The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

What you're saying is that a person cannot conclude that the diversity of organisms are due to billions of years of evolution until they explain how life began.

Two topics.

The past is finite for reasons I am tired of repeating.

You don't need to know how events began to conclude it.

 

[steve_bank]

It is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning.

The idea of something progressing yet not beginning it's progression is a religious absurd idea.

It is not a rational explanation of anything.

An infinite series is a series that never completes.

All the events in the past complete at every moment.

The past could not possibly have been infinite.

The universe exists regardless of our ability to artiuculate it.



Ultimate origins of the universe are not knowable. In that respect cosmology, religion, and perhaps philosophy converge on the same question.

Possibilities

1. If the universe had a beginning, how did the string point come about? Theists say god did it without explain the origin of god. The BB Theory does not start at time zero and does not explain what led to the initial conditions.

2. Universe winked into existence all by itself.

3. Universe always was and always will be.

 

[steve_bank]

Of course time does not complete.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment.

At that moment only future events will occur.

No more events will occur in the past.

The past represents change that has completed. It has all occurred.

The future represents changes that will occur.

Wow. Heavy. May I become your first disciple?

 

[steve_bank]

A set that is continually expanding.

Not a static set.

Calling an infinite series a set does not allow it to complete.

Your magic spells are childish nonsense.



Infinity is not an amount.

A set cannot have infinite elements.

It can either have a finite number of elements or continually expanding elements.

Not quite correct. The set of Real Numbers can be defined as an infinite sequence in set notation.. Learned set notation in high school.

Your problem in part is that you are using metaphysics instead of standard mathematical operations.

It all depends on how you define a set. Google Cardinal Numbers. Math is consistent meaning no ambiguities.

The problem with pure metaphysics is there are no unambiguous or bound definitions. You use the word set without a definition.

You represent why in the 19th century Math and Natural Science departed Philosophy to become independent subjects.

Math by definition is objective in that it deals with numerically quantifiable variables. Quantities whose magnitude are not quantifiable with a finite number are called infinite. It is no more complicated than that. Instead of infinite think uncountable. You are creating a logic conundrum in your head that does not exist.

 

[untermensche]

It is impossible to have a series that does not have a beginning.

The idea of something progressing yet not beginning it's progression is a religious absurd idea.

It is not a rational explanation of anything.

An infinite series is a series that never completes.

All the events in the past complete at every moment.

The past could not possibly have been infinite.

The universe exists regardless of our ability to artiuculate it.

The events in the past were not infinite.

That is impossible.

Real infinities are impossible.

Real completed infinities are really impossible.

It doesn't matter what you think about these truisms. They are not going to change.

3. Universe always was and always will be.

Not possible.

Real completed infinities are not something that are possible.

It is like saying a circle with corners is possible. A contradiction of terms.

Infinities don't complete. Ever.

Wow. Heavy. May I become your first disciple?

Not yet. It requires being able to think about this rationally first.

The set of Real Numbers can be defined as an infinite sequence in set notation.

A set cannot have infinite members.

Infinity is not an amount.

What is the highest real number in the set?

What is the second highest number in the set?

You confuse some pretending in mathematics with reality.

Mathematicians merely pretend the infinity can exist in a set and run with that idea. That is mathematics. Running with random ideas that pop into the heads of humans. New ideas provoke newer ideas. The ideas that yield fruit remain. Intellectual evolution.

But no set can actually contain infinite members. The definition of infinite members is an amount of members that can't be contained.

 

[DBT]

The past is finite for reasons I am tired of repeating.

You may be tired of repeating your reasons, but they are flawed regardless of how many time you repeat them.....and you are still left with the problem of infinite regression when you claim that all things must have a beginning and cause, a cause which in turn must have a beginning and a cause, etc, etc.

These are your terms and conditions, So you are left with either an infinite regression of cause and effect, or spontaneous, causeless beginning.

So which is it, and why?

You don't need to know how events began to conclude it.

It's not a matter of how. It is a matter of the terms and conditions that you yourself claim are necessary; that everything must have a cause and a beginning.

 

[untermensche]

The past is finite for reasons I am tired of repeating.

You may be tired of repeating your reasons, but they are flawed regardless of how many time you repeat them...

You are not pointing out flaws in any argument.

You are making the absurd argument that to claim organisms arrived via evolution you must first explain how life began.

The concept of infinity does not permit completion.

If you see a series that has completed you know it was not infinite.

If the series of events in the past complete at every present moment you know they were not infinite.

So you are left with either an infinite regression of cause and effect, or spontaneous, causeless beginning.

Absolute nonsense.

You are simply left with an unknown.

Just like how not knowing how life began doesn't stop you from concluding life has undergone evolution.

 

[fromderinside]

OP revisited

The idea of an infinite past

I don't think anyone could possibly know for a fact that the past hasn't been going on for an infinitely long time.

I also don't think there is any contradiction in the idea of an infinite past.

So, on that basis, I would say that it seems possible to me that the past has been an infinite past, i.e. a past without a beginning.

If anyone disagrees here, please explain why.
EB

How does completion relate to the OP?​

 

[untermensche]

An infinite series is by definition a series that does not complete.

The past can be thought of as s series of changes, a series of events.

What separates the events in the past from the events in the future is the events in the past have completed and the events in the future have not.

Not being able to see how completion relates to changes that have completed is a strange blindness.

 

[DBT]

You are not pointing out flaws in any argument.

You are making the absurd argument that to claim organisms arrived via evolution you must first explain how life began.

The concept of infinity does not permit completion.

If you see a series that has completed you know it was not infinite.

If the series of events in the past complete at every present moment you know they were not infinite.

