Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Speakpigeon]

I'm going to stop you at your first sentence, Our language doesn't perfectly adapt to the idea of infinite time.

It's simple. "right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

It's certainly simple, but not all simple things are true. The issue you are having seems to be that you insist your idea of time as an unfolding piece of fabric cannot possibly be due to a perceptual trick or an illusion of perspective, even as experiments have conclusively shown that "right now" does not denote anything of substance.

Actually, language can adapt to talking about time in a meta-sense pretty easily. Just as we would look at a 2-dimensional world such as the one depicted in Edwin A. Abbot's Flatland and say that all points in the world are of equal height (as the shapes only have length and width), we can come up with another word for the property that all points on the timeline possess in equal measure, relative to some higher dimension. It would relieve the strain of having to imagine a block of spacetime existing "now" with its entire history represented as a 4-dimensional object. So: just like all of the shapes on a flat piece of paper have the same height while having different lengths and widths, all points on the timeline of the universe can be said to exist "meta-now" even though not all of them exist now.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

I probably should know by now when responding is pointless.

 

[Speakpigeon]

"right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting"?

There's no question that our universe began a finite amount of time ago, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. There's also no question that no human existed before a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. We didn't have to wait at all. Nobody had to wait, except just possibly God.

So, where is your problem exactly?

An infinite amount of time sure would take an infinite amount of time to pass but if we assume an infinite amount of time that's all that would be required. And nobody at all has to wait for it to pass.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting" according to you?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I probably should know by now when responding is pointless.

No necessarily.

Show

It's not true you should know if you're delusional.

EB

 

[Random Person]

I'm going to stop you at your first sentence, Our language doesn't perfectly adapt to the idea of infinite time.

It's simple. "right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

It's certainly simple, but not all simple things are true. The issue you are having seems to be that you insist your idea of time as an unfolding piece of fabric cannot possibly be due to a perceptual trick or an illusion of perspective, even as experiments have conclusively shown that "right now" does not denote anything of substance.

Actually, language can adapt to talking about time in a meta-sense pretty easily. Just as we would look at a 2-dimensional world such as the one depicted in Edwin A. Abbot's Flatland and say that all points in the world are of equal height (as the shapes only have length and width), we can come up with another word for the property that all points on the timeline possess in equal measure, relative to some higher dimension. It would relieve the strain of having to imagine a block of spacetime existing "now" with its entire history represented as a 4-dimensional object. So: just like all of the shapes on a flat piece of paper have the same height while having different lengths and widths, all points on the timeline of the universe can be said to exist "meta-now" even though not all of them exist now.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
EB

So take a drink already.

 

[bilby]

If the universe were ten minutes old, then ten minutes would have passed.

If the universe were a thousand trillion years old, then a thousand trillion years would have passed.

However old the universe is, that's how much time has passed.

But, if Random Person assumes that only a finite amount of time has passed, then we wouldn't have had time to get to infinity, so an infinite past would be impossible.

On the other time, if infinite time had passed, then a finite past would be impossible.

So, what I assume is going on is that Random Person assumes that only a finite time has passed, and his assumption is all that makes him think an infinite past is impossible.

---

Disclaimer: I have made a guess about what someone is thinking, which is always a risk. But in that part of the thread I read, he never came close to giving a reason for his position, which leaves us reliant entirely on guesses.

The universe had a beginning according to known physics.

Then you should be able provide a link or reference to a paper in a respectable journal of Physics that says so. please either do so, or retract this claim.

When you advance an eternal universe it comes with a problem that your going to have to explain.

A finite amount of time can pass. An infinite amount of time cannot pass.

Of course it can. It requires an infinite amount of time, but that's OK.

 

[bilby]

I'm not making a creationist argument but oddly you are making an atheist argument. Arguing against any infinite past is neither.

Time = change. An infinite universe requires a lot of special pleading.

- - - Updated - - -

It's logically fallacious, because it assumes its conclusion.


The past has happened. It's not 'still unfolding'.

Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive in a finite time. It would need an infinite amount of time.

The conclusion that this moment would never arrive depends upon the assumption that the past is too short to include an infinite number of minutes - which is the same as assuming that the past is finite. Assuming your conclusion is a logical fallacy.

One could express this mathematically, but there's no real need.

The past would indeed still be unfolding if it was infinite.

Nope.

TIME would still be unfolding; and it is.

The past has ended. If it had no beginning, then it was infinite.

 

[Elixir]

Definitions can prove or disprove whatever one likes... and of course such proofs and disproofs are subject to falsification via subsequent re-definition.
I believe that Unter has well demonstrated that for forum discussion purposes, "infinite" is a relative term.

FWIW, I've been waiting FOREVER for these infinity threads to produce something useful.

 

[Juma]

"right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting"?

There's no question that our universe began a finite amount of time ago, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. There's also no question that no human existed before a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. We didn't have to wait at all. Nobody had to wait, except just possibly God.

So, where is your problem exactly?

An infinite amount of time sure would take an infinite amount of time to pass but if we assume an infinite amount of time that's all that would be required. And nobody at all has to wait for it to pass.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting" according to you?
EB

There is definetely valid questions about wether our universe began at big bang....

 

[Elixir]

"right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting"?

There's no question that our universe began a finite amount of time ago, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. There's also no question that no human existed before a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. We didn't have to wait at all. Nobody had to wait, except just possibly God.

So, where is your problem exactly?

An infinite amount of time sure would take an infinite amount of time to pass but if we assume an infinite amount of time that's all that would be required. And nobody at all has to wait for it to pass.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting" according to you?
EB

There is definetely valid questions about wether our universe began at big bang....

