Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[charris]

It is getting unwieldly to keep responding to every remark in one lengthy post. For now, I'm going to respond one specific key point:

At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite

I don't agree with premise 4, because as I've said, having a complete infinity doesn't make sense. Or, if you want to stick with the Tristram Shandy paradox, you have an infinite amount of time.

I am stunned. Let’s get specific. At precisely midnight of the new year, on Jan 1, 2011 – the past consists of all days prior to that point in time. Please explain how another day can be added to the past of Jan 1, 2011, midnight. How exactly does another past day pop into existence, that did not previously exist?

I know you're going to accuse me of ignoring how time works or something like that, but let's think of the number line. Let's say that Jan 1, 2011 is some point, n. N has infinity surrounding it on both sides, but the one we are concerned with is the one approaching from the negative side.

Yes, you are ignoring how time works, simply drawing a mental number line, and then using it incorrectly. The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question). We're talking about the progression of time from one day to the next.

And you're ignoring almost everything about physics, but you don't see me complaining. You say, "The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question)." I've said that numerous times to which you stated it was wrong. So what is it? Wrong or right? Or is it only wrong when you want it to be? Time is sequential blah blah blah. First off, I've already explained how you can move sequentially. Second, that isn't how time actually works, according to well established physics. You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

So how do we get more numbers? We move from n to n+1.

But you only do this until you reach T. We're talking about the past from date T, not the future.

Now I'm going to say that, even ignoring physics, you don't know how time works. Once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. Point T is included in the infinite set of days.

Or you could say that all the numbers already exist and you aren't even adding anything to it, which is the route I would probably take.

If you aren't "adding anything to it" then you aren't adding another past day and you are agreeing with me that the past (of time T) is complete.

Why are you the only one who insists on saying an infinite past is complete, when no one is making that argument but yourself? You've done nothing but attack a straw man. Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number. You're begging the question.

So, to be direct, how can we add a day to the past? Either every point in time already exists or you simply move forward in time. I vote for the former.

You can't create another past day by moving forward in time. We're talking about the past, from time T. Time progresses after T, but that is the FUTURE of T.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past? Anything that proves your point? Sorry, that isn't how it works. Ignoring physics, you cannot stop time to say that time is 'compete' and that you can't add anything to the past. That's just absurd.

"Every point in time already exists" is a false statement. Only today exists. You continue to be confused by thinking in terms of a number line, where all points "exist" simultaneously. Time doesn't work that way. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your terminology. The problem is that you haven't done what you set out to do: show how an ADDITIONAL past day can come into existence that wasn't previously there.

It can only be considered a false statement if you are begging the question of "infinite time cannot exist." That would be a fallacy. You're basically saying that time is finite because it cannot be infinite, and it can't be infinite because it's finite. I'd be more than happy to put it into a syllogism for you if you still don't get it.
But the fact of the matter is, I actually understand time better than you do. You're stuck thinking of time from a pre-scientific point of veiw, whereas I'm looking at it from a scientific point of view. You never actually answered me, do you think time is something that exists independent of objects?

Here was my challenge:

At precisely midnight of the new year, on Jan 1, 2011 – the past consists of all days prior to that point in time. Please explain how another day can be added to the past of Jan 1, 2011, midnight. How exactly does another past day pop into existence, that did not previously exist?

And I already answered it.

To say that "every past day already exist[ed]" is an admission that another past day cannot, somehow, pop into existence. This confirms the past is complete and that my proof is correct.

First, I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists. Second, even if I were to grant your misquote, that doesn't mean the past is complete. That's not what infinity means, and I think I've explained that already.

[fredonly]

It is getting unwieldly to keep responding to every remark in one lengthy post. For now, I'm going to respond one specific key point:

At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite

I don't agree with premise 4, because as I've said, having a complete infinity doesn't make sense. Or, if you want to stick with the Tristram Shandy paradox, you have an infinite amount of time.

I am stunned. Let’s get specific. At precisely midnight of the new year, on Jan 1, 2011 – the past consists of all days prior to that point in time. Please explain how another day can be added to the past of Jan 1, 2011, midnight. How exactly does another past day pop into existence, that did not previously exist?

