The religion of "no beginning".

[bilby]

What specifically can you not comprehend?

This is a very simple thought experiment. Nothing harder than imagining you are moving along an infinite line.

Will you ever get to the end of that line if it is infinite in length?

Do you understand that much?

You STILL haven't explained WHAT needs to move through the infinite past in order for the infinite past to exist.

You are supposed to imagine YOU are moving along an infinite line.

Will you ever get to the end?

Who cares?

Why would you consider this imaginary spectacle to in any way model reality? Nobody is claiming that any person, object, collection, or category with a finite duration has an infinite past.

"Untermensche doesn't like the idea of an infinite past because it makes his head hurt" is not an argument against the possibility of an infinite past.

"Untermensche can imagine a thought experiment that involves entities that didn't exist during the infinite past" is also not an argument against the possibility of an infinite past.

"Infinity sucks because it makes untermensche sad not to comprehend it, so it doesn't exist, so there!" is ALSO not an argument against an infinite past.

An infinite past can exist perfectly well without anything having traversed its entire length. Why are you setting this needless criterion up, as though it were some kind of fundamental truth?

 

[untermensche]

You are supposed to imagine YOU are moving along an infinite line.

Will you ever get to the end?

Who cares?

Why would you consider this imaginary spectacle to in any way model reality? Nobody is claiming that any person, object, collection, or category with a finite duration has an infinite past.

It models traversing an infinity.

A task that cannot be done.

The past has been completely traversed.

Not by some thing.

It has all passed. The time in the past is all done at every present moment. It has all completed.

It could not have been infinite.

No infinity can be completed.

"Untermensche doesn't like the idea of an infinite past because it makes his head hurt"

I don't like the believers in "no beginning".

They are unable to reason about simple things.

They believe an infinity can be traversed.

 

[bilby]

It models traversing an infinity.

A task that cannot be done.

The past has been completely traversed.

BY WHAT???

Not by some thing.

It has all passed. The time in the past is all done at every present moment. It has all completed.

So why your obsession with traversing it? You accept that it hasn't been traversed by 'some thing'. So your insistence that it must be is insane.

It could not have been infinite.

No infinity can be completed.

Sure it can - an infinity that has no beginning is ALWAYS a completed infinity at any point you choose to examine. I understand that this makes your head hurt, but that doesn't excuse your attempts to reinvent mathematics such that it doesn't confuse you.

Reality is under no obligation to be easy for you to understand.

"Untermensche doesn't like the idea of an infinite past because it makes his head hurt"

I don't like the believers in "no beginning".

They are unable to reason about simple things.

They believe an infinity can be traversed.

Who are "they"? Nobody here has expressed any such belief. You are arguing with imaginary opponents.

Have you considered seeking professional help?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What specifically can you not comprehend?

Just all of that:

If there is time that means there can be living beings.Of course more than time is necessary. That is why it is a thought experiment. I am saying all the other conditions exist. Just as they exist now. That is a given.You do not have a valid criticism.

Specifically, there's no logical connection between your various assertions and each assertion is so irrelevant you don't know what to make of it. You're a good example of why it took so long for mankind to invent science.

And you yourself don't seem to understand my Englilsh:

Are you saying there can be time and there can also be no ability of anything to traverse that time? Is that really time as it is understood? Or some other definition of time?

I said that I couldn't find anything in the definition of "past" as "the time before the present" on the need for the past to allow something to "traverse" it. I would have thought this to be very good English, very easy to understand. Apparently not for you. Your English is crap.

This is a very simple thought experiment. Nothing harder than imagining you are moving along an infinite line.

Why would it be necessary to imagine traversing an infinite past? Since when it is necessary that we imagine things before they could exist at all? Can't you see it's a stupid idea? You're the only one here, you know.

You also don't seem to have the same reservation about the idea of an infinite future and yet I don't think even you could imagine traversing an infinite future. Could you?

Will you ever get to the end of that line if it is infinite in length?

Will you ever get to the end of an infinite future?

Do you understand that much?

Do you understand English?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

REMINDER

It seems obvious that if there has been an infinite past that something did traverse it.

What is this thing?

Please send me your answer through a private message.

