The religion of "no beginning".

[untermensche]

All that could be said about that topic is a "first cause" would have to arise from something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way.

All that can be observed in some way could not have caused itself.

And it could not have existed forever.

The past could not have been infinite. You cannot traverse an infinite series.

So, was there a First Cause or was there not a First Cause?

Could things have existed infinitely?

 

[DBT]

All that could be said about that topic is a "first cause" would have to arise from something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way.

All that can be observed in some way could not have caused itself.

And it could not have existed forever.

The past could not have been infinite. You cannot traverse an infinite series.

So, was there a First Cause or was there not a First Cause?

Could things have existed infinitely?

That's not the question. My question being; do you believe that there was a First Cause?

 

[humbleman]

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.

I would like to know the same.

If the universe always existed, then galaxies, stars, planets, life have always existed as well. But, it wasn't until humans appeared that the motion of bodies were taken to invent a measure called time.

If the universe has had a beginning, the scenario is similar, a nebulae which moved fast creating stars and planets and life. Plants and animals appeared, humans were formed, and after tall of this, humans saw regular motion of earth and celestial bodies an humans invented the measure of time.

Time has been always nothing but a measure and is finite because measures in the physical world are finite. Measures can be infinite only in the subjective, when we talk abstract mathematics.

In the physical world known as reality or better to say, physical reality, measures are finite or limited. We can measure the size of the universe limited to our resources, beyond what we can measure is simply "unknown", but the "real ignorant" called it "infinite".

 

[bilby]

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.

I would like to know the same.

If the universe always existed, then galaxies, stars, planets, life have always existed as well. But, it wasn't until humans appeared that the motion of bodies were taken to invent a measure called time.

If the universe has had a beginning, the scenario is similar, a nebulae which moved fast creating stars and planets and life. Plants and animals appeared, humans were formed, and after tall of this, humans saw regular motion of earth and celestial bodies an humans invented the measure of time.

Time has been always nothing but a measure and is finite because measures in the physical world are finite. Measures can be infinite only in the subjective, when we talk abstract mathematics.

In the physical world known as reality or better to say, physical reality, measures are finite or limited. We can measure the size of the universe limited to our resources, beyond what we can measure is simply "unknown", but the "real ignorant" called it "infinite".

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

 

[humbleman]

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

The majority (read: the ignorant) is always wrong.

By the way, proving your thoughts wrong is a delight, your silly insight is so primitive and innocent.

Explain the contrary to my position. If you can, of course...

 

[untermensche]

Could things have existed infinitely?

That's not the question. My question being; do you believe that there was a First Cause?

It is the question of this thread.

Could things have existed infinitely? Is that possible? If you think it is demonstrate it.

That is the question this thread is asking.

It is not asking all possible questions.

Can you answer or will you dodge it forever?

 

[untermensche]

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

I know I am right about this no matter who opposes or defends the ideas.

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinity is an imaginary conception, not something that could ever be found in the universe.

And all organisms have a beginning. If they didn't they wouldn't exist.

 

[Methinx]

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

"In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. The passage of time arises as an emergent property of certain specific configurations of the manifold. Specifically, if you have a low-entropy state, then you will see events that look like the passage of time in both directions away from that low-entropy state."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-traverse-infinity.760364/

 

[untermensche]

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics...

Logical conclusions are not speculations.

You are right though.

Physics needs evidence to make models and therefore have explanations and the ability to make predictions.

There is no evidence of infinity so as far as physics is concerned it is not something that exists in the observable world.

Physics has nothing to say about it.

No science has anything to say about it.

It is defined in mathematics and exists conceptually only. It can never be expressed in any way.

 

[DBT]

Could things have existed infinitely?

That's not the question. My question being; do you believe that there was a First Cause?

It is the question of this thread.

Could things have existed infinitely? Is that possible? If you think it is demonstrate it.

That is the question this thread is asking.

It is not asking all possible questions.

Can you answer or will you dodge it forever?

