The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

Do you know of a situation where you have time but have no change?

Time is the "dimension" that allows change.

The thread title isnt "the idea of time" it's about the idea of perpetual past-eternal time.
A static, unmoving (unmoved) object could hypothetically exist forever without changing - notwithstanding the fact that Lion IRC hasn't personally observed it throughout it's eternity.

I'm intrigued by all the spate of eternity/infinity themed threads going on at the moment. And nobody has mentioned the Kalam argument - change without cause????

You have dodged the question.

You are claiming the idea of time without change is possible.

How do you know this?

Is it possible to have time without space?

 

[bilby]

Is assuming an infinity has somehow completed a contradiction to the concept of infinity?

No, because an infinity by definition must exist if a continuum is unbounded at EITHER end; AND may exist even where a continuum is bounded at BOTH ends.

An infinity does not exist.

Then you should have no problem in demonstrating that an infinite past necessarily entails a contradiction.

We're all waiting...

It is not assumed to exist.

Then you are going to have a very hard time demonstrating that an infinite past necessarily entails a contradiction. Thinking about stuff involves assuming things, to see where they lead you. If you refuse to think about something, then you will never know anything about it.

An infinity is defined. It is not discovered or observed in any way.

As long as you have a definition, you can make assumptions and test them for contradictions.

We're still waiting...

And as it is defined, as it is imagined, it does not have the ability to ever be completed. The elements within an infinite series could never all be expressed.

Non sequitur fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate that they must be 'expressed' (you will need to start by defining 'expressed'), this is not helping you to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in assuming that an infinite past existed.

If you had to actually express every fraction between zero and one it could not be done.

And yet, we know that there are an infinite number of such fractions. You appear to be arguing against your stated position here.

But you can draw a line, pretend it is imaginary, and then pretend all the fractions exist within the finite space.

You could do all sorts of strange things. But you have not shown that this is in any way relevant to the demonstration that an infinite past necessarily entails a contradiction, which is your task (and your ONLY task), if you are to demonstrate the truth of your claim that an infinite past is impossible.

You appear to be getting bogged down in analogies that you cannot (or will not; certainly you HAVE not) shown to be in any way relevant to the question at hand.

Please, stick to the question - or, if you need to invoke drawn lines, imaginary lines, fractions between 0 and 1, and all these other things, show in detail how they are relevant to the question at hand. You are claiming that the existence of an infinite past is impossible. You can ONLY support that claim by demonstrating that it entails a contradiction. If you can do that, then please stop wasting our time, and do it. If you cannot do that, have the wit and the grace to admit that your certainty is misplaced, and that you do not KNOW it to be impossible - that you just think it's unlikely.

You have not demonstrated that there is no contradiction between the definition of an infinity and a completed infinity.

Shifting the burden of proof didn't work before; What makes you imagine that it is suddenly not a fallacy now?

So since a clear contradiction exists we are done.

No clear contradiction has been presented. You just declared that I needed to demonstrate that one does not, which is the (rather tired) logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

I think you need to learn how to think; You are clearly unqualified to attempt the proof that you are trying to achieve.

 

[untermensche]

A clear contradiction exists between the definition of an infinite series and the idea that an infinite series could be completely expressed.

To say the past was infinite is to say an infinity was expressed.

A clear contradiction.

We are done.

It is not possible.

 

[beero1000]

Lmao

 

[bilby]

A clear contradiction exists between the definition of an infinite series and the idea that an infinite series could be completely expressed.

And yet you are unwilling (or unable) to present a detailed account of this alleged 'clear contradiction'. If you cannot explain it to anyone else, it is not an argument at all.

To say the past was infinite is to say an infinity was expressed.

We already covered this ground. You are going round in circles, and getting no closer to your objective:

And as it is defined, as it is imagined, it does not have the ability to ever be completed. The elements within an infinite series could never all be expressed.

Non sequitur fallacy. Unless you can demonstrate that they must be 'expressed' (you will need to start by defining 'expressed'), this is not helping you to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in assuming that an infinite past existed.

Can you define what you mean by 'expressed' in this context? If not, you are just bloviating.

A clear contradiction.

We are done.

It is not possible.

It might (we can charitably assume) be clear to you; But unless you can make it clear to someone else, that's meaningless.

You haven't shown:

1) What you mean by 'expressed'
2) Why it is necessary for an infinite series to be completely 'expressed' in order for it to exist
3) What contradiction exists between the definition of an infinite series and the idea that an infinite series could be completely expressed
or
4) That an infinite series and an infinite past must necessarily have identical characteristics (or at least must share the contradiction you are claiming for the latter, without having even presented evidence for a contradiction in the former).

You are not 'done'; You have barely made a start. And (just to try to keep a tally of them), I note that you are engaged in a 'Moving the goalposts' fallacy - you declared victory because you satisfied yourself that you had demonstrated a contradiction in the 'expression' of an infinite series, but the objective is to find a contradiction in the existence of an infinite past.

Seriously, this whole 'reason and logic' thing is not particularly hard, but you still need to understand the basics of how it works before attempting to use it, or you will make a massive fool of yourself. Again. Logical fallacies are supposed to be avoided; There's no prize for collecting the complete set.

 

[untermensche]

And yet you are unwilling (or unable) to present a detailed account of this alleged 'clear contradiction'. If you cannot explain it to anyone else, it is not an argument at all.

If something is defined to have a limitless number of elements then it is impossible for those elements to be expressed. There is no end to them.

To be expressed means to be made real in some way as opposed to just imagined. For time to be expressed just means that a change occurred.

The fractions between zero and one cannot be expressed. They cannot be made real.

No infinity can be expressed.

So obviously one was not expressed in the past.

 

[untermensche]

This will go nowhere until there is an agreed upon definition of infinity.

It is a mathematical not a scientific term.

If it is used to describe a series, like the integers, then the series has no final element.

And time can be thought of a series of changes. So just like the integers it would be a series of changes with no final change.

If somebody thinks this does not describe infinity then they can give their definition.

But it has to be something that can be agreed upon not some lengthy dissertation.

Is there a definition of infinity that can be agreed upon?

 

[bilby]

And yet you are unwilling (or unable) to present a detailed account of this alleged 'clear contradiction'. If you cannot explain it to anyone else, it is not an argument at all.

If something is defined to have a limitless number of elements then it is impossible for those elements to be expressed. There is no end to them.

Sure it's possible. It would take an infinite amount of time; But that's OK, if the past is infinite, then you have an infinite amount of time. It's only impossible because you assume a finite past - which is assuming your conclusion, which as we already discussed, is a logical fallacy.

To be expressed means to be made real in some way as opposed to just imagined. For time to be expressed just means that a change occurred.

If the past is infinite, an infinite number of changes have, by definition, occurred. That's not a contradiction, it's a necessary inference.

The fractions between zero and one cannot be expressed. They cannot be made real.

Who cares? You have not shown these fractions to be analogous in any useful way to an infinite past; For one thing, an infinite past is unbounded at one end, while the fractions between zero and one are a series bounded at both ends. They are dissimilar, so we cannot gain anything by discussing them - this is the non-sequitur fallacy we discussed earlier.

No infinity can be expressed.

Why not? You assert this with zero reasoning or evidence. Other than the same old fallacies we have already discussed. Why do you imagine that assuming your conclusion will suddenly convince people this time, when each time you did it before, it has been identified and pointed out to you as a logical fallacy?

So obviously one was not expressed in the past.

If the past is infinite, then by your definitions, an infinity MUST HAVE BEEN 'expressed' at ANY time point. This is an inevitable consequence of that assumption; It is not in any way contradicted by anything you have demonstrated here.

The only contradiction you have been able to muster amounts to "the past cannot be infinite, because that implies an infinity has been expressed, and an infinity cannot be expressed (in a finite amount of time)". It is that last, unspoken clause that is your undoing - it is fallacious as it assumes the conclusion. But if we don't include that unspoken assumption, the preceding clause becomes unproven, and your argument once again fails.

Can you demonstrate that an infinity cannot be expressed, GIVEN AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME? If so, then please do so.

If not, then you need to demonstrate that you cannot have an infinite amount of time, which puts you back where you started.

 

[beero1000]

This will go nowhere until there is an agreed upon definition of infinity.

Ok.

It is a mathematical not a scientific term.

It is both.

If it is used to describe a series, like the integers, then the series has no final element.

This is wrong. In a lot of contexts it is also nonsensical.

And time can be thought of a series of changes. So just like the integers it would be a series of changes with no final change.

Does not follow, your hypothesis is false.

If somebody thinks this does not describe infinity then they can give their definition.

But it has to be something that can be agreed upon not some lengthy dissertation.

Is there a definition of infinity that can be agreed upon?

Infinite means not finite.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite means not finite.

So can you express an infinity? Express meaning to make real. In terms of a fraction making it real would be writing it out.

Like all the fractions between zero and one.

Can that be expressed?

 

[untermensche]

Sure it's possible. It would take an infinite amount of time

So we can begin to write out all the fractions between zero and one and after some time, infinite time, we will write them all out?

 

[bilby]

Sure it's possible. It would take an infinite amount of time

So we can begin to write out all the fractions between zero and one and after some time, infinite time, we will write them all out?

After infinite time, sure. Why not?

Why do you conflate 'infinite time' with 'some time'? 'Some time' might (by a dishonest or uncomprehending person) be construed to imply 'finite time' - and clearly, if it does, then no, we will not write them all out after 'some time'. only after infinite time.

Of course, this is irrelevant to a discussion of an infinite past, which by definition does not 'begin', and so is not analogous to any activity that is described with the phrase "So we can begin to..."

So it is, YET AGAIN, a non-sequitur to your claim that an infinite past is impossible.

Have you now abandoned that claim? Because you seem disinclined to address it at all - Instead we are discussing fractions between zero and one, which are as far as I can see, an unrelated topic.

 

[untermensche]

Sure it's possible. It would take an infinite amount of time

So we can begin to write out all the fractions between zero and one and after some time, infinite time, we will write them all out?

After infinite time, sure. Why not?

There is no end to them.

No matter how long you tried you could not express them all.

It is impossible to express them all.

No matter how many of the fractions you expressed there would always be an infinite number of fractions you did not express.

We can understand the series 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000... has no final element. And no matter how many elements you did express there would still be infinite more you did not.

 

[bilby]

After infinite time, sure. Why not?

There is no end to them.

No matter how long you tried you could not express them all.

Again, this assumes a beginning, and a finite time. It is question begging.

And, again, this is completely irrelevant to the question under discussion - is an infinite past possible?

Your disinclination to focus on the subject of your claim, rather suggests that you are abandoning it in favour of an unrelated claim you feel more confident about - and does nothing to advance your position whatsoever.

It is impossible to express them all.

In infinite time it is perfectly possible. But again, this is not relevant to the question being discussed; It is just time-wasting on your part. Unless you can show using sound reasoning why this is relevant to the topic, I have no further interest in discussing it.

No matter how many of the fractions you expressed there would always be an infinite number of fractions you did not express.

We can understand the series 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000... has no final element. And no matter how many elements you did express there would still be infinite more you did not.

That's lovely.

Now, can you tell me what the fuck that has to do with the impossibility (or otherwise) of an infinite past?

Because right now, you appear not to want to discuss that topic, and I am growing increasingly certain that the reason for that is that you cannot, in fact, back up your original claim.

Remember:

To demonstrate that something is impossible, you need to show that IF you assume that it IS possible, this necessitates a contradiction.

In order to TEST whether something is possible you MUST first ASSUME that it IS. You THEN look for any contradictions that arise as the result of your assumption. IF you find one (or more) THEN you have shown that the assumption is impossible.

So, we MUST, as a starting point, assume an infinite past. And then YOU, as the person who says it is impossible, must show how THAT ASSUMPTION leads necessarily and inevitably to a CONTRADICTION.

But you must be CONSISTENT - you must use the same set of assumptions throughout your demonstration.

And you must be LOGICAL - no fallacies are permitted.

...

YOU need to EITHER show that it is impossible - that it entails a contradiction - OR withdraw your claim that it is impossible.

So enough nonsense about unrelated and/or vaguely related problems; SHOW ME THE CONTRADICTION inherent in the assumption that the past is infinite.

Or admit that you cannot.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite means not finite.

Like all the fractions between zero and one. Can that be expressed?

Normally people say "all the fractions between zero and one" to express that, but sometimes they use various notations. Maybe beero could express it in latex?

 

[untermensche]

Infinite means not finite.

Like all the fractions between zero and one. Can that be expressed?

Normally people say "all the fractions between zero and one" to express that, but sometimes they use various notations. Maybe beero could express it in latex?

You are masking a bad position with attempts to be clever.

Saying a phrase is only expressing that phrase.

This is all about the difference between that which is only imaginary and that which is real.

So making the fractions between zero and one real would be to express them in some human way. You could write them out or you could speak them out.

Or you could use hand signals. It doesn't matter.

When you try to make the imaginary concept of infinity into something real it is easy to see it can't be done.

 

[untermensche]

Again, this assumes a beginning, and a finite time. It is question begging.

How exactly do you express anything without beginning that expression?

It is an attempt to turn the imaginary into the real.

Some claim an infinity can be expressed. They claim infinite changes have been expressed.

So we can look at that claim and try to imagine what it is to express an infinity.

When we look we see, we should understand very quickly, that to express a real infinity is an impossibility.

I have no way of dealing with your magical "no beginning" the infinity that appears whole by some miracle.

You can't rationally explain it. It is absolute nonsense to claim we are somehow restricted from looking at things rationally because you have some magical dogmatic totally unsupported in any way belief that infinities can somehow just appear whole in the real world. That the time in the past was infinite and this infinity somehow just appeared whole. That the number of changes that took place in the past was infinite and this infinity also just somehow appeared whole.

Your position is explained in one word.

Miracle. Your infinity looks very much like the Christian God. Another infinity that just appears whole.

 

[bilby]

Again, this assumes a beginning, and a finite time. It is question begging.

How exactly do you express anything without beginning that expression?

It is an attempt to turn the imaginary into the real.

Some claim an infinity can be expressed. They claim infinite changes have been expressed.

So we can look at that claim and try to imagine what it is to express an infinity.

When we look we see, we should understand very quickly, that to express a real infinity is an impossibility.

I have no way of dealing with your magical "no beginning" the infinity that appears whole by some miracle.

You can't rationally explain it. It is absolute nonsense to claim we are somehow restricted from looking at things rationally because you have some magical dogmatic totally unsupported in any way belief that infinities can somehow just appear whole in the real world. That the time in the past was infinite and this infinity somehow just appeared whole. That the number of changes that took place in the past was infinite and this infinity also just somehow appeared whole.

Your position is explained in one word.

Miracle. Your infinity looks very much like the Christian God. Another infinity that just appears whole.

There's no "My infinity" you imbecile. YOU are the one making a claim. I am merely pointing out that you have failed to support that claim.

As you have clearly decided to give up any pretence at defending your claim, and have equally clearly justified this capitulation to yourself as somehow being perfectly in keeping with your not being irrational and wrong, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

You made a claim. You cannot or will not support that claim with reason or logic. Your claim fails. What I do or do not believe is of no relevance whatsoever to these simple facts.

But as long as you can project that failure onto your audience, you are happy - and being happy is clearly more important to you than knowing anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Meh. I wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[untermensche]

Your position is explained in one word.

Miracle. Your infinity looks very much like the Christian God. Another infinity that just appears whole.

There's no "My infinity" you imbecile. YOU are the one making a claim...

Your position is that an infinity is possible if one somehow appears whole by magic.

But even that is not possible. No miracle can even make an infinity appear whole.

All the fractions between zero and one can never be expressed. They can never all be made real.

No miracle can make them all be expressed.

No matter how many were expressed an infinity more would always not be expressed.

If we actually try to look at a real infinity we can see none are possible. Even YOUR infinity through miracle.

 

[Juma]

Your position is explained in one word.

Miracle. Your infinity looks very much like the Christian God. Another infinity that just appears whole.

There's no "My infinity" you imbecile. YOU are the one making a claim...

Your position is that an infinity is possible if one somehow appears whole by magic.

But even that is not possible. No miracle can even make an infinity appear whole.

All the fractions between zero and one can never be expressed. They can never all be made real.

No miracle can make them all be expressed.

No matter how many were expressed an infinity more would always not be expressed.

If we actually try to look at a real infinity we can see none are possible. Even YOUR infinity through miracle.

There is nothing that says that the universe must appear whole. The universe can have changed a lot.... even began with an infinite time already there.