Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.

No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have an amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

 

[beero1000]

Bald assertions, and wrong. The universe is real and may very well be infinite.

No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have a amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?

 

[untermensche]

No. This is a bald assertion.

I am presenting logic.

What real thing can't be counted?

How is it possible to have a amount of real things that can't possibly be counted?

Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?

These are only questions that you completely dodged.

 

[beero1000]

Whatever that is, it isn't logic. Unless you think argument by incredulity is logic?

These are only questions that you completely dodged.

So where is your logic? Keep in mind that logical arguments don't usually end in question marks.

 

[untermensche]

These are only questions that you completely dodged.

So where is your logic? Keep in mind that logical arguments don't usually end in question marks.

Perhaps you could read the thread, but it started with the discussion of infinite regress.

My contention is that it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past.

If we take yesterday as an example. If time extends infinitely into the past that means that infinite time passed before yesterday occurred.

But this is impossible because infinite time never passes. That is the definition of infinite time. As you said unbounded. Never ending.

Therefore it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past because yesterday did occur.

 

[Kharakov]

In an infinite amount of time (eternity) many infinite lengths of time will pass. You're going to have to step into the logic son.

As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.

It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.

 

[untermensche]

As soon as you present some logic I'll step into it.

It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.

Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.

 

[Kharakov]

It appears that you are pretending not to understand (joking) or actually don't understand infinite sized subsets of infinite sets, infinite velocities, infinite rates of change, infinite distances, divided up into smaller sections of infinite distance, the hyperreal numbering system (which would help you understand the other concepts of "quasi discrete (discreet spell correction)" infinites), etc.

Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.

Numbers (and other symbols, like words) can be used to transmit information about reality, information which includes various concepts that could allow you to understand how an infinite amount of time can pass before an event occurs.

An eternal, always existing clock has struck noon an infinite amount of times. This does not mean that it does not strike noon once a day, or that it could not have reached today. It just means it has always been ticking away.

 

[untermensche]

Again, I'm talking about an infinite amount of a real thing.

I'm not talking about the imaginary world of numbers.

Numbers (and other symbols, like words) can be used to transmit information about reality, information which includes various concepts that could allow you to understand how an infinite amount of time can pass before an event occurs.

An eternal, always existing clock has struck noon an infinite amount of times. This does not mean that it does not strike noon once a day, or that it could not have reached today. It just means it has always been ticking away.

Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.

 

[none]

...
Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.

and this is what I was getting to in the OP, that there are an infinite possible positions and as such things still have a position not because of infinite possible positions but in spite of infinite possible positions..

 

[Kharakov]

Numbers (and other symbols, like words) can be used to transmit information about reality, information which includes various concepts that could allow you to understand how an infinite amount of time can pass before an event occurs.

An eternal, always existing clock has struck noon an infinite amount of times. This does not mean that it does not strike noon once a day, or that it could not have reached today. It just means it has always been ticking away.

Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.

Yeah. However, if it had already struck an infinite amount of times before noon yesterday, it wouldn't have to do so to strike noon yesterday. Remember, this clock always existed, and has struck noon every 24 hours for eternity. It pre-exists everything. Tick.. talk... tick... talk....

 

[untermensche]

Numbers are conceptual entities. They are not real entities.

And it is the same problem with this imaginary eternal already existing clock. If it must spin infinite times before it strikes noon yesterday, it will never strike noon yesterday.

Yeah. However, if it had already struck an infinite amount of times before noon yesterday, it wouldn't have to do so to strike noon yesterday. Remember, this clock always existed, and has struck noon every 24 hours for eternity. It pre-exists everything. Tick.. talk... tick... talk....

How does it strike infinite times before yesterday?

If infinite, there is no end to the striking that must occur first before it can strike yesterday.

 

[beero1000]

So where is your logic? Keep in mind that logical arguments don't usually end in question marks.

Perhaps you could read the thread, but it started with the discussion of infinite regress.

My contention is that it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past.

If we take yesterday as an example. If time extends infinitely into the past that means that infinite time passed before yesterday occurred.

But this is impossible because infinite time never passes. That is the definition of infinite time. As you said unbounded. Never ending.

Therefore it is impossible for time to extend infinitely into the past because yesterday did occur.

You misunderstand - saying that the amount of time before yesterday is unbounded is very different than saying that there is a moment an infinite amount of time before yesterday. Every moment in time is only a finite amount of time away from yesterday, so you can't say an infinite amount of time has passed - passed from when? You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

 

[untermensche]

You misunderstand - saying that the amount of time before yesterday is unbounded is very different than saying that there is a moment an infinite amount of time before yesterday. Every moment in time is only a finite amount of time away from yesterday, so you can't say an infinite amount of time has passed - passed from when? You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.

 

[beero1000]

You misunderstand - saying that the amount of time before yesterday is unbounded is very different than saying that there is a moment an infinite amount of time before yesterday. Every moment in time is only a finite amount of time away from yesterday, so you can't say an infinite amount of time has passed - passed from when? You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.

You're probably gonna want to think that through again.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. However, if it had already struck an infinite amount of times before noon yesterday, it wouldn't have to do so to strike noon yesterday. Remember, this clock always existed, and has struck noon every 24 hours for eternity. It pre-exists everything. Tick.. talk... tick... talk....

How does it strike infinite times before yesterday?

If infinite, there is no end to the striking that must occur first before it can strike yesterday.

No beginning. The clock always existed.

I just read beeros post, after the infinite amount of time it took for me to reply to yours.

You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

 

[ryan]

You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

How do you know that there was no beginning?

 

[beero1000]

You are implicitly assuming a beginning when there is no such thing.

How do you know that there was no beginning?

He was arguing by contradiction - assuming that there is no beginning and trying to show a contradiction. However, his argument implicitly assumes a beginning while explicitly assuming that there is none. That's a problem. I was just pointing that out, not claiming my own philosophical position on an eternal universe.

 

[untermensche]

If yesterday is a finite amount of time away from all moments in time then time is finite not infinite.

You're probably gonna want to think that through again.

I do not.

If you say every moment in time to have ever passed is a finite amount of time from yesterday then time is finite.

 

[bilby]

You're probably gonna want to think that through again.

I do not.

If you say every moment in time to have ever passed is a finite amount of time from yesterday then time is finite.

The difference between any two integers is finite. The set of all integers is infinite. Your conclusion is not a necessary consequence of your premises.