So you are left with either an infinite regression of cause and effect, or spontaneous, causeless beginning.

Absolute nonsense.

You are simply left with an unknown.

Just like how not knowing how life began doesn't stop you from concluding life has undergone evolution.

Your argument is flawed because you set your own terms and conditions (arbitrary) while rejecting objections being raised based on the same terms and conditions that you happen to be using.

You can't have it both ways.

Again, if everything must have a beginning and a cause, as you claim, how do you get around the problem of infinite regression?

Can you explain?

 

[fromderinside]

An infinite series is by definition a series that does not complete.

Definition:

limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

"the infinite mercy of God"

Do you see completion or an implication of completion anywhere in that definition?

I sure don't.

Measure and calculate only imply sentient involvement, not thought or being directed toward process, only count and measure.

Completion is completely irrelevant to the construct infinite.

Yes King this case is closed.

 

[untermensche]

Show me the infinite series that completes.

An infinite series by definition never completes. There is no finish. No last element.

You can't just pretend it isn't so.

You have no point.

 

[untermensche]

Your argument is flawed because you set your own terms and conditions (arbitrary)

I have not defined an infinite series as a series with no last element, a series that never completes.

That is the definition.

while rejecting objections being raised based on the same terms and conditions that you happen to be using.

The only possible rational objection is to say an infinite series does complete and demonstrate it by showing the last element of an infinite series.

Again, if everything must have a beginning and a cause, as you claim, how do you get around the problem of infinite regression?

I have never spoken about "everything".

I have only spoken about what can be observed in some way.

And the past could not have been an infinite series of events.

An infinite series never completes by definition.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment. If time stopped at some moment all the events in the past would be complete. No more events would occur.

 

[fromderinside]

-nm edit problem

 

[fromderinside]

Show me the infinite series that completes.

An infinite series by definition never completes. There is no finish. No last element.

You can't just pretend it isn't so.

You have no point.

Where is the definition that states an infinite series never completes? As far as we know it may complete, yet, it is still infinite because is is beyond counting or measure thereby satisfying our definition.

I don't have to show you one that ends since if something is beyond a sentient beings capability to count or measure it is infinite. The universe is an example. One can't count the stars in the universe. One can't measure it's mass yet infinite universal mass and infinite number of stars both exist and provide ample data for us to gain information about them. So we can improve our understanding of the universe even though it is beyond counting and measure. An infinite series can be described, a limit can be calculated. But it's not necessary to complete either to know they are infinite. We even know there are more solutions than we can resolve because someone found that to be true in an incompleteness theorem.

Whether the series completes or not is not relevant to whether the series is infinite nor is completion a part of the definition of infinite. No one cares whether is completes. That is true because we have found means to characterize series and limits usefully for real problems.

Now we need to see your definition used somewhere and accepted by the relevant community. You haven't and you can't. Get your stinking herring out of here. It is irrelevant to the concept of infinite.

Again. Yes King this case is closed.

 

[untermensche]

So no matter what I ask you will not address it?

Show me this infinite series that completes.

Put up or shut up.

We don't have to do anything but think to understand there is no highest positive integer.

The infinite series of the positive integers never completes.

No matter what integer is given there are always infinite integers higher.

In terms of the past it would mean that no matter how many events happened before a moment in time infinite more would always need to happen before that moment in time could happen. No moment in the present could ever happen since infinite events in the past must always happen first.

It is not a matter of being too big to count. By definition there is no completion.

 

[fromderinside]

What you ask has no relation to the OP. Completeness is an argument for process. A list is not a process that's why it's called a list. In fact that there is no highest number is evidence for infinity. It is easy to construct a list that extends beyond one's ability to count or weigh simply by adding another one to continue the listing. By necessity adding the other makes the list infinite relative to the original one making the list. And, since adding listers can also be infinite it becomes clear that lists can be infinite being beyond any one's ability to count or measure.

You have no argument since you assertion is not supported by rational argument vis a vis infinite. You don't have any support for your contention about a relation between completeness and infinite. Don't expect us to try to build one for you or adjust existing definitions to suit your wild notions. There is basis for beyond counting and beyond measure as lynch pins for infinite relative to sentience. On the other hand there is no objective reason to consider completeness as an aspect of infinite beyond you wailing and posturing. None of your gnashing of teeth constitutes rational basis upon which to define infinite.

It is clear that infinite is only relevant to sentient beings because it certainly doesn't exist on its own.

When you get past these hurdles come back and we'll show you the error or your ways and means.

 

[untermensche]

Completeness is an argument for process.

Something that has no finish to it is a process.

Infinity is not static. It is a process of continual growth and expansion. Infinity is not an achievable quantity. It is to increase in quantity without end.

And never is the process complete.

There is no completion.

Unlike all the events in the past which have completed at every present moment.

Infinity and the past are in direct conflict with one another. One never completes and one is complete at every moment.

And no magic or mere pretending can change that.

 

[untermensche]

<-------(infinite time in the past)--------yesterday--------a present moment

How do we get from <---- to yesterday?

How is this achieved?

How many events occurred between <---- and yesterday?

It is easy to see how we get from yesterday to any present moment because the events were finite.

To get to any point in time the events before it must be finite.

 

[Beer With Straw]

<-------(infinite time in the past)--------yesterday--------a present moment

How do we get from <---- to yesterday?

How is this achieved?

How many events occurred between <---- and yesterday?

It is easy to see how we get from yesterday to any present moment because the events were finite.

To get to any point in time the events before it must be finite.

But if the universe is infinite, but started at the Big Bang, isn't that going to make the past infinite in the future as the arrow time moves forward?