The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

Infinite regression is a problem for those who claim the past was infinite.

A finite past has a finite progression.

No problem.

There is just the unknown of how the finite progression began.

I didn't say that you said or claimed that the past is infinite. I pointed out that infinite regression is implied in the things you have said - everything that exists must have a beginning and a cause, etc. Now you can deny this as much as you like but the problem of infinite regression that is related to what you said does not miraculously vanish.

Finite regression, as far as the conditions we know about, is my position.

Your talk of infinite regression is a deflection and off topic.

 

[DBT]

Infinite regression is a problem for those who claim the past was infinite.

A finite past has a finite progression.

No problem.

There is just the unknown of how the finite progression began.

I didn't say that you said or claimed that the past is infinite. I pointed out that infinite regression is implied in the things you have said - everything that exists must have a beginning and a cause, etc. Now you can deny this as much as you like but the problem of infinite regression that is related to what you said does not miraculously vanish.

Finite regression, as far as the conditions we know about, is my position.

Your talk of infinite regression is a deflection and off topic.

It's neither off topic or a deflection. How is finite regression possible given what you said; that everything that exists must have a beginning and a cause. If finite regression, you appear to begin causality with a causeless manifestation starting the process or you are left with infinite regression, which you reject.

So what is it? Causeless manifestation?

 

[untermensche]

Finite regression, as far as the conditions we know about, is my position.

Your talk of infinite regression is a deflection and off topic.

It's neither off topic or a deflection. How is finite regression possible given what you said; that everything that exists must have a beginning and a cause. If finite regression, you appear to begin causality with a causeless manifestation starting the process or you are left with infinite regression, which you reject.

So what is it? Causeless manifestation?

I never once said everything must have a beginning and a cause.

Not once.

I concluded it is clear the past was not infinite.

I have only examined the concept of a real completed infinity.

You are not reading or responding to my words.

You are just imagining and responding to what you think my position is.

 

[DBT]

Finite regression, as far as the conditions we know about, is my position.

Your talk of infinite regression is a deflection and off topic.

It's neither off topic or a deflection. How is finite regression possible given what you said; that everything that exists must have a beginning and a cause. If finite regression, you appear to begin causality with a causeless manifestation starting the process or you are left with infinite regression, which you reject.

So what is it? Causeless manifestation?

I never once said everything must have a beginning and a cause.

Not once.

.

Yes you have.

You have stated it, referred and alluded to it before;

''It is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning.'' - #561


''A beginning to the events in time is an unknown. All we know for certain is one is needed.'' #620

Events and causes other posts, but this is sufficient to prove you wrong. I don't have the time to waste.

Have you forgotten your own position on this? Or are you now saying the opposite, that events do not require causes and a beginning is not necessary?

It's hard to tell because you appear to say whatever suits your purpose in the moment without regard to your overall position or what you have said before, but now deny.

 

[untermensche]

You confuse what I have stated with what I have concluded.

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

 

[DBT]

You confuse what I have stated with what I have concluded.

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

You said what you said. The meaning of what you said is quite clear. Your denial of saying what you said and meant, that - ''It is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning'' - is undeniable. It is there for anyone to see and anyone to read.

You cannot deny that you have said it.

 

[untermensche]

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

You are evading. That is all you have done the whole time, evade this question.

Is it not?

 

[DBT]

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

You are evading. That is all you have done the whole time, evade this question.

Is it not?

I have pointed out that your terms are bogus. Every distinct event within time/space/matter completes...a car crashes, the event is complete. The car doesn't crash again and again, it has crashed, time and events move on, other events,causes, etc, the police and ambulance arrive, each distinct event, car crash, lunar eclipse, etc, etc, being complete.

So where or when is this beginning? According to you ''it is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning''

How does this beginning get started?

 

[untermensche]

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

You are evading. That is all you have done the whole time, evade this question.

Is it not?

I have pointed out that your terms are bogus. Every distinct event within time/space/matter completes...a car crashes, the event is complete. The car doesn't crash again and again, it has crashed, time and events move on, other events,causes, etc, the police and ambulance arrive, each distinct event, car crash, lunar eclipse, etc, etc, being complete.

So where or when is this beginning? According to you ''it is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning''

How does this beginning get started?

Is this a conformation that infinities do not complete?

Because that is what is needed first.

 

[DBT]

I have concluded that completion is in conflict with the concept of infinity.

Is it not?

You are evading. That is all you have done the whole time, evade this question.

Is it not?

I have pointed out that your terms are bogus. Every distinct event within time/space/matter completes...a car crashes, the event is complete. The car doesn't crash again and again, it has crashed, time and events move on, other events,causes, etc, the police and ambulance arrive, each distinct event, car crash, lunar eclipse, etc, etc, being complete.

So where or when is this beginning? According to you ''it is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning''

How does this beginning get started?

Is this a conformation that infinities do not complete?

Because that is what is needed first.

Each finite event begins, progresses and ends. It completes.
The system as a whole existed before and exists after the event, or any number of events, completed or not.
The system as a whole is composed of an infinite number of finite events; events that have a beginning, events in progress, events that are ending, etc, etc.
The geometry of an open ended system, having no boundary, is infinite.

 

[untermensche]

Past events -------------Present moment ------------- Future events

When looking at time from a present moment we can see that all the past events have completed. No more past events will occur.

The only events that will occur are future events.

Infinity is not compatible with completion.

Past events were not infinite since they complete at every present moment.