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.

[Bust Nak]

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

Yep. No problems here.

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.

No problems here either.

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

Buzzz. You haven't shown why something cannot be in infinite in number. In fact you have proposed an infinite future in one of your previous post yourself.

4). Therefore, ....

Non sequitur, due to the fault in the previous step.

You are engaged in the fallacy of arguing both "A" and "not-A".

I have done no such thing. For the record, I've argued that in an infinite regression, each step can be reach by any other step via a finite number of intermediate steps; As such it is not the case that infinite regression means the current step is unreachable. The challange now is for you to rewrite that in the form of A & 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.

Incorrect, my argument is clearly layout above: no where have I attempted, implied or even hinted such an operation.

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.

By the grace of God eh? When I can find faults so easily in a person arguments, it's a pretty good clue that God is not speaking through that person. The alleged creator of everything isn't going to equivocate "infinite time" to a point in time, or "infinitely far away" to a point in space.

Now what are you going to do?

Wait for your rebuttal.

[pax]

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

Yep. No problems here.

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.

No problems here either.

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

Buzzz. You haven't shown why something cannot be in infinite in number. In fact you have proposed an infinite future in one of your previous post yourself.

That something cannot be infinite in number is shown by your equation: "you cannot have (infinite number) x (anything)" where (infinite number) is an interger that does not exist, and (something) is a sub-set of (anything).

An infinite future is possible because it speaks of events that have not yet been actualized and therefore require no end point.

An infinite past is not possible for it speaks of things that have been actualized and therefore require a beginning point. The reason past events require a beginning point is that an event in the infinite past requires an infinite amount of time to have its effects known in the present.

4). Therefore, ....

Non sequitur, due to the fault in the previous step.

See above.

You are engaged in the fallacy of arguing both "A" and "not-A".

I have done no such thing. For the record, I've argued that in an infinite regression, each step can be reach by any other step via a finite number of intermediate steps; As such it is not the case that infinite regression means the current step is unreachable. The challange now is for you to rewrite that in the form of A & not A.

This was clearly demonstrated a few posts ago.

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).

A = "There is no contradiction in saying an infinite number of finite sets of time

not-A = does not equal an infinite amount of time"

where (infinite number) = (infinite number) and (finite sets of time) = (anything).

For some reason you think that introducing the word "finite" into the equation absolves you of the error of trying to multiply something by infinity. Yet, as I have pointed out several times "an infinite number of finite of sets of time" is the equation (infinite number) x (finite sets of time) which is a big no-no.

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.

Incorrect, my argument is clearly layout above: no where have I attempted, implied or even hinted such an operation.

I do not doubt that you honestly do not see that is what you are doing. Yet, what you have failed to do is demonstrate how breaking infinite regression into finite sets of time somehow absolves you of the error of invoking infinite past time, which, as I have demonstrated, equals a non-existant present.

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.

By the grace of God eh? When I can find faults so easily in a person arguments, it's a pretty good clue that God is not speaking through that person. The alleged creator of everything isn't going to equivocate "infinite time" to a point in time, or "infinitely far away" to a point in space.

Now you are jumping back to the other shell. I am not talking about points infinitely distant in either space or time being real co-ordinates. That is an absurdity. But I am using the absurdity of a point infinitely far away in space to demonstrate why infinite regression in time is also both impossible and absurd.

I think this is the error in your argument:

You are arguing: If one can travel into infinite space by travelling finite distances, then it also stands to reason that one can regress into the infinite past by using finite sets of time.

And the flaw in this argument is that time is not moving from the present into the past, but has moved from the past into the present, and can be shown like this [past-->present-->future]. But what you have done can be shown like this: [past<--present-->future]. In other words, if we take the present as the starting point for the past, then the past, like the future, has no end point. And that would be true only if the past and the future were the same thing, but they are not. The past has already existed. The future has yet to exist. The past conditions the present, and the present (already conditioned by the past) will condition the future. But neither the present nor the future can condition the past, for it is impossible that something which does not yet exist can condition something that already exists.

Now, regression is an arrow pointing into past time, but it is not an arrow of events unfolding from present time into the past time. On the contrary, it is an arrow of events unfolding from past time into the present time. When we look down this arrow we first detect the more recent events and the more ancient events we detect later, but contrary to our perception of regression, events that happened in ancient past time actually happened prior to events that happened in recent past time. The more recent events do not condition the more ancient events. The opposite in fact is true: the more ancient events conditioned the more recent events. The present state of the universe was not the agent which conditioned the Big Bang. Rather, the Big Bang is the agent which has conditioned the present state of the universe.

You also want to make the assertion that infinite regression does not require infinite past time. If that is the case, then you must demonstrate what the events in this infinite regression are regressing into.

Past events happened in past time. If the regression of these events is infinite, then they require an infinite past time to regress into. Ergo, you cannot dismiss infinte past time while holding onto infinite regression. Otherwise, you dismiss a condition that is absolutely necessary for infinite regression to occur.