Typical, you are asked a question but instead of answering the question you are being asked you deflect by claiming that I am avoiding some other question....all the while meticulously avoiding my question and never seeing the irony.

 

[fromderinside]

<shouldn't be repeated deleted>

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

Write on bilby.

 

[untermensche]

It is the question of this thread.

Could things have existed infinitely? Is that possible? If you think it is demonstrate it.

That is the question this thread is asking.

It is not asking all possible questions.

Can you answer or will you dodge it forever?

Typical, you are asked a question but instead of answering the question you are being asked you deflect by claiming that I am avoiding some other question....all the while meticulously avoiding my question and never seeing the irony.

I asked my question in the OP.

You have avoided it up till now.

You are trying to deflect.

Answer the question of this thread. Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

How many times will you deflect and avoid?

 

[untermensche]

<shouldn't be repeated deleted>

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

Write on bilby.

His point is ignorance as usual.

I could just as easily say my point must be true if both you and he oppose it.

You don't even know what the point of this thread is.

 

[Kharakov]

Could things have existed infinitely?

That's not the question. My question being; do you believe that there was a First Cause?

There is no way he gives you a straight answer. I'd bet you 1 million dollars.... if I wasn't paranoid about untermensche being a setup to get me to make an exorbitant bet that he'd say or do something stupid.

 

[Kharakov]

<shouldn't be repeated deleted>

There you go, untermensche. humbleman agrees with you. If that doesn't convince you that you must be mistaken, nothing will.

Write on bilby.

How? For some reason, I picture him as having a lot of self control when it comes to alcohol.

 

[humbleman]

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

"In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. The passage of time arises as an emergent property of certain specific configurations of the manifold. Specifically, if you have a low-entropy state, then you will see events that look like the passage of time in both directions away from that low-entropy state."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-traverse-infinity.760364/

Excellent!

Another evidence that relativity is not science but philosophy.

 

[humbleman]

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics...

Logical conclusions are not speculations.

You are right though.

Physics needs evidence to make models and therefore have explanations and the ability to make predictions.

There is no evidence of infinity so as far as physics is concerned it is not something that exists in the observable world.

Physics has nothing to say about it.

No science has anything to say about it.

It is defined in mathematics and exists conceptually only. It can never be expressed in any way.

The main question purpose is getting clear answers when the abstract is applied, and the agreement happens because the topic itself is not about science but about the religion of no beginning...

 

[untermensche]

Could things have existed infinitely?

That's not the question. My question being; do you believe that there was a First Cause?

There is no way he gives you a straight answer. I'd bet you 1 million dollars.... if I wasn't paranoid about untermensche being a setup to get me to make an exorbitant bet that he'd say or do something stupid.

I am asking a different question. This thread is not about causes.

I will bet you will not ever answer it.

Is it possible to traverse an infinite line?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The impossibility of traversing an infinity is a fact.

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

"In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. The passage of time arises as an emergent property of certain specific configurations of the manifold. Specifically, if you have a low-entropy state, then you will see events that look like the passage of time in both directions away from that low-entropy state."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-to-traverse-infinity.760364/

Excellent. I think this is the crucial point that untermensche fails to understand. I even suspect he can't understand it.

It is as though the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise was tailor-made for people like untermensche, back in those days. It's amazing there are still people like this today, in this day and age, with the Internet and all the stuff you need to understand things when you can't do it by yourself.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Excellent. I think this is the crucial point that untermensche fails to understand...

What specifically do you think I am missing?

Are you able to explain exactly what you are talking about here?

Why are you making tangential comments like this and not dealing with anything directly? My points have no relation to any paradox especially Achilles and the tortoise.

Can you traverse an infinite line? This is not talking about a race of any kind. It is just asking about what can be done physically with infinities that allegedly stretch an infinite length.

Is it possible for infinity to be expressed in any way?

Is it possible for infinity to exist in the real world?

It can't even exist in the conceptual world of mathematics. It is only defined. It is never expressed in any sense. It can never be expressed?

What the hell are you talking about?