Infinte Regress Timeline...

[skepticalbip]

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.

The best I can figure is that they both are using two different definitions for "passed" or "passing" in their so called arguments. In one case they are using it to mean it is over having occurred sometime in the past. Then they use it in the next part of their "argument" to mean something like whatever point in time is considered has to wait for all previous time to pass by it before it can happen (a completely nonsensical idea). It would be just as nonsensical with finite time - we don't have to wait for the fall of Rome to pass by us before we can have a tomorrow. The fall of Rome already happened with either finite or infinite time. Given infinite time there is infinite time for infinite time to have occurred before our now.

 

[untermensche]

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?

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that never finishes. You can't say; Given an amount of time in the past that never finishes passing, the past would have passed....

You can't begin a logical thought with a clear contradiction.

No logic will flow from it.

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.

Just show me the equation that shows infinite time does not equal infinite time.

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?

I understand what saying there was infinite time in the past means. It can be abstracted into a concept of something with no beginning.

But making the abstraction doesn't change the amount of infinite time. infinite time is an amount of time that will never finish passing.

If you disagree then tell me when infinite time in the future would finish passing.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Yes that incredible "handful" of arguments you can't seem to list here.

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.

The situation can be abstracted by using lines and arrows and an arbitrary point.

But pointing to the abstraction and saying it is an argument is ludicrous.

The abstraction means something. The arrow means the line goes on without end. Which is exactly like saying an amount of time that will never finish passing.

You are saying, "Don't look at the arrow. Focus only on the arbitrary point. It shows the amount can end."

No it doesn't. The point is arbitrary because when time is modeled with a line it is possible to arbitrarily pick a point on that line.

But the arbitrary point is not the issue. The issue is the length of the line before it.

What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present? Where does that line end?

 

[bilby]

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.

Yes that incredible "handful" of arguments you can't seem to list here.

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.

The situation can be abstracted by using lines and arrows and an arbitrary point.

But pointing to the abstraction and saying it is an argument is ludicrous.

The abstraction means something. The arrow means the line goes on without end. Which is exactly like saying an amount of time that will never finish passing.

You are saying, "Don't look at the arrow. Focus only on the arbitrary point. It shows the amount can end."

No it doesn't. The point is arbitrary because when time is modeled with a line it is possible to arbitrarily pick a point on that line.

But the arbitrary point is not the issue. The issue is the length of the line before it.

What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present? Where does that line end?

I shall not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

 

[ryan]

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.

The best I can figure is that they both are using two different definitions for "passed" or "passing" in their so called arguments. In one case they are using it to mean it is over having occurred sometime in the past. Then they use it in the next part of their "argument" to mean something like whatever point in time is considered has to wait for all previous time to pass by it before it can happen (a completely nonsensical idea). It would be just as nonsensical with finite time - we don't have to wait for the fall of Rome to pass by us before we can have a tomorrow.
The fall of Rome already happened with either finite or infinite time.

I have said that I think my side of the argument requires one direction of time, a sequence.

Given infinite time there is infinite time for infinite time to have occurred before our now.

Okay, then there is a beginning and an end if we have an infinite amount of time that an infinite number of units completely pass in, right? Geometrically, both of these ends don't exist for a typical frame of reference in this universe. Although, they may exist for some other frame of reference.

 

[untermensche]

Yes that incredible "handful" of arguments you can't seem to list here.

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.

The situation can be abstracted by using lines and arrows and an arbitrary point.

But pointing to the abstraction and saying it is an argument is ludicrous.

The abstraction means something. The arrow means the line goes on without end. Which is exactly like saying an amount of time that will never finish passing.

You are saying, "Don't look at the arrow. Focus only on the arbitrary point. It shows the amount can end."

No it doesn't. The point is arbitrary because when time is modeled with a line it is possible to arbitrarily pick a point on that line.

But the arbitrary point is not the issue. The issue is the length of the line before it.

What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present? Where does that line end?

I shall not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

I will be the judge of that.

Minus one word of argument.

I wonder if you will ever answer those last two questions about your model?

