The religion of "no beginning".

[Speakpigeon]

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.

So, why exactly do you keep repeating yourselves ad nauseam that my English sucks?!

And you just did it again in the very post in which you're trying to pretend you're only interested in ideas!

How ridiculous do you think you look like here?

I'd say very ridiculous.

Further, I don't remember you ever expressing any coherent view and it's clear to me you're a very confused individual.

Your poor command of English is just one more clue as to what kind of individual you really are.

And very nearly every one of your posts just provides more evidence of that. It's almost fascinating to watch.

That being said, my previous post just dealt with the brightest idea you've expressed so far. Not too impressive, this, unfortunately.

But, still, you can try again.
EB

 

[ryan]

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.

So why not just be against a first cause too since it requires you to say something like what you said?

If I were to say that infinity is "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way", you wouldn't accept that either.

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

 

[Speakpigeon]

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?

You claimed to be interested in ideas.

Yet this just demonstrates that's not the case.

No discussion to be had here.

Try again.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I learned a long time ago that children can easily hide behind "You have made no coherent argument".

It is absolute nonsense.

If we say the time before any moment in time was infinite that is saying an infinity has completed because at that given moment all the time in the past has completed.

Is it possible for an infinity to have a completion?

 

[untermensche]

So why not just be against a first cause too since it requires you to say something like what you said?

If I were to say that infinity is "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way", you wouldn't accept that either.

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

I don't know anything about first causes.

What specifically do they require?

 

[4321lynx]

I learned a long time ago that children can easily hide behind "You have made no coherent argument".

It is absolute nonsense.

If we say the time before any moment in time was infinite that is saying an infinity has completed because at that given moment all the time in the past has completed.

Is it possible for an infinity to have a completion?

Apparently not in this infinite bloody thread -- time I stopped watching it. Hasta la vista chicos de este Barrio!!! See you (but not, I hope, U) in other threads. Adios U. (How do you say Goodbye in Spanish without the "dios" bit??)

 

[ryan]

So why not just be against a first cause too since it requires you to say something like what you said?

If I were to say that infinity is "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way", you wouldn't accept that either.

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

I don't know anything about first causes.

What specifically do they require?

no previous cause I guess

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

 

[bilby]

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

You are using the word in two different ways, as suits whatever you are trying to claim at the time. That's called an Equivocation Fallacy, and you need to stop doing it.

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.

It existed. There is no justification for your claim that something could have traversed it - and you just agreed that nothing needs to do so.

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.

True; But his entire argument didn't rest on the claim that something must have ridden on a beam of light. Your entire argument DOES appear to depend upon something having to traverse the infinite past - which we agree is impossible. Where we disagree is that you think it is necessary in order for that infinite past to exist (except when you don't think it's necessary because it exposes the illogic of your claims).

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

No, it doesn't. That is a completely unjustified and bizarre leap of illogic. Even in a finite past, our best theories suggest that life forms have existed only for the most recent fraction of the whole.

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

Yes, it's possible; We have no idea what happened before the Planck time. Do you seriously think that that is necessary for the past to have existed; Or that that has ANY bearing on whether it was finite or infinite? You are just babbling now.

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

Yes, it's possible. It's completely irrelevant to the question of whether the past is finite or infinite though.

Do you also think it is possible an infinite number of organisms existed?

'Possible' is a low bar; so yes.

We could in theory count them all and get a grand total of "infinity"?

There exist an infinite number of integers; But we could not, in theory, count them all - and nor do we need to in order to prove that they are infinite.

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

I don't have a religion.

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

Then you are in the wrong place. The hypothesis that the past has no beginning is not disproven; It remains a possibility. Whether you like it or not. Reality doesn't care what you like.

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

Conclude? It's an hypothesis. It is possible until proven otherwise; We conclude that it is possible that the past is infinite, because there is no evidence to the contrary - The arguments presented so far by you in this thread don't constitute evidence because they all exhibit logically fallacious reasoning.

What evidence would make us conclude there was no beginning?

The absence of evidence that there is a 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.

No, I am open minded on the question, and have no firm belief either way. It is possible that time is either bounded or unbounded in the past. I incline towards the latter interpretation, but I know that either is perfectly possible.

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

I don't think that at all. I think it is possible that the past is infinite; But I don't think time is the kind of thing that can be 'expressed', so if I thought that, I would be making a category error. But I don't, so I'm not.

And you believe it based on no evidence.

It is pure faith.

I do what anyone with no hard evidence should do - I remain open to all of the possibilities. You have eliminated one on the basis of poor reasoning - and you need to stop doing that unless you enjoy people laughing at your foolishly dogmatic positions.

 

[bilby]

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.

Your lack of imagination is not evidence for, nor proof of, anything.

Your assertions about a lack of imagination in others, even less so.

 

[bilby]

I learned a long time ago that children can easily hide behind "You have made no coherent argument".

It is absolute nonsense.

Then grow up and stop doing it.

If we say the time before any moment in time was infinite that is saying an infinity has completed because at that given moment all the time in the past has completed.

Is it possible for an infinity to have a completion?

Yes, of course it is. A line bound only at one end is infinite.

 

[Elixir]

Your lack of imagination is not evidence for, nor proof of, anything.

Your assertions about a lack of imagination in others, even less so.

While I agree with what you posit there, ya gotta give credit in a way for this: "No infinity has or could exist anywhere."
Since the term "anywhere" is restrictive, it stand to reason that it would be impossible to fit the infinite within it. I know that doesn't rule out the infinite, but it does begin to explain Unter's mindset, which prohibits admitting the existence of anything that can't fit between his ears.

 

[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.

Your lack of imagination is not evidence for, nor proof of, anything.

Your assertions about a lack of imagination in others, even less so.

While the statements are true they have no bearing on anything I have said.

The fact remains a person cannot even imagine infinity.

If a person says they have imagined it they are either stupid or lying.

 

[untermensche]

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

Yes, it's possible; We have no idea what happened before the Planck time. Do you seriously think that that is necessary for the past to have existed; Or that that has ANY bearing on whether it was finite or infinite? You are just babbling now.

No it is not possible that an infinite number of anything ever existed.

No matter how many organisms have existed it would not be infinity.

Infinity is not a total. It is not something that can be achieved.

Your thinking it is possible is as wrong as thinking the time could have possibly been infinite. No infinity has or could ever exist.

There exist an infinite number of integers; But we could not, in theory, count them all - and nor do we need to in order to prove that they are infinite.

Holy shit!!!!

You have used the word "exist" in a different way. Don't you know you can't use words in different ways? It makes people's heads explode.

Where do these integers all exist?

Where have they ever all existed?

They only exist in theory. In the imagination.

They cannot exist as fact. As something expressed.

What evidence would make us conclude there was no beginning?

The absence of evidence that there is a beginning.

That is not a rational conclusion. You first have to prove it is possible to have evidence of a beginning.

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

I don't think that at all. I think it is possible that the past is infinite

The past has all been expressed. If you think it was infinite you think an infinity was somehow expressed.

Is it possible for an infinity to have a completion?

Yes, of course it is. A line bound only at one end is infinite.

That is talking about an infinity. It is not having one. You can never actually have one.

It is not possible the past was infinite.

No infinity can be expressed. It is not something that could ever be expressed.

 

[untermensche]

So why not just be against a first cause too since it requires you to say something like what you said?

If I were to say that infinity is "something unlike what we can observe in some way and in a manner we can understand in no way", you wouldn't accept that either.

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

I don't know anything about first causes.

What specifically do they require?

no previous cause I guess

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

If there was a first cause it could not be like anything we understand.

It would not involve space or time.

Space and time would be what was caused. They would not exist before the cause.

 

[bilby]

No it is not possible that an infinite number of anything ever existed.

No matter how many organisms have existed it would not be infinity.

Infinity is not a total. It is not something that can be achieved.

Your thinking it is possible is as wrong as thinking the time could have possibly been infinite. No infinity has or could ever exist.

There exist an infinite number of integers; But we could not, in theory, count them all - and nor do we need to in order to prove that they are infinite.

Holy shit!!!!

You have used the word "exist" in a different way. Don't you know you can't use words in different ways? It makes people's heads explode.

Where do these integers all exist?

Where have they ever all existed?

They only exist in theory. In the imagination.

They cannot exist as fact. As something expressed.

What evidence would make us conclude there was no beginning?

The absence of evidence that there is a beginning.

That is not a rational conclusion. You first have to prove it is possible to have evidence of a beginning.

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

I don't think that at all. I think it is possible that the past is infinite

The past has all been expressed. If you think it was infinite you think an infinity was somehow expressed.

Is it possible for an infinity to have a completion?

Yes, of course it is. A line bound only at one end is infinite.

That is talking about an infinity. It is not having one. You can never actually have one.

It is not possible the past was infinite.

No infinity can be expressed. It is not something that could ever be expressed.

What the fuck does 'expressed' even mean in this context? It's meaningless babble. The past happened. It wasn't 'expressed', it just was. There are about 150,000,000km of space between us and the sun; That space is not 'expressed', it's just there. Time and space are not the kind of things that can be 'expressed'. You are indulging in a category error - is this perhaps some kind of attempt on your part to use every possible type of logical fallacy and error in a single thread? Because if so, you are making excellent progress towards that objective.

 

[ryan]

no previous cause I guess

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

If there was a first cause it could not be like anything we understand.

It would not involve space or time.

Space and time would be what was caused. They would not exist before the cause.

I answered your question; why don't you answer mine?

 

[untermensche]

In the last hour one hour of time was expressed. It happened. It was real.

To express here means to exist.

So to express every fraction between zero and one would be to write every one of them out. To make them all exist in reality.

But that is impossible. They are such that they can never all be expressed.

They can just be assumed to exist, imagined to exist. In a mind.

Just as infinite fractions cannot all be expressed infinite time cannot all be expressed as well.

No infinity can be expressed.

No infinity can be thought of as possible.

 

[untermensche]

no previous cause I guess

In terms of the geometries of either space or time, is there a 3rd type of value that is neither infinite nor finite?

If there was a first cause it could not be like anything we understand.

It would not involve space or time.

Space and time would be what was caused. They would not exist before the cause.

I answered your question; why don't you answer mine?

I said your question is irrelevant because all we can know is what was caused.

We can know for instance that an infinity of time could not have already existed. An infinity is not something that can exist.

We can't possibly understand anything about how time was caused.

 

[bilby]

In the last hour one hour of time was expressed. It happened. It was real.

To express here means to exist.

So to express every fraction between zero and one would be to write every one of them out. To make them all exist in reality.

But that is impossible. They are such that they can never all be expressed.

They can just be assumed to exist, imagined to exist. In a mind.

Just as infinite fractions cannot all be expressed infinite time cannot all be expressed as well.

No infinity can be expressed.

No infinity can be thought of as possible.

Clearly thinking isn't for you. That's OK - lots of people are quite bad at it, and there are other things you can do to occupy your time.

It's good to know your limitations, and to live within them. You can leave thinking of infinity to those of us for whom it is possible; Perhaps there's a nice TV show you can watch in the meantime, or you could play with a jigsaw, or some Lego.

 

[untermensche]

In the last hour one hour of time was expressed. It happened. It was real.

To express here means to exist.

So to express every fraction between zero and one would be to write every one of them out. To make them all exist in reality.

But that is impossible. They are such that they can never all be expressed.

They can just be assumed to exist, imagined to exist. In a mind.

Just as infinite fractions cannot all be expressed infinite time cannot all be expressed as well.

No infinity can be expressed.

No infinity can be thought of as possible.

Clearly thinking isn't for you. That's OK - lots of people are quite bad at it, and there are other things you can do to occupy your time.

It's good to know your limitations, and to live within them. You can leave thinking of infinity to those of us for whom it is possible; Perhaps there's a nice TV show you can watch in the meantime, or you could play with a jigsaw, or some Lego.

This does not address one point I made.

You have no arguments, just your faith.

A strange religious faith that an infinity of anything is possible.

Infinity is not an amount. It is not something that can ever be attained.

When it is said that an infinite number of fractions exist between zero and one that only means they exist in theory, in the mind. They can never all actually exist. There is no end to them. No matter how many you wrote out there would still be an infinite amount of fractions you did not.

You don't know the differences between conceptualizing and having existence.