The religion of "no beginning".

[Lion IRC]

It seems true to me that an entity could be in the process of 'traversing' - wandering along along a road called infinity - but that they would never make it to the end because, of course the road never ends.

And only an eternal (present tense) entity could 'traverse' infinity.

But to hink of having traversED infinity would be self-contradictory double-think.

What if the Flash did it? He can run really fast and that would cut down how long it would take him to do it and he'd be able to traverse eternity in a mere infinite amount of time.

Sure, but if He traversed it from one end to the other then he is ISNT on the road called infinity but rather a side street.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It seems true to me that an entity could be in the process of 'traversing' - wandering along along a road called infinity - but that they would never make it to the end because, of course the road never ends.

And only an eternal (present tense) entity could 'traverse' infinity.

But to hink of having traversED infinity would be self-contradictory double-think.

What if the Flash did it? He can run really fast and that would cut down how long it would take him to do it and he'd be able to traverse eternity in a mere infinite amount of time.

Sure, but if He traversed it from one end to the other then he is ISNT on the road called infinity but rather a side street.

Probably the side street where the whorehouses are. The Flash is actually kind of a scuzzy perv.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So, just to make sure, I'm saying that I can conceive of reality as having started without anything to cause it to start. A one-off freak event, if you like.

If so, then one beginning and perhaps no infinite past. And not even a First Cause! No big deal.

So argument from ignorance, combined with argument from not considering the evidence base on argument from ignorance, trumps logical inference. Sure EB...

I can envision various ways in which reality accumulated various properties from a potential source, but there always is a source. You're basically playing a shell game with nothing again, like the last time you argued this.


Your claim comes down to something static (nothing) changing into something not static....

1) no potentials existed
2) no change existed (nothing was changing), reality was static void
3) all of the sudden potentials and change existed or accumulated over time

All I can reasonably infer from that is that you don't like my suggestion. Nothing unexpected here.

You also disregarded my request: "Proper arguments, please."

I don't see any relevant argument in your post.

Again, nothing unexpected. I don't see myself there's any argument to be had. It's all down to belief.

But me, I really don't see why I would need to commit to one or the other possibility. Both possibilities would be fine with me. I wasn't there anyway.

We should also keep in mind that what comes around can go away. If reality began without being caused, it could also just as easily poof out of existence for no reason whatsoever. Just like that, poof!

But you don't have to believe me.

Anyway, thanks for trying!

Anyone else?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems true to me that an entity could be in the process of 'traversing' - wandering along along a road called infinity - but that they would never make it to the end because, of course the road never ends.

And only an eternal (present tense) entity could perpetually 'traverse' infinity.

But to hink of having traversED infinity would be self-contradictory double-think.

Excellent point. But I think it's essentially a linguistic point.

The question here is whether something may have "traversed" the past. And there, traversed (or crossed) is the only correct form.

___________________

Also, and I think more relevant to this thread, which is about the question of "beginning", I think it is obvious, even if the past has been infinite, that there may well have been one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past.

But, what is it?

So, I will remind everybody that I'm still waiting for people to send me a private message with their answer to that question.

I'm interested to show it's really obvious, so I really need everybody here to contribute their bit.

Thanks in advance.
EB

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

 

[untermensche]

It seems true to me that an entity could be in the process of 'traversing' - wandering along along a road called infinity - but that they would never make it to the end because, of course the road never ends.

And only an eternal (present tense) entity could perpetually 'traverse' infinity.

But to hink of having traversED infinity would be self-contradictory double-think.

Some have problems because they understand that in theory between zero and one there are infinite fractions.

So they think somehow this means an infinity can complete.

But if they started writing out all those fractions they would soon understand (nobody should have to do this to understand) the infinity between zero and one does not ever complete. The infinity is only imaginary. It is always just assumed. It could never be real.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing has to be able to traverse the past to understand that an infinity cannot be traversed.

No infinity is or could possibly be real.

It is not a real world concept.

 

[DBT]

Your transverse an infinite line requirement is bogus. Nothing needs to transverse infinity for infinity to be real.

 

[Juma]

It seems true to me that an entity could be in the process of 'traversing' - wandering along along a road called infinity - but that they would never make it to the end because, of course the road never ends.

And only an eternal (present tense) entity could perpetually 'traverse' infinity.

But to hink of having traversED infinity would be self-contradictory double-think.

Excellent point. But I think it's essentially a linguistic point.

The question here is whether something may have "traversed" the past. And there, traversed (or crossed) is the only correct form.

___________________

Also, and I think more relevant to this thread, which is about the question of "beginning", I think it is obvious, even if the past has been infinite, that there may well have been one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past.

But, what is it?

So, I will remind everybody that I'm still waiting for people to send me a private message with their answer to that question.

I'm interested to show it's really obvious, so I really need everybody here to contribute their bit.

Thanks in advance.
EB

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

Nothing needs to have traversed it.
As a river is different each time we enter it the universe may be different over time.
We are talking of things way out of what we experience so there is really nothing that can inform us how it really is.

 

[Underseer]

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.

How can you possibly say infinite time is possible or impossible?

Reality doesn't care if you find something absurd. Goodness knows quantum physics proved that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The infinity is only imaginary. It is always just assumed. It could never be real.

That it could never be real doesn't follow from the fact that it has to be assumed.

We certainly know it has to be assumed. Our brain clearly has a finite information storage capacity, so we can't perceive infinity. So, yes, we have to assume it. And so all we know is our concept of infinity and concepts are essentially imaginary things. But from the fact that infinity as we know it is imaginary, it doesn't follow that there is nothing infinite in the real world. We just don't know.

So your claim here that infinity could never be real is vacuous.

Well, no surprise here, a lot of what you say is indeed vacuous.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Your transverse an infinite line requirement is bogus. Nothing needs to transverse infinity for infinity to be real.

Infinity is not real. It is not a real concept. It cannot possibly exist in any form.

This is just a way to demonstrate it and get some to understand.

 

[untermensche]

The infinity is only imaginary. It is always just assumed. It could never be real.

That it could never be real doesn't follow from the fact that it has to be assumed.

We certainly know it has to be assumed. Our brain clearly has a finite information storage capacity, so we can't perceive infinity. So, yes, we have to assume it. And so all we know is our concept of infinity and concepts are essentially imaginary things. But from the fact that infinity as we know it is imaginary, it doesn't follow that there is nothing infinite in the real world. We just don't know.

So your claim here that infinity could never be real is vacuous.

Well, no surprise here, a lot of what you say is indeed vacuous.
EB

How could it possibly be real?

How could you possibly have an "infinity"?

An "infinity" is not an amount.

Tell me how it is possible for infinity to exist.

- - - Updated - - -

How can you possibly say infinite time is possible or impossible?

Reality doesn't care if you find something absurd. Goodness knows quantum physics proved that.

I can say an infinite amount of anything is not real.

It is not a real possibility.

Infinity is not an amount.

It is an imaginary concept.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The infinity is only imaginary. It is always just assumed. It could never be real.

That it could never be real doesn't follow from the fact that it has to be assumed.

We certainly know it has to be assumed. Our brain clearly has a finite information storage capacity, so we can't perceive infinity. So, yes, we have to assume it. And so all we know is our concept of infinity and concepts are essentially imaginary things. But from the fact that infinity as we know it is imaginary, it doesn't follow that there is nothing infinite in the real world. We just don't know.

So your claim here that infinity could never be real is vacuous.

Well, no surprise here, a lot of what you say is indeed vacuous.
EB

How could it possibly be real?

How could you possibly have an "infinity"?

An "infinity" is not an amount.

Tell me how it is possible for infinity to exist.

What kind of question is that?!

Okay, let's see if you yourself can make sense of it.

So, I'll try to answer it if you answer a similar question first.

So, here it goes: Tell me how it is possible for reality to exist.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How could it possibly be real?

How could you possibly have an "infinity"?

An "infinity" is not an amount.

Tell me how it is possible for infinity to exist.

What kind of question is that?!

Okay, let's see if you yourself can make sense of it.

So, I'll try to answer it if you answer a similar question first.

So, here it goes: Tell me how it is possible for reality to exist.
EB

You are equating infinity with reality.

Absurd.

How is it possible this imaginary concept called infinity is real?

If somebody told me some imaginary concept was real they would need to prove it.

Mathematicians invented the concept of imaginary number too.

Are imaginary numbers real?

 

[Juma]

How could it possibly be real?

How could you possibly have an "infinity"?

An "infinity" is not an amount.

Tell me how it is possible for infinity to exist.

What kind of question is that?!

Okay, let's see if you yourself can make sense of it.

So, I'll try to answer it if you answer a similar question first.

So, here it goes: Tell me how it is possible for reality to exist.
EB

You are equating infinity with reality.

Absurd.

How is it possible this imaginary concept called infinity is real?

If somebody told me some imaginary concept was real they would need to prove it.

Mathematicians invented the concept of imaginary number too.

Are imaginary numbers real?

For fucks sake! This entire is about a statement YOU made. Thus it is up to you to prove that time cannot have been going on for ever.

The only argument you have come up with is that ”it could since nothing could have traversed an infinite interval in finite time”
And you have uttrrly failed to show what this argument has to do with the original question.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Also, and I think more relevant to this thread, which is about the question of "beginning", I think it is obvious, even if the past has been infinite, that there may well have been one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past.

But, what is it?

So, I will remind everybody that I'm still waiting for people to send me a private message with their answer to that question.

I'm interested to show it's really obvious, so I really need everybody here to contribute their bit.

Thanks in advance.
EB

Nothing needs to have traversed it.

Did I say that?! Did I?

No.

I talked about "one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past".

Do I need now to lecture you on the meaning of "could"?

As a river is different each time we enter it the universe may be different over time.

So what? What kind of definition do you use for "thing" that it should remain identical to itself throughout?

Okay, so, now I'll have to lecture you on what people usually mean by "thing".

English lesson. Please sit down.

So, here it goes:

Thing
n. 1.a. An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically

Object
n. 1. A specific, individual, material entity, especially one that is not living or not sentient.

Entity
n 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

There's nothing in those dictionary definitions saying that I wasn't the same person and the same thing yesterday, ten years ago, sixty years ago.

Those definitions look pretty straightforward to me in terms of understanding them. I can only hope you do.

I will nonetheless draw you attention on the example given for the use of "entity". From the example given, we can infer that persons and corporations are routinely and uncontroversially thought of as entities.

Now, last time I looked into the mirror, I didn't at all look like when I was a baby, a teenager, or even a middle-aged man. And yet I am what people would call a "person". More to the point I can infer from being a person and from what the dictionary says that I am also an entity, and therefore an object, and therefore a thing. And, I have always been since birth, I guess, since there's nothing in the dictionary saying that I wasn't the same person and the same thing yesterday, ten years ago, sixty years ago. I was the same thing then as I am now. We usually all know how to understand that. It's up to you to do what most people can do.

Which sort of shows you're not using simple words the way most people do. But it will only make communication very difficult and awkward if you keep doing this. So, please stop.

So, here it is again:

I think it is obvious, even if the past has been infinite, that there may well have been one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past.

Try again?

We are talking of things way out of what we experience so there is really nothing that can inform us how it really is.

Man of little faith.

The conceptual power of man is much more than you seem to give us credit for.

I was talking of something that is straightforwardly part of our objective experience and I'm in absolutely no doubt we're all very familiar with this thing. Even you.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

How could it possibly be real?

How could you possibly have an "infinity"?

An "infinity" is not an amount.

Tell me how it is possible for infinity to exist.

What kind of question is that?!

Okay, let's see if you yourself can make sense of it.

So, I'll try to answer it if you answer a similar question first.

So, here it goes: Tell me how it is possible for reality to exist.
EB

You are equating infinity with reality.

Absurd.

No, it's very easy to see I wasn't equating infinity and reality.

Everybody can understand that. Not you apparently.


This shows you're asking questions you don't even understand yourself.

It also shows you have a really serious problem in terms of your understanding, not only of English, but of reality itself. I doubt this forum, or any forum, could improve your condition.

Your reply also definitely shows it's not possible to have any sensible conversation with you. You're a complete waste of time. You are a complete waste of time.
EB

 

[Juma]

Did I say that?! Did I?

No.

