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.

[Devious]

Pax I agree that the universe, must of started at one point. And I'm just wondering, since from what I've seen you believe that the universe was created. Do you think that the entity that created all of this is infinite along all points of It's existence?

[Thatguy]

[quote="pax

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.[/quote]

If time exists only within the universe and started to exist when space started to exist, at the Big Bang, then we can at least say that the universe has existed for all time and will exist for all time.

If we see time as a whole, rather than unidirectional, the entire period of time exists all at once, we are the ones who are limited in seeing that because we are stuck going one way in time. If time as seen as a whole, then the whole is complete and this infinite regress problem need not exist.

If we recognize time as existing only within the universe then there was no "before" the big bang. Thus there was no time in which the Big Bang could have been planned and executed. There was no condition precedent because there was no event "before" for the Big Bang to be based upon.

[Goat]

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.

I would LOVE to see any of the premises shown to be true. One of the problems with 'arguments' is that it has to make lots of assumptions that people can not show to be true.

There are logical arguments that SEEM true, but can be shown to be false. Zeno's paradox is one. That shows you can construct an argument that can be perfectly 'logical'.. but be totally wrong.

[Devious]

Alright since I'm going to bed. I'm just going to assume that you do believe that the entity that created the universe if infinite at my above question. If not oh well

It must have no beginning and no end. Thus, we say this entity is infinite. In order for an entity to be truly infinite, it must be defined as infinite along all points of its existence; there can be no point where some part of this entity has a beginning, or an end, as the entity would no longer be infinite.

Thus, any action this entity undertakes can have no beginning and no end. So, if this infinite entity were to do something like, say, create the universe, then the entity would be forever in the process of being just about to create it, but never actually begin, nor finish.

Thus, if you maintain that a causeless, infinite being created the universe, then we shouldn't exist?

[Bust Nak]

Infinite Past Time. What is it?

It is an important component of the cosmological argument which hinges on there being a definite beginning, based on Plato's and Aristotle's first cause arguments. What it isn't though, is an infinite amount of time in the every day, temporal, forth dimension kind of sense; It is an infinite chains of causes, movers, explanations, events, or anything that can be linked together. In this post I will use the word "time" in the loose sense, to counter arguments against what is commonly known as infinite regression.

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.

This is a common misconception. There is no such point as an infinite point that can never be reached, for the same reason infinity is not a number. i.e There is no number that cannot be counted to.

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.

Similarly there is no future that can never be reached, as "infinite future" is not a point in time - every point in time in the future, can be reach by passing a finite amount of time.

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.

And this is where the argument fails. For exactly the same reason above, there is no beginning in an infinite chain of event. Any and every event in the infinite past can affect the present within a finite amount of time.

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

And examples of the misconception goes on: Remember, infinity is not a number, hence 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. To reiterate: There are infinite number of intergers, each and every one of them, is a finite number.

Therefore, a present time dependant upon events which happened in an infinite past...

Is an incoherent argument, based on a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity.

[to carry over a previous reply on this topic]If you are proposing an infinite past, then you are not proposing any integer. You are proposing infinity, and infinity is not an integer.

So you would agree that the following argument is faulty: Infinity is a number that can never be reached. Because in the set of intergers one can always add one to the current number, and infinite amount of counting is required to reach that number that can never be realised, egro there cannot be an infinite number of intergers. Would you kindly point out where the relevent differences are between this faulty argument and what you've presented?

Further more, if you understand infinity is not an integer, why did you not spot the problems with the arguments presented?

Any questions or objections?

[pax]

Infinite Past Time. What is it?

It is an important component of the cosmological argument which hinges on there being a definite beginning, based on Plato's and Aristotle's first cause arguments. What it isn't though, is an infinite amount of time in the every day, temporal, forth dimension kind of sense; It is an infinite chains of causes, movers, explanations, events, or anything that can be linked together. In this post I will use the word "time" in the loose sense, to counter arguments against what is commonly known as infinite regression.

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.

This is a common misconception. There is no such point as an infinite point that can never be reached, for the same reason infinity is not a number. i.e There is no number that cannot be counted to.

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.

Similarly there is no future that can never be reached, as "infinite future" is not a point in time - every point in time in the future, can be reach by passing a finite amount of time.

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.

And this is where the argument fails. For exactly the same reason above, there is no beginning in an infinite chain of event. Any and every event in the infinite past can affect the present within a finite amount of time.

