Can the definition of infinity disprove an infinite past?

[PyramidHead]

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.

It's not that complicated. Take any moment in the past. Between that moment and now, there is a finite amount of time. The preceding is true whether the past is infinite or not. The only difference is that if the past were infinite, there would be no first moment.

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?

Sure, and I'm not arguing that the past is in fact infinite, but that it is not necessarily finite. It could be that what modern cosmology calls the entire universe is part of a larger whole whose bounds are forever beyond our capacity to detect, and in this whole it may be that time had no beginning. I don't know! I'm simply saying it cannot be shown logically that the past must have a beginning, it has to be shown empirically.

 

[Random Person]

It's not that complicated. Take any moment in the past. Between that moment and now, there is a finite amount of time. The preceding is true whether the past is infinite or not. The only difference is that if the past were infinite, there would be no first moment.

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?

Sure, and I'm not arguing that the past is in fact infinite, but that it is not necessarily finite. It could be that what modern cosmology calls the entire universe is part of a larger whole whose bounds are forever beyond our capacity to detect, and in this whole it may be that time had no beginning. I don't know! I'm simply saying it cannot be shown logically that the past must have a beginning, it has to be shown empirically.

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Both logically and scientifically. Until new evidence comes in I'm going with that.

 

[skepticalbip]

"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....

Absolutely. But there are no good answers.

An answer of "yes" means that an explanation of "how" would need to be offered. As of now this "explanation" is the realm of philosophy, not physics.

An answer of "no" means that an explanation needs to be offered of what the nature of the universe is that could overcome our understanding of entropy. As of now this "explanation" is the realm of philosophy, not physics.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not that complicated. Take any moment in the past. Between that moment and now, there is a finite amount of time. The preceding is true whether the past is infinite or not. The only difference is that if the past were infinite, there would be no first moment.



Sure, and I'm not arguing that the past is in fact infinite, but that it is not necessarily finite. It could be that what modern cosmology calls the entire universe is part of a larger whole whose bounds are forever beyond our capacity to detect, and in this whole it may be that time had no beginning. I don't know! I'm simply saying it cannot be shown logically that the past must have a beginning, it has to be shown empirically.

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Both logically and scientifically. Until new evidence comes in I'm going with that.

Please stop with the unfounded and unsupported assertions. The "answer" you believe comes from neither logic nor science (both would require some evidence as a starting point)... The "answer" you believe comes from faith.

 

[abaddon]

... I never brought up hares or boats or walkers/

I'm just emphasizing it's a metaphor. The imagery within your argument seems internally inconsistent, so I don't see how it represents time very well.

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

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

Your image is of time in the past "unfolding" (somehow amassing...) while also it's "right now". That's time split up into two different times: "right now" and a long long imaginary time-line ("the past") that gets reified into a thing in itself.

I'm pointing at the bifurcation of time in your imagination, as revealed in the imagery of your argument. I'm not arguing for infinite time or anything else.

And here you do it again:

... 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.

Ok, here it's not a process of unfolding but a pile or "stack". Again an image of something amassing. But why stack "moments" into the space in front of "right now"?

Take the "stack" out and the problem is solved. (I do not mean ignore the past, I mean don't turn it into a thing that "right now's" must race along or amass into).

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?

Yeah maybe, but I don't see the relevance. I don't know if there was time or no time or a different time before "the big bang" or this particular universe.

------

If all the past is there and happening while there's also a now ... if anyone can explain how that might be possible... then I'll adjust my idea about how the image of time having to catch up to itself is a bad metaphor.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Both logically and scientifically. Until new evidence comes in I'm going with that.

It's not a scientific question at all unless somebody came forward to explain how to do science with anything infinite.

So, it's entirely a logical question and most people here seem to have a different logic than you do. And you still haven't explained your problem. You just claim an infinite past couldn't come to pass. This point has been addressed by several posters already, who all agree that there's no logical reason that an infinite past couldn't come to pass.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

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

Time passes at the rate of one second per second. Given an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have passed before "now". Maybe your problem is that you have no understanding of the word, infinity.

 

[Wiploc]

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Both logically and scientifically. Until new evidence comes in I'm going with that.

You've said that before. You've been asked to back it up before. If you are right, we want to know it, but you have offered us no reason to think you are right.

If you refuse to justify your claim, just say so. If, on the other hand, you are willing to share your reasons for believing your claim, then get on with it.

 

[abaddon]

... Maybe your problem is that you have no understanding of the word, infinity.

His problem is he's got an image of a long line with "now" at the end of it. Then he wants time to race along the long line till it gets to "now". It's not the word, but the application of images to something so abstruse that (as the OP rightly expected) should be left to the most imageless of languages -- mathematics.

People suggest it's a matter for philosophy until physics can take over. I'd say it's not an issue for philosophy either, we can philosophize forever and it'll never stop being people getting trapped inside the metaphors inherent in all word-based arguments.

 

[skepticalbip]

... Maybe your problem is that you have no understanding of the word, infinity.

His problem is he's got an image of a long line with "now" at the end of it. Then he wants time to race along the long line till it gets to "now". It's not the word, but the application of images to something so abstruse that (as the OP rightly expected) should be left to the most imageless of languages -- mathematics.

