The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

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

I'll ask the dairy industry to look into this. I don't think you could trust the non-specialists on this.

I recommend strongly against holding your breath while you wait.

Oh, God, thanks bilby, I really was getting blue in the face.

Is it time you went to bed or is it just you visiting old friends?
EB

 

[DBT]

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.

I am referring to your own terms and conditions, not something unknown. You need to explain the problem of infinite regression that is related to your own terms and conditions....not just brush it of as ''unknown''

 

[untermensche]

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.

I am referring to your own terms and conditions, not something unknown. You need to explain the problem of infinite regression that is related to your own terms and conditions....not just brush it of as ''unknown''

Again. You are claiming there is a problem.

There is no problem. Real infinities are not possible.

There is only an unknown. How time began. What conditions it arose from.

 

[untermensche]

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

The models use infinity.

Some confuse models with the real thing.

 

[DBT]

I am referring to your own terms and conditions, not something unknown. You need to explain the problem of infinite regression that is related to your own terms and conditions....not just brush it of as ''unknown''

Again. You are claiming there is a problem.

There is no problem. Real infinities are not possible.

There is only an unknown. How time began. What conditions it arose from.

Rather than deal with the problem as I outlined it, you simply claim that there is no problem and restate your assertions.

 

[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.

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.

Only those series shown to be complete can trely said to be complete. If they are not counted or measured how can one say they are complete?

One might evaluate them against those that are known to complete except there are statements (sets/series) of limit that extend or converge to infinity. One might compute might the limit except numbers are infinitely divisible so completion counts or measure are not possible. So how does one establish a series or set is complete?

 

[untermensche]

I am referring to your own terms and conditions, not something unknown. You need to explain the problem of infinite regression that is related to your own terms and conditions....not just brush it of as ''unknown''

Again. You are claiming there is a problem.

There is no problem. Real infinities are not possible.

There is only an unknown. How time began. What conditions it arose from.

Rather than deal with the problem as I outlined it, you simply claim that there is no problem and restate your assertions.

First you say you are claiming nothing, now you claim you have found some problem.

You haven't.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Only those series shown to be complete can trely said to be complete. If they are not counted or measured how can one say they are complete?

One might evaluate them against those that are known to complete except there are statements (sets/series) of limit that extend or converge to infinity. One might compute might the limit except numbers are infinitely divisible so completion counts or measure are not possible. So how does one establish a series or set is complete?

A series is defined as either containing finite or infinite elements.

A series with infinite elements is defined such that there is no limit to the number of elements. It is defined to never complete.

If you see any series that completes, like the series of events in the past that complete at every present moment, you know beyond doubt it was not infinite.

 

[DBT]

Rather than deal with the problem as I outlined it, you simply claim that there is no problem and restate your assertions.

First you say you are claiming nothing, now you claim you have found some problem.

I was asking you a question related to your claim. You are avoiding the question. You persistently deflect the question,

You haven't.

So you claim...while avoiding the question.

 

[fromderinside]

Only those series shown to be complete can truely said to be complete. If they are not counted or measured how can one say they are complete?

One might evaluate them against those that are known to complete except there are statements (sets/series) of limit that extend or converge to infinity. One might compute might the limit except numbers are infinitely divisible so completion counts or measure are not possible. So how does one establish a series or set is complete?

A series is defined as either containing finite or infinite elements.

A series with infinite elements is defined such that there is no limit to the number of elements. It is defined to never complete.

If you see any series that completes, like the series of events in the past that complete at every present moment, you know beyond doubt it was not infinite.

You again completely miss the point. Completeness is a process. If something is subject to completeness tests one must wait for those tests to be complete before declaring they are complete. One cannot declare a priori that only those that are infinite do not complete when many which are probably finite are yet to be completed. Your post-current test is worthless.

 

[untermensche]

I was asking you a question related to your claim. You are avoiding the question. You persistently deflect the question,

Your side issue that has nothing to do with whether a real completed infinity is possible has been answered many times.

