The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

There is no such thing as an infinity that never began. The idea does not make any sense.

A series that never begins does not exist.

There is no mathematical term "never began". There is no mathematical series that can exist as beginning from the undefined.

There is no human that can explain how something can exist yet have no beginning to that existence. It is not a rational idea. It is a mystical magical idea.

It is voodoo math.

It just came to me that this thread contains on little piece of information that would make an infinite past possible even to you, were it not for the fact that you probably wouldn't be able to comprehend what to make of it, even if I pointed it out to you, even if I explained in minute details, even if I bashed your head with it until you're blue in the face. So, what would be the point?

Still, what you say here is invalidated. Nobody ever thought it was valid except you, but it's now formally invalidated.

Formally invalidated.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There you go again saying the sun has social anxiety disorder.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No, I have to be aware you're not the sun.

You're not nearly so bright as to blind me.

And the sun isn't the kind of thing that could contradict himself.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It makes as much sense to try to apply social anxiety to the sun as it does to try to apply this imaginary mathematical concept to the real world.

Real world thinking: When you take away any amount from a group of elements the total amount declines.

Magical thinking: There is a magic group that when you take some elements from it the total remains the same.

If one is going to engage in magical thinking one should just go all out and convert to Christianity.

This half-assed magical thinking doesn't get you anything.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, our untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way"...

Right, but then he says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Isn't that's just terrible logic?
EB

 

[DBT]

Yet you yourself speak of another existence - ''the conditions from which time arose are completely unknown and unknowable'' - which implies that you believe conditions existed prior to time.

This is what you need to address.

I don't speak of it.

I read what you said. You mentioned it.

I conclude it must exist.

A conclusion based on your own beliefs. Which does not make an argument.

Since time must be finite it requires a beginning that does not contain time as we understand time.

It has not been established that time must require a beginning, it has been asserted. The assertion ''since time must be finite it requires a beginning that does not contain time as we understand time'' makes no sense.

What exactly is a beginning that ''does not contain time as we understand time?''

 

[bilby]

So, our untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way"...

Right, but then he says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Isn't that's just terrible logic?
EB

Sure it is. But that's hardly the first, or the only, example we have had from that particular source.

It might be argued that this is the most blatant, but even that's far from certain, IMO.

 

[untermensche]

So, our untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way"...

Right, but then he says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Isn't that's just terrible logic?
EB

An infinite past would be an infinity of something LIKE all we can observe in some way.

Not unlike it.

All we can observe in some way are sequential and unidirectional events.

To claim an infinite past means that infinite events somehow occurred before any given moment. But infinity is not some quantity of events. Using infinity as a real world quantity is a non-sequitur. An absurdity that does not fit.

It is like claiming the sun suffers from social anxiety disorder.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Just on that, untermensche, there may be no "one", as you put it, but we can recognise one rock, from no rocks, or more
than one rock. So "one", as in "one rock", is a descriptive term, and I believe that even apes and monkeys can recognise the
difference between "one", and "many". I don't think that we could recognise infinity, even if we could see it.

As such, infinity has to remain a descriptive concept, just as "one", "none" and "many" are.

Cheers, Pops.

Show me something "infinity" describes.

Infinity is not a quantity.

To use it as a quantity in the real world is absurd.

I agree, untermensche, infinity is not a quantity. But it is descriptive. You can have one rock. The term "one rock" describes this :-

You can have two rock.The term "two rock" describes this :-

You can have many rocks. The term "many rocks" describes this :-

In each case, we have two things the rockness quality, and the count. We can identify both, so both have descriptive value in the real world.
We have "rock", and we have "one. two, many". The question is, can we allow the term "many" to extend to infinity?

Alternatively, untermensche, one who argues that real completed infinity conflicts with reality is making a positive claim, and I for one
simply don't accept that.

It is applying an imaginary term that is not a quantity to reality.

Conflict.

And that is where you make a positive claim about reality, untermensche, and so it is up to you to show that existence of infinities in the real world cannot exist.
As I said in my earlier post, I remain unconvinced by what has been shown to me, to support that claim that actual real infinities in the real world are impossible.
As such, I can say that: "I don't know, but no one has convinced me they are not, (yet)".

As I said, we need to establish some ground rules, some classifications as to what we accept or deny.

Let me give you a pre-amble, to explain my view of what an infinity is. This pre-amble is not here to say that such a condition can actually exist, merely to explain what it describes.
Let me interject that there are many things in the real world, which we cannot show, (in the sense that I think you mean), but which we probably would agree exist.
For example can you show me love ? Probably not. Yet it is a descriptive term we all use, and from it follows some of those IF X THEN Y, or IF NOT(P) THEN Q type conclusions.

