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

The idea of an infinite past

Juma said:
untermensche said:
fromderinside said:
get a grip. infinity is applied to count and measure. That is it's existing definition. Should you want to talk about process find a thread on process. Don't try to impose something that is not there on the question being considered.

.., and even if process were part of the topic, which is is not, we would be looking at infinite processes which such as the universe may be. The universe may be a multiverse or a chaotic thing. If we look at limits we find that energy cannot be stable at zero motion, that whenever motion approaches zero in on context it energy appears in another. Perhaps the mechanism for an infinite process in one that is generally considered to be winding down. Musts have a habit of becoming probabilities, maybes, whenever we approach them empirically. So the relation between process and stasis is blurred, perhaps non-existent.

Laying demands on what has to happen is the bane of science since whenever someone does that that one's pet is overturned.

OK now back to your chants.

We are, in this discussion, at the point of finding the difference between misconstrued rational discussion and probabilistic empirical discussion.
Click to expand...

Get an argument.

Infinity applies to no count. It is a process of counting without end. No matter where you are in your count you are infinitely away from the finish. You cannot approach the finish no less have a finish.

Nothing has the quantity "infinity".

And nothing is infinite meters wide. Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the process of an expanding width without end.
Click to expand...
The infinite isnt a process.
Click to expand...

The infinite what is not a process?

What are you talking about?
 
untermensche said:
fromderinside said:
get a grip. infinity is applied to count and measure. That is it's existing definition.

OK now back to your chants.
Click to expand...

Get an argument.

Infinity applies to no count. It is a process of counting without end. No matter where you are in your count you are infinitely away from the finish. You cannot approach the finish no less have a finish.

Nothing has the quantity "infinity".

And nothing is infinite meters wide. Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the process of an expanding width without end.
Click to expand...

Find support for your definition. Show us the definition in some dictionary for which you argue. Failing that it's time for you to go quietly into that good night.
 
fromderinside said:
untermensche said:
fromderinside said:
get a grip. infinity is applied to count and measure. That is it's existing definition.

OK now back to your chants.
Click to expand...

Get an argument.

Infinity applies to no count. It is a process of counting without end. No matter where you are in your count you are infinitely away from the finish. You cannot approach the finish no less have a finish.

Nothing has the quantity "infinity".

And nothing is infinite meters wide. Infinity is not a quantity.

It is the process of an expanding width without end.
Click to expand...

Find support for your definition. Show us the definition in some dictionary for which you argue. Failing that it's time for you to go quietly into that good night.
Click to expand...

You are reduced to this?

The idea of an infinite series is that no matter how far you move through it you are no closer to the finish.

The finish cannot be approached. There is no finish. No completion. Ever. That is a violation of the concept.

This is common knowledge.

The past events could not have been infinite. They complete at every present moment.
 
It's not a thing. It's not an achievable amount. It's not an end point. It's not something that can just stand on it's own.

An infinity of what?
 
untermensche said:
I have explained this to you several times.

A beginning to the events in time is an unknown.

All we know for certain is one is needed.

Infinities do not exist and they certainly don't complete.
Click to expand...


You have explained nothing. You have avoided plenty. That the ''beginning to the events in time is unknown'' is irrelevant to the problem of infinite regression. Be it known or unknown causation, you are still left with the issue of a cause for the cause and so on....according to your own claim that everything that exists and can be detected must have a beginning and a cause.

Hence my question; what about the cause? Does it too require a beginning and a cause?

Can you answer the question or not?
 
They are unrelated topics.

Just because you have a fear of so-called infinite regressions does not make a real completed infinity possible.

Try to stick to the matter at hand.

You are polluting the discussion with irrelevancies.

The topic is the possibility of a real completed infinity.

Nothing else.
 
They are not unrelated. My question is directly related to what you yourself have claimed. Can you answer the question or not?
 
It has no connection to anything I am saying.

I am talking about the impossibility of a real completed infinity not about your problems with a first cause.

A real completed infinity does not become possible just because you can't understand how finite events could begin.
 
untermensche said:
It has no connection to anything I am saying.

I am talking about the impossibility of a real completed infinity not about your problems with a first cause.

A real completed infinity does not become possible just because you can't understand how finite events could begin.
Click to expand...

why are you continuing this shit? there must be thousands of similar post where you states that a real complete infinity isnt possible.
and yet not a hint of a logical argument leading to that conclusion,

are you trying to prove yourself wrong by making this thread a real completed infinity?
 
Juma said:
untermensche said:
It has no connection to anything I am saying.

I am talking about the impossibility of a real completed infinity not about your problems with a first cause.

A real completed infinity does not become possible just because you can't understand how finite events could begin.
Click to expand...

why are you continuing this shit? there must be thousands of similar post where you states that a real complete infinity isnt possible.
and yet not a hint of a logical argument leading to that conclusion,

are you trying to prove yourself wrong by making this thread a real completed infinity?
Click to expand...

Infinities do not complete. If you think they do show me one that completes.

At any present moment all the events in the past are complete. They were not infinite.
 
Juma said:
why are you continuing this shit? there must be thousands of similar post where you states that a real complete infinity isnt possible.
and yet not a hint of a logical argument leading to that conclusion,

are you trying to prove yourself wrong by making this thread a real completed infinity?
Click to expand...

Don't support his addiction then.

Can't you have pity on him?! :p
EB
 
If I am addicted to anything it is the laughs I get as one person after another twists themselves into a pretzel trying to demonstrate infinity could be something real.

After I play with them for a while they suddenly realize the stupidity of their arguments and leave in a grand childish huff.

It is very amusing from my end.

To get to see adults claim that an infinite series completes if we just call it a set. Magical thinking.

The laughs you get from stuff like that are priceless.
 
fromderinside said:
Above satisfies APA requirements for delusional. I wonder if he's looking at a mirror when he points. One thing sure, infinite ignorance had been demonstrated on this thread.
Click to expand...

You're delusional if you think a real completed infinity is possible.

Very lost.
 
The question being, if everything that exists (detectable) must have a beginning and a cause, what about the first cause....if infinity is impossible? No cause or beginning required for for the first cause? Hence the claimed rule has exemptions?
 
We are talking about a first cause to all that can be observed in some way. Including time.

That first cause need not be some continuation of what we know of as time.

It need not be understandable to us.

You are basically saying we understand "everything", not just what can be observed in some way.

We don't. And what is beyond our knowledge need not be a continuation of all we can observe in some way.
 
I'm not saying that ''we understand everything'' - I'm not saying anything. It's a question. I am asking you to explain your own rules and principles; that 'everything that exists (detectable) must have a beginning and a cause' in relation to an initial beginning, the first cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom