The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

If infinity exists it is, by self definition, complete. There is no reason why infinity cannot exist. That it appears unlikely is not a reason. Saying infinity cannot be 'completed' is not a reason, it is only your claim. A claim you cannot support.

The question is whether a completed real infinity is possible. Those that claim it is possible have work to do.

Simply claiming a real completed infinity could possibly exist is not a rational claim. It is a totally worthless irrational claim.

Show me how a real completed infinity could possibly exist.

I gave an example. If our universe is but a part of an infinite/eternal multiverse in which universes come and go forever, perhaps by means of an infinite quantum field (fluctuations), then this multiverse in which our 'universe' resides is indeed a completed infinity and always was.....being eternal and infinite by definition.

You can't prove infinity is real by just pretending there is an infinity.

That is all you're doing. Pretending an infinity is possibly.

Not demonstrating one is.

- - - Updated - - -

The paper burns and cannot unburn.

Yeah, I guess you're some special kind of paper yourself, you can't unwrong yourself.
EB

You can't demonstrate one thing I have said is wrong.

But nothing is more wrong than thinking a series can begin at infinity and end at negative one.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Withdrawal.

I don't know if anyone will care, but I'm going to stop posting in this thread for a while, maybe forever - who knows ?

I am finding that it is taking too much out of me, with a building anxiety, loss of sleep, and potential for a depressive
episode. At least I have had an opportunity to think, and will continue do think on the matters that have been at
issue here.

I am still unconvinced of the impossibility of an infinite time-past, though it may be impossible, or it
may just simply be not actual. But it may also be possible. I have many lines of thought going on in my head, and I
hope that in the fullness of time I'll make progress with them. At least I have some things to look out for, so if I do
come across anything that adds to, confirms or disaffirms anything relevant, I'll be sufficiently on the ball to take notice.

My apologies if anyone had asked me any questions, but no answers will be forthcoming, any time soon. Thanks to all
who have contributed in this thread, especially untermensche, but for whom it would have probably burned out
quite some time ago.

Best wishes to you all, Pops

 

[fast]

No one said you can leave.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But nothing is more wrong than thinking a series can begin at infinity and end at negative one.

Series? What series? I never mentioned any series myself!

Each of your posts is testament you're wrong, with each time more bad English, fudge, and unsupported assumptions and claims.

I take it you're here just to relish living up to the standards proclaimed by your pseudo.
EB

 

[untermensche]

But nothing is more wrong than thinking a series can begin at infinity and end at negative one.

Series? What series? I never mentioned any series myself!

Each of your posts is testament you're wrong, with each time more bad English, fudge, and unsupported assumptions and claims.

I take it you're here just to relish living up to the standards proclaimed by your pseudo.
EB

You said the set began at negative one.

Even worse.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You sure like to misread everything to your liking.

I definitely didn't say that the set of negative integers "began at negative one". It's all in your imagination.

What I said was that the set of negative integers ends at -1, meaning that -1 is the last negative integer, meaning that -1 is superior to all other negative integers.

That's pretty uncontroversial, I think, but if you really disagree with that, please explain.

But in any case, please abstain from sneaking back your irrelevant notion of "series". I'm not talking about a series. I'm only talking of a set here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You sure like to misread everything to your liking.

I definitely didn't say that the set of negative integers "began at negative one". It's all in your imagination.

What I said was that the set of negative integers ends at -1, meaning that -1 is the last negative integer, meaning that -1 is superior to all other negative integers.

That's pretty uncontroversial, I think, but if you really disagree with that, please explain.

But in any case, please abstain from sneaking back your irrelevant notion of "series". I'm not talking about a series. I'm only talking of a set here.
EB

Sets don't begin or end. They don't even have to have an order.

The set of 1,2,3 is the exact same set as 2,1,3 and 3,2,1.

And calling an infinite series a set does not make it complete.

An infinite series does not complete.

The entire series of events in the past completes at every present moment.

They were not infinite. The past was not infinite.

To think so is laughable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You sure like to misread everything to your liking.

I definitely didn't say that the set of negative integers "began at negative one". It's all in your imagination.

What I said was that the set of negative integers ends at -1, meaning that -1 is the last negative integer, meaning that -1 is superior to all other negative integers.

That's pretty uncontroversial, I think, but if you really disagree with that, please explain.

But in any case, please abstain from sneaking back your irrelevant notion of "series". I'm not talking about a series. I'm only talking of a set here.
EB

Sets don't begin or end. They don't even have to have an order.

The set of 1,2,3 is the exact same set as 2,1,3 and 3,2,1.

And calling an infinite series a set does not make it complete.

An infinite series does not complete.

The entire series of events in the past completes at every present moment.

They were not infinite. The past was not infinite.

To think so is laughable.

See, you can't stop yourself. You can't stop yourself from talking about series!

And, meanwhile, you sure haven't found anything relevant to say about the set on negative integers.

So, just more fudge. Fudge sure is cheap with you!

You must have a production unit somewhere near you.

What a fool I would have been hoping you would address my points!
EB

 

[untermensche]

The set is a set of a series.

Your magical thinking is getting tiresome.

An infinite series does not by magic complete simply because you call it a set. That is pure ignorance.

And the past is a series of events.

