The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

I'm pretty sure you've demonstrated your coders have deliberately made you spout nonsense, sprinkled with a few truths they desire to associate with incorrect thinking.

I know I've been trolled into making comments that discredit me.... but that was the price I had to pay to learn the truth.

Discredit yourself first, and the corrupt will teach you the truth. It's the only path to knowledge.

I can't force you to defend your nonsense.

But you have not once given a reasonable explanation for why you have this strange religious belief that a real infinity can appear whole by magic.

You spew absolute rubbish like a person can somehow move in infinitely small increments. Totally unsupported nonsense.

I would rather be a bot than a fool that sees infinities that in no way exist. A deluded religious nutjob.

 

[Kharakov]

You spew absolute rubbish like a person can somehow move in infinitely small increments.

How does untersex work without them?

 

[untermensche]

What exactly is an infinitely small movement?

How far is that?

In millimeters.

 

[Kharakov]

What exactly is an infinitely small movement?

How far is that?

In millimeters.

I don't understand untersex. Why don't you explain it?

 

[untermensche]

What exactly is an infinitely small movement?

How far is that?

In millimeters.

I don't understand untersex. Why don't you explain it?

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

And your eye can't look down an infinitely small path.

There are no real infinities.

To think so is to be pretty simple.

 

[Kharakov]

What exactly is an infinitely small movement?

How far is that?

In millimeters.

I don't understand untersex. Why don't you explain it?

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

I can't move what an infinitely small amount?

 

[beero1000]

What exactly is an infinitely small movement?

How far is that?

In millimeters.

I don't understand untersex. Why don't you explain it?

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

And your eye can't look down an infinitely small path.

There are no real infinities.

To think so is to be pretty simple.

Still stubbornly making the same mistakes, I see.

 

[fast]

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

And your eye can't look down an infinitely small path.

There are no real infinities.

To think so is to be pretty simple.

Still stubbornly making the same mistakes, I see.

Let me give it a go.

There is no specific distance that is an infinite distance. We can move a finite distance, but we cannot move an infinite distance. There is no actual physical particle that can move a specific distance that is quantified by "infinity."

If a particle moves 1 meter then half that, then half that, and again and again 10¹⁰! times, it will be a specific finite number. Infinity isn't, well, finite.

I'll be stubborn on my next post. Don't have time for stubbornness right now.

 

[untermensche]

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

And your eye can't look down an infinitely small path.

There are no real infinities.

To think so is to be pretty simple.

Still stubbornly making the same mistakes, I see.

What you call a mistake is me pointing out the absurdity of claims of real infinities.

 

[untermensche]

You can't move an infinitely small amount.

And your eye can't look down an infinitely small path.

There are no real infinities.

To think so is to be pretty simple.

Still stubbornly making the same mistakes, I see.

Let me give it a go.

There is no specific distance that is an infinite distance. We can move a finite distance, but we cannot move an infinite distance. There is no actual physical particle that can move a specific distance that is quantified by "infinity."

If a particle moves 1 meter then half that, then half that, and again and again 10¹⁰! times, it will be a specific finite number. Infinity isn't, well, finite.

I'll be stubborn on my next post. Don't have time for stubbornness right now.

If there is movement it has to be a positive movement. If something had to move the theoretically smallest amount first in order to move then no movement could ever occur.

Because there is no theoretically smallest movement.

There is only the smallest physical movement possible.

 

[fromderinside]

Its a problem with being continuous. Any continuous thing can be subdivided to whatever level one attempts with there being a continuous interval between the least measured parts. The interval is not infinite. It has the property of being infinitely divisible because it is continuous. The world doe not become unreal when there is continuity, it's measurement may not ever reach a minimum interval because the thing being measured is continuous. That is the nature of the beast. It's a primary reason we talk in terms of fields now.

 

[untermensche]

The claim that in the real world continuity is possible is an empty unsupported claim.

It is a religious claim.

I await the proof of infinity and am tired of the seemingly endless unsupported claims of infinity.

The concept of continuity is an absurdity.

That is what all those paradoxes demonstrate. When you try to apply infinity to reality you are quickly reduced to absurdity.

We are in the age where we understand the concept of quantized entities.

And we can dispense with the absurd imaginary idea of continuity.

Imaginary world of continuity: No movement is possible because to move from rest requires making the smallest theoretical movement first. Something that doesn't exist.

The real world of quantized movement: Movement is possible because to move from rest only requires the smallest possible physical as opposed to theoretical movement.

 

[beero1000]

And round and round we go...

 

[untermensche]

And round and round we go...

You could stop it.

Demonstrate a real infinity and you are done.

Keep pretending an imaginary infinity could be real and my work will not end.

 

[Kharakov]

And round and round we go...

Everyone except untermensche. Remember, they cannot rotate in a circle, because they can only face a finite amount of directions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think anyone could possibly know for a fact that the past hasn't been going on for an infinitely long time.

I also don't think there is any contradiction in the idea of an infinite past.

So, on that basis, I would say that it seems possible to me that the past has been an infinite past, i.e. a past without a beginning.

If anyone disagrees here, please explain why.
EB

Time to wrap up, I think.

So, no, nobody came up with anything like a cogent expression of the position that an infinite past would be somehow an impossibility. Indeed, nearly all posters here have expressed their view that such a position could not be cogently expressed. This is an empirical confirmation of the OP, in that only one poster in the known universe could be found to argue against the possibility of an infinite past, and that, crucially, this poster has been miserably unable to articulate any cogent expression to his position.

This can only be seen as a conclusive outcome given that this poster is also a very articulate and rational poster, and a magnificently determined one. If anyone could find a cogent argument against the possibility of an infinite past, it is this one poster. He has doggedly tried, you have to give him that, but in the end couldn't. QED
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think anyone could possibly know for a fact that the past hasn't been going on for an infinitely long time.

I also don't think there is any contradiction in the idea of an infinite past.

So, on that basis, I would say that it seems possible to me that the past has been an infinite past, i.e. a past without a beginning.

If anyone disagrees here, please explain why.
EB

Time to wrap up, I think.

So, no, nobody came up with anything like a cogent expression of the position that an infinite past would be somehow an impossibility.

One could look at a recent post on a sister thead ....

 

[Speakpigeon]

One could look at a recent post on a sister thead ....

The jury is still out on that. The human mind is so full of mind-boggling stuff.
EB

 

[untermensche]

So, no, nobody came up with anything like a cogent expression of the position that an infinite past would be somehow an impossibility...

If somebody claims a completed infinity occurred somehow or is possible it is up to them to prove such a thing is possible.

Real world completion is a contradiction to the manner in which infinities are defined.

None are defined in such as way as to allow real world completion. None are imagined to have anything to do with the real world.

To try to apply them to reality is an absurdity.

Try to create a real world correspondence to an infinity and see if completion is possible. Can you count infinite coins? Can you turn infinite cards? Can you say infinite things? Can an infinite quantity of anything that takes up space exist?

You have enough.

I can not make people understand when they have enough. I can only give it to them.

It is a large claim to say something is impossible.

But it is very easy to disprove it by demonstrating an infinity that is possible.

Your non-acceptance of my position is not any kind of argument about my position.

You have not even shown you understand my position.

 

[untermensche]

And round and round we go...

Everyone except untermensche. Remember, they cannot rotate in a circle, because they can only face a finite amount of directions.

You can turn in a circle by making a series of finite movements.

Which is what humans do.

To imagine an infinity is needed is absolute nonsense.

It is religious-like thinking.

Seeing infinities where none exist.