I know you're going to accuse me of ignoring how time works or something like that, but let's think of the number line. Let's say that Jan 1, 2011 is some point, n. N has infinity surrounding it on both sides, but the one we are concerned with is the one approaching from the negative side.

Yes, you are ignoring how time works, simply drawing a mental number line, and then using it incorrectly. The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question). We're talking about the progression of time from one day to the next.

And you're ignoring almost everything about physics, but you don't see me complaining… You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

Sounds like a complaint to me. I was hoping to complete one line of reasoning before we pursue another. Your responses to my (merely) logical argument seem to come from all over the place, without a consistent premise about time. Let me take some of the blame here. My argument is based strictly on treating time with the traditional understanding. I never stated that. Perhaps we could stop talking past each other if you would attempt to look at my argument from this perspective. I do believe my argument is valid, within the framework of time in the traditional sense. Find a flaw in my logic at this level, and we’re done. On the other hand, you could accept my argument and then you can move on to explain how the traditional view of time is invalid. For now, I’m going to respond to your comments – because they display misunderstanding on your part.

You say, "The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question)." I've said that numerous times to which you stated it was wrong. So what is it? Wrong or right?

Where did I tell you it was incorrect the that days proceeded in this fashion? If you’re charging me with contradicting myself, then post the quotes to prove this. While you’re looking for them, I recommend you attempt to understand what I was saying – because I think the root problem is that you weren’t following me.

Or is it only wrong when you want it to be? Time is sequential blah blah blah. First off, I've already explained how you can move sequentially. Second, that isn't how time actually works, according to well established physics. You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

We’ll never get anywhere in a discussion about time if we’re discussing it from two different frameworks. As I said above, I’m discussing time in the traditional sense. I would think that you should be able to think about time in this traditional way – it’s consistent with normal experience and intuition. But you can’t jump back and forth between a traditional view of time, and your (so far) unstated view of time, based (you say) on physics.

So how do we get more numbers? We move from n to n+1.

But you only do this until you reach T. We're talking about the past from date T, not the future.

Now I'm going to say that, even ignoring physics, you don't know how time works. Once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. Point T is included in the infinite set of days.

Or you could say that all the numbers already exist and you aren't even adding anything to it, which is the route I would probably take.

If you aren't "adding anything to it" then you aren't adding another past day and you are agreeing with me that the past (of time T) is complete.

Why are you the only one who insists on saying an infinite past is complete, when no one is making that argument but yourself?

This is an interesting reply. You failed to find a genuine flaw in my reasoning, so now you’re trying to dismiss my argument because (you assume) it is my own, rather than someone else’s.
You accuse me of not knowing how time works because “once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. “ I am not suggesting that you CAN stop time, but I am pointing out that it is absolutely reasonable to examine the set of days prior to a defined point in time. I underlined this because you are ignoring, or not grasping, this concept. It’s not difficult. If you read an email that includes the sentence: “yesterday I stayed home from,� will you be able to determine which day the author is speaking of? Of course you can: look at the date the email was sent (and we’ll assume it was written the same day). That date provides a fixed reference point that places “yesterday� in context – a reference point that doesn’t change, whether you read the email on Feb 5 2011, or Jan 25, 2015. Does this help you now understand what I mean about a fixed reference point? Now let’s broaden the view. If the email also includes the sentence, “in the past, I have never stayed home from work,� it should also be clear that “the past� is relative to the date the email was written.
Can you now please try to understand that, my reference to “the past� in my argument is based on “T� as a fixed reference point – just like the date attached to the email.

You've done nothing but attack a straw man. Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number. You're begging the question.

I’ll agree with you to a certain extent. The “straw man� that I am attacking is the notion that the past is infinite under the premise of a traditional view of time. It is a qualified argument. Now let me correct your characterization here: “Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number.� You are stating a contradiction. It is a contradiction to say that an infinite “anything� is a finite number. I never said this. Feel free to find a flaw in my argument, but don’t distort what I’m saying.

What question is it that I am begging? I provided premises, inferences, and conclusion. It’s as simple as that.

So, to be direct, how can we add a day to the past? Either every point in time already exists or you simply move forward in time. I vote for the former.

You can't create another past day by moving forward in time. We're talking about the past, from time T. Time progresses after T, but that is the FUTURE of T.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

Mama mia! Let me explain it in still another way, step by step.

