• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The idea of an infinite past

Speakpigeon said:
fromderinside said:
Speakpigeon said:
What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB
Click to expand...

love
Click to expand...

You win. I'm convinced.
EB
Click to expand...
It's not the role of the logician to either convince or persuade; furthermore, it's a characteristic of debate, not discussion, to have a winner.

However, I like what he said, and I like what you said, so with the powers invested in me by exquisite awesomeness, I hereby declare you both winners.

Judgement closed. The end. The fat lady can be heard singing in the distance as tunes echo through echoing halls of appreciation.
 
Hallelujah!

I heard them nuns sing Hallelujah!

And they weren't fat!

But, yeah, time to head for the bed here...
EB
 
Speakpigeon said:
What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB
Click to expand...

If we say the past was infinite that means there were infinite events in it.

That also means that before any event can take place infinite events must take place before it.

That means we must accept that infinite events are some quantity of events that can actually take place.

But that is absurd.

Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the idea of not having a quantity.

To make sense of the alternative means demonstrating infinity is actually a quantity, not just pretending it is.
 
Poppa Popobawa said:
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 magnitudes,} or experiences for example).
  • When listing the elements, there is {no} 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.
Click to expand...
I am re-posting this, because I cannot find a reply, untermensche.
I've edited the post slightly at the points marked by braces as: { }.

I have also considered further, and realised that not everything one might consider as infinite, relies on counting.

Suppose you have a rock of infinite mass. That is a quantity but it is not based on counting. However, you could make it into a case for counting. You could do that by imagining that
one removes some of the rock, so taking from its mass, and leaving whatever remains, behind. You could keep on doing this, removing bits of the rock, but if its mass was infinite, there'd
always be some rock with mass remaining. I make no claim here that a rock of infinite mass could exist, merely an example to show that what may look like no counting, can be reconfigured
into one where counting applies.

I think that to talk about infinity, and whether or not it exists, it is necessary to understand what it implies. Simply, infinity is a boundless quantity. It's more than many, it's so many that
there is no boundary or terminal point. It's also the case that not all things to which we might apply the concept of infinity, are things in the real world. We can apply the concept of infinity
to pure numbers, for example. However, if infinities of real things in the real world do exist, I would expect them to obey the same mathematical rules as pure numbers.

If all that you want is: "Show me the evidence", then what of the possibility that some cases of infinity in the real world would have evidence that is beyond our grasp? As I've said,
I am remaining agnostic about the kind of infinity which seems to interest you, untermnsche, but it seems to me that one is unwise to exclude something, if one cannot say exactly what
it is, other than a label. Once you lay down what it is, then comes the IF X THEN Y and IF NOT(P) THEN Q type considerations. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, an inability to find
evidence, does not logically follow with: therefore it does not exist. The better response would be: "I just don't know"; (yet).

untermensche said:
Speakpigeon said:
What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB
Click to expand...

If we say the past was infinite that means there were infinite events in it.

That also means that before any event can take place infinite events must take place before it.

That means we must accept that infinite events are some quantity of events that can actually take place.

But that is absurd.

Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the idea of not having a quantity.

To make sense of the alternative means demonstrating infinity is actually a quantity, not just pretending it is.
Click to expand...


Kudos for the example, untermensche. I don't consider the possibility of infinities, and infinite past, to be pretending,
nor does science. If you like to call it pretending, I prefer to call it conjecturing, and looking for the consequences of that
conjecture.

No, you don't have to say that infinity is a precise quantity. All it means is that you can count off the past time, and the
past events, but never find the terminal point, because there is always more to precede them, both time and events. Of
course in the backwards sense, the terminal point is the beginning, which if the sequence really were infinite, there would be
no beginning.

Is that an easy concept to grasp? I say NO of course not. But that can be explained by the fact that we can have difficulty
grasping the concept of mere "many", which is something we know is true. For example, how do we get a real grasp of the
quantity of all of the grains of sand on all of the beaches combined with all of the deserts in the world. We can't do it, yet
there must be some answer. As living beings, we are not equipped with brains which can truly grasp the reality of such a vast
"many" value as all those grains of sand. And if infinity were some real possibility, it would be even more difficult to grasp. Just
calling it absurd merely means that one can't grasp it, and perhaps one refuses to look at the complexity
with sincerity. So the response: 'I can't grasp it, it's absurd', ought not to hold any value to a thinking person.

