The religion of "no beginning".

[bilby]

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

Infinity multiplied by zero is not one.

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between countable and non-countable infinite sets.

Indeed. But he's so deeply committed to his error, and so passionate and persistent in its defence, that it has become quite amusing.

 

[Kharakov]

There isn't a smallest division.

Zero?

There is a lowest IQ.

Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.

Unter is talking about a smallest "length" of time when he says "smallest division". The smallest length would be \(\lim \epsilon \to 0\), which isn't the same thing as 0.

You can have different "approach velocities and/or accelerations" to zero, for different limits, so there are an infinite amount of epsilons (ɛseses, pronounced "epsilonzezez"). A limit doesn't have to include an approach structure or approach velocity/acceleration, but you CAN define the approach velocity and/or acceleration, or you can extract an approach velocity/acceleration from some equations whose limits approach zero.

For the following, the approach velocity to 0 is determined by a.

Show

a= 1,2,3,4....
\(f(a)= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(a-1)! (-k)^a}{\sqrt[k]{e}} - \frac {1}{a} -\sum_{n=0}^{a}{\left. {{\left( -k\right) }^{n+1}}\, {{\left( a-n\right) }_n}\right.}\)

\(a_n\) denotes the falling factorial (Pochhammer?) of a, so:

a=2
\(-\frac{2 k^3}{\sqrt[k]{e}} -\frac{1}{2}+ k -2k^2+2 k^3 \)

a=3
\(\frac{6 k^4}{\sqrt[k]{e}}-\frac{1}{3}+k-3k^2+6k^3-6k^4\)

 

[bilby]

Zero?



Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.

Unter is talking about a smallest "length" of time when he says "smallest division". The smallest length would be \(\lim \epsilon \to 0\), which isn't the same thing as 0.

You can have different "approach velocities and/or accelerations" to zero, for different limits, so there are an infinite amount of epsilons (ɛseses, pronounced "epsilonzezez"). A limit doesn't have to include an approach structure or approach velocity/acceleration, but you CAN define the approach velocity and/or acceleration, or you can extract an approach velocity/acceleration from some equations whose limits approach zero.

For the following, the approach velocity to 0 is determined by a.

Show

a= 1,2,3,4....
\(f(a)= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(a-1)! (-k)^a}{\sqrt[k]{e}} - \frac {1}{a} -\sum_{n=0}^{a}{\left. {{\left( -k\right) }^{n+1}}\, {{\left( a-n\right) }_n}\right.}\)

\(a_n\) denotes the falling factorial (Pochhammer?) of a, so:

a=2
\(-\frac{2 k^3}{\sqrt[k]{e}} -\frac{1}{2}+ k -2k^2+2 k^3 \)

a=3
\(\frac{6 k^4}{\sqrt[k]{e}}-\frac{1}{3}+k-3k^2+6k^3-6k^4\)

Ah yes, but any mathematics unter doesn't understand is imaginary and/or a lie; so it doesn't count.

 

[Kharakov]

What the fuck? Now you're denying that time is divisible to begin with whether it's infinite or not! Lmao.

I am claiming that if you have a slice of time greater than zero a finite amount of them would be contained in one second. No matter how small. There is no slice too small that a finite amount of them will not fill the space.

Except there are an infinite amount of spacetime slices for any finite time size that occupies 0 space volume.

- - - Updated - - -

Zero?



Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.

Unter is talking about a smallest "length" of time when he says "smallest division". The smallest length would be \(\lim \epsilon \to 0\), which isn't the same thing as 0.

You can have different "approach velocities and/or accelerations" to zero, for different limits, so there are an infinite amount of epsilons (ɛseses, pronounced "epsilonzezez"). A limit doesn't have to include an approach structure or approach velocity/acceleration, but you CAN define the approach velocity and/or acceleration, or you can extract an approach velocity/acceleration from some equations whose limits approach zero.

For the following, the approach velocity to 0 is determined by a.

Show

a= 1,2,3,4....
\(f(a)= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(a-1)! (-k)^a}{\sqrt[k]{e}} - \frac {1}{a} -\sum_{n=0}^{a}{\left. {{\left( -k\right) }^{n+1}}\, {{\left( a-n\right) }_n}\right.}\)

\(a_n\) denotes the falling factorial (Pochhammer?) of a, so:

a=2
\(-\frac{2 k^3}{\sqrt[k]{e}} -\frac{1}{2}+ k -2k^2+2 k^3 \)

a=3
\(\frac{6 k^4}{\sqrt[k]{e}}-\frac{1}{3}+k-3k^2+6k^3-6k^4\)

Ah yes, but any mathematics under doesn't understand is imaginary and/or a lie; so it doesn't count.

Crap, I forgot the rules of engagement.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I have no problem with time being infinite in both directions. There is nothing in that claim that contradicts experiment.

 

[untermensche]

Zero?



Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.

Unter is talking about a smallest "length" of time when he says "smallest division". The smallest length would be \(\lim \epsilon \to 0\), which isn't the same thing as 0.

You can have different "approach velocities and/or accelerations" to zero, for different limits, so there are an infinite amount of epsilons (ɛseses, pronounced "epsilonzezez"). A limit doesn't have to include an approach structure or approach velocity/acceleration, but you CAN define the approach velocity and/or acceleration, or you can extract an approach velocity/acceleration from some equations whose limits approach zero.

For the following, the approach velocity to 0 is determined by a.

Show

a= 1,2,3,4....
\(f(a)= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(a-1)! (-k)^a}{\sqrt[k]{e}} - \frac {1}{a} -\sum_{n=0}^{a}{\left. {{\left( -k\right) }^{n+1}}\, {{\left( a-n\right) }_n}\right.}\)

\(a_n\) denotes the falling factorial (Pochhammer?) of a, so:

a=2
\(-\frac{2 k^3}{\sqrt[k]{e}} -\frac{1}{2}+ k -2k^2+2 k^3 \)

a=3
\(\frac{6 k^4}{\sqrt[k]{e}}-\frac{1}{3}+k-3k^2+6k^3-6k^4\)

First somebody claimed the smallest length was an "Infinitesimal", whatever that is?

Are you saying they were wrong?

What you talk about with limits is the smallest possible length greater than zero. An imaginary entity that does not exist.

If you have any fraction of time greater than zero, no matter how small, always a finite amount of them will fill one second. Not an infinite.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Lmao.

Lick me all over?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is the universe infinite or not?

We don't know, right?

It would take an infinite amount of time just to make sure, and, I would guess, no scientist has an infinite amount of time.

Still, we can try to start it, and do it one generation of scientists at a time. At some point, someone will think of something.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

I have no problem with time being infinite in both directions. There is nothing in that claim that contradicts experiment.

I am genuinely befuddled by this thread's mixture of mathematics, cosmology, philosophy, semantics, and logic.

Now I see there is a claim that there have been experiments with infinite time "in both directions", thought experiments, I presume. And these do not contradict the existance of infinite time in both directions.

What happened to the Big Bang? The beginning of it all? You know, when an almost infinitely compact "substance" of almost infinite mass of we don't know what ?appeared, exploded, expanded and inflated (we don't knowwhere from, why, how, or into what). And it brought space and time with it, and it might/might not, all collapse and begin all over again with another Big Bang etc, which would give an answer to "what went before the BB." -- Another Big Bang.

It would make Time cyclical or circular and so infinite, and yet give it not just one beginning but many recurring ones.

Then I suppose we would just have to figure out whether the cycles occured from "Infinity" whatever that means, and what caused them. And if not from Infinity then when did it all begin and what caused the first one.

Has String (?M) Theory sorted out any of this?

 

[beero1000]

I have no problem with time being infinite in both directions. There is nothing in that claim that contradicts experiment.

I am genuinely befuddled by this thread's mixture of mathematics, cosmology, philosophy, semantics, and logic.

Now I see there is a claim that there have been experiments with infinite time "in both directions", thought experiments, I presume. And these do not contradict the existance of infinite time in both directions.

What happened to the Big Bang? The beginning of it all? You know, when an almost infinitely compact "substance" of almost infinite mass of we don't know what ?appeared, exploded, expanded and inflated (we don't knowwhere from, why, how, or into what). And it brought space and time with it, and it might/might not, all collapse and begin all over again with another Big Bang etc, which would give an answer to "what went before the BB." -- Another Big Bang.

It would make Time cyclical or circular and so infinite, and yet give it not just one beginning but many recurring ones.

Then I suppose we would just have to figure out whether the cycles occured from "Infinity" whatever that means, and what caused them. And if not from Infinity then when did it all begin and what caused the first one.

Has String (?M) Theory sorted out any of this?

We don't know yet. It is still an open problem in cosmology and the equations and experiments are compatible with either. The big bang is a singularity in the predictions of general relativity, not necessarily a beginning to time.

 

[Elixir]

\
What happened to the Big Bang? The beginning of it all?

It blew up?
Seriously, this thread looks to me like a humongous and meaningless quibble about the meaning of "beginning". You could call the Big Bang "the beginning" of the space-time continuum we inhabit, but that doesn't mean it wasn't preceded by a prior state.
Beginnings are wherever humans mark them. So calling "no beginning" a religion is precisely as accurate as calling any particular beginning a religion.

 

[Kharakov]

What happened to the Big Bang? The beginning of it all? You know, when an almost infinitely compact "substance" of almost infinite mass of we don't know what ?

Infinite time-space dilation. There wasn't a beginning anyway, at least at that end of the spacetime continuum, that doesn't have ends like this sentence.

 

[Val]

Zero?



Yeah.

So either zero is the smallest division of time or mine is the lowest IQ.

Unter is talking about a smallest "length" of time when he says "smallest division". The smallest length would be \(\lim \epsilon \to 0\), which isn't the same thing as 0.

You can have different "approach velocities and/or accelerations" to zero, for different limits, so there are an infinite amount of epsilons (ɛseses, pronounced "epsilonzezez"). A limit doesn't have to include an approach structure or approach velocity/acceleration, but you CAN define the approach velocity and/or acceleration, or you can extract an approach velocity/acceleration from some equations whose limits approach zero.

For the following, the approach velocity to 0 is determined by a.

Show

a= 1,2,3,4....
\(f(a)= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{(a-1)! (-k)^a}{\sqrt[k]{e}} - \frac {1}{a} -\sum_{n=0}^{a}{\left. {{\left( -k\right) }^{n+1}}\, {{\left( a-n\right) }_n}\right.}\)

\(a_n\) denotes the falling factorial (Pochhammer?) of a, so:

a=2
\(-\frac{2 k^3}{\sqrt[k]{e}} -\frac{1}{2}+ k -2k^2+2 k^3 \)

a=3
\(\frac{6 k^4}{\sqrt[k]{e}}-\frac{1}{3}+k-3k^2+6k^3-6k^4\)

First somebody claimed the smallest length was an "Infinitesimal", whatever that is?

Are you saying they were wrong?

What you talk about with limits is the smallest possible length greater than zero. An imaginary entity that does not exist.

If you have any fraction of time greater than zero, no matter how small, always a finite amount of them will fill one second. Not an infinite.

Oh get off it. If you want to divide, then your divisor must be non-zero. So how big do you WANT the length of time to be? Yes? So choose a size for your divisor. If it is undetermined, then your result is logically >0, assuming your divisor is non-zero (and >0 in itself I suppose, but that's neither here nor there).

Take your head out of that great big zero between your butt cheeks.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As I see it, there is indeed a "tension" between our intuition about the nature of reality and the idea of a past without a beginning. It may be worth looking into the question.

Contrary to what UM claims, however, I don't see how the idea of a past with no beginning would be illogical.

His argument, I guess, is to ask us to try and imagine something "traversing" the entire infinity of the past to get to the present moment, and admit that we can't do that. Obviously, it's true that we can't do that. Yet, this in itself is no proof that the idea of time with no beginning is illogical. It's just evidence of the limited capacity of our brains, and indeed, we can assume, of any real thinking system.

Still, it's interesting to look more closely at our intuition about causality.

My assumption here about our intuition concerning causality is that if there is something now, it's because there was something else immediately before that physically caused it to come about. Potentially, if true, this would in fact require some kind of temporal infinity. I assume here there's essentially only two kinds of infinity. Either there was an infinite past (discrete time analogous to N), or, if the past was finite and had therefore a beginning, time must be infinitely divisible so as to allow an infinity of causal reactions to take place within a finite period of time (continuous time analogous to R+).

If we assume time had no beginning, we're left with only the first option (analogy to N).

In this case, could anything have traversed the infinity of the past so as to exist now? Obviously, we're no talking about people. Not even about any kind of administrative body or institution powered by a human workforce, generation after generation. However, the idea of causality itself does amount to having something like a unified body, not so different from that of an organism, going through the length of time, and therefore a "body" which at any point in time would have already been in existence for an infinite amount of time. A succession of Big Bangs, and therefore a succession of universes, one following another, endlessly and without a beginning to the succession, and each Big Bang caused by the previous universe (if we want to assume an unbroken causal chain), would amount to such a unified body persisting through an infinite time, a time without an end but also without a beginning. In that perspective, can we really conceive of such a unified body subject to an evolutionary process, like every macroscopic thing we know of in our universe? Can we conceive of just one body unified by causality, but continuously evolving so as to have a structure and organisation unique to each moment in time? Again, there's no logical contradiction in that idea but I think we can't conceive of possibility, again because our brain couldn't possible harbour an infinity of such unique organisations and structures and we only ever think of finite sets. So instead, we can fall back on the idea of Big Bang and conceive of a fundamentally cyclical reality, with a succession of universes which may or may not be identical to each other, but with overall only a finite number of types of universe. That, we can conceived of.

So, what would be the problem with a reality made of a succession of essentially identical universes, the disappearance of one causing the appearance of a new, but essentially identical universe? Would that idea contain some kind of logical contradiction? Personally, I don't see why that would be the case. In fact, I'm very confident that very nearly all scientists would agree with me on this. Obviously, this would be a very simple form of infinity, all universes being essentially identical to each other, or each belonging to an infinite set of strictly identical universes, with overall a finite number of types of universes. Either way, we would end up with the history of successive universes repeating itself at some point in time, and again, and again, for ever.

You're all welcome to comment on this particular point.


Another possible conception of reality is the idea of a succession of universes without a relation of causality between different universes. Each universe would just pop up on its own, uncaused, and unrelated in any way to any other universe. I think it's one possibility, yet I would dismiss this case as irrelevant to the question of the infinity of the past. If universes can exist wholly independently of each other, then the notion of time just disappears, or, more accurately, time becomes something restricted to each universe, starting with the Big Bang and stopping whenever the universe disappears. There would be no time encompassing all universes, and therefore no need for an infinite time. Obviously, again, I think that's a conception we would have a hard time accepting. Personally, I seem unable to imagine a such a possibility. Still, I don't see where there would be any logical contradiction in this case.

I guess some may also want to comment on this.
EB

 

[Jon Osterman]

Some people in this thread might want to read up on Ekpyrotic universe theories.

 

[untermensche]

First somebody claimed the smallest length was an "Infinitesimal", whatever that is?

Are you saying they were wrong?

What you talk about with limits is the smallest possible length greater than zero. An imaginary entity that does not exist.

If you have any fraction of time greater than zero, no matter how small, always a finite amount of them will fill one second. Not an infinite.

Oh get off it. If you want to divide, then your divisor must be non-zero. So how big do you WANT the length of time to be? Yes? So choose a size for your divisor. If it is undetermined, then your result is logically >0, assuming your divisor is non-zero (and >0 in itself I suppose, but that's neither here nor there).

Take your head out of that great big zero between your butt cheeks.

You have not addressed one question.

If you have a slice of time, no matter how small, a finite amount of them will fill a second, if the slice is a fraction of a second.

Never can you have a slice of time and find an infinite amount of them, anywhere.

Infinite slices of any duration, no matter how small, would be time without end. Slightly longer than a second.

 

[untermensche]

Contrary to what UM claims, however, I don't see how the idea of a past with no beginning would be illogical.

His argument, I guess, is to ask us to try and imagine something "traversing" the entire infinity of the past to get to the present moment, and admit that we can't do that. Obviously, it's true that we can't do that. Yet, this in itself is no proof that the idea of time with no beginning is illogical. It's just evidence of the limited capacity of our brains, and indeed, we can assume, of any real thinking system...

You have the argument somewhat but you did not bother to address the key issues in any way.

If the past was infinite that means an infinity was traversed since at any given moment all the time in the past has passed, it has all been traversed.

The question is simple.

Can you traverse an infinite line? Not imagine one. Travel the complete length of one.

That is the question of this thread.

If you think it is possible show how it is possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Contrary to what UM claims, however, I don't see how the idea of a past with no beginning would be illogical.

His argument, I guess, is to ask us to try and imagine something "traversing" the entire infinity of the past to get to the present moment, and admit that we can't do that. Obviously, it's true that we can't do that. Yet, this in itself is no proof that the idea of time with no beginning is illogical. It's just evidence of the limited capacity of our brains, and indeed, we can assume, of any real thinking system...

You have the argument somewhat but you did not bother to address the key issues in any way.

If the past was infinite that means an infinity was traversed since at any given moment all the time in the past has passed, it has all been traversed.

The question is simple.

Can you traverse an infinite line? Not imagine one. Travel the complete length of one.

That is the question of this thread.

If you think it is possible show how it is possible.

I understand the question as follows:

What kind of thing could have existed throughout the length of an infinite past?

But I just provided you with one possible answer.

In the post you are responding to, I provided one example of a concept of the kind of reality that could have existed at all times in an infinite past.

That's it and I think it's good enough.

Now, if you think my answer is somehow lacking, it's up to you to show how.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Contrary to what UM claims, however, I don't see how the idea of a past with no beginning would be illogical.

His argument, I guess, is to ask us to try and imagine something "traversing" the entire infinity of the past to get to the present moment, and admit that we can't do that. Obviously, it's true that we can't do that. Yet, this in itself is no proof that the idea of time with no beginning is illogical. It's just evidence of the limited capacity of our brains, and indeed, we can assume, of any real thinking system...

You have the argument somewhat but you did not bother to address the key issues in any way.

If the past was infinite that means an infinity was traversed since at any given moment all the time in the past has passed, it has all been traversed.

The question is simple.

Can you traverse an infinite line? Not imagine one. Travel the complete length of one.

That is the question of this thread.

If you think it is possible show how it is possible.

I understand the question as follows:

What kind of thing could have existed throughout the length of an infinite past?

The question is: Could time and space, since they are inseparable, have existed the whole way?

How is any infinite progression completed? How is an infinite line completely traversed?

That is the question.

I read what you wrote but I did not find within it a way to traverse completely an infinite line, a model for an infinite progression. Like the alleged infinite progression of time.

Introducing alternative models is not evidence we need one.

 

[Jon Osterman]

You have the argument somewhat but you did not bother to address the key issues in any way.

If the past was infinite that means an infinity was traversed since at any given moment all the time in the past has passed, it has all been traversed.

The question is simple.

Can you traverse an infinite line? Not imagine one. Travel the complete length of one.

That is the question of this thread.

If you think it is possible show how it is possible.

Would you also argue that the universe is not spatially infinite since one cannot transverse the an infinite spatial line either?