Infinte Regress Timeline...

[bilby]

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?

I don't struggle with it; it is obviously wrong.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never finishes, and/or never starts passing.

If you don't know what 'infinite' means, then you have no place making arguments about it. If you do know, then you know that if a timeline is not bounded at BOTH ends, it is infinite.

I understand that you don't like the idea that time can be unbounded at its beginning; but what you like doesn't have any effect on whether something is true, or logical, or possible.

 

[skepticalbip]

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

It was a complete strawman.

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

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.

I have explained why I quit addressing your nonsensical ramblings like this but, of course you can't remember given your problem with short term memory.

 

[untermensche]

I don't struggle with it; it is obviously wrong.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never finishes, and/or never starts passing....

Time is something that can be measured. If it can be measured there can be an amount of it.

Just point out the difference in the amount of time you're talking about by saying it is an amount that never finishes and it is an amount that never starts? Which infinity is larger? An infinite past or an infinite future?

If we look at the amount of time in time that never starts we see it is an amount that grows without end. No matter how big the amount, it is still not near the end of growing.

An amount of time that grows without end is an amount that never finishes passing.

- - - Updated - - -

I have explained why I quit addressing your nonsensical ramblings like this but, of course you can't remember given your problem with short term memory.

You've got nothing. You've had nothing all thread. You are spent. You have nothing else.

Time for you to go away.

 

[bilby]

Time is something that can be measured. If it can be measured there can be an amount of it.

Just point out the difference in the amount of time you're talking about by saying it is an amount that never finishes and it is an amount that never starts? Which infinity is larger? An infinite past or an infinite future?

If we look at the amount of time in time that never starts we see it is an amount that grows without end. No matter how big the amount it is still not near the end of growing.

An amount of time that grows without end is an amount that never finishes passing.

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.

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'.

 

[untermensche]

Time is something that can be measured. If it can be measured there can be an amount of it.

Just point out the difference in the amount of time you're talking about by saying it is an amount that never finishes and it is an amount that never starts? Which infinity is larger? An infinite past or an infinite future?

If we look at the amount of time in time that never starts we see it is an amount that grows without end. No matter how big the amount it is still not near the end of growing.

An amount of time that grows without end is an amount that never finishes passing.

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.

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'.

What you need to do is point out the word, then show how I'm using it. Then show how this kind of usage is verboten.

 

[bilby]

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.

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'.

What you need to do is point out the word, then show how I'm using it. Then show how this kind of usage is verboten.

Already did that.

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.

An amount of time that grows without end limit is an amount that never finishes and/or never starts passing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Time is something that can be measured. If it can be measured there can be an amount of it.

Just point out the difference in the amount of time you're talking about by saying it is an amount that never finishes and it is an amount that never starts? Which infinity is larger? An infinite past or an infinite future?

If we look at the amount of time in time that never starts we see it is an amount that grows without end. No matter how big the amount, it is still not near the end of growing.

An amount of time that grows without end is an amount that never finishes passing.

- - - Updated - - -

I have explained why I quit addressing your nonsensical ramblings like this but, of course you can't remember given your problem with short term memory.

You've got nothing. You've had nothing all thread. You are spent. You have nothing else.

Time for you to go away.

I've got that you refuse to recognize your many logical fallacies even when pointed out to you and explained.

A few of the many:
Argument from incredulity – rejection because you can’t personally believe it.
Argumentum ex culco – making things up.
Argument by assertion – say it enough and it is assumed it will become true.
Equivocation – deliberate misuse of word definitions
False analogy – extending an analogy to the point of absurdity
Straw man – Distorting someone’s statements
Argumentum ad lapidem – dismissing a statement as absurd without giving a logical counter.
Begging the question – assuming the conclusion as a part of the premise.
Argument from ignorance - we just went over that one which you, of course, dismissed.

 

[untermensche]

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.

This is another way of saying an amount of time that can possibly finish passing.

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

That is the same as saying an amount of time that can never finish passing. If there is no terminus on one end, the amount has no limit. Even if there is a terminus on the other.

Not all infinities equal each other but infinite time equals infinite time.

It doesn't matter one bit which way the arrow moves from the terminus. It represents the same amount of time.

Infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends. Just as infinite time in the past is an amount that never ends.