I am specifying T to be midnight, January 1, 2011.

Here are some examples of days that are in T’s past: Jan 1, 2010; Jan 15, 1954; July 4, 1776;
Here are some examples of days that are in T’s future: Jan 2, 2011; Jan 3, 2011; Jan 4, 2011; Dec 17, 2342.

I hope you will agree that the days in T’s future are NOT ALSO in T’s past.
You’re talking about the ever-changing –present’s view of the past. I agree that the current day will eventually become the past. But what you are overlooking is that I’m discussing the past of a fixed point in time: T = midnight, Jan 1, 2011.

Does this help?

Anything that proves your point? Sorry, that isn't how it works.

Your failure to grasp my argument is the root of the problem. I laid it out clearly. If there’s a problem with the logic, identify it – but admit when you have simply failed to grasp the concept (such as what is meant by the past from a fixed reference point). I’m putting my logic out there for you to review and find flaws.

Ignoring physics, you cannot stop time to say that time is 'compete' and that you can't add anything to the past. That's just absurd.

I hope my explanation above has cleared up what you thought was an absurdity. The problem you think you found is really your failure to view “the past� from a fixed reference point.

"Every point in time already exists" is a false statement. Only today exists. You continue to be confused by thinking in terms of a number line, where all points "exist" simultaneously. Time doesn't work that way. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your terminology. The problem is that you haven't done what you set out to do: show how an ADDITIONAL past day can come into existence that wasn't previously there.

It can only be considered a false statement if you are begging the question of "infinite time cannot exist." That would be a fallacy. You're basically saying that time is finite because it cannot be infinite, and it can't be infinite because it's finite. I'd be more than happy to put it into a syllogism for you if you still don't get it.

Regarding a syllogism, yes – please put MY comments into a syllogism, but don’t waste your time putting something together an argument with your absurd distortions. Regarding what I “basically� said, is in my proof:
At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite.
You have so far failed to grasp what PD is, have complained (incorrectly) that I’m making up this concept of completeness (in #4). I still can’t tell if you grasped the difference between a mathematical concept of mapping one set to another vs a temporal sequential process. Either this is over your head, or you feel it’s a waste of time to even try to understand – because you’re impatient to get to your physics discussion, that you think will prove the past can be infinite.

But the fact of the matter is, I actually understand time better than you do. You're stuck thinking of time from a pre-scientific point of veiw, whereas I'm looking at it from a scientific point of view. You never actually answered me, do you think time is something that exists independent of objects?

I am delighted to be in a discussion with someone with such knowledge and humility. I’ll answer your question at the end of this post.

Here was my challenge:

At precisely midnight of the new year, on Jan 1, 2011 – the past consists of all days prior to that point in time. Please explain how another day can be added to the past of Jan 1, 2011, midnight. How exactly does another past day pop into existence, that did not previously exist?

And I already answered it.

You addressed it based on your misunderstanding, which I’ll demonstrate here by quoting you:

You can't create another past day by moving forward in time. We're talking about the past, from time T. Time progresses after T, but that is the FUTURE of T.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

You were saying that time proceeds, so another day is added to the past; ignoring the fact that I was talking about the PAST of a specific, fixed point in time. It is such a trivial observation that, from a fixed reference point in time (T), the set of days prior to T is fixed; no days are added because days only get added as time moves forward. You refuse to acknowledge this very obvious point.

To say that "every past day already exist[ed]" is an admission that another past day cannot, somehow, pop into existence. This confirms the past is complete and that my proof is correct.

First, I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists. Second, even if I were to grant your misquote, that doesn't mean the past is complete. That's not what infinity means, and I think I've explained that already.

You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be. Although you didn’t state it, it could be that this is because you are not treating time in the traditional sense. If, for example, you think time proceeds in both directions – past ->present->future AND future->present->past, then this would explain your objection. However, we can’t have a meaningful conversation unless we nail down a specific view of time. As I’ve said, my argument applies to a traditional view of time. I ask you to look at my argument in these terms, and either find a flaw or accept it. If you accept it, we can move on to your making the case for a different view of time.