I know you have stated over and over again how infinite regression does not equal infinite past time, but you have never presented an argument for your assertion. So, let me demonstrate why I have considered the two to be equal:

1). regression is a movement away from the present into the past.

2). present and past are conditions of time.

3). Therefore (infinite regression) = (infinite past time)

I will concede that my argument [infinite regression] = [infinite past time] is an overstatement, and therefore not entirely true (as they are arrows moving in different directions). But I will also insist that nfinite past time is an absolute necessary requirement if one is to have infinite regression. So I will restate the argument thus:

if [infinite regression in time] then [infinite past time].

If regression is infinite, then events which are necessary for conditioning the present cannot reach us in exactly the same way an object from an infinite distance cannot reach us. Inthis case, the arrows of both scenarios point the same way. Therefore, the following is true:

[infinite past time -->present time] = [infinite distance -->point in space]

Ergo, if infinite regression then infinite past time then we do not exist. But we do exist. Therefore, infinite regression is impossible. Therefore, there must be a beginning.

Now what are you going to do?

Wait for your rebuttal.

Consider thyself rebutted, my friend.

[Bust Nak]

That something cannot be infinite in number is shown by your equation: "you cannot have (infinite number) x (anything)" where (infinite number) is an interger that does not exist, and (something) is a sub-set of (anything).

I did say you cannot do (infinite number) x (anything), it's not a valid operation. How that lead to something cannot be infinite in number, you'll have to explain.

And no, it is not my equation, it is yours. I've consistently pointed out it is incoherent. Do not pin this on me.

An infinite future is possible because it speaks of events that have not yet been actualized and therefore require no end point.

That doesn't explain why you would use a permise that you accept as false in an argument.

An infinite past is not possible for it speaks of things that have been actualized and therefore require a beginning point. The reason past events require a beginning point is that an event in the infinite past requires an infinite amount of time to have its effects known in the present.

This is false, no beginning point is required, because an event in an infinite regression required only a finite amount of time to have affected the present. You need to focus on this point, as oppose to repeat the same argument.

A = "There is no contradiction in saying an infinite number of finite sets of time

not-A = does not equal an infinite amount of time"

where (infinite number) = (infinite number) and (finite sets of time) = (anything).

This is not in the form of A & not A, nor is it a rewrite of my argument, even though it was something I wrote. I see you've dropped the multiplication though.

For some reason you think that introducing the word "finite" into the equation absolves you of the error of trying to multiply something by infinity. Yet, as I have pointed out several times "an infinite number of finite of sets of time" is the equation (infinite number) x (finite sets of time) which is a big no-no.

An infinite number of finite of sets of time is a set, not an equation, multiplication or otherwise. Nor is a set of periods of time, a period of time either, infinite or otherwise.

I do not doubt that you honestly do not see that is what you are doing. Yet, what you have failed to do is demonstrate how breaking infinite regression into finite sets of time somehow absolves you of the error of invoking infinite past time, which, as I have demonstrated, equals a non-existant present.

A demostration which I've poked holes into. The step where you say an event in the infinite past requires an infinite amount of time to effects the present, that is incorrect. Every event in the infinite past can be reached from any other, via a finite number of intermediate steps.

Now you are jumping back to the other shell. I am not talking about points infinitely distant in either space or time being real co-ordinates. That is an absurdity. But I am using the absurdity of a point infinitely far away in space to demonstrate why infinite regression in time is also both impossible and absurd.

If you had accepted that the concept of a star infinitely far away was absurd, you wouldn't have used an event infinitely remote in time in your argument against infinite regression.

You are arguing: If one can travel into infinite space by travelling finite distances, then it also stands to reason that one can regress into the infinite past by using finite sets of time.

In my own words, if you will: "there is no such thing as a star an infinite amount of distance away; There could, however, be an infinite amount of stars, each one being a finite amount of distance away." So do you accept that even in a universe infinite in size, there is a finite distance between any two points in space?

And the flaw in this argument is that time is not moving from the present into the past, but has moved from the past into the present, and can be shown like this [past-->present-->future]. But what you have done can be shown like this: [past<--present-->future]. In other words....

My argument is this: There is any event can be reached from any other event via a finite number of intermediate events. There are no event that cannot be via a finite number of steps. There is no assumption based direction, or assumption on starting point. This argument holds for any two events, going forwards or backwards. i.e. it doesn't rest on moving backwards from the present. In otherwords, this arrow of time business does not affect my argument one bit.

You also want to make the assertion that infinite regression does not require infinite past time. If that is the case, then you must demonstrate what the events in this infinite regression are regressing into.

Infinite regression is infinite past time, the sequence of events leading up the the current time. I've stated as much in my first post. What it isn't is an event infinitely remote in time.