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

Indeed. It has one terminus only. It is an amount without end.

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.

Here you go astray. I am saying, You think it is an amount with more than one terminus.

Having only one terminus means your amount is limitless.

You seem to think I am saying the present is not a terminus.

What I am saying is that having only one terminus is having one terminus.

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.

The only way to have a present moment is if the past had a terminus.

So we agree it has one.

You claim it only has one. And I say there are consequences to saying it only has one.

To say a line has only one terminus is to say it is a line that never ends. To say that an amount of time has only one terminus is to say it is an amount that never ends.

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

No more claims that only having one terminus somehow puts a limit to your size.

 

[bilby]

This is another way of saying an amount of time that can possibly finish passing.

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

That is the same as saying an amount of time that can never finish passing. If there is no terminus on one end, the amount has no limit. Even if there is a terminus on the other.

Not all infinities equal each other but infinite time equals infinite time.

It doesn't matter one bit which way the arrow moves from the terminus. It represents the same amount of time.

Infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends. Just as infinite time in the past is an amount that never ends.

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

Indeed. It has one terminus only. It is an amount without end.

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.

Here you go astray. I am saying, You think it is an amount with more than one terminus.

Having only one terminus means your amount is limitless.

You seem to think I am saying the present is not a terminus.

What I am saying is that having only one terminus is having one terminus.

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.

The only way to have a present moment is if the past had a terminus.

So we agree it has one.

You claim it only has one. And I say there are consequences to saying it only has one.

To say a line has only one terminus is to say it is a line that never ends. To say that an amount of time has only one terminus is to say it is an amount that never ends.

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

No more claims that only having one terminus somehow puts a limit to your size.

I am not claiming that. You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

The absence of a terminus in the past does NOT limit the size of the timeline (and I have not once suggested that it does). Quite the reverse; the absence of a terminus in the past would, regardless of the existence of a terminus in the present or future, render the timeline infinite. Which isn't a problem, because infinite time is thereby available in which the infinite past can fit. ONLY if you claim that the infinite past is finite (a contradiction) is a limit to the size of the past a problem.

You claim it only has one. And I say there are consequences to saying it only has one.

To say a line has only one terminus is to say it is a line that never ends has no terminus in one, UNSPECIFIED direction. To say that an amount of time has only one terminus is to say it is an amount that never ends EITHER has no terminus in the past; OR that it has no terminus in the present.

FIFY.

Now we both agree that the past has a terminus in the present; so your argument becomes "To say that an amount of time has only one terminus is to say it is an amount that never ends EITHER has no terminus in the past; OR that it has no terminus in the present.". Oh, look, your purported contradiction isn't a contradiction at all; just a restatement of what I already said.

Of course, if you don't mean "EITHER has no terminus in the past; OR that it has no terminus in the present" when you say "never ends", then you should probably let me know what you DO mean. Without using the weasel word 'end', which apparently means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

 

[untermensche]

I am not claiming that. You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

I just showed the claim to be empty.

If we say infinite time in the future, time with only one terminus, is time that never ends then the same is true of infinite time in the past. It too is time with only one terminus.

The absence of a terminus in the past does NOT limit the size of the timeline (and I have not once suggested that it does). Quite the reverse; the absence of a terminus in the past would, regardless of the existence of a terminus in the present or future, render the timeline infinite. Which isn't a problem, because infinite time is thereby available in which the infinite past can fit. ONLY if you claim that the infinite past is finite (a contradiction) is a limit to the size of the past a problem.

All you say here is if infinite time exists it fits in infinite time. It is not an argument going anywhere or an argument addressing the issue of having only one terminus.

If the timeline has no limit, and here you admit this, then this is saying an amount of time has passed that has no limit.

An amount of time with no limit is an amount of time that cannot finish. It cannot have passed before the terminus of the present.

Just because the line appears to end at the terminus, that does not mean it ever really could.

If we say that we will start the line at an infinite distance from the terminus and bring it back to the terminus we will never reach the terminus.

Saying an infinite amount of time can actually come to a terminus because we can draw a line with a terminus is not a logical argument.

Oh, look, your purported contradiction isn't a contradiction at all; just a restatement of what I already said.

That was not the contradiction. The contradiction was the conclusion from those two similar statements.

