; it is not supported by anything. A road that begins here, and stretches infinitely to the east, has an infinite extent. Placing a mirror at the cul-de-sac, we see a road that ends here, and stretches infinitely to the west. The two are the same length; and there is nothing that makes one 'logical' and the other 'illogical'.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying the amount of time in the past is without end yet it ended at the present moment.

You are confusing yourself; You refer to both 'ends' of a line, and then refer to one of them as an 'end' as opposed to a 'beginning'.

Infinite time in the past is an illogical belief that contradicts itself.

Using the same word to mean two different things in the same argument, while pretending that they are synonymous, is a logical fallacy http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm.

If the past has two terminii - one at the start of time, and the other at the present moment, then it is finite.

If the past has one terminus - at the present moment - and does not have another terminus somewhere in the past, then it is infinite.

Neither of these statements can be shown to be true (or false) with current evidence.

Let us state your position once again, using the word 'terminus' to mean the limit of a line, and using the phrases 'in the past'; 'in the present' and 'in the future' to denote the positions of any terminii you wish to mention explicitly, and see what we get:

Infinite time in the future is time without a terminus in the future. It is time that never finishes.

Yet you somehow think time in the past is a different amount of time. You think it is time that can have a terminus in the present.

Because the only way to have a present moment in time is if all the previous moments in time have a terminus in their future. If they have come and gone. If they have ALL completed.

But if the amount of time in the past is infinite then it must be the same amount of time as an infinite future. It must be an amount of time that does not have a terminus in the future.​

There is nothing here to deny the possibility of time with a terminus in the present, but without a terminus in the past.

Perhaps I have mistranslated your argument. Please provide a statement of your position that replaces any use of the word 'end' with 'terminus'; or (if you need to specify) 'terminus in the past/present/future', bearing in mind that the word 'terminus', without a qualifier, can mean in the past OR the present OR the future. 'Start' must be replaced either with 'terminus in the past', and 'finish' with 'terminus in the future' as appropriate.

No more woolly language; If you cannot present your argument using unequivocal terms, then it is a flawed argument.