Infinite Past Time

[pax]

An infinite point is a point that can never be reached, for there is always one more unit of time or space before you get there.

Therefore, an infinite future is a future which can never be reached. It is not an impossibility as it is not yet realized, that is, it has not yet come into existence.

An infinite past, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. While an infinite past, like an infinite future, can never be reached, it is impossible because an event in an infinite past requires an infinite amount of time for its effects to reach the present, and an infinite amount of time is an amount of time that can never be realized.

Think of a star existing an infinite amount of distance away. Could its light ever reach us? Of course not.

Therefore, a present time dependant upon events which happened in an infinite past simply cannot exist, nor can they ever exist, for in order for them to exist an infinite amount of time must first pass.

Ergo, to propose a universe which has an infinite past is to propose a universe which cannot exist.

Ergo, because we know the universe does indeed exist, we also know the universe does not have an infinite past.

[pax]

What do you mean it doesn't work? That's exactly what makes infinite regression work, an infinite number of steps, each step being a finite number of steps away from any other step. It takes exactly the same form as the set of intergers does: An infinite number of interger, each interger being a finite number away from any other integer.

That is exactly why it doesn't work. No matter how far back you go you are still an infinite amount of time away from an infinite number of universes that have an effect on our present universe. Those effects therefore require an infinite amount of time to reach us. As an infinite amount of time cannot be spanned, their effecfts cannot reach us, and we are still waiting for our existence -- and we will wait for an infinite amount of time. Ergo, as we do in fact exist, an infinite past is not possible.

Simply put: An infinite amount of finite sets of time = infinite time.

Again, I give you the example of an object an infinite distance away from which you must travel in order to plant the seeds of life here on planet earth. The earth will therefore never have life because you can never reach it. Therefore, by the same principle, our universe, which requires the effects of universes in the infinite past in order to exist cannot exist because those effects can never reach us.

Your argument fails because you want to make an infinite number of finite sets of time somehow not be subject to the same conditions as infinite time would have.

But: infinite number of finite sets of time = infinite time.

There is no escaping this mathematical proof.

(infinite number) x (sets of time) = infinite sets of time = infinite time which cannot be reached.

[Bust Nak]

That is exactly why it doesn't work. No matter how far back you go you are still an infinite amount of time away from an infinite number of universes that have an effect on our present universe. Those effects therefore require an infinite amount of time to reach us.

Still wrong, there is no point moving on until we resolve this. Let get down to the basics. Do you accept that between any two universes in an infinite regress, there is a finite amount of time? Yes or no.

As an infinite amount of time cannot be spanned, their effecfts cannot reach us, and we are still waiting for our existence -- and we will wait for an infinite amount of time. Ergo, as we do in fact exist, an infinite past is not possible.

Non-sequitur due to the false premise above.

Simply put: An infinite amount of finite sets of time = infinite time.

You can't just add the time together, remember, infinity is not a number. An infinite amount of finite integers most definitly does not equal infinity. See my reply to the time between Universe n+1 and U1: a finite time of exactly n universes (life time there of) to get to the present (U1) universe, as follows: Un+1, Un, Un-1 ... U3, U2, U1.

Again, I give you the example of an object an infinite distance away from which you must travel in order to plant the seeds of life here on planet earth.

Which is just a rehashing of the light from a star infinite distance away example from before. There is no such thing as as object an infinite distance away, there is a finite amount of distance between any objects, even if the universe is infinite in size.

Your argument fails because you want to make an infinite number of finite sets of time somehow not be subject to the same conditions as infinite time would have.

There is no "somehow" your maths doesn't work. I've made it clear that this infinite set of universes is subject to exactly the same condition as other sets such as the set of intergers.

There is no escaping this mathematical proof.

(infinite number) x (sets of time) = infinite sets of time = infinite time which cannot be reached.

Except this is not a mathematical proof, as infinity is not a number, you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

[pax]

There is no escaping this mathematical proof.

(infinite number) x (sets of time) = infinite sets of time = infinite time which cannot be reached.

Except this is not a mathematical proof, as infinity is not a number,

you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

Exactly! You cannot do (infinite number) x (finite number of sets of time). And that is exactly what you are proposing, and that is exactly what you cannot do, and that is exactly my point.

Do you accept that between any two universes in an infinite regress, there is a finite amount of time? Yes or no.

Infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, the premise is non-sensical.

[Bust Nak]

Exactly! You cannot do (infinite number) x (finite number of sets of time). And that is exactly what you are proposing, and that is exactly what you cannot do, and that is exactly my point.

Nop, that's not what I am proposing at all. The record will clearly show that's what you were presenting as mathematical proof.

Infinite regress is impossible. Therefore, the premise is non-sensical.