Doesn't a conviction that something is IMPOSSIBLE lay one open to quitting looking for the ways in which it might be possible,
even if the discovery of investigation might lead one to doubt one's original conviction, or even to abandon it ???

All the best, Pops.
 
untermensche said:
Speakpigeon said:
What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB
Click to expand...

If we say the past was infinite that means there were infinite events in it.

That also means that before any event can take place infinite events must take place before it.

That means we must accept that infinite events are some quantity of events that can actually take place.

But that is absurd.

Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the idea of not having a quantity.

To make sense of the alternative means demonstrating infinity is actually a quantity, not just pretending it is.
Click to expand...

That's a bit better, not very good but a bit better. as to form.

Still, as it is here it's definitely not good enough on substance, but before going into that, is that your only argument?

If not, please what are your other arguments?
EB
 
I have no idea what arguments will come to me at any moment.
 
Last edited:
Poppa Popobawa said:
It's also the case that not all things to which we might apply the concept of infinity, are things in the real world. We can apply the concept of infinity
to pure numbers, for example. However, if infinities of real things in the real world do exist, I would expect them to obey the same mathematical rules as pure numbers.
Click to expand...

We can apply the concept of infinity PARTIALLY, always PARTIALLY, to imaginary numbers.

But infinite numbers are never expressed. They cannot be expressed. In any fashion.

When infinity is used in mathematics it is always some conceptual trick using other concepts like limits. And the math is always an approximation. An approximation that is good enough for the real world.

How many places do we have to round things out in the real world to send a rover to Mars? Infinite?

If all that you want is: "Show me the evidence", then what of the possibility that some cases of infinity in the real world would have evidence that is beyond our grasp?
Click to expand...

If people make the claim that something is real it is not unreasonable to ask for the evidence.

But really all I want is a demonstration that this non-quantity "infinity" could even possibly be real. What would it mean to move an infinitely small distance? What distance is that?

Of course in the backwards sense, the terminal point is the beginning, which if the sequence really were infinite, there would be
no beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes it reduces to absurdity quickly.

What does it mean that something progresses yet somehow never starts it's progression?

That is a miraculous absurd state. Not a real world state.

Certainly not an answer any adult would take seriously.
 
untermensche said:
Speakpigeon said:
What's your argument for the impossibility of an infinite past exactly?
EB
Click to expand...

If we say the past was infinite that means there were infinite events in it.

That also means that before any event can take place infinite events must take place before it.

That means we must accept that infinite events are some quantity of events that can actually take place.

But that is absurd.

Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the idea of not having a quantity.

To make sense of the alternative means demonstrating infinity is actually a quantity, not just pretending it is.
Click to expand...

I fail to see there's anything absurd in the idea of an infinity of events having taken place before now. You say it's "absurd" but we can't just take your word for it. We would need some convincing argument. Personally, I'm very comfortable about the idea of infinity, even about very different sorts of infinity.

You also claim that infinity is not a quantity. Sorry, again, we can't just take your word for it and I don't see what would be absurd in the idea that infinity is a quantity.

An infinity of seconds, for example, would be more than ten seconds, so, clearly, an infinity is a quantity. We can accept without difficulty that an infinity of a thing is more than any finite quantity of the same thing. So, we can easily compare an infinity to any finite quantities, therefore it's a quantity itself. This should be enough for us to accept that an infinity is a quantity.

And you yourself don't have any argument against. All you can do is claim, "it's absurd"! That's just really ridiculous and pathetic.

There's also no reason we should follow you and require "demonstrating infinity is actually a quantity". The term "actually" is nonsensical in this context. We all accept that we cannot observe or prove scientifically the existence of an infinity, let alone that it's actually a quantity. All we can be expected to do here is to decide whether the idea of infinity is a thoroughly rational concept or somehow just "absurd" as you claim.

So, in effect, you have zero argument to offer. Your position is just to shout, "it's absurd"!
EB

Note on your bad English: your expression "infinite events" (used three times!!!) doesn't make sense. No proficient English speaker in the whole world would use it. You can say "an infinity of events" or "an infinite number of events".
 
An infinity of seconds is more than any amount of seconds you can name. It is absurd to call something that is always more than any quantity named also a quantity.