Like what?
There are lots of "valid" questions about everything. Science can do no more than offer explanations that explain evidence - evidence such as CMBR. Of course a disembodied omnipotent super-being could create it (but... why? To deceive?), but it could also be an artifact from the BB.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nope.

TIME would still be unfolding; and it is.

The past has ended. If it had no beginning, then it was infinite.

For all we know, time may well have no beginning and yet be finite.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's no question that our universe began a finite amount of time ago, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. There's also no question that no human existed before a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. We didn't have to wait at all. Nobody had to wait, except just possibly God.

There is definetely valid questions about wether our universe began at big bang....

I have no idea what a "valid question" might be.

I know of valid arguments, correct answers and legitimate questions.

Still, I just meant that the universe beginning with the Big Bang was what scientists believed was the most likely scenario.

So, me, I have a legitimate question as to your ability to understand what people say.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

"right now" can't happen if we must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting"?

There's no question that our universe began a finite amount of time ago, perhaps 13.7 billion years ago. There's also no question that no human existed before a few hundreds of thousands of years ago. We didn't have to wait at all. Nobody had to wait, except just possibly God.

So, where is your problem exactly?

An infinite amount of time sure would take an infinite amount of time to pass but if we assume an infinite amount of time that's all that would be required. And nobody at all has to wait for it to pass.

Who exactly would have to be doing the "waiting" according to you?
EB

Oh, I understand! It's me! I'll be doing the waiting.

I'll be waiting for a reply, like, forever.

I "must wait for an infinite amount of time to unfold first".

Still, will I have a reply at the end of time?
EB

 

[bilby]

Nope.

TIME would still be unfolding; and it is.

The past has ended. If it had no beginning, then it was infinite.

For all we know, time may well have no beginning and yet be finite.
EB

That's true. Circular time could have neither beginning nor end, and yet be finite - indeed that's the premise of an SF series I am currently reading, that if you go forward far enough, everything repeats.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Nope.

TIME would still be unfolding; and it is.

The past has ended. If it had no beginning, then it was infinite.

For all we know, time may well have no beginning and yet be finite.
EB

That's true. Circular time could have neither beginning nor end, and yet be finite - indeed that's the premise of an SF series I am currently reading, that if you go forward far enough, everything repeats.

Freakishly uncanny.

Still, 's not fair play. You absolutely must find the right answers to my riddles all by yourself.

Spoiler alert:

Show

I hope for you the book doesn't belabour the point by repeating itself after a few chapters...

EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Here's a question for the can't-be-infinite crowd: suppose the past were infinite, and, as you suggest, that means the present moment could not have arrived yet. What would things look like, in that case? Can you even describe what you would expect to observe, or not observe, if the past were "still" happening? Wouldn't any observers located in the infinite past experience things as if they were happening in the present? How would that be different from what you are right now experiencing?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here's a question for the can't-be-infinite crowd: suppose the past were infinite, and, as you suggest, that means the present moment could not have arrived yet. What would things look like, in that case? Can you even describe what you would expect to observe, or not observe, if the past were "still" happening? Wouldn't any observers located in the infinite past experience things as if they were happening in the present? How would that be different from what you are right now experiencing?

People are finite beings so I think in this case they would be just like us. They would only be able to remember a finite past. They wouldn't know they have an infinite past.

I think some of them would deny even the possibility of an infinite past. These people would probably point out that no scientific experiment could conceivably prove an infinite past. So, all the die-hard empiricists in this world would agree that the idea of an infinite past is just a pathetic rationalist fiction.

Some may even challenge the believers in the possibility of an infinite past to explain how it would be possible to prove its reality. And no one would come forward.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

If it is possible, in principle, for the past to "still be happening" (for instance, if the past were infinite and thus unable to unfold completely), how can it be ruled out that we are not actually in the past right now?

In other words: if, at every moment in time, regardless of whether that moment is the "actual present" or not, its observers will believe themselves to be in the present, then the chances of us actually being in the present seem rather slim. It's actually much, much more likely that we are living in some other time, and just believing ourselves to be in the present moment, which is actually sometime before or after what we regard as "now".

The whole idea of a substantive present moment invites all of these kinds of absurdities.

 

[abaddon]

The problem Random Person presents looks like a mixed metaphor. A line or river or path or race-track, or however "all of time" is being (consciously or unconsciously) imagined. And then something (a point or boat or walker or hare) passing along it trying to reach a finish line called "now". So time's two different things. And thus time ends up having to catch up with itself, if it has an infinite distance to cross to do the catching up.

Anyone at the "now" point would have to wait for the past to catch up is something RP presented -- and that's one of several images that gives away the underlying fucked-up metaphor of a moment (time) that has to race along a line (time).

 

[Random Person]

The problem Random Person presents looks like a mixed metaphor. A line or river or path or race-track, or however "all of time" is being (consciously or unconsciously) imagined. And then something (a point or boat or walker or hare) passing along it trying to reach a finish line called "now". So time's two different things. And thus time ends up having to catch up with itself, if it has an infinite distance to cross to do the catching up.

Anyone at the "now" point would have to wait for the past to catch up is something RP presented -- and that's one of several images that gives away the underlying fucked-up metaphor of a moment (time) that has to race along a line (time).

You are providing the fucked-up metaphors. I never brought up hares or boats or walkers/

We experience time in the now. Time isn't circular even though we may measure it that way (rotation and orbit of the earth are two examples), it's linear. If you are going to create a stack with an infinite number of moments preceding "now" you are going to have to explain how that is possible.


I wonder why you guys aren't criticizing the article posted claiming the age of the universe?

Modern science accepts that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old and the entire universe is around 13.77 billion years old.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Is that not true?