The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

I do not need any long winded explanations to understand that.

Infinitesimals Bricks are phantoms, fantasies. They could never be something real.

People that claim reality bricks can be divided infinitely are lost children who have read too many comic books.

They have a hard time understanding when things are pure fantasy.

And you have to take my word for it.
EB-Bot

If a brick could be divided, then there could be a divided brick. But that's absurd.

QED. QFT. KTHX. STFU.

Yeah, and that there can't be divided bricks at all is an indestructable truth.
EB

 

[untermensche]

The duration of a moment is 0. How many moments are in any length of time? An infinite amount.

How much can untermensche not understand this? An infinite amount.

0 is the absence of a duration, not a duration.

 

[untermensche]

The concept of infinity is in conflict with the idea of completion.

All the time in the past has completed at every given moment.

The concept of infinity is in conflict with all the time in the past.

No, it is not. You basically have a choice between no beginning to time, an inexplicable first cause (from what?), or something from absolute nothing.

None of these options seem rational. Existence itself appears absurd. That there is something rather than nothing is unimaginable, yet here we are struggling with the mystery of existence.

We don't have enough information to say that eternity of time is impossible.

You do not seem capable of understanding this.

How is infinity not in conflict with completion?

Tell me how the infinite series of the integers is not in conflict with completion?

Tell me how any infinite series is not in conflict with completion?

You keep droning on about your misunderstandings of first cause even though I explained it to you.

Nothing seems to be able to get past your delusions.

 

[untermensche]

Bricks are phantoms, fantasies.

How about I smash your big toe with one?

I suspect you will change your tune.

You can hit me in the head with your imaginary infinitesimals all you want.

 

[untermensche]

If a brick could be divided, then there could be a divided brick. But that's absurd.

QED. QFT. KTHX. STFU.

This is embarrassing to see.

How about you make one clear concise rational comment about the reality of infinitesimals?

It is a shame I only have children to discuss this with.

 

[Elixir]

The duration of a moment is 0. How many moments are in any length of time? An infinite amount.

So there is the same number of moments in a millisecond and a millennium?
Then time really is an emergent property of human perception.
I’m a little confused - is it all semantics?
If that’s the case, infinity’s utility in descriptions and math make it just as “real” as any other number or word.

 

[untermensche]

In the finite universe some see zero others see infinities.

They are equally living in Wonderland.

 

[Phil Scott]

If a brick could be divided, then there could be a divided brick. But that's absurd.

QED. QFT. KTHX. STFU.

This is embarrassing to see.

How about you make one clear concise rational comment about the reality of infinitesimals?

It is a shame I only have children to discuss this with.

If there were no infinitesimals, then things would move without infinitesimal change. But that's absurd!

QED. KTHXSTFU

 

[untermensche]

If a brick could be divided, then there could be a divided brick. But that's absurd.

QED. QFT. KTHX. STFU.

This is embarrassing to see.

How about you make one clear concise rational comment about the reality of infinitesimals?

It is a shame I only have children to discuss this with.

If there were no infinitesimals, then things would move without infinitesimal change. But that's absurd!

QED. KTHXSTFU

No. It's absolutely true.

You can't see truth from absurdity.

That is called being lost.

Please stop forgetting. You have no talent at philosophy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Bricks are phantoms, fantasies.

How about I smash your big toe with one?

I suspect you will change your tune.

You can hit me in the head with your imaginary infinitesimals all you want.

Could you pleased try to make one clear, concise, rational argument in good English about the idea of an infinite past?

Let's see if you can do that at all.

Thanks,
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The duration of a moment is 0. How many moments are in any length of time? An infinite amount.

So there is the same number of moments in a millisecond and a millennium?

Two points. First, infinities are numbers but a special kind of number, different from finite numbers, as indeed the names just say. We need to take that into account, in particular whenever our perception and understanding of the world come to be concerned.

Second, to take moments as of zero duration is a mathematical abstraction. So, here again, we need to look at how we experience moments. In particular, I doubt very much that humans, or any living organism, could experience any moments of zero duration. It seems obvious that our experience is of moments of a few milliseconds at least, possibly more. I wouldn't know exactly, but I suspect there must be some scientific results here. And we probably have different cognitive processes with different values.

Then time really is an emergent property of human perception.

In effect, yes, it is. I think we need to distinguish three things. First, our subjective experience of time, which is definitely an object emerging from our brain processes.

Second, the mathematical abstractions we use to represent time. That's just an abstraction that may or may not fit real time, if any.

Third, something that would be actual time, if there is such a thing.

And then, there's the science of time, whereby we try to connect and relate these three very different things.

I’m a little confused - is it all semantics?
If that’s the case, infinity’s utility in descriptions and math make it just as “real” as any other number or word.

I think the debate is still going on between those scientists who see science as an effort to describe reality, and those who think it's good enough for science to be useful in practical terms.

Me, I would think that assuming time has a finite number of moments in one second should be good enough for practical purposes, whether time is continuous or not. In both cases, we wouldn't see the difference in terms of our ability to measure the real world, provided this number is large enough.

Still, we would need to be able to agree on a particular number. But, who knows how large it should be? Anybody out there prepared to venture a particular figure?

If we can't agree on a figure, assuming infinity seems just as effective to me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The concept of infinity is in conflict with the idea of completion.

All the time in the past has completed at every given moment.

The concept of infinity is in conflict with all the time in the past.