Infinity is to not have a quantity.

To say infinite seconds took place before any moment in time is to say that some magical conception of more than any possible quantity of seconds took place.

It is absurd.
 
"The universe is under no obligation to make change for you." Cashier guru at AM/PM.
 
untermensche said:
An infinity of seconds is more than any amount of seconds you can name. It is absurd to call something that is always more than any quantity named also a quantity.

Infinity is to not have a quantity.

To say infinite seconds took place before any moment in time is to say that some magical conception of more than any possible quantity of seconds took place.

It is absurd.
Click to expand...

If we are able to tell which of X and Y is greater, then X and Y are of the same kind. So, if Y is a quantity, then X is a quantity. I already explained that.

So you have no argument. All you can do is to blubber "absurd", again, and again, and again, and expect us to take your word for it. That is absurd. What we want is a rational argument. You have none.

And I doubt you could have any kind of rational argument about anything, either.

No more question. I rest my case.
EB
 
unter never explained how time would "flow smoothly" without being infinitely divisible.

I'm wondering how many starting points any particular point in time can have?
 
Speakpigeon said:
untermensche said:
An infinity of seconds is more than any amount of seconds you can name. It is absurd to call something that is always more than any quantity named also a quantity.

Infinity is to not have a quantity.

To say infinite seconds took place before any moment in time is to say that some magical conception of more than any possible quantity of seconds took place.

It is absurd.
Click to expand...

If we are able to tell which of X and Y is greater, then X and Y are of the same kind. So, if Y is a quantity, then X is a quantity. I already explained that.

So you have no argument. All you can do is to blubber "absurd", again, and again, and again, and expect us to take your word for it. That is absurd. What we want is a rational argument. You have none.

And I doubt you could have any kind of rational argument about anything, either.

No more question. I rest my case.
EB
Click to expand...

You haven't explained anything.

Some magical entity that is infinitely larger than any given quantity is not a quantity. It is pure fantansy that has no connection to the real world.

Just like ghosts are not penquins.

You have no case, just a bunch of half-backed delusions.
 
Kharakov said:
unter never explained how time would "flow smoothly" without being infinitely divisible.
Click to expand...

Why not if the quantum of time is just much smaller than what we can observe?

Kharakov said:
I'm wondering how many starting points any particular point in time can have?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking about that. Not just one beginning to time, but two, one billion, one trillion for each point in time, an infinity of starting points for every one moment in time.

Or, just maybe, you meant something else?
EB
 
If time is infinitely divisible how much time is contained in each infinite division?
 
untermensche said:
If time is infinitely divisible how much time is contained in each infinite division?
Click to expand...

Good question.

First, this makes me think of another: How much time in one infinitely divisible second of time?

Obviously, there's just 1 second of time in one second of time.

But then, one second of time is a quantity, so one second of time, a quantity, contains an infinity of divisions, which means that infinity is indeed a quantity.

And to answer your question, one second of time divided by infinity result in an epsilon, an infinitesimal, an infinitely small, quantity of time.

In case you're so ignorant you don't know about infinitesimals, here is some crash course made for you by Wiki:

Infinitely small
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

In mathematics, infinitesimals are things so small that there is no way to measure them. The insight with exploiting infinitesimals was that entities could still retain certain specific properties, such as angle or slope, even though these entities were quantitatively small. The word infinitesimal comes from a 17th-century Modern Latin coinage infinitesimus, which originally referred to the "infinite-th" item in a sequence. Infinitesimals are a basic ingredient in the procedures of infinitesimal calculus as developed by Leibniz, including the law of continuity and the transcendental law of homogeneity. In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object that is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size—or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means. Hence, when used as an adjective, "infinitesimal" means "extremely small". To give it a meaning, it usually must be compared to another infinitesimal object in the same context (as in a derivative). Infinitely many infinitesimals are summed to produce an integral.
Click to expand...

I underscored that which shows that infinities are considered quantities.

Please pay attention in particular to the last sentence: Infinitely many infinitesimals are summed to produce an integral.

This sentence shows that the idea of calculus is that an infinity of infinitesimals sums up as a finite quantity. Ergo infinity is considered a quantity. No doubt a special kind of quantity, but a quantity nonetheless.
EB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom