Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[Speakpigeon]

Listen to yourself man. An infinite amount of time can't elapse, that indicates that it had an end. You are stupulating an infinite amount of time that doesn't end.

The sequential nature of time says the infinite amount of time has to come to a close before the next thing, "now" can occur. Impossible.

It is obvious that you either are incapable or unwilling of examining your BELIEFS (certainly not understanding) so correcting your nonsense would be a waste of time.

But "educate" me... you assert that, "An infinite amount of time can't elapse", so explain to me how much time would elapse over an infinite time?

Time wouldn't elapse over an infinite amount of time. Examine your beliefs and understanding.

You're asking me questions I just answered.

With Random Person and untermensche, we have now two cases of the exactly same position. I would say this is significant.

I can think up only of the following to explain this "reasoning". One basic idea is that time is like a long path along which people, and indeed the world itself, would be travelling. Strictly speaking, that image should not be in itself a problem. If the path is infinite, wherever along this path the world happens to be, there's always an infinite section of path already covered and therefore an infinite past. So, to explain the blockage, I think we also need this idea that if you start a journey along a path that's infinitely long, you'll never get to the end of it, whether because there's literally no end to it or because at any moment in the future you will only have covered a finite distance along that path. So, if you combine these two ideas, whereby the world would have had to travel along the path of our assumed infinite past to arrive to the present, the world could not possibly have got to the end of it, i.e. to the present moment.

However, in order to combine these two ideas, you would need to think of the first idea of the world travelling along the infinitely long path of an infinite past in the same way that you think of the second idea of somebody starting a journey along a path that's infinitely long, namely that there is a start to the journey. In the case of the world starting now a journey towards an infinite future, that's no problem. There's a start and it is now. In the case of the world starting its journey at some point in the past, you have to assume a starting point, assumption directly borrowed from the conventional idea of a finite past with a beginning. In any case, I think they both assume this idea of an infinite past with a beginning. Personally, I'm fine with it. The interval of the Real numbers between 0 and 1 for example provides a straightforward and very convenient representation for it.

However, and this is where the position of our posters is faulty, this interval of the Real numbers from 0 to 1 also provides a perfectly acceptable example of an infinite set with two ends, and one that can perfectly represent our idea of an infinite past, with 0 at one end standing for the beginning of time, and 1 at the other end standing for the present moment. The interval itself therefore standing for our infinite past itself. There's nothing illogical in that but apparently our two posters here for some unknown reason cannot accept the analogy. So why don't they see that?

I would offer as one possible explanation that these two posters just don't accept to discard their intuitive notion of time, with the present as the start of the future and then some moment in the past as the beginning of time itself. In any case, no end to the future and no end to the past.

I guess you have to call that a form of narrow-mindedness, which would tally with their inability both to explain themselves despite being repeatedly asked to do so. I guess all they can do, or all they're prepared to do, is to repeat their intuitive notion of time.

The proof of the pudding is that they obviously both have that same notion, and also I guess that we should all be able to recognise this notion in ourselves as well. I certainly do and I recognise the conflict between this intuitive notion of the more abstract representation of time as something like the Real number line.

So, I also worry, not for these two, but for all the others as well. I haven't seen any acknowledgement from other posters that they, too, have this intuitive notion of time and that it's conflicting with their more abstract notion based on the Real line. All I see is just the same harsh attitude, basically suggesting some people are just plain idiots. So it's time to remember Jesus asked us to love one another as we love ourselves. Or is it that you all really despise yourselves?! Come on, Peace & Love!

That would be my talking to my Talk FreeThought disciples moment.
EB

 

[Random Person]

Time wouldn't elapse over an infinite amount of time. Examine your beliefs and understanding.

You're asking me questions I just answered.

With Random Person and untermensche, we have now two cases of the exactly same position. I would say this is significant.

I can think up only of the following to explain this "reasoning". One basic idea is that time is like a long path along which people, and indeed the world itself, would be travelling. Strictly speaking, that image should not be in itself a problem. If the path is infinite, wherever along this path the world happens to be, there's always an infinite section of path already covered and therefore an infinite past. So, to explain the blockage, I think we also need this idea that if you start a journey along a path that's infinitely long, you'll never get to the end of it, whether because there's literally no end to it or because at any moment in the future you will only have covered a finite distance along that path. So, if you combine these two ideas, whereby the world would have had to travel along the path of our assumed infinite past to arrive to the present, the world could not possibly have got to the end of it, i.e. to the present moment.

However, in order to combine these two ideas, you would need to think of the first idea of the world travelling along the infinitely long path of an infinite past in the same way that you think of the second idea of somebody starting a journey along a path that's infinitely long, namely that there is a start to the journey. In the case of the world starting now a journey towards an infinite future, that's no problem. There's a start and it is now. In the case of the world starting its journey at some point in the past, you have to assume a starting point, assumption directly borrowed from the conventional idea of a finite past with a beginning. In any case, I think they both assume this idea of an infinite past with a beginning. Personally, I'm fine with it. The interval of the Real numbers between 0 and 1 for example provides a straightforward and very convenient representation for it.

However, and this is where the position of our posters is faulty, this interval of the Real numbers from 0 to 1 also provides a perfectly acceptable example of an infinite set with two ends, and one that can perfectly represent our idea of an infinite past, with 0 at one end standing for the beginning of time, and 1 at the other end standing for the present moment. The interval itself therefore standing for our infinite past itself. There's nothing illogical in that but apparently our two posters here for some unknown reason cannot accept the analogy. So why don't they see that?

I would offer as one possible explanation that these two posters just don't accept to discard their intuitive notion of time, with the present as the start of the future and then some moment in the past as the beginning of time itself. In any case, no end to the future and no end to the past.

I guess you have to call that a form of narrow-mindedness, which would tally with their inability both to explain themselves despite being repeatedly asked to do so. I guess all they can do, or all they're prepared to do, is to repeat their intuitive notion of time.

The proof of the pudding is that they obviously both have that same notion, and also I guess that we should all be able to recognise this notion in ourselves as well. I certainly do and I recognise the conflict between this intuitive notion of the more abstract representation of time as something like the Real number line.

So, I also worry, not for these two, but for all the others as well. I haven't seen any acknowledgement from other posters that they, too, have this intuitive notion of time and that it's conflicting with their more abstract notion based on the Real line. All I see is just the same harsh attitude, basically suggesting some people are just plain idiots. So it's time to remember Jesus asked us to love one another as we love ourselves. Or is it that you all really despise yourselves?! Come on, Peace & Love!

That would be my talking to my Talk FreeThought disciples moment.
EB

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

The rest of your post is hubris, muddled thinking with some ad homs. Not convincing.

 

[PyramidHead]

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

The set of numbers larger than 7 has one endpoint (7). But that doesn't negate the fact that it is also infinite. Are you using the term "end point" in such a way that it can only refer to one boundary of a set and not the other?

Also: when you say an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed: elapsed since when?

 

[Speakpigeon]

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

You're wrong. It just negates your narrow-minded notion of time.

And you don't actually know that time complies in any way with your narrow-minded notion of time.

The notion of infinity applies for example to an interval having an infinite number points and two end points, for example the interval of the real numbers between 0 and 1.

See? An infinite number of points in between two end points! And this notion is just our common-sense notion of how space or indeed time works. Most people think of space has having this property. Same for time. In theory, it should be possible to divide any interval of space, or time, endlessly. Hence, we think of such intervals as having an infinite number of points or moments, and possibly, in between to end points, no problem.

So, we have very ordinary things, things we're very familiar with, that we think of as having an infinity of points and yet that are bounded at both ends.