The contradiction is to say a line with no terminus in one unspecified direction terminated at some specific point.

Of course, if you don't mean "EITHER has no terminus in the past; OR that it has no terminus in the present." when you say "never ends", then you should probably let me know what you DO mean. Without using the weasel word 'end', which apparently means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

The present is the start of both the future and the past. It is not the end of either.

What I mean by the end is not the start.

 

[ryan]

This should be enough.

The past is unique, but infinity isn't.

In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week.

Nothing I have said so far was good enough for me to be completely satisfied with my position until now.

 

[bilby]

I just showed the claim to be empty.

If we say infinite time in the future, time with only one terminus, is time that never ends then the same is true of infinite time in the past. It too is time with only one terminus.

The absence of a terminus in the past does NOT limit the size of the timeline (and I have not once suggested that it does). Quite the reverse; the absence of a terminus in the past would, regardless of the existence of a terminus in the present or future, render the timeline infinite. Which isn't a problem, because infinite time is thereby available in which the infinite past can fit. ONLY if you claim that the infinite past is finite (a contradiction) is a limit to the size of the past a problem.

All you say here is if infinite time exists it fits in infinite time. It is not an argument going anywhere or an argument addressing the issue of having only one terminus.

If the timeline has no limit, and here you admit this, then this is saying an amount of time has passed that has no limit.

An amount of time with no limit is an amount of time that cannot finish. It cannot have passed before the terminus of the present.

Just because the line appears to end at the terminus, that does not mean it ever really could.

If we say that we will start the line at an infinite distance from the terminus and bring it back to the terminus we will never reach the terminus.

If we are considering an infinite past, there is no 'start'. The only way to have a 'start' is to assume finite time in the past - which is assuming your conclusion - a circular argument fallacy.

Our only agreed point of reference is the present; the past terminates here. It's existence is not in dispute. The existence (or otherwise) of a teminus in the past IS in dispute. If infinite time is required to reach the present, and infinite time exists in the past, then there is no reason to assert that 'that does not mean it ever really could'. You need to demonstrate this. I don't accept it as a given. Infinite time can (only) pass given infinite time to do so. So what? I understand that you feel uncomfortable about this; But expressing discomfort at an idea is not the same thing as showing it to be illogical.

Saying an infinite amount of time can actually come to a terminus because we can draw a line with a terminus is not a logical argument.

Oh, look, your purported contradiction isn't a contradiction at all; just a restatement of what I already said.

That was not the contradiction. The contradiction was the conclusion from those two similar statements.

The contradiction is to say a line with no terminus in one unspecified direction terminated at some specific point.

Of course, if you don't mean "EITHER has no terminus in the past; OR that it has no terminus in the present." when you say "never ends", then you should probably let me know what you DO mean. Without using the weasel word 'end', which apparently means whatever you want it to mean at the time.

The present is the start of both the future and the past. It is not the end of either.

What I mean by the end is not the start.

You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

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/FAQ...uivocation.htm.

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'.

- - - Updated - - -

This should be enough.

The past is unique, but infinity isn't.

In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week.

Nothing I have said so far was good enough for me to be completely satisfied with my position until now.

I am glad you are happy.

I don't think anyone else has a clue what you are going on about - I certainly don't - but as long as you are happy, I guess it is all good.

It has no apparent bearing whatsoever on the infinitude (or otherwise) of the past though, so perhaps it belongs in a different thread.

 

[ryan]

This should be enough.

The past is unique, but infinity isn't.

In a continuum of 10 seconds, we can say that there are 2^(aleph null) moments of time. I can't take out the 6th second of the 10 second timeline and say it's the same 10 seconds even though I still have the same number of moments.

Similarly, you can't delete out a week in history and say it's the same past as it was with the week.

Nothing I have said so far was good enough for me to be completely satisfied with my position until now.

I am glad you are happy.

I don't think anyone else has a clue what you are going on about - I certainly don't - but as long as you are happy, I guess it is all good.

It has no apparent bearing whatsoever on the infinitude (or otherwise) of the past though, so perhaps it belongs in a different thread.

It is like saying that if the third day of the last 5 days was taken out of the timeline, then there would still be the same 5 days. The past is unique; an infinite past is not.