I'll let the question begging slide for now. Let me try another question:
Do you accept that between any two integers in the infinite set of intergers, there is a finite difference?

[pax]

Exactly! You cannot do (infinite number) x (finite number of sets of time). And that is exactly what you are proposing, and that is exactly what you cannot do, and that is exactly my point.

Nop, that's not what I am proposing at all. The record will clearly show that's what you were presenting as mathematical proof.

Do you accept that between any two universes in an infinite regress, there is a finite amount of time?

Here are your own words:

you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

Infinite regress is therefore by your own words impossible. Therefore, the premise is non-sensical.

You really do not see the contradiction between saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal infinite regress?

Please explain how this infinite numbers of sets of finite time between past universes does not equal infinite regress.

[Bust Nak]

Here are your own words:

you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

Infinite regress is therefore by your own words impossible. Therefore, the premise is non-sensical.

Non-sequitur. I did say one cannot do (infinite number) x anything, but infinite regression does not imply (infinite number) x anything at all. That came out of nowhere from you.

You really do not see the contradiction between saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal infinite regress?

I have been very careful with my words - this is what I said, "an infinite amount of finite integers most definitly does not equal infinity." There is no contradiction in saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal an infinite amount of time.

Please explain how this infinite numbers of sets of finite time between past universes does not equal infinite regress.

Infinite regress is a chain of events/universes/cause and effect linked together. Each one seperate form another by a finite number of steps. So if you treat universes as sets of finite time, then that's exactly what infinite regress mean - an infinite set of finite time. What it doesn't mean is infinite time, because as I've said you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

In case you've missed my edit:
Do you accept that between any two integers in the infinite set of intergers, there is a finite difference?

[pax]

You really do not see the contradiction between saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal infinite regress?

There is no contradiction in saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal an infinite amount of time.

Then we are at a stand-still, as the contradiction is, well, infinite.

Infinite regress means an infinite set of finite time. What it doesn't mean is infinite time, because as I've said you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

This is just the old shell game. Two things with the exact same definition are in fact the same thing.

Infinite regress in time = infinite past time.

That is as obvious as saying you cannot have self-awareness without being aware of yourself.

In case you've missed my edit:
Do you accept that between any two integers in the infinite set of intergers there is a finite difference?

Yes.

Do you believe that something which is infinitely remote in time can be manifested in the present time?

[pax]

There is no contradiction in saying an infinite number of finite sets of time does not equal an infinite amount of time ... because as I've said you cannot do (infinite number) x anything.

(infinite number) x (finite sets of time) = (infinite number) x (anything)

[Bust Nak]

Then we are at a stand-still, as the contradiction is, well, infinite.

We are still good, don't give up yet. I think the questions at the bottom can still lead somewhere.

(infinite number) x (finite sets of time) = (infinite number) x (anything)

That's simply incoherent. You cannot multiple infinity with anything - it's not a valid mathematical operation. Infinity is not a number.

This is just the old shell game. Two things with the exact same definition are in fact the same thing.

Infinite regress in time = infinite past time.

Well, no. The definitions are not the same at all, as I keep pointing out, an infinite set of intergers in no way implies infinity is a number. Simularly an infinite set of finite time in no way implies infinite past time is a point in time.

Yes.

The follow up question is, what stops this concept from being applied to events in a linear sequence?

Do you believe that something which is infinitely remote in time can be manifested in the present time?

This loaded question cannot be answered. There is no such thing as something which is infinitely remote in time. Infinite regress does not entails such a thing.

Just as there is no star infinitly far away; Just as there is no seeds of life infinitely far away; Just as there is no number that is infinitely larger/smaller than zero.

I believe something which exists in an infinite chain can be manifested in the present time.

[pax]

(infinite number) x (finite sets of time) = (infinite number) x (anything)

That's simply incoherent. You cannot multiple infinity with anything - it's not a valid mathematical operation. Infinity is not a number.

1). Either the number of the sets of finite time is infinite or finite.

2). They cannot be neither, they cannot be both, as the terms "infinite" and "finite" cover all possibilities and are in complete disjunction to each other.

3). As something cannot be infinite in number, the sets of finite time cannot be infinite in number.

4). Therefore, they must be finite in number.

5). A finite number of finite sets cannot regress infinitely, as (finite number) x (finite number) = (finite number).

6). Therefore, they must have a starting point.

You are engaged in the fallacy of arguing both "A" and "not-A". You are trying to make the argument that an infinite number of finite sets is not (infinite number) x (finite set), that is, not multiplying by infinity. But that is exactly what you are doing.

So, some guy tricked you with his little shell game of switching around the words "infinite" and "finite", and, by the grace of God, I have shown you that it is a shell game.

Now what are you going to do?