Your notion of time isn't like that. You think of time as having no upper boundary. Good. We all do that in fact, I guess. That's natural but it's really just a bias of our nature. Because there's nothing at all that tells us we're right in this. And so, assuming an infinite past is just one possibility, among many others, given that we don't actually know how time really works. Except you pretend you know.

No, you don't know. You only have a narrow-minded notion of time.

And very little understanding of the notion of infinity.

Still, it's clear you're not going to understand any of this. You're just going to repeat your mantra ad libitum. That goes nicely with narrow-mindedness. No effort to address the points made by others. Just repeat the one argument you think you have, without any consideration of what other people say.
EB

 

[Random Person]

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

You're wrong. It just negates your narrow-minded notion of time.

And you don't actually know that time complies in any way with your narrow-minded notion of time.

The notion of infinity applies for example to an interval having an infinite number points and two end points, for example the interval of the real numbers between 0 and 1.

See? An infinite number of points in between two end points! And this notion is just our common-sense notion of how space or indeed time works. Most people think of space has having this property. Same for time. In theory, it should be possible to divide any interval of space, or time, endlessly. Hence, we think of such intervals as having an infinite number of points or moments, and possibly, in between to end points, no problem.

So, we have very ordinary things, things we're very familiar with, that we think of as having an infinity of points and yet that are bounded at both ends.

Your notion of time isn't like that. You think of time as having no upper boundary. Good. We all do that in fact, I guess. That's natural but it's really just a bias of our nature. Because there's nothing at all that tells us we're right in this. And so, assuming an infinite past is just one possibility, among many others, given that we don't actually know how time really works. Except you pretend you know.

No, you don't know. You only have a narrow-minded notion of time.

And very little understanding of the notion of infinity.

Still, it's clear you're not going to understand any of this. You're just going to repeat your mantra ad libitum. That goes nicely with narrow-mindedness. No effort to address the points made by others. Just repeat the one argument you think you have, without any consideration of what other people say.
EB

I think your going to torture logic and not accept the obvious truth. I notice you keep trying to stuff endpoints where they wouldn't go.

It's a mute point anyway since the universe had a beginning. Google, "How old is the universe", the consensus is according to science that it is 13.8 billion years old from NASA to Wikipedia.

 

[Random Person]

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

The set of numbers larger than 7 has one endpoint (7). But that doesn't negate the fact that it is also infinite. Are you using the term "end point" in such a way that it can only refer to one boundary of a set and not the other?

Also: when you say an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed: elapsed since when?

Elapsed since when? That's the problem you have created for yourself and blaming me for it not making sense. An eternal universe has no beginning.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think your going to torture logic

Please explain.

Logic is a rather simple thing. It should be very easy for you to explain how I am "torturing" logic.

I don't expect you to even try that. You never explain anything beyond repeating your mantra. Still, we have to try.

and not accept the obvious truth.

Obvious truth? You must be joking, Mr. Random.

If something is at all clear about this, it is that there is no obvious truth beyond the obviousness of our preconceptions about time.

So, let's assume that what you take to be the truth is obvious. If it is, there should be a great many well-known and respectable intellectuals and specialists, in particular philosophers and scientists, who say exactly what you say. Please provide a long list of all these people. Obvious truth? Not funny, Mr. Person.

I notice you keep trying to stuff endpoints where they wouldn't go.

Prove to me the future has no end. Prove to me the past isn't infinite.

Sorry, I forgot, if you could prove anything, I'm sure you would have done it a long time ago.

It's a mute point anyway since the universe had a beginning.

You should publish your personal research on this. It has to be very valuable.

Google, "How old is the universe",

Oh? That's all your "research"?! Google?! You must be joking, Mr. Random.

the consensus is according to science that it is 13.8 billion years old from NASA to Wikipedia.

Oh, so the age of the universe IS "13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 59 million years"?

Surely not. The consensus is only that this figure is our best estimate given our many assumptions. Sounds much less of an "is" suddenly.

Here is one of the bits you missed:

Assumption of strong priors
Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).