I'll be waiting for you!
EB

 

[Kharakov]

What specifically can you not comprehend?

This is a very simple thought experiment. Nothing harder than imagining you are moving along an infinite line.

Will you ever get to the end of that line if it is infinite in length?

Do you understand that much?

You STILL haven't explained WHAT needs to move through the infinite past in order for the infinite past to exist.

You are supposed to imagine YOU are moving along an infinite line.

Will you ever get to the end?

He's at one end of an infinite time line all the time. It's sort of hard to avoid being when you are.

 

[untermensche]

BY WHAT??? So why your obsession with traversing it? You accept that it hasn't been traversed by 'some thing'. So your insistence that it must be is insane.

Yes I am using a word somewhat differently than you might expect.

And your brain explodes.

When I say time has been traversed it does not mean traversed by an entity. It just means that it has existed and something could have traversed it.

When Einstein imagined riding on a beam of light good thing you weren't there to tell him it is impossible to ride on a beam of light.

If the claim is that the time in the past was infinite that means it is possible infinite life forms existed in the past.

Do you also think it is possible that an infinity of organisms existed in the past?

Sure it can - an infinity that has no beginning is ALWAYS a completed infinity at any point you choose to examine.

So if something always existed that means it is possible an infinite number of life forms existed in the past.

Do you also think it is possible an infinite number of organisms existed? We could in theory count them all and get a grand total of "infinity"?

Or in your religion is the only infinity that is possible infinite time?

I'm trying to get a handle on the magic religion of "no beginning".

How exactly would we be able to conclude something had "no beginning"?

What evidence would make us conclude there was no beginning?

"Untermensche doesn't like the idea of an infinite past because it makes his head hurt"

I don't like the believers in "no beginning".

They are unable to reason about simple things.

They believe an infinity can be traversed.

Who are "they"? Nobody here has expressed any such belief. You are arguing with imaginary opponents.

Have you considered seeking professional help?

You are one of the lost believers.

You think it is possible that an infinity has somehow been expressed.

And you believe it based on no evidence.

It is pure faith.

 

[untermensche]

Just all of that:

When they say "all of it" you know for certain they are full of shit.

Specifically, there's no logical connection between your various assertions and each assertion is so irrelevant you don't know what to make of it. You're a good example of why it took so long for mankind to invent science.

That's nothing specific. Your English sucks. You don't seem to understand what a specific comment about something is.

It is not a general comment that could be about anything ever said in human history.

I said that I couldn't find anything in the definition of "past" as "the time before the present" on the need for the past to allow something to "traverse" it.

I see, you are very lost.

You think that time can somehow exist in isolation with nothing else existing.

If there is time there has to be space too. As far as we know they are inseparable.

And if there is time there has to be something existing in that time.

You cannot have nothingness and also have time.

So if something has existed for all of infinite time it is possible to imagine being in that time.

If you can imagine being in that time you can imagine traveling through it, traversing it.

Why would it be necessary to imagine traversing an infinite past? Since when it is necessary that we imagine things before they could exist at all?

Not much in this world in necessary. Thinking about things like this is not necessary.

If there is time then something existed.

You cannot have both time and nothing else.

Will you ever get to the end of that line if it is infinite in length?

Will you ever get to the end of an infinite future?

Absolutely not.

It is just as possible to traverse the entirety of an infinite future as it is possible that an infinite past has already been traversed.

Do you understand English?

Clearly much better than you. I think a lot better too.

 

[untermensche]

He's at one end of an infinite time line all the time. It's sort of hard to avoid being when you are.

There is nothing but your religious faith that tells you an infinity has somehow been traversed.

 

[Speakpigeon]

What evidence would make us conclude there was no beginning?

I don't know of anybody who made the conclusion that there was no beginning to time.

Then again, maybe it's nothing but poetic license when you talk of conclusion.

That would explain why I'm having such a hard time understanding your English.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When they say "all of it" you know for certain they are full of shit.

I didn't say "all of it".

I said "just all of that", immediately followed by what my "that" was referring to, i.e. a quote of the part of your post that makes no sense whatsoever.

Your question had been "What specifically can you not comprehend?" and I believe my answer was perfectly appropriate and legitimate.