 

[skepticalbip]

I shall not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

That is why I gave up quiet a while ago trying to argue his "points" and just occasionally point out the absurdity of his "statements of fact". His whole argument is built on logical fallacies which he refuses to acknowledge when pointed out to him.

 

[untermensche]

I shall not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

That is why I gave up quiet a while ago trying to argue his "points" and just occasionally point out the absurdity of his "statements of fact". His whole argument is built on logical fallacies which he refuses to acknowledge when pointed out to him.

Feel free to point.

The fallacies, by your claims, seem very well known to you.

Just list the most salient.

But please don't make it "We just don't know."

We very well DO know if arguments are logical or not.

 

[bilby]

Yes that incredible "handful" of arguments you can't seem to list here.

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.

The situation can be abstracted by using lines and arrows and an arbitrary point.

But pointing to the abstraction and saying it is an argument is ludicrous.

The abstraction means something. The arrow means the line goes on without end. Which is exactly like saying an amount of time that will never finish passing.

You are saying, "Don't look at the arrow. Focus only on the arbitrary point. It shows the amount can end."

No it doesn't. The point is arbitrary because when time is modeled with a line it is possible to arbitrarily pick a point on that line.

But the arbitrary point is not the issue. The issue is the length of the line before it.

What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present? Where does that line end?

I shall not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

I will be the judge of that.

Minus one word of argument.

I wonder if you will ever answer those last two questions about your model?

The first of the questions - "What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present?" - I can answer; it is either infinite, if it has no terminus in the past; or it is finite, if it has a terminus in the past. There is no way to tell which from currently available evidence.

The second question - "Where does that line end?" - I will not address, until you re-phrase it to make clear what you mean by 'end' in this context. You are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'; I can't respond to your question without knowing what it means.

 

[untermensche]

The first of the questions - "What is the length of the line before the arbitrary point you label as the present?" - I can answer; it is either infinite, if it has no terminus in the past; or it is finite, if it has a terminus in the past. There is no way to tell which from currently available evidence.

In what country did you learn that an arrow meant this?

The second question - "Where does that line end?" - I will not address, until you re-phrase it to make clear what you mean by 'end' in this context.

It clearly has a starting point. Then the line moves from that point and has an arrow on the end of it.

Where does that line end?

 

[bilby]

In what country did you learn that an arrow meant this?

The second question - "Where does that line end?" - I will not address, until you re-phrase it to make clear what you mean by 'end' in this context.

It clearly has a starting point. Then the line moves from that point and has an arrow on the end of it.

Where does that line end?

Where the fuck did 'arrows' come from, and how are they relevant to anything? You yourself said that to abstract the argument using arrows would be ludicrous; I am happy to accept your judgement that to do so would not help at all with understanding the question under discussion.

I am not talking about pre-gunpowder era projectile weapons; I am talking about time. And you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end', so I will not respond to any more of your posts that use the word 'end', except to repeat that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation on the two different meanings of the word 'end'.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is why I gave up quiet a while ago trying to argue his "points" and just occasionally point out the absurdity of his "statements of fact". His whole argument is built on logical fallacies which he refuses to acknowledge when pointed out to him.

Feel free to point.

The fallacies, by your claims, seem very well known to you.

Just list the most salient.

But please don't make it "We just don't know."

We very well DO know if arguments are logical or not.

Damned dude, you really need to see a professional about you loss of short term memory. The last one I pointed out can be found on page 192. I'm not going to dig back through this whole thread to find the many, many times that I pointed out that you know squat about logic by naming and explaining the fallacies that you were using. It would be useless because you would forget about it before you finished reading the post.

 

[untermensche]

Feel free to point.

The fallacies, by your claims, seem very well known to you.

Just list the most salient.

But please don't make it "We just don't know."

We very well DO know if arguments are logical or not.

Damned dude, you really need to see a professional about you loss of short term memory. The last one I pointed out can be found on page 192. I'm not going to dig back through this whole thread to find the many, many times that I pointed out that you know squat about logic by naming and explaining the fallacies that you were using. It would be useless because you would forget about it before you finished reading the post.

You know there are these fallacies but you don't know what they are?

I know what you are full of.