The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2015 data alone is 13.813±0.038 billion years (the estimate of 13.799±0.021 billion years uses Gaussian priors based on earlier estimates from other studies to determine the combined uncertainty). This number represents an accurate "direct" measurement of the age of the universe (other methods typically involve Hubble's law and the age of the oldest stars in globular clusters, etc.). It is possible to use different methods for determining the same parameter (in this case – the age of the universe) and arrive at different answers with no overlap in the "errors". To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used.

An important component to the analysis of data used to determine the age of the universe (e.g. from Planck) therefore is to use a Bayesian statistical analysis, which normalizes the results based upon the priors (i.e. the model). This quantifies any uncertainty in the accuracy of a measurement due to a particular model used.

Still, there's a much more fundamental detail you seem to have missed even though it's very basic: "In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang".

So, the idea that the past in finite since the "age of the universe" is something like 13.8 billion years is really just a pathetically circular tautology given that the so-called "age of the universe" here is just defined as "the time elapsed since the Big Bang".

OK, I grant you it was an argument. Not much of an argument, no. A rather pathetic argument for sure but an argument nonetheless. So this is definitely progress. Keep the good work! Sooo, anything else?
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

There can't be an infinite section of time already covered. That would indicate that the section in question had an end point which negates the infinite property.

The set of numbers larger than 7 has one endpoint (7). But that doesn't negate the fact that it is also infinite. Are you using the term "end point" in such a way that it can only refer to one boundary of a set and not the other?

Also: when you say an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed: elapsed since when?

Elapsed since when? That's the problem you have created for yourself and blaming me for it not making sense. An eternal universe has no beginning.

So, the fact that every point in an infinite past is located a finite amount of time away from the present doesn't strike you as a problem for your view?

If you are saying a certain span of time could not have elapsed, since it is infinite, it seems odd that you can't identify a span of time in that past that would actually be infinite under this view.

It's almost as if all spans of time are by definition finite, including every possible span of time contained within an infinite past, and so by definition will always elapse eventually, making your objection an example of a category error.

 

[Random Person]

Elapsed since when? That's the problem you have created for yourself and blaming me for it not making sense. An eternal universe has no beginning.

So, the fact that every point in an infinite past is located a finite amount of time away from the present doesn't strike you as a problem for your view?

You are stipulating a starting point, "now" and going backwards. There is no starting point if time is infinite. Remember. Your claim, despite scientific evidence is an eternal universe that never had a beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain.

Logic is a rather simple thing. It should be very easy for you to explain how I am "torturing" logic.

I don't expect you to even try that. You never explain anything beyond repeating your mantra. Still, we have to try.



Obvious truth? You must be joking, Mr. Random.

If something is at all clear about this, it is that there is no obvious truth beyond the obviousness of our preconceptions about time.

So, let's assume that what you take to be the truth is obvious. If it is, there should be a great many well-known and respectable intellectuals and specialists, in particular philosophers and scientists, who say exactly what you say. Please provide a long list of all these people. Obvious truth? Not funny, Mr. Person.

I notice you keep trying to stuff endpoints where they wouldn't go.

Prove to me the future has no end. Prove to me the past isn't infinite.

Sorry, I forgot, if you could prove anything, I'm sure you would have done it a long time ago.

It's a mute point anyway since the universe had a beginning.

You should publish your personal research on this. It has to be very valuable.

Google, "How old is the universe",

Oh? That's all your "research"?! Google?! You must be joking, Mr. Random.

the consensus is according to science that it is 13.8 billion years old from NASA to Wikipedia.

Oh, so the age of the universe IS "13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of plus or minus 59 million years"?

Surely not. The consensus is only that this figure is our best estimate given our many assumptions. Sounds much less of an "is" suddenly.

Here is one of the bits you missed:

Assumption of strong priors
Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).

The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2015 data alone is 13.813±0.038 billion years (the estimate of 13.799±0.021 billion years uses Gaussian priors based on earlier estimates from other studies to determine the combined uncertainty). This number represents an accurate "direct" measurement of the age of the universe (other methods typically involve Hubble's law and the age of the oldest stars in globular clusters, etc.). It is possible to use different methods for determining the same parameter (in this case – the age of the universe) and arrive at different answers with no overlap in the "errors". To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used.

An important component to the analysis of data used to determine the age of the universe (e.g. from Planck) therefore is to use a Bayesian statistical analysis, which normalizes the results based upon the priors (i.e. the model). This quantifies any uncertainty in the accuracy of a measurement due to a particular model used.

Still, there's a much more fundamental detail you seem to have missed even though it's very basic: "In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang".

So, the idea that the past in finite since the "age of the universe" is something like 13.8 billion years is really just a pathetically circular tautology given that the so-called "age of the universe" here is just defined as "the time elapsed since the Big Bang".

OK, I grant you it was an argument. Not much of an argument, no. A rather pathetic argument for sure but an argument nonetheless. So this is definitely progress. Keep the good work! Sooo, anything else?
EB

You're hilarious man. You sure have a high opinion of yourself.

 

[Rhea]

Technically speaking, we should ask, "what is the age of the universe as we know it?"

Because if there was a big bang, that came from a (rather immense) singularity, that posits that the singularity existed before the big bang. That our universe was, in fact, at that time, a singularity. And was possibly something else before that.

Making it clear that yes, our universe existed before, but in an entirely different form. Which is fine with me. No one ever convinced me that our universe had to look the same all the time for its entire infinite existence.

Otherwise caterpillars and butterflies would not be the same creature, right?

The existence of the big bang has no implications whatsoever on the existence of an infinite universe.

(Although Learner probably thinks the Big Bang is still happening)

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're hilarious man. You sure have a high opinion of yourself.

And you're being very predictably hysterical.

You somehow prefer a bit of hysteria to even merely try to provide any sensible reply at all. Whoa! Impressive! Very impressive.

So I guess that's all there was I could possibly say.


Good luck to you all with that piece of work.
EB

 

[Rhea]

Listen to yourself man. An infinite amount of time can't elapse, that indicates that it had an end. You are stupulating an infinite amount of time that doesn't end.

The sequential nature of time says the infinite amount of time has to come to a close before the next thing, "now" can occur. Impossible.

You seem so confused about infinity - having trouble grasping it.
Now is not an end-point, it’s merely a waypoint. And nothinng prevents time from having gone on infinitely into the past. And no math of any kind insists that the infinite past prevents a present.

You have yet to show anything other than your claim. Your assertion.
But your explanation doesn’t hold up; it misunderstands infinity.
It’s silly.

 

[Random Person]

Listen to yourself man. An infinite amount of time can't elapse, that indicates that it had an end. You are stupulating an infinite amount of time that doesn't end.

The sequential nature of time says the infinite amount of time has to come to a close before the next thing, "now" can occur. Impossible.

You seem so confused about infinity - having trouble grasping it.
Now is not an end-point, it’s merely a waypoint. And nothinng prevents time from having gone on infinitely into the past. And no math of any kind insists that the infinite past prevents a present.

You have yet to show anything other than your claim. Your assertion.
But your explanation doesn’t hold up; it misunderstands infinity.
It’s silly.

Both your abuse of the word "waypoint" and your argument by assertion is silly.

 

[Rhea]

Listen to yourself man. An infinite amount of time can't elapse, that indicates that it had an end. You are stupulating an infinite amount of time that doesn't end.

The sequential nature of time says the infinite amount of time has to come to a close before the next thing, "now" can occur. Impossible.

You seem so confused about infinity - having trouble grasping it.
Now is not an end-point, it’s merely a waypoint. And nothinng prevents time from having gone on infinitely into the past. And no math of any kind insists that the infinite past prevents a present.

