If time is infinite, how anything can't pass?

[Enrique]

It can't "not happen" or "not exist". As time is infinite, any event (if you'd like it, a group of particles and energy in a spacial configuration) will eventually take place. It doesn't matter if it's not in this universe, or if it has to pass a trillons of universes, or if it's a cyclic universe, or if time as described by phycists is an entity that was created, sooner or later something ends up happening. Even if you have a complete void of whatever you want, time will pass until something new turns up. Nothing can prevent it as time will take care of changing it. The possibility or rule of non-existence is a consequence of the perception and functioning of our minds.
In a subjective level, we'll always exist. Either we go to sleep tonight or die in a week, we won't feel the pass of the time until we get conscious again. Any configuration that defines us will eventually take form in the future, no matter how long. And we will wake up infinite different times again as if it had passed only an instant.
My question is how existence can be halt?

[McCulloch]

time is infinite,

Are you sure about that?

[Enrique]

From my point of view, i can't imagine otherwise. It's just a subjective assertion but i'd like to know if there's a simple argument, a scientific approach or another subjective assertion against it. (If it's the case of "i can`t prove that something doesn't exist")
Imagine that cosmologists set the end of time within a couple of eons. Let's define time or perception of time as differentiation between two things. From then on, nothing can change because it could mean the presence of time. But that indifferentiate state can't last because whatever that new magnitude is, even infinite, will be reduce to an instant because there's no time.There's always be an after.
Of course that i'm unable to imagine a four spacial dimension universe either but the possibility of unlimited time shocks me because its affirmation could be interpreted as the ultimate god, who gives existence to absolutely anything (even other gods or ilogical things), no matter what, and it's fairly closer, intuitive and simpler than others definitions of god.

[McCulloch]

From my point of view, i can't imagine otherwise. It's just a subjective assertion but i'd like to know if there's a simple argument, a scientific approach or another subjective assertion against it. (If it's the case of "i can`t prove that something doesn't exist")
Imagine that cosmologists set the end of time within a couple of eons. Let's define time or perception of time as differentiation between two things. From then on, nothing can change because it could mean the presence of time. But that indifferentiate state can't last because whatever that new magnitude is, even infinite, will be reduce to an instant because there's no time.There's always be an after.
Of course that i'm unable to imagine a four spacial dimension universe either but the possibility of unlimited time shocks me because its affirmation could be interpreted as the ultimate god, who gives existence to absolutely anything (even other gods or ilogical things), no matter what, and it's fairly closer, intuitive and simpler than others definitions of god.

We have good reasons to believe that the principles of relativity are true. According to relativity, energy can be equated with matter and time with space. Spacetime had a beginning but may not have an end.

[Beto]

What if "time" is a construct of the mind, a perception brought about by the quick passage of conscious moments (about 40 per second), much like the illusion of movement in moving pictures? How is a "perception" "infinite"?

[Enrique]

We have good reasons to believe that the principles of relativity are true. According to relativity, energy can be equated with matter and time with space. Spacetime had a beginning but may not have an end.

Spacetime and its rules had a beginning and may have an end, but in both cases scientifics agree that nothing can be told phisically about before or afterwards, as those singularities can't be tipified. They are real boundaries. My philosophical point of view is what can't prevent time from reborn inmediatly again, in case of apparently end, if there isn't anything else, as void doesn't exist. And that the consequence of its infinitness means straightforward that everything is not posible or imposible but real and true.

What if "time" is a construct of the mind, a perception brought about by the quick passage of conscious moments (about 40 per second), much like the illusion of movement in moving pictures? How is a "perception" "infinite"?

A perception can be infinite if it never ends. Wheter you`re realistic or idealistic i took the license to define time as the differentiation of two events. Those conscious moments or illusions may not be placed but imply a one coordenate reference system that is time. Look that even you estimate 40 seconds between those moving pictures. We can't think of existence without time.