The assertion I have made is that no event in the infinite past require an infinite amount of time to affect the present - an assertion I've demonstrated by asking you to select an universe that you think is unreachable, and presenting an finite sequence of intermediate universes all the way to the current universe.

Past events happened in past time. If the regression of these events is infinite, then they require an infinite past time to regress into. Ergo, you cannot dismiss infinte past time while holding onto infinite regression. Otherwise, you dismiss a condition that is absolutely necessary for infinite regression to occur.

Let me be very clear, I've stated a) an infinite amount of time is not required for an event to affect the present; b) there is no such thing as an event infinitely remote in time, which I am guessing is what caused this confusion; c) an infinite set of time period is not an infinite amount of time. No where have I dismissed infinite past time, which I consider to be the equivalent of infinite regression.

I know you have stated over and over again how infinite regression does not equal infinite past time....

At this point we are talking past each other. I await your clarification of which you think I need to explain further.

1). regression is a movement away from the present into the past.
2). present and past are conditions of time.
3). Therefore (infinite regression) = (infinite past time)

Assuming you were talking about b) I don't see how this show the existence of an event in the past that is unreachable.

If regression is infinite, then events which are necessary for conditioning the present cannot reach us in exactly the same way an object from an infinite distance cannot reach us.

There is no such thing as an object from an infinite distance away. Above you claimed you were not talking about points infinitely distant in space. You are doing it right now, invoking an absurdity.

In this case, the arrows of both scenarios point the same way. Therefore, the following is true:

[infinite past time -->present time] = [infinite distance -->point in space]

No, it's not true, it's incoherent. There is no point in space that is infinitely far away, there is no event in the past that is infinitely remote in time.

Ergo...

Just to stress the importance of dealing with just this one point - there is a finite amount of intermediate steps between any two events. Just as there is a finite distance between any two points in space. Just as there is a finite difference between any to interger.

Consider thyself rebutted, my friend.

Your turn. Glad to see you enjoying this. Sorry it took so long. The forum ate my post.

[Clownboat]

(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?

According to your logic, I might as well mathematically multiply a hamster with a rock to see what kind of a # I will arrive at.

[pax]

Bust -- We are just going around is circles. You keep using the phrase [infinite number] and you keep saying it is finite.

[infinite] =/= [finite]

Never has.

Never will.

To say that an infinite number of finite sets of time is not a multiplication is absurd.

It is a shell game.

I am sorry you have fallen for it.

Your error is using the present as your starting point into the past.

You have the arrow of time going the wrong way.

The arrow of time must be coming out of the past.

If it is an infinite past, then the arrow cannot reach us.

Until you correct that there is nothing more to discuss here with you.

I remain your friend.

[Bust Nak]

Bust -- We are just going around is circles. You keep using the phrase [infinite number] and you keep saying it is finite.

No where have I said infinite number is finite. What I have said is there is a finite difference between any two intergers, there are an infinite number of interger. You accepted this as the truth just the previous day.

To say that an infinite number of finite sets of time is not a multiplication is absurd.

Are you also claiming the set of integers is a multiplication?

Your error is using the present as your starting point into the past.

I've addressed this. Any two points in time. Any.

If it is an infinite past, then the arrow cannot reach us.

The same claim yet again without addressing the point. There is a finite amount of steps between any two events, including from any where in the past to the present (note the arrow of time is going the right way.)

I remain your friend.

Don't give up just yet. I still think I can convince you.

[His Name Is John]

Well put pax, you make a convincing point.

Enjoyable discussion to read and watch grow.

[pax]

If it is an infinite past, then the arrow cannot reach us.

The same claim yet again without addressing the point. There is a finite amount of steps between any two events, including from any where in the past to the present (note the arrow of time is going the right way.)

Ok. I'll bite one more time just because you are a nice guy.

Give me the finite number of sets needed to get from the infinite past to the present.

[Bust Nak]

Ok. I'll bite one more time just because you are a nice guy.

Well, maybe it'll take more than just one more time...

Give me the finite number of sets needed to get from the infinite past to the present.

Before I attempt to do that, would you identify any problems you might see in the following request:

Give me the difference between infinity and zero.

[pax]

Ok. I'll bite one more time just because you are a nice guy.

Well, maybe it'll take more than just one more time...

Give me the finite number of sets needed to get from the infinite past to the present.

Before I attempt to do that, would you identify any problems you might see in the following request:

Give me the difference between infinity and zero.

Infinity (symbol: ∞) refers to something without any limit, and is a concept relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. Having a recognizable history in these disciplines reaching back into the time of ancient Greek civilization, the term in the English language derives from Latin infinitas, which is translated as "unboundedness".[1]

In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e. a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the theory he developed, there are infinite sets of different sizes (called cardinalities).[2] For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Zero: 2. Mathematics
a. The identity element for addition.
b. A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration.
c. An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin.
d. An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zero