If you can’t bring yourself to examine my argument within the framework of a traditional view of time, that’s fine, but please don’t suggest you’ve disproven my qualified argument.

I’m fine with proceeding to examine your alternative view of time. I’ll follow your lead by answering your question: “Do you think time is something that exists independent of objects?“

No. A complete absence of all objects would be absolute nothingness. Time and space are intertwined. Feel free to explain what I’ve gotten wrong here, or if you agree - tell me the implications that support your contention about the past.

[charris]

And you're ignoring almost everything about physics, but you don't see me complaining… You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

Sounds like a complaint to me. I was hoping to complete one line of reasoning before we pursue another. Your responses to my (merely) logical argument seem to come from all over the place, without a consistent premise about time. Let me take some of the blame here. My argument is based strictly on treating time with the traditional understanding. I never stated that. Perhaps we could stop talking past each other if you would attempt to look at my argument from this perspective. I do believe my argument is valid, within the framework of time in the traditional sense. Find a flaw in my logic at this level, and we’re done. On the other hand, you could accept my argument and then you can move on to explain how the traditional view of time is invalid. For now, I’m going to respond to your comments – because they display misunderstanding on your part.

If logic contradicts well-tested observation, then that just means our logic is wrong. For example, if we see something coming from nothing, then the logical statement 'something can't come from nothing' is simply wrong. Another example would be the shape of the Earth. With simple logic, you can look at the horizon and say, 'The Earth is flat. Just look and see.' Yet this is clearly contradicted by observation. The logic was wrong. So I'm sorry to say, if well-tested ideas in physics say that time is infinite, then the normal logic that things have a finite time is wrong. This is why I pointed out that I'm thinking of time in the way that physics tells us to think of it, not just every day logic.
Even within the 'traditional understanding' of time, making objections about potential/actual infinities due to sequential movement is an argument from ignorance. Just because we may not understand 'actual infinity' doesn't mean it isn't real. Nature doesn't bend to our understanding, it's the other way around. So within the 'traditional understanding' of time, I claim strict agnosticism.

So, why should we quit using the 'traditional understanding' of time? Because it doesn't agree with well-tested scientific ideas. I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about it.

You say, "The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question)." I've said that numerous times to which you stated it was wrong. So what is it? Wrong or right?

Where did I tell you it was incorrect the that days proceeded in this fashion? If you’re charging me with contradicting myself, then post the quotes to prove this. While you’re looking for them, I recommend you attempt to understand what I was saying – because I think the root problem is that you weren’t following me.

Right here:

My arguments pertain to the REAL WORLD, where each addition operation is a temporal event, and occur sequentially. This is different from writing down a conceptual series as you have done (1+1=2 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc. etc.). In the real world, you have to actually add 1+1. After completing this, you add 2+1, and so on – these take time.

You explicitly stated that the sequential addition I presented is wrong, and that time is sequential. Which is what I had said. (Which boggles my mind.)

Or is it only wrong when you want it to be? Time is sequential blah blah blah. First off, I've already explained how you can move sequentially. Second, that isn't how time actually works, according to well established physics. You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

We’ll never get anywhere in a discussion about time if we’re discussing it from two different frameworks. As I said above, I’m discussing time in the traditional sense. I would think that you should be able to think about time in this traditional way – it’s consistent with normal experience and intuition. But you can’t jump back and forth between a traditional view of time, and your (so far) unstated view of time, based (you say) on physics.

Sorry, but normal experiences and intuition have been wrong on numerous accounts. (Here's looking at you, geocentric solar system and flat Earth!) I'll stick with the evidence.

Now I'm going to say that, even ignoring physics, you don't know how time works. Once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. Point T is included in the infinite set of days.
--
Why are you the only one who insists on saying an infinite past is complete, when no one is making that argument but yourself?

This is an interesting reply. You failed to find a genuine flaw in my reasoning, so now you’re trying to dismiss my argument because (you assume) it is my own, rather than someone else’s.

Not in the slightest. If anyone told me this I would have the same objection.

You accuse me of not knowing how time works because “once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. “ I am not suggesting that you CAN stop time, but I am pointing out that it is absolutely reasonable to examine the set of days prior to a defined point in time.