You are right. Application of the concept of infinity is his problem. He can't grasp the idea of measuring elapsed time starting at "now" and counting backwards toward infinity. He obstinately insists on assuming his conclusion by only measuring the elapse of time from a "time beginning" point in the past and concluding that an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed from that "time beginning" point until "now".

People suggest it's a matter for philosophy until physics can take over. I'd say it's not an issue for philosophy either, we can philosophize forever and it'll never stop being people getting trapped inside the metaphors inherent in all word-based arguments.

Gotta agree. Philosophy based on unfounded assumptions can only yield unfounded conclusions. But then that is what philosophers like to do.

 

[Random Person]

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

Time passes at the rate of one second per second. Given an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have passed before "now". Maybe your problem is that you have no understanding of the word, infinity.

Actually you are having difficulty understanding the concept of infinity. An infinite amount can't have already passed. That would indicate an end point to infinity which is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right. Application of the concept of infinity is his problem. He can't grasp the idea of measuring elapsed time starting at "now" and counting backwards toward infinity. He obstinately insists on assuming his conclusion by only measuring the elapse of time from a "time beginning" point in the past and concluding that an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed from that "time beginning" point until "now".

People suggest it's a matter for philosophy until physics can take over. I'd say it's not an issue for philosophy either, we can philosophize forever and it'll never stop being people getting trapped inside the metaphors inherent in all word-based arguments.

Gotta agree. Philosophy based on unfounded assumptions can only yield unfounded conclusions. But then that is what philosophers like to do.

You can't start from "now" and go backwards in the physical world.

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually you are having difficulty understanding the concept of infinity. An infinite amount can't have already passed. That would indicate an end point to infinity which is ridiculous.

Proving you don't understand infinity. An infinite series can be unbounded, can be bounded on one end, or can be bounded on both ends.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right. Application of the concept of infinity is his problem. He can't grasp the idea of measuring elapsed time starting at "now" and counting backwards toward infinity. He obstinately insists on assuming his conclusion by only measuring the elapse of time from a "time beginning" point in the past and concluding that an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed from that "time beginning" point until "now".

People suggest it's a matter for philosophy until physics can take over. I'd say it's not an issue for philosophy either, we can philosophize forever and it'll never stop being people getting trapped inside the metaphors inherent in all word-based arguments.

Gotta agree. Philosophy based on unfounded assumptions can only yield unfounded conclusions. But then that is what philosophers like to do.

You can't start from "now" and go backwards in the physical world.

Sure I can. I do it all the time and so do you. How long ago was yesterday, last week, last month, last year?.

 

[Random Person]

Proving you don't understand infinity. An infinite series can be unbounded, can be bounded on one end, or can be bounded on both ends.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right. Application of the concept of infinity is his problem. He can't grasp the idea of measuring elapsed time starting at "now" and counting backwards toward infinity. He obstinately insists on assuming his conclusion by only measuring the elapse of time from a "time beginning" point in the past and concluding that an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed from that "time beginning" point until "now".

People suggest it's a matter for philosophy until physics can take over. I'd say it's not an issue for philosophy either, we can philosophize forever and it'll never stop being people getting trapped inside the metaphors inherent in all word-based arguments.

Gotta agree. Philosophy based on unfounded assumptions can only yield unfounded conclusions. But then that is what philosophers like to do.

You can't start from "now" and go backwards in the physical world.

Sure I can. I do it all the time and so do you. How long ago was yesterday, last week, last month, last year?.

We can recall past events but we can't experience them now. That's not going backwards in time.

 

[skepticalbip]

We can recall past events but we can't experience them now. That's not going backwards in time.

WOW, what a revelation. We can't experience the past.

Is this supposed to mean something?

We always measure the amount of time that has elapsed starting from "now" and looking back. Tomorrow, "now" would have moved on and this post will have been made 24 hours ago from that "now".

 

[steve_bank]

Has anyone considered that we may not exist at all?

 

[Random Person]

We can recall past events but we can't experience them now. That's not going backwards in time.

WOW, what a revelation. We can't experience the past.

Is this supposed to mean something?

We always measure the amount of time that has elapsed starting from "now" and looking back. Tomorrow, "now" would have moved on and this post will have been made 24 hours ago from that "now".

Except for "now" can't happen if an infinite amount of time has to first elapse.

 

[skepticalbip]

We can recall past events but we can't experience them now. That's not going backwards in time.

WOW, what a revelation. We can't experience the past.

Is this supposed to mean something?

We always measure the amount of time that has elapsed starting from "now" and looking back. Tomorrow, "now" would have moved on and this post will have been made 24 hours ago from that "now".

Except for "now" can't happen if an infinite amount of time has to first elapse.

Aha, you are back to repeating the same shit, ignoring the explanations of why it is wrong.

Time progresses at the rate of one second per second. Given an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have elapsed before "now".

 

[Random Person]

Except for "now" can't happen if an infinite amount of time has to first elapse.

Aha, you are back to repeating the same shit, ignoring the explanations of why it is wrong.

Time progresses at the rate of one second per second. Given an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have elapsed before "now".

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.

 

[skepticalbip]

Except for "now" can't happen if an infinite amount of time has to first elapse.

Aha, you are back to repeating the same shit, ignoring the explanations of why it is wrong.

Time progresses at the rate of one second per second. Given an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have elapsed before "now".

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? And please, explain exactly how it happens.

 

[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.

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.