The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

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.

I am talking about the impossibility of real completed infinities.

It is a subject that stands on it's own.

Bringing in some conversation from left field about causes is a distraction.

It is not in any way a demonstration that a real completed infinity is possible.

Try to stick to the matter at hand. Your diversions are a totally different topic.

It's not that I am diverting but that you are avoiding problems that are being raised. I am asking you to explain the problem of infinite regression if, as you claim, everything that exists (detectable) must have a beginning and a cause, which in turn must have a beginning and a cause, ad infinitum. This being a major flaw in your proposition.

It is not a problem.

It is a necessity.

How it occurred is merely an unknown. It involves an existence unlike the one we are trapped in.

There are many many unknowns.

Basically you're saying the existence we are in is the only possible kind of existence.

 

[Juma]

"Always going on" is just a miracle phrase that has no explanation or possible evidence.

If the time before last week was "always going on" then the start of last week could be pushed back without end.

Last week could never occur in such an absurd magical situation.

? No. Not if time has always been going on. But you will never grasp that.

 

[untermensche]

"Always going on" is just a miracle phrase that has no explanation or possible evidence.

If the time before last week was "always going on" then the start of last week could be pushed back without end.

Last week could never occur in such an absurd magical situation.

? No. Not if time has always been going on. But you will never grasp that.

No I will never join your absurd religion.

You think a real completed infinity is possible if you just say the magic words "always going on".

It is childish nonsense.

Ridiculous.

If the initiation of all events can be pushed back without end then no events will occur.

For any progression to exist, including the progression of events in time, there must be a beginning to that progression. The idea of a progression without a beginning is an absurdity.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is that supposed to mean? Of course infinite sets can be complete. Take the set of all real values from 1 to 2. Why wouldnt that be complete? In what meaning is that set not complete.

This is one aspect of infinity that blows my mind. Take a cube of size 1cm x 1cm x 1cm. It is, it would seem, complete and bounded, but on the other hand it can be subdivided and subdivided infinitely. But in a manner of speaking, you can literally put infinity in your pocket.

View attachment 15413

Menger Sponge. Only 3 iterations shown, for convenience.

This would suggest that if we made the units of time infinitely small, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time (or at least an infinite number of infinito-seconds). On the other hand, I am thinking that there is something badly wrong with that reasoning.

Plank length. There is a smallest length 1.6 X 10**-35 meter. Since the speed of light is C, the time for transversing 1 Plank Length is 10**-43 seconds. That is the smallest length of time that exists. The granularity of time and space of the Universe means that an infinitely sub-divisible time does not exist. Thus puzzles involving infinitely sub-divisible time can safely be ignored.

 

[bilby]

What is that supposed to mean? Of course infinite sets can be complete. Take the set of all real values from 1 to 2. Why wouldnt that be complete? In what meaning is that set not complete.

This is one aspect of infinity that blows my mind. Take a cube of size 1cm x 1cm x 1cm. It is, it would seem, complete and bounded, but on the other hand it can be subdivided and subdivided infinitely. But in a manner of speaking, you can literally put infinity in your pocket.

View attachment 15413

Menger Sponge. Only 3 iterations shown, for convenience.

This would suggest that if we made the units of time infinitely small, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time (or at least an infinite number of infinito-seconds). On the other hand, I am thinking that there is something badly wrong with that reasoning.

Plank length. There is a smallest length 1.6 X 10**-35 meter. Since the speed of light is C, the time for transversing 1 Plank Length is 10**-43 seconds. That is the smallest length of time that exists. The granularity of time and space of the Universe means that an infinitely sub-divisible time does not exist. Thus puzzles involving infinitely sub-divisible time can safely be ignored.

The Planck Length is not the smallest possible length; It is just the smallest length at which classical physics is meaningful. Your confidence that infinitely sub-divisible space/time does not exist is misplaced; Puzzles involving it cannot be solved (or even meaningfully stated) using classical physics, but that's a constraint on our understanding, not a constraint on physical reality.

 

[fromderinside]

completion is not relevant to infinite count or measure

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.

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

Very lost.

I'm only interested in an infinity. If something needs completion to exist then we don't exist. Ergo you aren't. Your argument isn't and it never will be. Amen.*

*^{_{attempt to convince by faith based argument}}

 

[untermensche]

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.

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

Very lost.