That's nothing specific.

Yes it is.

Just look here what "specific" really means in English, a language you've still to learn:

Specific
1. a. Explicitly set forth

And I did clearly explicitly set forth the part of your post I didn't understand.

See? Not so very hard but I suspect you're not trying at all.

Your English sucks.

Only when I ask him. On occasion, I feel it's kind of okay to have my English suck.

Cheers!
EB

 

[Kharakov]

He's at one end of an infinite time line all the time. It's sort of hard to avoid being when you are.

There is nothing but your religious faith that tells you an infinity has somehow been traversed.

An infinite amount of infinities exist in any finite portion of the continuum.

You have:

\(\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{4} +\frac{1}{8} +\dots\)

The first term of that (1/2) =

\(\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{8} +\frac{1}{16} +\dots\)

The first term of that (1/4) is equal to the second term of the first series (1/4), which is equal to:

\(\sum_{n=3}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{16} +\frac{1}{32} +\dots\)

Show

These are all general forms of
\(x -1 = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( {\frac{x-1}{x}}\right)^n\)

In other words, in the continuum, there are infinitely divisible infinitely divisible segments that are infinitely divisible, sort of like this statement is infinitely unparsible. Unparsable?

 

[untermensche]

An infinite amount of infinities exist in any finite portion of the continuum.

They do not "exist" anywhere.

No infinity ever has or can be expressed.

If you assume one exists for the purpose of doing math then you have merely assumed one exists already.

But that is all you can do.

Pretend one exists.

No infinity can actually exist.

 

[untermensche]

I didn't say "all of it".

I said "just all of that", immediately followed by what my "that" was referring to, i.e. a quote of the part of your post that makes no sense whatsoever.

Your question had been "What specifically can you not comprehend?" and I believe my answer was perfectly appropriate and legitimate.



Yes it is.

Just look here what "specific" really means in English, a language you've still to learn:

Specific
1. a. Explicitly set forth

And I did clearly explicitly set forth the part of your post I didn't understand.

See? Not so very hard but I suspect you're not trying at all.

Your English sucks.

Only when I ask him. On occasion, I feel it's kind of okay to have my English suck.

Cheers!
EB

This post is free of anything besides you bickering like a child with your bad English.

If you decide to address anything of substance, like the idea of traversing an infinite line, that would be refreshing.

I am not consumed with myself. Or all that interested in you.

I want to discuss ideas.

Not your opinions on my language.

 

[Kharakov]

An infinite amount of infinities exist in any finite portion of the continuum.

They do not "exist" anywhere.

I agree. Anywhere is a bit too vague- a single point in the continuum does not contain any infinities. They only exist in finite volumes of the continuum.

No infinity ever has or can be expressed.

Really now. What did the infinity do to you?

 

[ryan]

My question was; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

My question again; if you don't except the idea of no beginning to time/matter/energy, do you believe in a First Cause?

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.

So you rely on "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way" to help your argument?

Why doesn't DBT just say the same thing back to you about things existing forever?

And you screamed bloody if I were to give any explanation that was not scientific, yet you give that as an explanation?

 

[untermensche]

I agree. Anywhere is a bit too vague- a single point in the continuum does not contain any infinities. They only exist in finite volumes of the continuum.

No infinity has or could exist anywhere. You cannot even imagine an infinity.

All the fractions between zero and one are not existing somewhere for you to discover them.

You merely imagine they are all there.

They cannot be expressed, ever.

They all cannot exist. Except as an imaginary completeness. There is no end to them.

You do not have the vaguest clue what you are doing when you use infinity mathematically.

You never actually have infinity. You always use a trick, an approximation, to work with it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I said that I couldn't find anything in the definition of "past" as "the time before the present" on the need for the past to allow something to "traverse" it.

I see, you are very lost.

You've never justified your idea that we have to successfully imagine ourselves traversing the past if it were to be said infinite.

That was a creative way on my part to goad you into providing such a justification, if at all possible.

Which you just did!

So there. Now, say again in what way I am "very lost"?

You think that time can somehow exist in isolation with nothing else existing.

No, I don't.