[Beto]

Look that even you estimate 40 seconds between those moving pictures. We can't think of existence without time.

I didn't say that. The analogy is just to illustrate the point. I don't assume a picture is the same as a "conscious now". Existence of time between conscious moments isn't forcible, we just perceive it that way. It's not as easy as saying "this moment came after that one, or before the other". Time has no meaning in the quantum field, from where (I'm convinced at this point) consciousness emerges.

[McCulloch]

As time is infinite, any event (if you'd like it, a group of particles and energy in a spacial configuration) will eventually take place.

This also is false. Just because time is infinite, assuming for the moment that it is, does not guarantee that every spacial configuration of matter and energy will eventually take place.
To illustrate, lets take an arbitrarily constructed infinite series of digits. If we were to take all of the digits in the value of pi except the numeral 4 if it occurs after the 7th place, this infinite series of digits, with no repeats, will not have any occurrence of 141 after its first appearance. This shows that infinity does not guarantee that all particular configurations will occur.

[Enrique]

As time is infinite, any event (if you'd like it, a group of particles and energy in a spacial configuration) will eventually take place.

This also is false. Just because time is infinite, assuming for the moment that it is, does not guarantee that every spacial configuration of matter and energy will eventually take place.
To illustrate, lets take an arbitrarily constructed infinite series of digits. If we were to take all of the digits in the value of pi except the numeral 4 if it occurs after the 7th place, this infinite series of digits, with no repeats, will not have any occurrence of 141 after its first appearance. This shows that infinity does not guarantee that all particular configurations will occur.

I've dare to emphasize in a ridiculous way (new universes, several gods, ilogic) the consequences of an infinite time to set the point that even the empiric and logical rules are not prone to but change indeed. Just saying that our universe implodes (a fact that had and will happen if time is infinite) and reborn again with complete new phisics laws and beings whose minds works so that the 141 is in that infinite series. You can't prove anything won't happen as the arguments you use will change too. But this is worse, as logic is violated you can be right and wrong at the same time. For something to exist is requiered only a portion of time (even infinite) to happen.

Look that even you estimate 40 seconds between those moving pictures. We can't think of existence without time.

I didn't say that. The analogy is just to illustrate the point. I don't assume a picture is the same as a "conscious now". Existence of time between conscious moments isn't forcible, we just perceive it that way. It's not as easy as saying "this moment came after that one, or before the other". Time has no meaning in the quantum field, from where (I'm convinced at this point) consciousness emerges.

The problem is the definition of time. I didn't mean to apply to time the properties of casualty, order or any intuitive, common or mathematical one else. I just defined time as the cause that an event can be different or differentiated from another, which is the same to exist. Under these circumstances, "construct of the mind" or "perception" exist because there is "the cause time" that allows the flow from an event to another.

[McCulloch]

As time is infinite, any event (if you'd like it, a group of particles and energy in a spacial configuration) will eventually take place.

This also is false. Just because time is infinite, assuming for the moment that it is, does not guarantee that every spacial configuration of matter and energy will eventually take place.
To illustrate, lets take an arbitrarily constructed infinite series of digits. If we were to take all of the digits in the value of pi except the numeral 4 if it occurs after the 7th place, this infinite series of digits, with no repeats, will not have any occurrence of 141 after its first appearance. This shows that infinity does not guarantee that all particular configurations will occur.

I've dare to emphasize in a ridiculous way (new universes, several gods, ilogic) the consequences of an infinite time to set the point that even the empiric and logical rules are not prone to but change indeed. Just saying that our universe implodes (a fact that had and will happen if time is infinite) and reborn again with complete new physics laws and beings whose minds works so that the 141 is in that infinite series. You can't prove anything won't happen as the arguments you use will change too. But this is worse, as logic is violated you can be right and wrong at the same time. For something to exist is required only a portion of time (even infinite) to happen.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looked as if you were arguing that if time were infinite then every possible configuration of particles and energy must take place eventually. I proved that this is not necessarily true.