Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

[Speakpigeon]

Good enough for me. I think it's everybody's notion of what an infinite past would be.

So you have one post to explain yourself. Can you do it?
EB

It doesn't take much.

To say that time without end or limit has ALREADY passed is irrational.

It cannot have happened. If it did that would mean there was a limit to it.

We all understand that the past is by definition the period of time limited by the present moment. At any given moment, the past necessarily has an end. This symmetrical with what happens for the future. The future starts at the present moment and can be thought of as extending without end.

Why would that be contradictory with the past being infinite? If there is no beginning to time then the past would have to be infinite. Having one limit, the present moment, doesn't make it finite, just as the future having one limit, also the present moment, doesn't make the future finite.

All I can come up as an explanation of your position is that you are stuck on the literal sense of your definition. You definition says an infinite past has no end and you say it's logically inconsistent because the past by definition ends at the present moment. But what we mean by infinite past is obviously a past that has no beginning, not a past which would not have the present moment as an end. So you can say that according to you definition there's no infinite past. I say change your definition if that's what you need.

Can you agree on the following definition: An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning?
EB

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't take much.

To say that time without end or limit has ALREADY passed is irrational.

It cannot have happened. If it did that would mean there was a limit to it.

We all understand that the past is by definition the period of time limited by the present moment. At any given moment, the past necessarily has an end. This symmetrical with what happens for the future. The future starts at the present moment and can be thought of as extending without end.

Why would that be contradictory with the past being infinite? If there is no beginning to time then the past would have to be infinite. Having one limit, the present moment, doesn't make it finite, just as the future having one limit, also the present moment, doesn't make the future finite.

All I can come up as an explanation of your position is that you are stuck on the literal sense of your definition. You definition says an infinite past has no end and you say it's logically inconsistent because the past by definition ends at the present moment. But what we mean by infinite past is obviously a past that has no beginning, not a past which would not have the present moment as an end. So you can say that according to you definition there's no infinite past. I say change your definition if that's what you need.

Can you agree on the following definition: An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning?
EB

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

 

[Kharakov]

Can you agree on the following definition: An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning?
EB

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

The present changes at infinite speed, because it stays the same for 0 seconds. When you have an infinite amount of presents in the past, since they are all 0 sized, you can have an infinite amount of cause/effects.

Clearly, even a second ago has an infinite chain of cause-effects to reach the present, if one looks at the most minute possible physical change of smooth spacetime.

This doesn't mean there were infinite seconds in the past, just that an infinite chain of cause/effect, because of the smoothness of spacetime. Although something is eternal, since nothing cannot give arise to anything.

 

[untermensche]

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

The present changes at infinite speed, because it stays the same for 0 seconds.

Doesn't follow.

When I drive my car I can go a long time without going 0 miles an hour. That does not mean I am moving infinite miles/hour.

 

[Speakpigeon]

We all understand that the past is by definition the period of time limited by the present moment. At any given moment, the past necessarily has an end. This symmetrical with what happens for the future. The future starts at the present moment and can be thought of as extending without end.

Why would that be contradictory with the past being infinite? If there is no beginning to time then the past would have to be infinite. Having one limit, the present moment, doesn't make it finite, just as the future having one limit, also the present moment, doesn't make the future finite.

All I can come up as an explanation of your position is that you are stuck on the literal sense of your definition. You definition says an infinite past has no end and you say it's logically inconsistent because the past by definition ends at the present moment. But what we mean by infinite past is obviously a past that has no beginning, not a past which would not have the present moment as an end. So you can say that according to you definition there's no infinite past. I say change your definition if that's what you need.

Can you agree on the following definition: An infinite past is the period of time that ends at the present moment and does not have any beginning?
EB

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

But that's the same situation with the future. The present is as much a limit for the future as it is for the past. If one is infinite, so must be the other. You seem to accept the future is infinite so you should accept a past without a beginning can only be infinite.

A past without a beginning can only be infinite, whether or not the past ends now. We can for example conceive of a time series t_n where t_n - t_n+1 = fixed predefined Δt > 0. Basically, each term of the series is Δt more into the past than the preceding term. This series has obviously no limit and is therefore infinite. Since it is also a regularly spaced sample of the past, contained in the past, the past is also therefore infinite.


Still, that shouldn't stop your "logic" taking precedence.


Anyhow, it is now clear your position is just an expression of your bias toward literalness.

So you have just failed the test. You have no rational argument to support your assertion.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The past is finished. It is finite.

It cannot be without end.

It clearly has one. The present.

But that's the same situation with the future. The present is as much a limit for the future as it is for the past. If one is infinite, so must be the other. You seem to accept the future is infinite so you should accept a past without a beginning can only be infinite.

To look at the past we have to stop time at some present moment and examine it.

If there is a present moment that means all the past moments are gone.

If they are all gone they could not have been infinite, without end.

Moments without end will never be all gone.

If I have a bag and claim it has infinite marbles in it and I start handing you marbles. And I tell you we will be done when I have given you all the marbles.

When will we be done?

You cannot claim that infinite marbles have already been handed out. You cannot claim that infinite time has already passed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But that's the same situation with the future. The present is as much a limit for the future as it is for the past. If one is infinite, so must be the other. You seem to accept the future is infinite so you should accept a past without a beginning can only be infinite.

To look at the past we have to stop time at some present moment and examine it.

If there is a present moment that means all the past moments are gone.

If they are all gone they could not have been infinite, without end.

Moments without end will never be all gone.

If I have a bag and claim it has infinite marbles in it and I start handing you marbles. And I tell you we will be done when I have given you all the marbles.

When will we be done?

You cannot claim that infinite marbles have already been handed out. You cannot claim that infinite time has already passed.

There's not a single item in the above that's not a clear indication of how flawed your reasoning is. Not one.


Anyway, me I'm done. You can stop the charade here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There's not a single item in the above that's not a clear indication of how flawed your reasoning is. Not one.


Anyway, me I'm done. You can stop the charade here.
EB

You disagree with this?

If there is a present moment that means all the past moments are gone.

If you do I doubt I can convince you of anything.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You disagree with this?

If there is a present moment that means all the past moments are gone.

If you do I doubt I can convince you of anything.

Where I can only disagree is with you arguing on the basis of the literal reading of informal expressions such as "the past moments are gone". This is typical of religious fundamentalism. You are in good company.

You could convince me if you had a good argument.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You disagree with this?



If you do I doubt I can convince you of anything.

Where I can only disagree is with you arguing on the basis of the literal reading of informal expressions such as "the past moments are gone". This is typical of religious fundamentalism. You are in good company.

You could convince me if you had a good argument.
EB

You just don't want to admit I'm right.

And remember my position is that this is just part of a paradox.

Now you can't understand what the passage of time means.

There is the ever changing present moment. That is all we can experience.

All we can do about the rest is talk about it.

And talking about the past is talking about moments that are gone. They no longer have existence.

 

[Kharakov]

The present changes at infinite speed, because it stays the same for 0 seconds. When you have an infinite amount of presents in the past, since they are all 0 sized, you can have an infinite amount of cause/effects.

Clearly, even a second ago has an infinite chain of cause-effects to reach the present, if one looks at the most minute possible physical change of smooth spacetime.

Doesn't follow. When I drive my car I can go a long time without going 0 miles an hour. That does not mean I am moving infinite miles/hour.

Do you remember saying there cannot be an infinite amount of cause/effect relationships in the past?

It's not a big mystery. If things are constantly changing/evolving over time, and time is arguably smooth, then from .000000001 picosecond to .000000001 picosecond, even the smallest interaction of a particle with another will have an infinitely many cause/effect relationships. We just average them out and say "it was one interaction" because that is way more convenient to do- this doesn't mean there wasn't an infinite amount of interactions over .000000001 picoseconds.

The point is that there are infinite amounts of interactions that occur within a small amount of time because they are smooth interactions happening at "infinite" speed.

 

[Kharakov]

....aaaaaaand we are back to the old 'untermensche doesn't understand infinity, but refuses to even consider the possibility that his understanding is deeply flawed' discussion. *Yawn*

Maybe he plans on talking about infinity forever.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not proven that either is untrue; The entire universe might be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation, or the past could be infinite.

You're knot Kraussing the idea of nothing, are you?

Krauss "there are existing natural laws that cause nothing to become something"
debate mediator "the laws are something"
Krauss "they are just laws, nothing exists, and then the laws cause the universe to exist"
mediator "the laws are something that existed that caused the universe to exist"
Krauss "no, nothing existed, then the laws cause the universe to exist".


Krauss wins the I took a stand on a bullshit position and sold books to naive people award.

 

[untermensche]

Doesn't follow. When I drive my car I can go a long time without going 0 miles an hour. That does not mean I am moving infinite miles/hour.

Do you remember saying there cannot be an infinite amount of cause/effect relationships in the past?

yes

It's not a big mystery.

It sure is. It's a huge paradox. There is no answer without inventing all kinds of silly things.

If things are constantly changing/evolving over time, and time is arguably smooth, then from .000000001 picosecond to .000000001 picosecond, even the smallest interaction of a particle with another will have an infinitely many cause/effect relationships.

No. Movement has to be as discreet as time.

If half the movement you just made is possible to make next you will never get anywhere.

 

[bilby]

Good enough for me. I think it's everybody's notion of what an infinite past would be.

So you have one post to explain yourself. Can you do it?
EB

It doesn't take much.

To say that time without end or limit has ALREADY passed is irrational.

It cannot have happened. If it did that would mean there was a limit to it.

It does. You are standing on it.

A line with ONLY ONE limit is infinite. To be finite, it would need a beginning, as well as an end. There is nothing difficult about this concept - even that moron untermensche knows that the future can be infinite if it is only bounded at the present; Clearly if that is the case, then the past can equally be infinite, if it is only bounded at the present.

 

[fromderinside]

It would have been so much more satisfying if you found a way to say untermenche were standing in the present bound.*









*grumble, grumble, grumble .... always changing things making me make a perfectly good line a very dull line.

 

[beero1000]

Nope.

Nope, nope, nope.

Bye now.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you remember saying there cannot be an infinite amount of cause/effect relationships in the past?

yes
....

If things are constantly changing/evolving over time, and time is arguably smooth, then from .000000001 picosecond to .000000001 picosecond, even the smallest interaction of a particle with another will have an infinitely many cause/effect relationships. We just average them out and say "it was one interaction" because that is way more convenient to do- this doesn't mean there wasn't an infinite amount of interactions over .000000001 picoseconds.

The point is that there are infinite amounts of interactions that occur within a small amount of time because they are smooth interactions happening at "infinite" speed.

No. Movement has to be as discreet as time.

So you're assuming there are clock ticks of time in the universe, despite the physical evidence to the contrary?

 

[Learner]

Sundails have been fairly reliable for the last few centuries giving us an account of "time". The sun being as predictable as clockwork.

 

[Kharakov]

Not the point, but it's always nice to hear from a bored again Christian, when they aren't trying to rip you off or use your lower socioeconomic status to force you to do menial labor for a place to stay and food to eat....