I talked about "one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past".

Do I need now to lecture you on the meaning of "could"?

As a river is different each time we enter it the universe may be different over time.

So what? What kind of definition do you use for "thing" that it should remain identical to itself throughout?

Okay, so, now I'll have to lecture you on what people usually mean by "thing".

English lesson. Please sit down.

So, here it goes:

Thing
n. 1.a. An object or entity that is not or cannot be named specifically

Object
n. 1. A specific, individual, material entity, especially one that is not living or not sentient.

Entity
n 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.

There's nothing in those dictionary definitions saying that I wasn't the same person and the same thing yesterday, ten years ago, sixty years ago.

Those definitions look pretty straightforward to me in terms of understanding them. I can only hope you do.

I will nonetheless draw you attention on the example given for the use of "entity". From the example given, we can infer that persons and corporations are routinely and uncontroversially thought of as entities.

Now, last time I looked into the mirror, I didn't at all look like when I was a baby, a teenager, or even a middle-aged man. And yet I am what people would call a "person". More to the point I can infer from being a person and from what the dictionary says that I am also an entity, and therefore an object, and therefore a thing. And, I have always been since birth, I guess, since there's nothing in the dictionary saying that I wasn't the same person and the same thing yesterday, ten years ago, sixty years ago. I was the same thing then as I am now. We usually all know how to understand that. It's up to you to do what most people can do.

Which sort of shows you're not using simple words the way most people do. But it will only make communication very difficult and awkward if you keep doing this. So, please stop.

So, here it is again:

I think it is obvious, even if the past has been infinite, that there may well have been one (obvious) thing that could have traversed, or crossed, this whole infinite past.

Try again?

We are talking of things way out of what we experience so there is really nothing that can inform us how it really is.

Man of little faith.

The conceptual power of man is much more than you seem to give us credit for.

I was talking of something that is straightforwardly part of our objective experience and I'm in absolutely no doubt we're all very familiar with this thing. Even you.
EB

Eh? I was agreeing with you.
but I forgive you, debating with untermensche can get anyone out of balance...

 

[Speakpigeon]

Eh? I was agreeing with you.
but I forgive you, debating with untermensche can get anyone out of balance...

Sorry for that! This kind of friendly fire shit can always happen.

Still, you may need to improve, I dunno... your... style?
EB

 

[Kharakov]

So, just to make sure, I'm saying that I can conceive of reality as having started without anything to cause it to start. A one-off freak event, if you like.

If so, then one beginning and perhaps no infinite past. And not even a First Cause! No big deal.

I can envision various ways in which reality accumulated various properties from a potential source, but there always is a source.
Your claim comes down to something static and unchanging suddenly changing without outside influence....

All I can reasonably infer from that is that you don't like my suggestion.

Well, you suck at inference then. It's a good idea to show the philosophical incompleteness of scientific thought: that if we hold ourselves to the same rigor that mathematical proofs require when we inquire into causality and primary causes, we don't know anything (other than it might be Laplace's or Maxwell's demon tricking us). I'm thinking that as long as your belief in your demon doesn't have a negative impact on scientific inquiry.... it's not a problem. You're just another person holding onto driftwoo to stay above the sea of reality. You might make money doing it... right?

Nothing unexpected here.

lol

Omphalos. Syndrome. Something happens to imperial capitals, something psychological and, over time, corrosive and incapacitating. It happens when the conviction takes hold that the capital is the source and focal point of reality—that nothing is more important than what happens there, and that no ideas or perceptions ...

Ok... I Googled Omphalos... mrrp.

You also disregarded my request: "Proper arguments, please."

You know there is no "proper" argument against that position. Even though all evidence in the universe points to "something always existed", you can cry out "Omphalos!!! All was created last Tuesday! You have no proof it wasn't!"

Even if the continuum is proven to be eternal (in the sense that we know laws that periodically cause linear timeline offshoots to appear forever), you can always cry out "Omphalos!! A one off freak even occurred last Tuesday!!! You cannot prove it didn't!!! hahahahaha!!"

There is no argument against last Tuesdayism... unless you think you can create one without assuming a premise or 2....



The point is, there are eternals that everything arose from (even Groundhog Day)....