The idea of an infinite past

[Speakpigeon]

Of course time does not complete.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment.

At that moment only future events will occur.

No more events will occur in the past.

The past represents change that has completed. It has all occurred.

The future represents changes that will occur.

So, what's special about an infinite past? The events in an infinite past would be complete at every present moment just as they do for a finite past. Can you explain?
EB

 

[untermensche]

Of course time does not complete.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment.

At that moment only future events will occur.

No more events will occur in the past.

The past represents change that has completed. It has all occurred.

The future represents changes that will occur.

So, what's special about an infinite past? The events in an infinite past would be complete at every present moment just as they do for a finite past. Can you explain?
EB

Infinite events do not complete.

You are merely violating the meaning of infinity to pretend one can exist.

Infinity and completion are in conflict with one another.

Like asymptote and intersection are in conflict.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

There's no compelling reason to believe that and you certainly have failed to provide any.

And that's post No. 505! That's really impressive!

And I still don't know what you mean exactly by "completed". What exactly would not be completed about an actual infinite past?
EB

It is the definition of "past".

And the distinction between the past and the present.

The present are events in progress.

The past are events that have completed.

You seem to have no understanding of the distinction between present and past.

All I see here is you being unable or unwilling to explain yourself and justify outlandish claims.

Simple question, no answer. What could be the point of this conversation?
EB

 

[untermensche]

I have seen this tactic before.

If you cannot read English then there are places you can translate the words to French.

When they say I can make sense of not one word you know for certain they are full of shit.

 

[Phil Scott]

We go through cycles of posters valiantly trying to get untermensche to understand the basics of logical argument before eventually running out of patience and giving up. It's been years, and trust me, you can lead this horse to water, but you can't make him think.

We had a poster on here over a decade ago called "Doron Shadmi", who was a certified crank (and someone who may have had mental health issues for which he would have deserved more delicacy and sympathy). The threads didn't go on quite this long, but it was sometimes entertaining, because it would often get the maths geeks on the forum chatting about stuff they wouldn't normally. You and I have had some back-and-forth that I've very much enjoyed, but that's pretty thin lately.

Please don't think I'm trying to be the hero here. It's a whole new level of arrogance when a poster thinks they're going to be the one that makes the crank go "oh, of course! I was being silly the whole time!" My last few posts have been far more derisive that is my usual character (at least under my real name), and it's because I'm not expecting this to go anywhere. It's just cheap entertainment for me after I've had a few evening beers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course time does not complete.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment.

At that moment only future events will occur.

No more events will occur in the past.

The past represents change that has completed. It has all occurred.

The future represents changes that will occur.

So, what's special about an infinite past? The events in an infinite past would be complete at every present moment just as they do for a finite past. Can you explain?
EB

Infinite events do not complete.

You are merely violating the meaning of infinity to pretend one can exist.

Infinity and completion are in conflict with one another.

Like asymptote and intersection are in conflict.

???

You're not making any sense. You're unable to explain yourself. An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

There's no difference between infinite past and finite past except an infinite past would have lasted for ever. There's no difference in that both end with the present and in exactly the same way. If a finite past "completes", whatever that idiotic term means, then so does an infinite past.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Anything can be said about anyone.

Humans tend not to care.

But I have a simple request.

Demonstrate a real completed infinity is first of all not a violation of the concept of infinity. Then demonstrate it is something possible.

It really takes a distorted mind to see this as being a crank.

- - - Updated - - -

Infinite events do not complete.

You are merely violating the meaning of infinity to pretend one can exist.

Infinity and completion are in conflict with one another.

Like asymptote and intersection are in conflict.

???

You're not making any sense. You're unable to explain yourself. An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

There's no difference between infinite past and finite past except an infinite past would have lasted for ever. There's no difference in that both end with the present and in exactly the same way. If a finite past "completes", whatever that idiotic term means, then so does an infinite past.
EB

An asymptote is nothing like infinity?

You want to stick with that?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I have seen this tactic before.

If you cannot read English then there are places you can translate the words to French.

When they say I can make sense of not one word you know for certain they are full of shit.

All I see here is you being both unable and unwilling to explain yourself and justify idiotic claims.

Simple question, no answer. Just insults.
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

You have things exactly backwards like all religious adherents. It is your work to show a number is a discovery.

I'm not making any claims here. These threads are not about us making claims. They're just us pointing out the fact that your argument --- for something most of us probably don't care about --- is a crappy argument. I literally don't care about infinity. I can, just like a lot of people, spot crappy arguments by internet nobodies.

I also don't care whether numbers are invented or discovered. I can just point out when someone has utter failed to make an argument either way, which is also pretty easy to do.

 

[beero1000]

We go through cycles of posters valiantly trying to get untermensche to understand the basics of logical argument before eventually running out of patience and giving up. It's been years, and trust me, you can lead this horse to water, but you can't make him think.