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

And examples of the misconception goes on: Remember, infinity is not a number, hence 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. To reiterate: There are infinite number of intergers, each and every one of them, is a finite number.

Therefore, a present time dependant upon events which happened in an infinite past...

Is an incoherent argument, based on a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity.

[to carry over a previous reply on this topic]If you are proposing an infinite past, then you are not proposing any integer. You are proposing infinity, and infinity is not an integer.

So you would agree that the following argument is faulty: Infinity is a number that can never be reached. Because in the set of intergers one can always add one to the current number, and infinite amount of counting is required to reach that number that can never be realised, egro there cannot be an infinite number of intergers. Would you kindly point out where the relevent differences are between this faulty argument and what you've presented?

Further more, if you understand infinity is not an integer, why did you not spot the problems with the arguments presented?

Any questions or objections?

Infinty is a point that can never be reached. This is mathematically provable simply by stating that there is no end to n+1.

To say that infinite time can be reached by a finite amount of time is a contradiction in terms and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of just what infinite time means.

That infinite past time is impossible is demonstrated thus:

1). Our universe (U1) exists because the previous universe (U2) existed.

2). U2 exists because U3 existed.

3) U3 exists because U4 existed.

4). U4 exists because U5 existed.

5) This can be summed up in the formula: Un exists because Un+1 existed.

6). As the universe required for the existence of our present universe can never be reached, our universe cannot exist.

7) Our universe does exist.

8). Therefore, infinite past cannot be true.

Infinite past time is a logical absurdity. But if you want to hang on to it, that is your business.

[Bust Nak]

Infinty is a point that can never be reached. This is mathematically provable simply by stating that there is no end to n+1.

No, infinity is NOT a point at all, reachable or othewise - exactly because there is no end to n+1. You are implying this infinity as the end point of a sequence. You know this isn't true as you've said so yourself: infinity is not an integer.

To say that infinite time can be reached by a finite amount of time is a contradiction in terms and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of just what infinite time means.

Strawman. No where have I said infinite time can be reached by a finite amount of time. I've gone with multiple examples, reiterating my point. This "infinite time" you are referring to does not exist. However every single point of time in the infinite past, can be reached by a finite amount of time. Is the difference clear?

5) This can be summed up in the formula: Un exists because Un+1 existed.

Right. So kindly identify, using your notation, which universe is it that you claim is unreachable; Because I can show you exactly the sequence required to get to U1.

6). As the universe required for the existence of our present universe can never be reached, our universe cannot exist.

Your proof breaks down here. You are just repeating the same falsehood as before. Any and every universe required for the existence of our present universe can be reached via a finite amount of intermediate universes; Just as every integer is a finite number, even when there are an infinite number of them.

Just to prompt you to address my challenge directly. What is the relevent difference between your argument and the following: Infinity is a number that can never be reached, as infinite amount of counting is required to reach that number, a feat that can never be realised, egro there cannot be an infinite number of intergers. (Alternatively, replace with counting up to zero from negative-infinity to match the concept of past time more closely.

Infinite past time is a logical absurdity. But if you want to hang on to it, that is your business.

Save the trash talking to after you address my point.

[pax]

This "infinite time" you are referring to does not exist. However every single point of time in the infinite past, can be reached by a finite amount of time. Is the difference clear?

You are saying that only a finite amount of time is required to get one from any point in the infinite past to any point closer to our own present. What you are ignoring is the fact that there must be an infinite number of points preceeding us into the infinite past.

To define infinite as a sum of finite finites does not work simply because an infinite number of finite finites are required.

5) This can be summed up in the formula: Un exists because Un+1 existed.

Right. So kindly identify, using your notation, which universe is it that you claim is unreachable; Because I can show you exactly the sequence required to get to U1.

Universe n+1 is the one we are discussing.

You will require an infinite amount of time to count to that notation.

6). As the universe required for the existence of our present universe can never be reached, our universe cannot exist.

Your proof breaks down here. You are just repeating the same falsehood as before. Any and every universe required for the existence of our present universe can be reached via a finite amount of intermediate universes; Just as every integer is a finite number, even when there are an infinite number of them.

This is not trash talk. Your understanding totally breaks down right here.

Let's say we will cover the previous 10** universes required for our universe to exist. They also needed 10 previous universes to exist. They in turn also needed 10 previous universes to exist....etc., etc., ad infinitum. The original set of universes required for our universe to exist can never be reached simply because there are an infinite number of sets of universes.

