The religion of "no beginning".

[untermensche]

When confronted by a new religion there is usually a dissonance.

The believer has a certainty in things that on their surface are completely irrational. Judaism began as a religion of animal sacrifice. Animals were deliberately killed in service to some god that demanded it. A bloody mess that has been dressed up into something less violent as human civilization has progressed beyond such ignorant superstitions.

I lived a long time before I was confronted by the religion of "no beginning". The religious belief that it is possible time has existed for "eternity".

When asked how much time occurred before any present moment the believer in the religion of "no beginning" says "infinite", as if that is possible. And they seem to believe it too. Like all religious adherents.

To model the situation with points and lines you can take any moment in time as the start and you can look at the simple consequences. This is possible if one is willing to do simple things.

Infinite time in the past would be an endless line extending from a point representing any present moment.

To get to that point would mean an infinite line was traversed.

A clear absurdity to those who just think about traversing completely a line that has no end to it. Or as the believers of the religion say: "Doesn't have a beginning". Same thing in terms of the ability to traverse.

I would like to begin an examination of this religion of "no beginning" with the idea of traversing an infinite line.

If there is a believer in this religion of "no beginning" that can explain how they imagine an infinite line, a line with no beginning as they say, was completely traversed I would love to see it.

How is it possible to traverse an infinitely long line? How does anybody believe for an instant it is possible?

This goes a lot deeper and it extends to the notion of progression. And the impossibility of progression with no start to the progression, but that is not the issue here.

All I want to understand is how some people think it is possible to completely traverse an infinite line. A line with no beginning as the faithful proclaim.

 

[Kharakov]

I think you mean "A basic understanding of reality".

 

[OLDMAN]

In one second, we can perceive an infinite number of nano-seconds. But even though one second can be broken into infinity, it does not keep one second from passing.
Time like infinity is a paradox. The past and future do not exist. There is only the now, and it dies and restarts every nano-second, and everything with it.

 

[untermensche]

If you divide one second by infinity what is the duration of each division?

Infinity multiplied by zero is not one.

 

[abaddon]

You've split time into 2 things: 1) time's passage (which I think is what "traverse" means in your metaphor) and 2) a line (which I guess is also time but imagined as a thing instead of as a passing).

So you've got two images of what time is but you can't pair them into one conception. And you want to blame somebody or other as primitively religious (because "to seem to believe it" is "religious"). But all along you have stumped yourself with a crap metaphor.

Yes, it's hard to imagine time proceeding along endlessly. But, the failure of the human imagination doesn't make this a logical impossibility.

Why would it be a logical possibility though? Well, first, drop the mixed metaphor of time as traversing and time as a line. Pick one. Let's pick traversing. If I can't think of why it won't go on traversing and traversing and traversing, then isn't that a logical possibility? (Possibility = not logically disproved).

 

[Juma]

When confronted by a new religion there is usually a dissonance.

The believer has a certainty in things that on their surface are completely irrational. Judaism began as a religion of animal sacrifice. Animals were deliberately killed in service to some god that demanded it. A bloody mess that has been dressed up into something less violent as human civilization has progressed beyond such ignorant superstitions.

I lived a long time before I was confronted by the religion of "no beginning". The religious belief that it is possible time has existed for "eternity".

When asked how much time occurred before any present moment the believer in the religion of "no beginning" says "infinite", as if that is possible. And they seem to believe it too. Like all religious adherents.

To model the situation with points and lines you can take any moment in time as the start and you can look at the simple consequences. This is possible if one is willing to do simple things.

Infinite time in the past would be an endless line extending from a point representing any present moment.

To get to that point would mean an infinite line was traversed.

A clear absurdity to those who just think about traversing completely a line that has no end to it. Or as the believers of the religion say: "Doesn't have a beginning". Same thing in terms of the ability to traverse.

I would like to begin an examination of this religion of "no beginning" with the idea of traversing an infinite line.

If there is a believer in this religion of "no beginning" that can explain how they imagine an infinite line, a line with no beginning as they say, was completely traversed I would love to see it.

How is it possible to traverse an infinitely long line? How does anybody believe for an instant it is possible?

This goes a lot deeper and it extends to the notion of progression. And the impossibility of progression with no start to the progression, but that is not the issue here.

All I want to understand is how some people think it is possible to completely traverse an infinite line. A line with no beginning as the faithful proclaim.

You do not have to traverse it! You only live a finite time.

 

[untermensche]

You've split time into 2 things: 1) time's passage (which I think is what "traverse" means in your metaphor) and 2) a line (which I guess is also time but imagined as a thing instead of as a passing).

Traverse means to travel the complete length.

The line is just a model of time.

If we model the past as a line extending from a point (representing a moment in time) the questions are:

Can an infinite line be traversed?

Or can only finite lines be traversed?

 

[bilby]

In one second, we can perceive an infinite number of nano-seconds. But even though one second can be broken into infinity, it does not keep one second from passing.
Time like infinity is a paradox. The past and future do not exist. There is only the now, and it dies and restarts every nano-second, and everything with it.

Neither time nor infinity are paradoxical.

And there are exactly 1,000,000,000 nanoseconds in a second, which is considerably less than infinity. There are an infinite number of fractions of a second, however. And these require only a finite time to elapse, because Zeno was wrong - his 'paradox' relies on the false assumption that the sum of an infinite series must be infinite. It needn't, and so there is no paradox.

Zeno had a good excuse for not understanding this counterintuitive (but true) characteristic of infinities - he lived long before it was thoroughly examined by mathematicians.