 

[skepticalbip]

Damned dude, you really need to see a professional about you loss of short term memory. The last one I pointed out can be found on page 192. I'm not going to dig back through this whole thread to find the many, many times that I pointed out that you know squat about logic by naming and explaining the fallacies that you were using. It would be useless because you would forget about it before you finished reading the post.

You know there are these fallacies but you don't know what they are?

I know what you are full of.

:laughing-smiley-014

You couldn't even find page 192?

For the many, many others, read back through the thread, if you can remember what you are looking for long enough to do it.

 

[bilby]

That is why I gave up quiet a while ago trying to argue his "points" and just occasionally point out the absurdity of his "statements of fact". His whole argument is built on logical fallacies which he refuses to acknowledge when pointed out to him.

Feel free to point.

The fallacies, by your claims, seem very well known to you.

Just list the most salient.

But please don't make it "We just don't know."

We very well DO know if arguments are logical or not.

...

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.

...

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.

...

Seen at University of Queensland today, a girl wearing a T-shirt that read:

UQ Department of Philosophy.
What part of "know" don't you understand?

Some of us know; others appear to struggle to recognise logical fallacies.

 

[untermensche]

You know there are these fallacies but you don't know what they are?

I know what you are full of.

:laughing-smiley-014

You couldn't even find page 192?

For the many, many others, read back through the thread, if you can remember what you are looking for long enough to do it.

Is this what I'm forced to wade through?

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.

This argument is a strawman.

What I am "proving" is that a claim is absurd.

The claim that time is infinite in the past is a claim that contradicts itself and is therefore not a logical claim.

It is like me claiming I am both the fastest runner and slowest runner in a pack of ten runners each finishing at a different time.

It is a claim that contradicts itself and is therefore illogical.

To say an infinite amount of time passed before any present moment is to say an amount of time that never finishes passing passed before any present moment.

It is a self-contradictory statement.

Therefore, now listen carefully, it is illogical to claim that time was infinite in the past.

I am making a claim about the logic of another claim. That claim being that it is logical to claim that time in the past is infinite.

I am saying, no, it is not logical to claim that.

 

[bilby]

:laughing-smiley-014

You couldn't even find page 192?

For the many, many others, read back through the thread, if you can remember what you are looking for long enough to do it.

Is this what I'm forced to wade through?

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.

This argument is a strawman.

What I am "proving" is that a claim is absurd.

The claim that time is infinite in the past is a claim that contradicts itself and is therefore not a logical claim.

It is like me claiming I am both the fastest runner and slowest runner in a pack of ten runners each finishing at a different time.

It is a claim that contradicts itself and is therefore illogical.

To say an infinite amount of time passed before any present moment is to say an amount of time that never finishes passing passed before any present moment.

NO. For the fucking umpteenth time, To say an infinite amount of time passed before any present moment is to say an amount of time that never STARTED passing passed before any present moment.

Everything you are saying stems from this error on your part; which you have only ever supported by the use of logical fallacies.

 

[skepticalbip]

:laughing-smiley-014

You couldn't even find page 192?

For the many, many others, read back through the thread, if you can remember what you are looking for long enough to do it.

Is this what I'm forced to wade through?

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.

This argument is a strawman.
.

Thus demonstrating that you can not even recognize a logical fallacy even when pointed out and explained to you.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I am arguing that there are two possibilities. That an argument can be logical or it can be illogical.

And showing an argument is illogical is proving it is illogical. So things can be proven.

I await an argument showing that the contradiction I point out really isn't a contradiction.

That is the only logical refutation to my argument.

...

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.

...

And what that word is, and how I'm using it differently is somebodies opinion.

There is no argument here for me to refute.

Some of us know; others appear to struggle to recognise logical fallacies.

If I say the sun is both a star and a planet do you struggle?

If I say I know everything but don't know what pancakes are do you struggle?

If I say time is imaginary and it is real do you struggle?

Why do you struggle when I point out saying infinite time occurred before any present moment is a contradiction because infinite time is an amount of time that never finishes passing?

 

[untermensche]

This argument is a strawman.
.

Thus showing that you can not even recognize a logical fallacy even when pointed out and explained to you.

It was a complete strawman.

It didn't and doesn't address a word of my argument.

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.