Of course it's reasonable to examine it, but that doesn't make it correct. Tell me, when examining aleph-0, and you pick an arbitrary point, let's say -5, does that mean there is a finite number before it? So, when looking at a time line, we know we're at some point, let's say Jan. 01, 2011. That's what we're 100% certain of. So, given that point, what is to stop us from looking through progressively smaller negative numbers? You say it's because time progresses sequentially, I say that this is built in to any number line. (It doesn't go from -5 to 3 and then to -4...) Number lines are sequential by definition. You may then say that the number line of aleph-0 has positive numbers on it already, to which I say (and have stated) that all moments in time already exist and that time is symmetric. Your objection? It isn't intuitive. Oh well.

I underlined this because you are ignoring, or not grasping, this concept. It’s not difficult. If you read an email that includes the sentence: “yesterday I stayed home from,� will you be able to determine which day the author is speaking of? Of course you can: look at the date the email was sent (and we’ll assume it was written the same day). That date provides a fixed reference point that places “yesterday� in context – a reference point that doesn’t change, whether you read the email on Feb 5 2011, or Jan 25, 2015. Does this help you now understand what I mean about a fixed reference point? Now let’s broaden the view. If the email also includes the sentence, “in the past, I have never stayed home from work,� it should also be clear that “the past� is relative to the date the email was written.
Can you now please try to understand that, my reference to “the past� in my argument is based on “T� as a fixed reference point – just like the date attached to the email.

You ignore, or do not grasp, the symmetries provided by nature, or the implications from well-tested ideas in physics.
Yes, we can look at the date on an email, reference it to a calender, and figure out what day they were talking about. If this is your example, then it is begging the question. We picked a finite point in time to determine how long ago things happened. We pick arbitrary events to determine lengths of time. What's to stop me from saying that a second should be the time from the end of inflation to now? (Ignoring physics.)
But here you make a claim that cannot ignore physics: "That date provides a fixed reference point that places 'yesterday' in context - a reference point that doesn't change..." Oh my. One of the biggest implications from Eintstein's theories of relativity is that there is no such thing as a 'fixed reference point in time.' The speed of time is relative to the observer, and this is due to factors such as speed and gravity. This relativity of time has been extremely well-tested using atomic clocks, both on Earth and in space. (In fact, the top of your head ages faster than your feet.) Fixed reference points in time simply don't exist. Yes, we as a species have arbitrarily picked events to go by, but they're just that: arbitrary. We say that a day consists of one full rotation of the Earth (24 hours). One full rotation according to whom? If you are on a planet with gravity that is much stronger, one full rotation of the Earth will last a completely different amount of time. But you'll most likely object, saying that we use a reference point relative to us. Well that's fine and dandy, but time isn't restricted to us. Therefore, the use of time and days relative to Earth is irrelevant to time as a whole.
Does this suffice, or should we ignore this as well?

You've done nothing but attack a straw man. Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number. You're begging the question.

I’ll agree with you to a certain extent. The “straw man� that I am attacking is the notion that the past is infinite under the premise of a traditional view of time. It is a qualified argument. Now let me correct your characterization here: “Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number.� You are stating a contradiction. It is a contradiction to say that an infinite “anything� is a finite number. I never said this. Feel free to find a flaw in my argument, but don’t distort what I’m saying.

And I say the 'traditional understanding' of time is wrong, as evident by observation. Therefore anything that you say about it is irrelevant to the conversation.
I'm quite aware that saying 'infinity is finite' is a contradiction. That's why I'm not saying it. You've stated explicitly that 'actual infinities cannot exist' and that an infinite amount of time, yet there being a present, would mean that the past is complete (meaning it isn't infinite). There would be a present whether time is infinite or finite. The difference is that one holds there is no special time, the other holds that there is. (Respectively.)

What question is it that I am begging? I provided premises, inferences, and conclusion. It’s as simple as that.

The question you are begging is that time is finite. You are using finite examples and applying it to infinity, which is incorrect.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

Mama mia! Let me explain it in still another way, step by step.

I am specifying T to be midnight, January 1, 2011.

Here are some examples of days that are in T’s past: Jan 1, 2010; Jan 15, 1954; July 4, 1776;
Here are some examples of days that are in T’s future: Jan 2, 2011; Jan 3, 2011; Jan 4, 2011; Dec 17, 2342.

I hope you will agree that the days in T’s future are NOT ALSO in T’s past.
You’re talking about the ever-changing –present’s view of the past. I agree that the current day will eventually become the past. But what you are overlooking is that I’m discussing the past of a fixed point in time: T = midnight, Jan 1, 2011.

Does this help?

It helps explain that you don't understand what I'm saying, yes. At point T, there is still an infinite set of days before it.

Anything that proves your point? Sorry, that isn't how it works.

Your failure to grasp my argument is the root of the problem. I laid it out clearly. If there’s a problem with the logic, identify it – but admit when you have simply failed to grasp the concept (such as what is meant by the past from a fixed reference point). I’m putting my logic out there for you to review and find flaws.

I grasp your argument completely. I'm saying that it is ignorant of modern physics and cosmology and is therefore irrelevant. So, if you would like me to identify where your logic fails, it is this: you are thinking of time incorrectly. I can't get any more blatant than that.

Ignoring physics, you cannot stop time to say that time is 'compete' and that you can't add anything to the past. That's just absurd.

I hope my explanation above has cleared up what you thought was an absurdity. The problem you think you found is really your failure to view “the past� from a fixed reference point.

It did clear it up. However, it is still incorrect.

It can only be considered a false statement if you are begging the question of "infinite time cannot exist." That would be a fallacy. You're basically saying that time is finite because it cannot be infinite, and it can't be infinite because it's finite. I'd be more than happy to put it into a syllogism for you if you still don't get it.

Regarding a syllogism, yes – please put MY comments into a syllogism, but don’t waste your time putting something together an argument with your absurd distortions. Regarding what I “basically� said, is in my proof:
At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite.
You have so far failed to grasp what PD is, have complained (incorrectly) that I’m making up this concept of completeness (in #4). I still can’t tell if you grasped the difference between a mathematical concept of mapping one set to another vs a temporal sequential process. Either this is over your head, or you feel it’s a waste of time to even try to understand – because you’re impatient to get to your physics discussion, that you think will prove the past can be infinite.

P1) We are currently in the present.
P2) The past is completed.
P3) Infinity means never-ending.
P4) If the past is infinite, this would mean that infinity is completed.
P5) But, infinity cannot be completed.
C) Therefore, there cannot be an infinite past.
(If you disagree with my summary of your points, by all means, object.)
If you agree to this syllogism, then P2 and thus P4 are begging the question.

The only thing I feel is a waste of time is this entire conversation, because you can't even understand what physics tells us about time.

But the fact of the matter is, I actually understand time better than you do. You're stuck thinking of time from a pre-scientific point of veiw, whereas I'm looking at it from a scientific point of view. You never actually answered me, do you think time is something that exists independent of objects?

I am delighted to be in a discussion with someone with such knowledge and humility. I’ll answer your question at the end of this post.

Sarcasm duly noted. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm trying to be completely honest, regardless of the implications.

And I already answered it.

You addressed it based on your misunderstanding, which I’ll demonstrate here by quoting you:

You can't create another past day by moving forward in time. We're talking about the past, from time T. Time progresses after T, but that is the FUTURE of T.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

You were saying that time proceeds, so another day is added to the past; ignoring the fact that I was talking about the PAST of a specific, fixed point in time. It is such a trivial observation that, from a fixed reference point in time (T), the set of days prior to T is fixed; no days are added because days only get added as time moves forward. You refuse to acknowledge this very obvious point.

At -5, is there a finite set of numbers before or after it? No. Both sides proceed to infinity. Your objection that time is not like a number line is an argument from ignorance.

First, I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists. Second, even if I were to grant your misquote, that doesn't mean the past is complete. That's not what infinity means, and I think I've explained that already.

You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be. Although you didn’t state it, it could be that this is because you are not treating time in the traditional sense. If, for example, you think time proceeds in both directions – past ->present->future AND future->present->past, then this would explain your objection. However, we can’t have a meaningful conversation unless we nail down a specific view of time. As I’ve said, my argument applies to a traditional view of time. I ask you to look at my argument in these terms, and either find a flaw or accept it. If you accept it, we can move on to your making the case for a different view of time.