Nobody since the late 17th century has any such excuse.

 

[untermensche]

There are an infinite number of fractions of a second, however.

What is the duration of these fractions of seconds?

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

 

[bilby]

There are an infinite number of fractions of a second, however.

What is the duration of these fractions of seconds?

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

An infinitesimal amount.

Seriously dude, if you can't abide Newton, read Leibniz. Both of them are (almost infinitely) smarter than you. Your explicit and ignorant rejection of their work, three centuries after it was presented, and despite myriad practical applications of it having been used since, is pathetic. You might as well deny relativity.

 

[untermensche]

There are an infinite number of fractions of a second, however.

What is the duration of these fractions of seconds?

If time is divided infinitely how much time is contained in the smallest division?

An infinitesimal amount.

Seriously dude, if you can't abide Newton, read Leibniz. Both of them are (almost infinitely) smarter than you. Your explicit and ignorant rejection of their work, three centuries after it was presented, and despite myriad practical applications of it having been used since, is pathetic. You might as well deny relativity.

How much time is in this "infinitesimal amount" of time?

 

[untermensche]

Those that claim time can be divided infinitely do not understand the difference between the real and the imaginary.

 

[bilby]

An infinitesimal amount.

Seriously dude, if you can't abide Newton, read Leibniz. Both of them are (almost infinitely) smarter than you. Your explicit and ignorant rejection of their work, three centuries after it was presented, and despite myriad practical applications of it having been used since, is pathetic. You might as well deny relativity.

How much time is in this "infinitesimal amount" of time?

How much time is this "one second" of time?

The answer is in the question

The amount of time in an infinitesimal amount of time is infinitesimal. Duh.

 

[untermensche]

An infinitesimal amount.

Seriously dude, if you can't abide Newton, read Leibniz. Both of them are (almost infinitely) smarter than you. Your explicit and ignorant rejection of their work, three centuries after it was presented, and despite myriad practical applications of it having been used since, is pathetic. You might as well deny relativity.

How much time is in this "infinitesimal amount" of time?

How much time is this "one second" of time?

The answer is in the question

The amount of time in an infinitesimal amount of time is infinitesimal. Duh.

That is not an amount of time.

An amount of time is anything greater than zero.

 

[bilby]

Those that claim time can be divided infinitely do not understand the difference between the real and the imaginary.

Says who? (Apart from you)? What makes you arbiter of what others understand? What makes you think that YOU understand the difference between the real and the imaginary, and that everyone else is wrong?

 

[untermensche]

Those that claim time can be divided infinitely do not understand the difference between the real and the imaginary.

Says who? (Apart from you)? What makes you arbiter of what others understand? What makes you think that YOU understand the difference between the real and the imaginary, and that everyone else is wrong?

You have trapped yourself in the absurd position of claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead whether you understand it or not.

 

[bilby]

How much time is this "one second" of time?

The answer is in the question

The amount of time in an infinitesimal amount of time is infinitesimal. Duh.

That is not an amount of time.

An amount of time is anything greater than zero.

Let me see. Should I take your word for it; Or should I believe the thousands of people who have understood calculus, and successfully applied it to build the engineering wonders that we see everywhere in the modern world?

It's a conundrum. I think 'Random person on the Internet who has repeatedly shown a deep misunderstanding of mathematics and logic' probably shouldn't be my go-to source for the truth on this one.

 

[untermensche]

How much time is this "one second" of time?

The answer is in the question

The amount of time in an infinitesimal amount of time is infinitesimal. Duh.

That is not an amount of time.

An amount of time is anything greater than zero.

Let me see. Should I take your word for it; Or should I believe the thousands of people who have understood calculus, and successfully applied it to build the engineering wonders that we see everywhere in the modern world?

It's a conundrum. I think 'Random person on the Internet who has repeatedly shown a deep misunderstanding of mathematics and logic' probably shouldn't be my go-to source for the truth on this one.

So you are claiming zero time is an amount of time?

Please provide the part of calculus that proves this?

 

[bilby]

Those that claim time can be divided infinitely do not understand the difference between the real and the imaginary.

Says who? (Apart from you)? What makes you arbiter of what others understand? What makes you think that YOU understand the difference between the real and the imaginary, and that everyone else is wrong?

You have trapped yourself in the absurd position of claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead whether you understand it or not.

Zero time IS an amount of time - But that fact is irrelevant to my position, and as a result, I have not made any claim about it whatsoever.

Perhaps you could try to constrain yourself to addressing the claims made by others, and not attribute to them claims that they did NOT make, that you feel better able to refute? Of course, I should only expect that from someone who has at least some minimal understanding of how logic works, so it's not surprising that you don't - just (continually) disappointing.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me see. Should I take your word for it; Or should I believe the thousands of people who have understood calculus, and successfully applied it to build the engineering wonders that we see everywhere in the modern world?

It's a conundrum. I think 'Random person on the Internet who has repeatedly shown a deep misunderstanding of mathematics and logic' probably shouldn't be my go-to source for the truth on this one.

So you are claiming zero time is an amount of time?

No, you are (falsely) claiming that I am claiming that. Please try to keep up with which are YOUR false claims; Refuting yourself doesn't advance your argument.

 

[untermensche]

Zero of anything is to have none of it.

Zero bricks is to have no bricks.

Zero space shuttles is to have no space shuttles.

Zero time is to have no time.

You cannot make a rational argument about time by claiming zero time is an amount of time.

Your argument is dead.

You do not know it.