I'm only interested in an infinity. If something needs completion to exist then we don't exist. Ergo you aren't. Your argument isn't and it never will be. Amen.*

*^{_{attempt to convince by faith based argument}}

You get more lost by the minute.

Completion is something a running series can achieve. Like the running series of events. But only finite series complete.

The past represents the series of events that have completed.

Clearly they were a finite series.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Plank length. There is a smallest length 1.6 X 10**-35 meter. Since the speed of light is C, the time for transversing 1 Plank Length is 10**-43 seconds. That is the smallest length of time that exists. The granularity of time and space of the Universe means that an infinitely sub-divisible time does not exist. Thus puzzles involving infinitely sub-divisible time can safely be ignored.

The Planck Length is not the smallest possible length; It is just the smallest length at which classical physics is meaningful. Your confidence that infinitely sub-divisible space/time does not exist is misplaced; Puzzles involving it cannot be solved (or even meaningfully stated) using classical physics, but that's a constraint on our understanding, not a constraint on physical reality.

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Below the Plank units is like discussing a line without width, a fiction. Now the real question is, why does the Universe have this granularity? Infinitely divisible time and space are pseudo-problems without real meaning. It is akin to discussions as to how long a unicorn's horn is. Even some ancient Greeks thinking about Zeno's paradoxes realized that infinitely divisible time was not the real underlying nature of physics, (including Zeno).

 

[fromderinside]

But only finite series complete.

The past represents the series of events that have completed.

Clearly they were a finite series.

I'll just take these to illustrate how badly you think.

First, any series that completes need not be past. Many series are constantly being evaluated for finiteness in the present so many finite series can be uncompleted in the present for just that reason. Also other finite series are either yet to be defined or in the process of being defined in the present so they are not past either. Third is absurd to suggest that the number of series are complete as many maths are being developed as we speak.

Many series can still be in process of being counted to determine whether they can actually be fully counted so we don't know whether they are finite or no in present or future. Then as bilby points out quantum theory does no lay down the limits of measure so the construct of infinite progression, extent, or measure are viable in a relativistic world.

Clearly your complete is no divider.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll just take these to illustrate how badly you think.

You're being very harsh, as usual. I was just pleased to notice how bad his English was. Bad thinking would be more serious as an offense. And you can't possibly prove it's bad thinking since it might just be bad English.

Similarly, we couldn't prove finiteness even if all things happened to be finite. Measuring wouldn't help, and theories, even scientific ones, can be plain wrong, which is one of the best verified scientific result we know of. Some people here you keep talking to seem to work from "common sens", at least if we judge by the little we get in terms of any rational argument and fact, but common sens would be woefully inadequate to assess the possibility of an infinite past, let alone the reality of it if it be the case.

And now you say this chap doesn't even think straight! Me, i say, you really don't have to be that harsh.

Something else: a closed interval in the set of Reals, say for example [0, 1], will contain an infinite number of elements and also contain its own bounds, 0 and 1 here, and there's therefore nothing "incompleted" about it. An infinite past would be the same, especially since we can now conceive of it as having a beginning after all, thanks to these clever mathemagicians.


EB

 

[DBT]

It's not that I am diverting but that you are avoiding problems that are being raised. I am asking you to explain the problem of infinite regression if, as you claim, everything that exists (detectable) must have a beginning and a cause, which in turn must have a beginning and a cause, ad infinitum. This being a major flaw in your proposition.

It is not a problem.

It is a necessity.

How it occurred is merely an unknown. It involves an existence unlike the one we are trapped in.

There are many many unknowns.

Basically you're saying the existence we are in is the only possible kind of existence.

I'm not saying anything. I am asking you a question about infinite regression, which appears to be a problem with your claim, that everything which exists must have a beginning and a cause....which must apply to each and every cause, so you are left with an infinity, the very thing you deny.

 

[fromderinside]

I'll just take these to illustrate how badly you think.

You're being very harsh, as usual. I was just pleased to notice how bad his English was. Bad thinking would be more serious as an offense. And you can't possibly prove it's bad thinking since it might just be bad English.

Similarly, we couldn't prove finiteness even if all things happened to be finite. Measuring wouldn't help, and theories, even scientific ones, can be plain wrong, which is one of the best verified scientific result we know of. Some people here you keep talking to seem to work from "common sens", at least if we judge by the little we get in terms of any rational argument and fact, but common sens would be woefully inadequate to assess the possibility of an infinite past, let alone the reality of it if it be the case.