This is pretty elementary stuff, but I hope will serve as a grounding for expansion :_

Numbers describe quantities. We can recognise quantities. If you are short changed some money, you will recognise it. There again is the two sided concept, money, and quantity.
If I tell you that I have three eyes in my head, and you look at me and only see two, then you cotton on straight away that I'm talking nonsense about the quantity of eyes I posses in my head.

Quantity can be applied to abstract concepts as well. If I ask you how many whole numbers there are, the answer is that there is an infinity of them. Although you might not recognise number as a real thing in the world, as concepts, they nevertheless have properties, if we agree on what numbers actually are.

For example, when it comes to whole numbers, I can begin to list what they are" "One two, three four ... a thousand, a million, a googolplex ... etc.". Now I cannot count to the last whole number, because there isn't one, whatever whole number I get up to, there will be more to come. The series of whole number never terminates. That is what infinity describes ~ something which you can begin to them, or see them, (like rocks), and assign a quantitative description to them, the process is iterative without termination. So infinity is a concept which describes something which may or may not be able to exist in the real world.

. . .

Show me something "infinity" describes.

Infinity is not a quantity.

To use it as a quantity in the real world is absurd.

I have agreed that infinity is not a quantity, but I have not yet proceeded to show an infinity in the real world - maybe I can and maybe I can't. To expand, I don't think that infinity is an actual quantity, because of what I have already described, and because the concept of infinity, although used in mathematics, has some non-intuitive properties.

Consider the following two sets :-

{A} All positive whole numbers. How many members in the set? Answer, an infinity. It just means that as a series, there is no terminal.
{B} All positive even numbers. How many members in the set? Answer, an infinity. It just means that as a series, there is no terminal.

But for every even number in set {B}, there are two members in set {A}. For the even number "2" in set {B}, there are then whole numbers "1" and "2" in set {A}.
So two infinities of different sizes ~ not very intuitive, and this leads me to say in agreement that infinity is not a quantity.

On the other hand, all of this does not say that infinities don't exist. But the crucial question is can an actual infinity of recognisable and real things in the real world exist?
So to say: "To use it as a quantity in the real world is absurd, (see above)" is just an assertion, isn't it?

Cheers, Pops.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

So, untermensche, I'd like to lay out a scenario to establish what you'd consider to be qualified items in any consideration of infinities in the real world.
As I said in my last post, the concept of infinity has a number of properties :-

• Something real and recognisable as such in the real world, (maybe rocks, or maybe personal experiences - such as love).
• Quantity, one two, many.
• Can be thought of a set, (of objects or experiences for example).
• When listing the elements, there is terminal point.

That is my groundwork. Do you accept the above as a reasonable exposition on what the concept of infinity conveys, untermensche?
If you do not accept it, then what do you have to say about it? Could it be modified to satisfy you?

Please note that I have said nothing about a real infinity actually existing, simply that if such thing were to exist, the bulleted list above covers what it is we're talking about.

Thanks for your patience, untermensche, and any reply you offer.

Cheerio, Pops.

P.S. Once I get your response, I will in turn take this further. In other words: I'm not finished yet.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, our untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way"...

Right, but then he says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Isn't that's just terrible logic?
EB

Sure it is. But that's hardly the first, or the only, example we have had from that particular source.

It might be argued that this is the most blatant, but even that's far from certain, IMO.

Well, I don't quite agree.

What is most striking about UM's posts is the constant fudge. Fudge as to form and presumably confusion as to substance.

Fudge as to form is for all of us to see all the time. First, most conspicuously, UM can barely bring himself to speak proper English, both in terms of syntax and vocabulary. Whether this is deliberate on his part I can't possibly know. Second, most of the time, he sidesteps the specific points made by other posters. Again, deliberately or not, I can't possibly know.

The problem with bad form is that it makes it difficult to assess his performance on substance. I'm sure we would all agree that his performance on substance is substandard, but this is not as convincing as exhibiting incontrovertible evidence. I was able to identify, again thanks to DBT, one example of such incontrovertible evidence of UM's conceptual confusion. I also have another example I keep for myself but that still makes only two examples I know of. If you have other examples, you should be able to exhibit them. It's not good enough just to claim or suggest you have them. You have to exhibit proper quotes. If only because we might even disagree as to whether the evidence would be conclusive!

Just one such would be a start.

And it's not because UM is terminally incapable of following the basic rules of proper debate that we should stoop to his level. We can treat his case as a problem to solve rather than as someone we could debate with. And then we still have to agree among ourselves, but still on the basis of the available evidence.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, our untermensche says it's possible something somehow existed "unlike all we can observe in some way"...

Right, but then he says an infinite past is not possible on the ground that it would be something unlike all we can observe in some way.

Isn't that's just terrible logic?
EB

An infinite past would be an infinity of something LIKE all we can observe in some way.

Not unlike it.

All we can observe is finite. So, an infinite past would be unlike anything we can observe.

All we can observe in some way are sequential and unidirectional events.

Obviously, an infinite past would share some quantitative properties and the quality of being time with the kind of finite time we can observe, but infinity makes it unlike anything we can observe.

To claim an infinite past means that infinite events somehow occurred before any given moment. But infinity is not some quantity of events.

Why?

If the past is infinite then we would have an infinity of events in the past and that would be a quantity. Why is that a problem?

I don't see why infinity would not be a quantity. It's obviously not a definite quantity but it's still a quantity.

We certainly have to be careful because infinities are not like finite quantities and there are different kind of infinities but it seems we can do mathematical operations on them. So, you would need to argue properly your point. It's not enough to repeat a wild claim again and again with no argument to support your claim.

Using infinity as a real world quantity is a non-sequitur. An absurdity that does not fit.

This is something you haven't been able to argue properly at all even though your post here is No. 308.

What is your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past?

It is like claiming the sun suffers from social anxiety disorder.

You should drop the stupid analogy. It just makes you look real stupid. Prove your point first and then you use the analogy.
EB

 

[untermensche]

All we can observe is finite. So, an infinite past would be unlike anything we can observe.

Yes it is true all we can observe is finite. All of it. No infinity to be found.

But I am talking about different in kind, not simply more of the same, infinitely more of the same.

But infinity is not some quantity of events.

Why?

Why is infinity not a quantity? It takes knowledge of what infinity is and what a quantity is. Infinity is not a quantity. It is some kind of endless operation. It is an endless algorithm. There is no end to it. No quantity.

If the past is infinite then we would have an infinity of events in the past and that would be a quantity. Why is that a problem?

You can't turn infinity into a quantity by waving your arms.

It is not a quantity. What is the largest integer?

To say "infinity" is to say there is no quantity.

Even if we look at a bounded infinity, the fractions between zero and one, we understand there is no end to them. There is no quantity.

Claiming infinity is some real world quantity is like claiming the sun suffers from social anxiety disorder.

And it hurts my brain when people do it.

 

[fast]

The distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is finite.

The distance from Earth to the edge of the unobservable universe is finite--if there is an edge.

If there is no edge to the unobservable universe, then the distance from Earth to the edge of the unobservable universe incorrectly assumes a finite distance, so if there is no edge, the universe is infinite in distance and thus there is no end to it.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is not a concept that can be applied to anything real.

All it can be applied to are imaginary elements and even there only partially.

It is never expressed. It is such that can never be expressed.

It can only be imagined to exist, pretended to exist. But never should be assumed to really exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes it is true all we can observe is finite. All of it. No infinity to be found.

But I am talking about different in kind, not simply more of the same, infinitely more of the same.

Why?

Why is infinity not a quantity? It takes knowledge of what infinity is and what a quantity is. Infinity is not a quantity. It is some kind of endless operation. It is an endless algorithm. There is no end to it. No quantity.

If the past is infinite then we would have an infinity of events in the past and that would be a quantity. Why is that a problem?

You can't turn infinity into a quantity by waving your arms.

It is not a quantity. What is the largest integer?

To say "infinity" is to say there is no quantity.

Even if we look at a bounded infinity, the fractions between zero and one, we understand there is no end to them. There is no quantity.

Claiming infinity is some real world quantity is like claiming the sun suffers from social anxiety disorder.

And it hurts my brain when people do it.

The value of your "arguments" in there is exactly zilch. Like all your arguments. They're just pathetic!

Your level in English is also close to naught. What do you suppose the phrase "something unlike all we can observe in some way" means?! If you can't express yourself coherently, how do you suppose we can discuss anything?!

And what is your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Now you are just trying to make me laugh.

You have stopped addressing any arguments.

You can't demonstrate in any way that infinity is a real quantity so you talk about my English that is superior to your aping of English, your pretending to have a natural English.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB

love

 

[DBT]

I read what you said. You mentioned it.

I conclude it must exist.

A conclusion based on your own beliefs. Which does not make an argument.

Since time must be finite it requires a beginning that does not contain time as we understand time.

It has not been established that time must require a beginning, it has been asserted. The assertion ''since time must be finite it requires a beginning that does not contain time as we understand time'' makes no sense.

What exactly is a beginning that ''does not contain time as we understand time?''

I'd like to know.....what is a beginning that ''does not contain time as we understand time?'