The idea of an infinite past

[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.

 

[DBT]

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

And what happened before the beginning? What caused the beginning? Something? Nothing?

This has been your sticking point from the start, and something you studiously ignore.

 

[untermensche]

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

And what happened before the beginning? What caused the beginning? Something? Nothing?

This has been your sticking point from the start, and something you studiously ignore.

Just because the beginning can't be understood doesn't make it unnecessary.

The idea of "no beginning" is not explainable either. It is not a concept that makes any sense.

It is religious nonsense.

 

[Phil Scott]

You don't seem interested in defending your religion at all.

What religion? I haven't stated any position on this matter.

 

[untermensche]

You don't seem interested in defending your religion at all.

What religion? I haven't stated any position on this matter.

You are claiming the arbitrary scheme of designating that an x here will equal all x's anywhere is not a capricious arbitrary scheme.

One could also say that every x is a unique entity but that is not very helpful.

You don't know the difference between utility and objective observation.

 

[Beer With Straw]

Descartes will be disappointed.

And to exist, you need to think.
EB

Cogito ergo sum?

*SNAP* This sh*t is getting real!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

 

[Phil Scott]

You are claiming the arbitrary scheme of designating that an x here will equal all x's anywhere is not a capricious arbitrary scheme.

Where did I do that?

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming the arbitrary scheme of designating that an x here will equal all x's anywhere is not a capricious arbitrary scheme.

Where did I do that?

This was your response.

What schemes? The Peano axioms are not a scheme. They're the axioms which will hold of natural numbers however you define them. The fact that the natural numbers are the simplest kind of recursive data is a fact of the natural numbers however you define them. These facts were discovered. They are true now, have always been true, and will always be true of any attempt to define/encode/implement natural numbers.

Proclaiming that x will always equal x is a scheme. An arbitrary scheme. It does not have to be that way. It is not an observation.

It is not a discovery.

What can be done with that capricious scheme is the discovery.

 

[Phil Scott]

This was your response.

What schemes? The Peano axioms are not a scheme. They're the axioms which will hold of natural numbers however you define them. The fact that the natural numbers are the simplest kind of recursive data is a fact of the natural numbers however you define them. These facts were discovered. They are true now, have always been true, and will always be true of any attempt to define/encode/implement natural numbers.

Proclaiming that x will always equal x is a scheme. An arbitrary scheme. It does not have to be that way. It is not an observation.

It is not a discovery.

What can be done with that capricious scheme is the discovery.

I don't count reflexivity of equality in with the Peano axioms, which can't be taken individually. I'd be willing to post what I take to be a better account of the axioms, avoiding symbols. Is it worth it?

 

[untermensche]

This was your response.

What schemes? The Peano axioms are not a scheme. They're the axioms which will hold of natural numbers however you define them. The fact that the natural numbers are the simplest kind of recursive data is a fact of the natural numbers however you define them. These facts were discovered. They are true now, have always been true, and will always be true of any attempt to define/encode/implement natural numbers.

Proclaiming that x will always equal x is a scheme. An arbitrary scheme. It does not have to be that way. It is not an observation.

It is not a discovery.

What can be done with that capricious scheme is the discovery.

I don't count reflexivity of equality in with the Peano axioms, which can't be taken individually. I'd be willing to post what I take to be a better account of the axioms, avoiding symbols. Is it worth it?

You know the issue. You know my objections.

Is it something found? Something seen in the world?

Or some arrangement in the mind?

I don't know? Is it worth it?

I can subjectively say that x will = x. Even though they appear in two different places. They are not the same thing in reality. And observable consequences will flow from that capricious decision.

It doesn't make the decision an observation.

Proclaiming what zero is or is not is totally capricious. And observable consequences flow from the decisions you make.

Schemes put together capriciously and randomly but with observable consequences as to utility.

The schemes that provide the most utility survive. A type of mental evolution.

 

[Phil Scott]

So no then.

 

[untermensche]

Bizarre reading.