You have yet to show anything other than your claim. Your assertion.
But your explanation doesn’t hold up; it misunderstands infinity.
It’s silly.

Both your abuse of the word "waypoint" and your argument by assertion is silly.

Random, I’m not asserting. You has asserted that “time can’t be infinitely long”
You just flat out asserted that.
Please show your work.

 

[skepticalbip]

Both your abuse of the word "waypoint" and your argument by assertion is silly.

Random, I’m not asserting. You has asserted that “time can’t be infinitely long”
You just flat out asserted that.
Please show your work.

It is fairly obvious that RP is a man of "beliefs". Reason, facts, or reality can never penetrate a shield as powerful as a belief. I just hope that you don't frustrate yourself in your attempts at enlightening the hopeless.

 

[Random Person]

Both your abuse of the word "waypoint" and your argument by assertion is silly.

Random, I’m not asserting. You has asserted that “time can’t be infinitely long”
You just flat out asserted that.
Please show your work.

That's not what I claimed.

- - - Updated - - -

Both your abuse of the word "waypoint" and your argument by assertion is silly.

Random, I’m not asserting. You has asserted that “time can’t be infinitely long”
You just flat out asserted that.
Please show your work.

It is fairly obvious that RP is a man of "beliefs". Reason, facts, or reality can never penetrate a shield as powerful as a belief. I just hope that you don't frustrate yourself in your attempts at enlightening the hopeless.

Enlightening the hopeless can be frustrating but I find it entertaining. Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[PyramidHead]

Suppose there is a building with an infinite number of sub-levels. It has a ground floor, and an elevator that goes up and down, but there is no lowest floor; every floor has another one below it. The elevator starts at 0, and the first basement level is 1, the second is 2, etc.

Suppose in this building, people live on all of the underground floors, and new people are born in them all the time. No matter which floor someone is born in, they can get up to the ground level and go outside by taking the elevator. It could take a while, but they'll get there eventually.

If someone on the ground floor said: "How can anyone be on this ground floor, if there are an infinite number of floors below it? Nobody would ever be able to get here, because there's an infinity of floors to pass through", they would rightly be dismissed as irrational, because again, every single one of the infinite number of sub-levels is located a finite distance from the ground floor.

Random Person, would you consider this an actual infinity, despite the fact that it is only infinite in one direction (into the ground) and not the other (into the air)? If so, why is this building logically possible while it is impossible for any given minute to be preceded by an infinite number of minutes?

 

[Random Person]

Suppose there is a building with an infinite number of sub-levels. It has a ground floor, and an elevator that goes up and down, but there is no lowest floor; every floor has another one below it. The elevator starts at 0, and the first basement level is 1, the second is 2, etc.

Suppose in this building, people live on all of the underground floors, and new people are born in them all the time. No matter which floor someone is born in, they can get up to the ground level and go outside by taking the elevator. It could take a while, but they'll get there eventually.

If someone on the ground floor said: "How can anyone be on this ground floor, if there are an infinite number of floors below it? Nobody would ever be able to get here, because there's an infinity of floors to pass through", they would rightly be dismissed as irrational, because again, every single one of the infinite number of sub-levels is located a finite distance from the ground floor.

Random Person, would you consider this an actual infinity, despite the fact that it is only infinite in one direction (into the ground) and not the other (into the air)? If so, why is this building logically possible while it is impossible for any given minute to be preceded by an infinite number of minutes?

There are no buildings with an infinite number of sub levels. There never will be.

You're already confused enough. Don't add impossible hypotheticals thinking it will get you out of the soup.

 

[Lion IRC]

Infinity + 1
This would be an oxymoron

 

[bilby]

Infinity + 1
This would be an oxymoron

Nope. There is nothing oxymoronic nor problematic about adding a finite number to infinity.

Infinity is not a number.

If you think of infinity as the largest possible number, then you are wrong, and any expectations you have that rely on that false premise are likely wrong too.