And now you say this chap doesn't even think straight! Me, i say, you really don't have to be that harsh.

Something else: a closed interval in the set of Reals, say for example [0, 1], will contain an infinite number of elements and also contain its own bounds, 0 and 1 here, and there's therefore nothing "incompleted" about it. An infinite past would be the same, especially since we can now conceive of it as having a beginning after all, thanks to these clever mathemagicians.


EB

FDI

 

[untermensche]

It's not that I am diverting but that you are avoiding problems that are being raised. I am asking you to explain the problem of infinite regression if, as you claim, everything that exists (detectable) must have a beginning and a cause, which in turn must have a beginning and a cause, ad infinitum. This being a major flaw in your proposition.

It is not a problem.

It is a necessity.

How it occurred is merely an unknown. It involves an existence unlike the one we are trapped in.

There are many many unknowns.

Basically you're saying the existence we are in is the only possible kind of existence.

I'm not saying anything. I am asking you a question about infinite regression, which appears to be a problem with your claim, that everything which exists must have a beginning and a cause....which must apply to each and every cause, so you are left with an infinity, the very thing you deny.

You're claiming there is some problem.

There is just an unknown.

 

[untermensche]

But only finite series complete.

The past represents the series of events that have completed.

Clearly they were a finite series.

I'll just take these to illustrate how badly you think.

First, any series that completes need not be past.

You're only showing how badly you read.

A series either completes or does not.

Infinite series do not. Finite series do.

An infinite series never completes. Not in the past or the future.

It is a series that never completes by definition.

 

[bilby]

Plank length. There is a smallest length 1.6 X 10**-35 meter. Since the speed of light is C, the time for transversing 1 Plank Length is 10**-43 seconds. That is the smallest length of time that exists. The granularity of time and space of the Universe means that an infinitely sub-divisible time does not exist. Thus puzzles involving infinitely sub-divisible time can safely be ignored.

The Planck Length is not the smallest possible length; It is just the smallest length at which classical physics is meaningful. Your confidence that infinitely sub-divisible space/time does not exist is misplaced; Puzzles involving it cannot be solved (or even meaningfully stated) using classical physics, but that's a constraint on our understanding, not a constraint on physical reality.

And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Below the Plank units is like discussing a line without width, a fiction.

No. It's not a fiction. It just requires different tools and language. That classical physics has limits, should not come as a surprise to anyone who learned their physics in the last century, and it does not give us a justification to dismiss as fictional those things that cannot be discussed using classical physics.

Now the real question is, why does the Universe have this granularity?

No, it's not. The real question is DOES the universe have this granularity. And the answer is 'No', according to our best current theories.

Infinitely divisible time and space are pseudo-problems without real meaning.

Not so - both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity require space time to be infinitely divisible.

It is akin to discussions as to how long a unicorn's horn is. Even some ancient Greeks thinking about Zeno's paradoxes realized that infinitely divisible time was not the real underlying nature of physics, (including Zeno).

Perhaps Zeno should have spoken to Einstein or Heisenberg.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of infinite divisibility is absurd.

There is no such thing as the smallest theoretical slice.

A slice must be greater than zero to be considered a slice.

In the real world.

To be real means to be greater than zero.

To be real is to be something as opposed to nothing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thibetan prayer mills anyone?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity require space time to be infinitely divisible.

Require? Or just assume?

So, perhaps , we just happen to not have a good theory, one that would be at least as good as QM and Relativity, that would assume space and time as not infinitely divisible...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

EB

FDI

You are bolder than me.
EB

 

[bilby]

both Quantum Field Theory and Relativity require space time to be infinitely divisible.

Require? Or just assume?

So, perhaps , we just happen to not have a good theory, one that would be at least as good as QM and Relativity, that would assume space and time as not infinitely divisible...
EB

Sure. Just as the best theories of selenology require that the Moon is made of anorthosite, overlying a mantle of pyroxine and olivine. If it is found that in fact the moon is made of cheese, then those theories fail. It's not assumed by the theories, it is required in order for them to continue to be theories. Observation defeats theory, not the other way about.

So, perhaps, we just happen not to have a good theory, one at least as good as the current selenological theories, that would require that the moon is made from dairy products.

I recommend strongly against holding your breath while you wait.