"All the time in the past has completed at every given moment"?

What does that mean?

And how does that conflict with the idea of an infinite past?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Captain. I canno contro the spin dizzies. We're doomed, doomed, I tell ya.

 

[Phil Scott]

You have no talent at philosophy.

How does one judge talent in philosophy? Can I acquire it, or were you just born with yours? Do most talented philosophers do their greatest work on non-specialist forums such as this?

 

[Beer With Straw]

What does that mean?

Imagine this: you both actually would agree with each other, if and only if, you both understood each other.

No hey, maybe it's my failing, but speaking from experience, I ain't understanding anything and feel too lazy to try and engage the insurmountable task i.e. the bewilderment is engrossing enough.

 

[untermensche]

The concept of infinity is in conflict with the idea of completion.

All the time in the past has completed at every given moment.

The concept of infinity is in conflict with all the time in the past.

"All the time in the past has completed at every given moment"?

What does that mean?

And how does that conflict with the idea of an infinite past?
EB

Time is the dimension that allows change.

When there is change as we can observe it there is time as we can observe it.

At any given moment all the changes that have taken place in the past have completed. No more change in the past will occur.

The past means changes that have completed.

But infinity is in conflict with the idea of completion.

The past was not infinite.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no talent at philosophy.

How does one judge talent in philosophy? Can I acquire it, or were you just born with yours? Do most talented philosophers do their greatest work on non-specialist forums such as this?

My opinion is basically you have given up trying.

You have no ability to think for yourself.

You can merely ape the discoveries of others.

There is no use in discussing any philosophical topic with you. You have nothing to offer.

I ask you what is "one" and you give me some arbitrary scheme invented by others. And not one thought of your own.

 

[Phil Scott]

My opinion is basically you have given up trying.

With you? Sure. I think I gave up pretty quickly.

I ask you what is "one" and you give me some arbitrary scheme invented by others. And not one thought of your own.

I linked a while ago to a blog post I wrote which ends with my position on numbers, including what I think 1 is. I don't think it's worth anything here, save to say that there are places where I'm happy to have this discussion.

 

[untermensche]

My opinion is basically you have given up trying.

With you? Sure. I think I gave up pretty quickly.

You do not seem to understand what the concept of giving up means either.

It does not mean reading what I write and then spewing out childish nonsense that has no relation to it.

That is called pretending to know something but unable to really demonstrate it.

I ask you what is "one" and you give me some arbitrary scheme invented by others. And not one thought of your own.

I linked a while ago to a blog post I wrote which ends with my position on numbers, including what I think 1 is. I don't think it's worth anything here, save to say that there are places where I'm happy to have this discussion.

And I answered that "one" existed and was used a long time before your arbitrary scheme. It cannot possibly be what "one" is. It is something invented with "one" in mind. Similar to Christian dogma created with god in mind. Not a discovery of any kind or an explanation of what "one" is.

And that ended the exchange.

You seemed to not understand the point. Or you don't really give a damn what "one" is.

You have your totally arbitrary schemes that have been given to you and somehow that is called thinking.

 

[Beer With Straw]

Imma spam something from the book: The nothing that is - a natural history of zero

They are speaking about connections between connections, and the numbers those connections first dwelt among have by then a wraith-like existence. They were fairly tenuous to start with: if you say there are seven apples in a bowl, exactly what does that 'seven' belong to? Not to any one of the apples taken singly (not even the last you counted, since you could have arranged them differently), nor to the bowl that contains them, but - to there being just seven of them. Many a fine head has broken on this problem. Some have ended up saying that seven is the set of all those sets that contain seven objects. And if you eat one of the apples, where has the seven gone? Fled, presumably, to those sets that still or newly have seven members.

And why the spam, well one not so obvious answer being: I'm trying to kill time waiting for the store to start selling beer. Hey, I don't even have the mind set to be disingenuous cause this twenty minutes is agony!

 

[Speakpigeon]

Time is the dimension that allows change.

When there is change as we can observe it there is time as we can observe it.

At any given moment all the changes that have taken place in the past have completed. No more change in the past will occur.

The past means changes that have completed.

To talk as you do here of "time as we can observe it" is a very, very naive view of our situation.

We don't observe time as such. We can only observe change and then we just posit that it's due to time. And we design clocks that we posit are true of the passage of time. Yet, looking at a clock is just observing change, not time itself.

Ok, that's a minor point, but your post displays a very limited understanding of the real world and an inability to explain yourself.

And also, we don't need your idea of completion. It doesn't add anything to our ordinary idea of past events. For example, look at this definition here of "past":

past
adj 1. completed, finished, and no longer in existence

So, what's the point of "events that have completed"? We all have the same notion of what the past is. You're just adding again more confusion to the issue.

But infinity is in conflict with the idea of completion.

That's all you can do?! Just repeat yourself?! It's not enough!

I asked you first to explain your idea of completion of the past and then to explain "how does that conflict with the idea of an infinite past". And all you do here is just repeat yourself. What's the point of any discussion with you if you don't even understand very simple questions such as "please explain"?!

So, it's very likely that you're unable to explain yourself or that you understand very little of the most basic facts of life. Your post here is already post No. 376, and we're none the wiser for all the crap you keep repeating post after post after post.

So, one more time: Could you pleased try to make one clear, concise, rational explanation in good English of why your idea of completion of the past conflicts with the idea of an infinite past?
EB