 

[DBT]

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

And what happened before the beginning? What caused the beginning? Something? Nothing?

This has been your sticking point from the start, and something you studiously ignore.

Just because the beginning can't be understood doesn't make it unnecessary.

The idea of "no beginning" is not explainable either. It is not a concept that makes any sense.

It is religious nonsense.

Just because the existence of infinity can't be understood does not mean that that infinity is impossible....you make rules to suit your own assertions but reject the very same rules and conditions in relation to what you don't happen to believe.

The idea of "no beginning" is not explainable either. It is not a concept that makes any sense.

OK, so if a beginning is necessary, what caused time/space/the universe to exist? Nothing? Something? If something.....how did this something itself begin in order to cause the universe?

Can you explain?

 

[untermensche]

Just because the existence of infinity can't be understood does not mean that that infinity is impossible....

It is not a matter of not being understood. Humans invented infinity. They understand it.

It is a direct conflict with the concept.

Infinity: Never a completion.

Events in the past: Are complete at every present moment.

Therefore: Events in the past were not infinite.

OK, so if a beginning is necessary, what caused time/space/the universe to exist?

You're a broken record that can't read.

How the finite events in the past began is not known by me.

It is something that can never be understood.

It involves an existence that is not like the existence we are in.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Just a thought, to keep existing: Ten grammes of ground coffee isn't much. It's necessarily just an infinitely small portion of the universe's total stockpile of coffee, which is infinite.
EB

 

[untermensche]

That is a smelly turd you've pulled from your ass.

 

[DBT]

You're a broken record that can't read.

How the finite events in the past began is not known by me.

It is something that can never be understood.

It involves an existence that is not like the existence we are in.

No, it's you who apparently can't see that the rules you apply to your own assertions also apply to opposing argument.

You just run with whatever suits your own beliefs and ignore everything that doesn't

Plus you are still left with the problem of First Cause. Which you seem quite happy to ignore.

 

[untermensche]

You're a broken record that can't read.

How the finite events in the past began is not known by me.

It is something that can never be understood.

It involves an existence that is not like the existence we are in.

No, it's you who apparently can't see that the rules you apply to your own assertions also apply to opposing argument.

You just run with whatever suits your own beliefs and ignore everything that doesn't

Plus you are still left with the problem of First Cause. Which you seem quite happy to ignore.

It is not my problem.

It is a need that arises when it is clear the past could not possibly have been infinite. I have no need to explain it to conclude a real completed infinity it total nonsense and a contradiction.

Infinities do not complete.

Besides they are totally imaginary and have no connection to anything real.

 

[fromderinside]

Descartes will be disappointed.

Sorry, your nice little picture doesn't display on my laptop. I may not have the appropriate app.

So, I have no idea what you're talking about. It's as if you, too, were on "ignore"!

Nah, I wouldn't do that to you. That would be too harsh.

And, I keep thinking deep thoughts even during my joggings because that's one of the very few things I can do.

And to exist, you need to think.
EB

Sorry. I was trying to send something that suggested the big 'D' was a lie down in bed sort of fellow.

 

[DBT]

You're a broken record that can't read.

How the finite events in the past began is not known by me.

It is something that can never be understood.

It involves an existence that is not like the existence we are in.

No, it's you who apparently can't see that the rules you apply to your own assertions also apply to opposing argument.

You just run with whatever suits your own beliefs and ignore everything that doesn't

Plus you are still left with the problem of First Cause. Which you seem quite happy to ignore.

It is not my problem.

It is a need that arises when it is clear the past could not possibly have been infinite. I have no need to explain it to conclude a real completed infinity it total nonsense and a contradiction.

Infinities do not complete.

Besides they are totally imaginary and have no connection to anything real.

It is your problem. As you appear to making the claim that anything that exists must have a beginning and a cause. If that is the case, you are left with infinite regression, the cause requires a cause which requires a cause, ad infinitum. Unless you are saying that the Universe came from absolutely nothing....but I think that you also denied the possibility of this. So what is left?