**You can put any exponent upon that number 10 and the formula does not change.

Just to prompt you to address my challenge directly. What is the relevent difference between your argument and the following:

1). Infinity is a number that can never be reached

2). as infinite amount of counting is required to reach that number, a feat that can never be realised

3). egro there cannot be an infinite number of intergers. (Alternatively, replace with counting up to zero from negative-infinity to match the concept of past time more closely.

That is not my argument as the conclusion is a non-sequiter. In fact, it is a contradiction of the formula n+1. Also, you cannot count up to zero from the infinite past simply because you have no starting point. All that you can do is count backwards from zero, and this is possible because you have a starting point.

My argument is that our present universe requires effects from an infinite past universe, and, as you stated in Prop. 1, that universe can never be reached.

Therefore, the effects from that universe upon which we depend for our own existence cannot effect us.

Therefore, we cannot exist.

But we do exist.

Therefore, an infinite past cannot be true.

Therefore, there must be a beginning.

Infinite past time is a logical absurdity. But if you want to hang on to it, that is your business.

Save the trash talking to after you address my point.

That is not trash talk. Infinite past time is a logical absurdity that you wish to -- no, you must -- hang on to. The only alternative is a beginning, and a beginning requires something that you do not want to believe in.

[Bust Nak]

You are saying that only a finite amount of time is required to get one from any point in the infinite past to any point closer to our own present.

Yes, a finite amount of time to get from any point to any other point closer and up to the present.

What you are ignoring is the fact that there must be an infinite number of points preceeding us into the infinite past.

I am fully aware of what infinite regression entails - Including the existence of the infinite number of point precessing any point in the the chain. I have no idea why you would think I am ignoring it since I've stressed over and over again that it only takes a finite amount of time for any one of the infinite number of point to affect the present. ANY.

To define infinite as a sum of finite finites does not work simply because an infinite number of finite finites are required.

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.

Universe n+1 is the one we are discussing.

You will require an infinite amount of time to count to that notation.

Incorrect. I require 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. (for n larger than 4.)

If you are going to deal with just one point in my post, it is this one. I think this has the best chance of getting my point accross.

Let's say we will cover the previous 10 universes required for our universe to exist. They also needed 10 previous universes to exist. They in turn also needed 10 previous universes to exist....etc., etc., ad infinitum. The original set of universes required for our universe to exist can never be reached simply because there are an infinite number of sets of universes.

As you can see from above, there is a finite number of universe between the original universe and any other universes. All of them are reachable from any other universes with a finite number of steps.

That is not my argument as the conclusion is a non-sequiter.

It's faulty that's for sure, lets see just how different it is to your argument...

In fact, it is a contradiction of the formula n+1. Also, you cannot count up to zero from the infinite past simply because you have no starting point. All that you can do is count backwards from zero, and this is possible because you have a starting point.

If you understand that there is no starting point, why are you still making an argument that insist of counting/timing from "infinite past?" I'll show you your argument suffers from the same problems:

My argument is that our present universe requires effects from an infinite past universe, and, as you stated in Prop. 1, that universe can never be reached.

So you agree Prop 1 takes the same from. Negative infinity is a number that can never be reached from zero and vise versa.

Therefore, the effects from that universe upon which we depend for our own existence cannot effect us.

The is equivalent to prop 2, as infinite amount of counting is required to reach zero.

Therefore, we cannot exist.

Ok, here I see a few step is missing, so let me state those explicitly: 2.1 Therefore, zero cannot exist.

But we do exist.

And again here: 2.2 But zero do exist.

Therefore, an infinite past cannot be true.

Which lead nicely back to prop 3. Therefore cannot be an infinite number of negative numbers.

Therefore, there must be a beginning.

4 Therefore, there must be a lowest negative number.

This faulty argument clearly takes the same from as your argument, and as such, is subject to the same criticism; So, in your own words: conclusion is a non-sequitur.

That is not trash talk. Infinite past time is a logical absurdity that you wish to -- no, you must -- hang on to. The only alternative is a beginning, and a beginning requires something that you do not want to believe in.

Deal with my argument, not my motive. Otherwise you are committing the motivation fallacy. You haven't shown the absurdity of infinite regression yet.

As an aside, while I do perfer infinite regression pragmatically. I have no problem accepting a definite beginning, you've still got a long way to go from an indescriptive beginning to a deity.