The paper does not unburn.

Ever.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, I'm only talking about a set here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A set that is continually expanding.

Not a static set.

Calling an infinite series a set does not allow it to complete.

Your magic spells are childish nonsense.

Infinity is not an amount.

A set cannot have infinite elements.

It can either have a finite number of elements or continually expanding elements.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sorry, not one sentence in there that doesn't make me laugh.
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

People used and understood quantities before they had formal symbols or even more removed formal arbitrary schemes to define those symbols.

People drank water before they knew of hydrogen and oxygen. That doesn't mean we can ignore chemistry in trying to understand what water is.

Oxygen and hydrogen were discovered.

And they are not defined by humans.

They are defined by their properties that humans partially understand.

Your schemes are totally arbitrary.

Whole new schemes could be invented tomorrow and nothing about numbers would change.

What schemes? The Peano axioms are not a scheme. They're the axioms which will hold of natural numbers however you define them. The fact that the natural numbers are the simplest kind of recursive data is a fact of the natural numbers however you define them. These facts were discovered. They are true now, have always been true, and will always be true of any attempt to define/encode/implement natural numbers.

 

[DBT]

I gave an example. If our universe is but a part of an infinite/eternal multiverse in which universes come and go forever, perhaps by means of an infinite quantum field (fluctuations), then this multiverse in which our 'universe' resides is indeed a completed infinity and always was.....being eternal and infinite by definition.

You can't prove infinity is real by just pretending there is an infinity.

I don't have to prove it's real. I am not claiming it is real. I am pointing out that there is no apparent reason why it has to be impossible

That is all you're doing. Pretending an infinity is possibly.

Not demonstrating one is.

I gave an example of a possible infinity/eternity in the form of a Multiverse. Whether a Multiverse exists or not is irrelevant. However unlikely it may seem, it is within the realm of possibility.

 

[untermensche]

Oxygen and hydrogen were discovered.

And they are not defined by humans.

They are defined by their properties that humans partially understand.

Your schemes are totally arbitrary.

Whole new schemes could be invented tomorrow and nothing about numbers would change.

What schemes? The Peano axioms are not a scheme. They're the axioms which will hold of natural numbers however you define them. The fact that the natural numbers are the simplest kind of recursive data is a fact of the natural numbers however you define them. These facts were discovered. They are true now, have always been true, and will always be true of any attempt to define/encode/implement natural numbers.

1. 0 is a natural number.

That is just the beginning of an arbitrary scheme. It is an arbitrary definition.

2. For every natural number x, x = x.

Again totally arbitrary. Another arbitrary definition.

There is nothing objective about any of this. It is just very useful to define things in this arbitrary manner. That is all.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have to prove it's real. I am not claiming it is real. I am pointing out that there is no apparent reason why it has to be impossible

You are saying a real completed infinity is possible.

Prove it.

You have offered no proof. Just some empty speculations.

 

[Phil Scott]

2. For every natural number x, x = x.

Again totally arbitrary. Another arbitrary definition.

Reflexivity of equality is arbitrary?

Jesus help me.

Euclid had much more than that to say about equality, under the title Common Notions.

I think I'm now done. Cheers!

 

[untermensche]

2. For every natural number x, x = x.

Again totally arbitrary. Another arbitrary definition.

Reflexivity of equality is arbitrary?

Jesus help me.

Euclid had much more than that to say about equality, under the title Common Notions.

I think I'm now done. Cheers!

It is only useful, not objective. It takes more than wrote learning to understand the difference.

You give up so many times my stomach turns at the sight of your posts.

You waste my time. You are a total waste of time.

There is a mathematics subsection at this board.

Why you wander into philosophical discussions since you have nothing to say is unknown.

 

[DBT]

You are saying a real completed infinity is possible.

Prove it.

You have offered no proof. Just some empty speculations.

The description I gave is that of an infinite/eternal Multiverse. There is no apparent reason why such a thing impossible, however unlikely it may be. Whether a multiverse exists or not is irrelevant.

So the question - without your usual causal dismissal of anything you happen to disagree with - what reason do you have to exclude the possibility of an eternal Multiverse?

 

[untermensche]

You are saying a real completed infinity is possible.

Prove it.

You have offered no proof. Just some empty speculations.

The description I gave is that of an infinite/eternal Multiverse. There is no apparent reason why such a thing impossible, however unlikely it may be. Whether a multiverse exists or not is irrelevant.

So the question - without your usual causal dismissal of anything you happen to disagree with - what reason do you have to exclude the possibility of an eternal Multiverse?

You gave no description of a multiverse.

You gave some empty speculations about it.

All speculations about infinities in the real world are empty.

They are not physical possibilities.

Completion and infinity are two concepts in opposition to one another.

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

 

[Phil Scott]

You give up so many times my stomach turns at the sight of your posts.

Okay. That's kind of awesome. This is a 50-page thread, and it's not the first thread that's done those sort of numbers with folk going back-and-forth with you in whatever Sisyphean struggle this in. The idea that you feel sickened that I'm not ready to go another 50 pages to Nowhereville with you makes me smile in a way. Keep dancing untermensche. Your band is still playing and the audience are still engaged. No-one can explain it, and no-one needs to. I hope to see these threads still going in 5 years time.