You just don't like the answer.

It is not a problem.

It is an unknown.

 

[untermensche]

Only those series shown to be complete can truely said to be complete. If they are not counted or measured how can one say they are complete?

One might evaluate them against those that are known to complete except there are statements (sets/series) of limit that extend or converge to infinity. One might compute might the limit except numbers are infinitely divisible so completion counts or measure are not possible. So how does one establish a series or set is complete?

A series is defined as either containing finite or infinite elements.

A series with infinite elements is defined such that there is no limit to the number of elements. It is defined to never complete.

If you see any series that completes, like the series of events in the past that complete at every present moment, you know beyond doubt it was not infinite.

You again completely miss the point. Completeness is a process. If something is subject to completeness tests one must wait for those tests to be complete before declaring they are complete. One cannot declare a priori that only those that are infinite do not complete when many which are probably finite are yet to be completed. Your post-current test is worthless.

Completeness is a process.

We are talking about the process of events occurring.

And all the events in the past have been processed at every present moment. They have all completed.

Therefore it is absolutely clear they were not infinite.

 

[DBT]

I was asking you a question related to your claim. You are avoiding the question. You persistently deflect the question,

Your side issue that has nothing to do with whether a real completed infinity is possible has been answered many times.

You just don't like the answer.

It is not a problem.

It is an unknown.

If, as you claim, that all things that exist (being detectable) must have a cause and a beginning does in fact raise the question of infinite regression because each and every cause, by the same terms and conditions, must also exist and have a cause and beginning, and so on.

This is what you ignore. It is a problem with your claim, like it or not.

 

[untermensche]

I was asking you a question related to your claim. You are avoiding the question. You persistently deflect the question,

Your side issue that has nothing to do with whether a real completed infinity is possible has been answered many times.

You just don't like the answer.

It is not a problem.

It is an unknown.

If, as you claim, that all things that exist (being detectable) must have a cause and a beginning does in fact raise the question of infinite regression because each and every cause, by the same terms and conditions, must also exist and have a cause and beginning, and so on.

This is what you ignore. It is a problem with your claim, like it or not.

All it raises is the idea that the conditions we exist in have not always existed.

How our present conditions arose and from what is an unknown.

And being an unknown there is nothing we can say beyond it is an unknown.

 

[fromderinside]

You again completely miss the point. Completeness is a process. If something is subject to completeness tests one must wait for those tests to be complete before declaring they are complete. One cannot declare a priori that only those that are infinite do not complete when many which are probably finite are yet to be completed. Your post-current test is worthless.

Completeness is a process.

We are talking about the process of events occurring.

And all the events in the past have been processed at every present moment. They have all completed.

Therefore it is absolutely clear they were not infinite.

Really? So the past started? News to me.

Maybe you can use your wit, dull as it may be, to prove the past had a beginning, much less an finite beginning. As far as I can tell what is not present or future is past. We are unable to prove a beginning so as far as I can tell the past is infinite as Speakpigeion put forth in the OP. Oh, and the future who knows what it is.

Seems you are stuck with demonstrating bounds or a container for your presumed finite set.

It gets worse for you. You have no evidence limits are finite since you haven't specified how finding a point between two existing points is not possible.

Looks like untermenche has entered the infinite conundrum dimension. Speaking of dimensions ....

 

[untermensche]

You again completely miss the point. Completeness is a process. If something is subject to completeness tests one must wait for those tests to be complete before declaring they are complete. One cannot declare a priori that only those that are infinite do not complete when many which are probably finite are yet to be completed. Your post-current test is worthless.

Completeness is a process.

We are talking about the process of events occurring.

And all the events in the past have been processed at every present moment. They have all completed.

Therefore it is absolutely clear they were not infinite.

Really? So the past started? News to me.

That's OK. You're not too old to learn something.

You possibly have learned that a real completed infinity is a contradiction of the concept of infinity.