We had a poster on here over a decade ago called "Doron Shadmi", who was a certified crank (and someone who may have had mental health issues for which he would have deserved more delicacy and sympathy). The threads didn't go on quite this long, but it was sometimes entertaining, because it would often get the maths geeks on the forum chatting about stuff they wouldn't normally. You and I have had some back-and-forth that I've very much enjoyed, but that's pretty thin lately.

Please don't think I'm trying to be the hero here. It's a whole new level of arrogance when a poster thinks they're going to be the one that makes the crank go "oh, of course! I was being silly the whole time!" My last few posts have been far more derisive that is my usual character (at least under my real name), and it's because I'm not expecting this to go anywhere. It's just cheap entertainment for me after I've had a few evening beers.

Fair enough. BTW, I'm not sure if you saw, but I started a post in the math forum and was hoping to see your thoughts on the philosophy of math.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Like asymptote and intersection are in conflict.

???

You're not making any sense. You're unable to explain yourself. An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

There's no difference between infinite past and finite past except an infinite past would have lasted for ever. There's no difference in that both end with the present and in exactly the same way. If a finite past "completes", whatever that idiotic term means, then so does an infinite past.
EB

An asymptote is nothing like infinity?

You want to stick with that?

An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

You can't even read simple sentences.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have things exactly backwards like all religious adherents. It is your work to show a number is a discovery.

I'm not making any claims here. These threads are not about us making claims. They're just us pointing out the fact that your argument --- for something most of us probably don't care about --- is a crappy argument. I literally don't care about infinity. I can, just like a lot of people, spot crappy arguments by internet nobodies.

I also don't care whether numbers are invented or discovered. I can just point out when someone has utter failed to make an argument either way, which is also pretty easy to do.

You are saying my argument is crappy without making any other claims.

So you are saying you have opinions but no arguments.

That is my opinion as well.

 

[Elixir]

Infinite events do not complete.

Even accepting that barenaked assertion, time/existence would qualify. It isn't completed, has never completed and shows no signs of completing.
Of course, the entire peanut gallery here is just munching popcorn waiting for your next wriggle-out, or your next iteration of "nuh-unh!". Few of us harbor any hope that you'll actually present some cogent argument beyond "my finite self can't see or understand the idea of the infinite, ergo it is impossible".

 

[untermensche]

An asymptote is nothing like infinity?

You want to stick with that?

An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

You can't even read simple sentences.
EB

It has infinity in it.

Just look.

You are making miraculous claims about real infinities.

With nothing but some strange faith to back them up.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Demonstrate a real completed infinity is first of all not a violation of the concept of infinity.

It should be easy for you to explain how an infinite past is a violation of the concept of infinity, if it is.

Then demonstrate it is something possible.

I already did.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Infinite events do not complete.

Even accepting that barenaked assertion, time/existence would qualify. It isn't completed, has never completed and shows no signs of completing.
Of course, the entire peanut gallery here is just munching popcorn waiting for your next wriggle-out, or your next iteration of "nuh-unh!". Few of us harbor any hope that you'll actually present some cogent argument beyond "my finite self can't see or understand the idea of the infinite, ergo it is impossible".

It is merely applying the concept of infinity to events.

Infinite events are events that do not complete.

And where all the events complete that took place in the past is at every present moment.

At a present moment no more events will take place in the past. They have all completed.

More events will take place in the future. Not in the past.

 

[Speakpigeon]

An asymptote is nothing like infinity?

You want to stick with that?

An infinite past isn't anything like an asymptote.

You can't even read simple sentences.
EB

It has infinity in it.

An infinite past still isn't anything like an asymptote.

You make nonsensical claims and then you can't even explain what you mean, let alone justify them.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Demonstrate a real completed infinity is first of all not a violation of the concept of infinity.

One merely has to understand what the concept of infinity means.

It means to continue without ending. It means to never complete.

Even if you call it a set it is still a set that never completes.

If it is infinite time it is events that never complete.

There is no magic spell to make it complete.

Events cannot complete at every present moment if the past was infinite.

Any rational person should understand that the only way to have a present moment is if the previous moments were not infinite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Okay, I think I'm done!

I would have tried and it was fun but there's no way I could justify to myself continuing this useless and one-sided conversation.

I guess we all know the score. There's not one post, out of the whole 32,819 of them, to redeem him. The poor wretched soul is just plain sick and I'm not medically competent to guess what the cure could be.

So I put UM on ignore.

And it works!
EB

 

[Phil Scott]

So you are saying you have opinions but no arguments.

I don't really have opinions. At best, I think I have sympathies. If you're interested in arguments, there are books worth of them. I already invited you to discuss Hegel's ideas about number. Come on. It'll be great. We can have a little reading group here on the forum!

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, I think I'm done!

I would have tried and it was fun but there's no way I could justify to myself continuing this useless and one-sided conversation.

I guess we all know the score. There's not one post, out of the whole 32,819 of them, to redeem him. The poor wretched soul is just plain sick and I'm not medically competent to guess what the cure could be.

So I put UM on ignore.

And it works!
EB

YOU'LL BE BACK!