However, I couldn't find anything in the definition of "time" as "a non-spatial continuum in which events occur <snip>" on the impossibility for time to exist all on its own.

So, although I don't believe time could exist on its own, I remain open to such a possibility.

I also believe only idiots and morons would take a different stance.

Still, here we move on the part where you try to justify your idea that time has to be somehow "traversed"...

____________________

Here we go:

If there is time there has to be space too. As far as we know they are inseparable.

You have a strange notion of knowledge. Although it's true that as far as we know they are inseparable, it's just as true that we don't know they are inseparable.

So, you claim here that "if there is time there has to be space too" is vacuous and unsupported.

Not a good start as far as justifying your view is concerned.

And if there is time there has to be something existing in that time.

Vacuous and unsupported.

You cannot have nothingness and also have time.

Vacuous and unsupported.

Of course time might well be something in itself, so, in this case, yes, you couldn't have time and nothingness. But that's not what you meant so we'll leave it at that.

Except that this shows it didn't even cross your mind that time could be something in itself. Not very bright clear thinking, this.

Maybe you don't actually have a mind. If such an obvious possibility didn't cross your mind, maybe it was because you don't actually have a mind to begin with. That would explain quite a lot of the facts about your posts.

So if something has existed for all of infinite time it is possible to imagine being in that time.

I don't need to imagine anything. Being in the present moment as I'm bound to be means that I am in that continuum we call time. Whether time is finite or infinite, I am in that time.

Being in a generous mood tonight (Paris time), I will interpret your idiotic claim here as meaning that it should be possible to imagine ourselves, or whatever existed, at every moment throughout time.

Er, no. Something did exist at every moment in time, that's at least what seems obvious to me, and irrespective of whether time is infinite or not, there's zero reason to deduce from this that "it is possible to imagine being in that time", at least if we take "imagine" to mean "to form a mental picture of", which we have to because it is its default meaning and you haven't specified otherwise.

So, we could have an infinite time and something beyond time itself existing at every moment throughout time and yet be unable to imagine ourselves (or whatever something there would be) as being in every moment throughout time.

If by "imagine" you meant "conceive" then you'd be also wrong because, then, there would be no difficulty at all conceiving of ourselves or even Father Christmas, as traversing time. No difficulty at all.

If you don't believe me it's not something difficult to conceive, just think of all these people who believe God is something that did "traverse" the infinity of time, or even could move up an down the length of the infinity of time at will. Easy do.

It's so obvious, I will assume that by "imagine" you mean "to form a mental picture of". I'm trying to assume you're not a complete ass.

If you can imagine being in that time you can imagine traveling through it, traversing it.

Too bad there's no good reason to assume we are necessarily able to "imagine being in that time".

So, just as you tried, for the first time ever, to justified your position properly, it turns out your justification is just bonkers. It seems to me even more vacuous than the vast stretches of empty space in between galaxies. A sort of all times world record. Just when you were willing to try and justify your views! Bad luck. Just bad luck.

Try again?
EB

 

[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.

So you rely on "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way" to help your argument?

No. It does not help or hurt the argument. It is not part of my argument.

It is what I make of the idea of first cause. A totally different unrelated topic.

My argument stands alone. It does not rely on any other argument.

An infinity cannot be expressed. It cannot be traversed. It could not have already happened.

I do not talk about causes at all in my argument.

What DBT is trying to do is deflect away from my argument because he can't deal with it.

 

[untermensche]

You've never justified your idea that we have to successfully imagine ourselves traversing the past if it were to be said infinite.

You can't imagine traversing an infinity of anything.

Nothing really has to be imagined. We instantly know that an infinite line cannot be traveled along to it's end if we know what an infinite line is defined as.

An infinity is something that can never actually be completed.

An infinity is that which can never be completed.

By saying there are infinite fractions between zero and one that is not saying the fractions can be expressed.

It is saying the fractions cannot be expressed. Ever. There is no end to them.

So, although I don't believe time could exist on its own, I remain open to such a possibility.

I also believe only idiots and morons would take a different stance.

What evidence leads you to think it is possible for time to exist on it's own?

How are you not an idiot and a moron believing in things with no evidence?