You have no evidence limits are finite since you haven't specified how finding a point between two existing points is not possible.

Not talking about points.

Talking about something real. Events in time.

For something to be an event in time it must be expressed.

An infinity cannot be expressed. You cannot turn over infinite cards.

 

[DBT]

If, as you claim, that all things that exist (being detectable) must have a cause and a beginning does in fact raise the question of infinite regression because each and every cause, by the same terms and conditions, must also exist and have a cause and beginning, and so on.

This is what you ignore. It is a problem with your claim, like it or not.

All it raises is the idea that the conditions we exist in have not always existed.

How our present conditions arose and from what is an unknown.

And being an unknown there is nothing we can say beyond it is an unknown.

No, it's your own terms and conditions that creates the problem, infinite regression, the very thing you claim is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

If, as you claim, that all things that exist (being detectable) must have a cause and a beginning does in fact raise the question of infinite regression because each and every cause, by the same terms and conditions, must also exist and have a cause and beginning, and so on.

This is what you ignore. It is a problem with your claim, like it or not.

All it raises is the idea that the conditions we exist in have not always existed.

How our present conditions arose and from what is an unknown.

And being an unknown there is nothing we can say beyond it is an unknown.

No, it's your own terms and conditions that creates the problem, infinite regression, the very thing you claim is impossible.

Regression is something that only exists as long as time and events exist.

If both have a beginning whatever conditions exist prior to them are not part of the progression.

And nothing can be said of the conditions since they are unlike the conditions we exist in now.

But what is certain is a real completed infinity is a contradiction of the term "infinity".

Infinities don't complete.

 

[fromderinside]

Talking about something real. Events in time.

For something to be an event in time it must be expressed.

An infinity cannot be expressed. You cannot turn over infinite cards.

What a mishmash. For starters there may be no thing 'time'.

Heraclitus may have argued for perpetual change, but, just as reasonably Parmenides maintained there was neither time nor motion. It seems irresistible to accept Heraclitus view until one realizes a picture can communicate the illusion of motion, flux.

So is time just an illusion? Are we not always at the beginning of now and aren't the only real things you consider self evident actually illusions brought forth as memory of other nows and anticipation of nows to come. I argue that all we have is now, there may be unending worlds and universes.

Your lame comments clearly don't convince at all. The only event one can demonstrate is now. Surely expression is memory and memory is itself a previous now or any now other than the present now.

It seems that given the multitude of prospective nows and possible worlds and universes that infinities are common, normal. Quantum theory even suggests that ordering is something only found in the macroworld which is underpinned by the quantum world. I'm sure we can all agree that time is actually just an illusion a convenience, there is no need for it at all in physics or reality.

Maybe a little time reading Julian Brabour (The end of Time) will bring you around. Given your closed mindedness though, probably not.

 

[untermensche]

Talking about something real. Events in time.

For something to be an event in time it must be expressed.

An infinity cannot be expressed. You cannot turn over infinite cards.

What a mishmash. For starters there may be no thing 'time'.

Can you read?

I talk about events, not time.

And infinite events are not an amount of events that can be completed.

Yet all events in the past complete at every moment of the present.

It is clear to anyone who can think they could not have been infinite.

Only a finite series can complete.

 

[fromderinside]

No sir. You speak of process, events in time. The two tied at the hip.

Like Heraclitus argued for perpetual change is almost exactly your position.

So not only can I read I can come up with others who laid out these positions. What you fail to do is to understand that improperly joined through an invention of an imaginary unnecessary thing that supports process. What we call cause and effect may be no more than nows which is just as consistent with QM where there is order but no time. In that scenario it is clearly possible there are many worlds, universerses, sharing in producing the illusion of time. What you try to do is to so constrain explanation as to force it to a single untenable construction. In the timeless world, from a time perspective process and completion is not meaningful. Perhaps there is another dimension or seven we need take into account to explain what appears to be beginning and ending.