 

[untermensche]

If we are considering an infinite past, there is no 'start'. The only way to have a 'start' is to assume finite time in the past - which is assuming your conclusion - a circular argument fallacy.

That is not my argument. Mine is; If we are considering an infinite past, there is no 'start'. To not have a 'start' means your amount has no limit. Time with no limit is an amount of time that never finishes.

It is illogical to claim an amount of time that never finishes has finished at the present moment.

Our only agreed point of reference is the present; the past terminates here. It's existence is not in dispute. The existence (or otherwise) of a teminus in the past IS in dispute. If infinite time is required to reach the present, and infinite time exists in the past, then there is no reason to assert that 'that does not mean it ever really could'. You need to demonstrate this. I don't accept it as a given. Infinite time can (only) pass given infinite time to do so. So what? I understand that you feel uncomfortable about this; But expressing discomfort at an idea is not the same thing as showing it to be illogical.

The past does not terminate at the present it begins at the present.

You have the present and that present becomes the past. The present is the start of the past. Just as it is the start of the future.

The start of the past and the future is the present and the end of both is the furthest point from the start.

You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

I'm the only one using it consistently.

I'm using it to mean the furthest point from the terminus every time I use it.

 

[bilby]

That is not my argument. Mine is; If we are considering an infinite past, there is no 'start'. To not have a 'start' means your amount has no limit. Time with no limit is an amount of time that never finishes.

No it isn't; the 'finish' limit is still there. The 'start' is the limit we are assuming is not there; to turn around and then say that removing the 'start' also removes the 'finish' needs some explanation - it certainly isn't an obvious or logical inference.

It is illogical to claim an amount of time that never finishes has finished at the present moment.

That's true. it is a good thing nobody is doing that.

Our only agreed point of reference is the present; the past terminates here. It's existence is not in dispute. The existence (or otherwise) of a teminus in the past IS in dispute. If infinite time is required to reach the present, and infinite time exists in the past, then there is no reason to assert that 'that does not mean it ever really could'. You need to demonstrate this. I don't accept it as a given. Infinite time can (only) pass given infinite time to do so. So what? I understand that you feel uncomfortable about this; But expressing discomfort at an idea is not the same thing as showing it to be illogical.

The past does not terminate at the present it begins at the present.

It terminates at the present; but it doesn't begin at the present. A period of time beginning at the present is called 'the future'. I assert that the future is not the past, and offer my failure to win the lottery next week as evidence.

You have the present and that present becomes the past. The present is the start of the past. Just as it is the start of the future.

Nonsense. The present is the conclusion of the past. Time doesn't flow in both directions from the present.

The start of the past and the future is the present and the end of both is the furthest point from the start.

There is that equivocation again. If the 'end' of the past is the furthest point from the present, then there is no problem at all; You have already accepted time 'without end' for the future, and it can be the same for the past. There is no problem with getting to the present if the present is the beginning; by definition we are already there. But if the 'end' of the past is the furthest point in the past from the present, then there is no need for the past to 'finish' any more than there is a need for the future to 'finish'.

You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

I'm the only one using it consistently.

Rubbish. In just this one post you have used it to mean the present, and the point in the past furthest from the present.

I'm using it to mean the furthest point from the terminus every time I use it.

But you are not being specific about which of your proposed terminii it is farthest from.

 

[skepticalbip]

Bilby:
You are STILL equivocating on the definition of the word 'end'. You need to stop doing that; it is not necessary to use that word, unless you are intent on confusing the issue.

I'm the only one using it consistently.

I'm using it to mean the furthest point from the terminus every time I use it.

There is no furtherest point from the terminus on an infinity unbounded on one end. To say furtherest point is to assume a finite time (a limit).

Assuming a furtherest point is the logical fallacy of begging the question. You are assuming an finite time in making that statement.

 

[ryan]

How can all of something completely pass without ever starting?!

 

[skepticalbip]

How can all of something pass without ever starting?!

How can something that has always been have a start?

 

[bilby]

How can all of something pass without ever starting?!

How can time start without a cause at an earlier time?

Nobody knows how time works.

Neither finite nor infinite time make intuitive sense; but lots of demonstrably true things are counterintuitive. How can a single electron produce interference fringes?

 

[ryan]

How can all of something pass without ever starting?!

How can something that has always been have a start?

If it has always been, then all of it cannot pass.