My word, you quote the answer to your objection. "You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be." First off, if you draw the conclusion that because I can't explain something it cannot be true, then you are making an argument from ignorance. Second, I did explain it in the very passage you quoted me saying! "I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists."
You say that my objection could come from me viewing time in both directions, but I didn't state it explicitly. I ask, what do you think 'symmetry' means? I said that the well-tested ideas of physics tell us that time is symmetric, in CPT symmetry, and this wasn't explicit how?

If you can’t bring yourself to examine my argument within the framework of a traditional view of time, that’s fine, but please don’t suggest you’ve disproven my qualified argument.

The reason your argument is disproven is because you are thinking of time incorrectly. Within the 'traditional understanding' of where the Earth is in our solar system is, the logic was that the Earth wasn't moving as evident by the falling of objects. This conclusion is correct (that the Earth doesn't move) in the 'traditionally understood' ideas about the Earth, yet are proven wrong by the modern understandings. Likewise, even if your logic is correct by 'traditional understanding,' which I could care less about, it is wrong by our modern understanding.

I’m fine with proceeding to examine your alternative view of time. I’ll follow your lead by answering your question: “Do you think time is something that exists independent of objects?“

No. A complete absence of all objects would be absolute nothingness. Time and space are intertwined. Feel free to explain what I’ve gotten wrong here, or if you agree - tell me the implications that support your contention about the past.

I agree that time is intertwined with space, being that both are arbitrary measurements. I'm glad we can finally agree on something :p

[fredonly]

If logic contradicts well-tested observation, then that just means our logic is wrong.

No - this doesn't mean the logic is wrong; it means the premises are wrong.

For example, if we see something coming from nothing, then the logical statement 'something can't come from nothing' is simply wrong.

I agree that the statement “something can’t come from nothing� is falsified by an observation of something coming from nothing, but let’s examine the logic.
There are two possibilities: a) something can come from nothing; or b) something cannot come from nothing.
There are no observed instances of something coming from nothing.
Tentative conclusion: something cannot come from nothing
In everyday discussion, we usually omit the “tentative� qualifier – but it’s generally assumed that scientific theories are tentative; i.e. they are falsifiable. In the present example, as soon as we have evidence of something coming from nothing – then we have a new observation that falsifies the tentative conclusion.

Another example would be the shape of the Earth. With simple logic, you can look at the horizon and say, 'The Earth is flat. Just look and see.' Yet this is clearly contradicted by observation. The logic was wrong.

Again, It wasn't a logical error, it was lack of relevant observation. The only observations the ancients had was that the earth appeared flat. We could say this was the tentative scientific conclusion. In the absence of contrary evidence, no other conclusion would be rational to accept. This theory was falsified when astronomical observations were logically analyzed, and it was determined that the observations could best be explained if the world was spherical.

So I'm sorry to say, if well-tested ideas in physics say that time is infinite, then the normal logic that things have a finite time is wrong. This is why I pointed out that I'm thinking of time in the way that physics tells us to think of it, not just every day logic.

If well tested theories in physics leads to the conclusion that the past is infinite - then that would certainly show there is something wrong with my premises. However, be careful to avoid making invalid logical inferences from the math of physics. People do this all the time.

Even within the 'traditional understanding' of time, making objections about potential/actual infinities due to sequential movement is an argument from ignorance.

An "argument from ignorance" is an assertion that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). I think you are suggesting that the proposition, “the past is completed� is an argument from ignorance. Since I considered this intuitively obvious, I haven’t previously provided a formal argument supporting this, but I’ll do so now (note that I have included the condition that this argument applies within any specific frame of reference. This is to satisfy your objection about relativistic synchronicity – which I address later):
1. RF: Any specific reference frame .
2. Day= a fixed, finite duration of time within RF
3. T = a specific day within RF
4. Premise: Within RF, time proceeds in one direction only: from past to present to future.
5. The present = the Current Day (CD) within RF, which is the day that has started but not yet ended
6. At any time within RF, there is one and only one CD.
7. The past (or the set of past days) = the set of days that have ended within RF
8. The future (or the set of future days)= the set of days that have not yet started within RF
9. Restatement of #4 (stating time progression using the terms of 5,6,7): Time progresses as follows (within RF): DAYx is a specific day in the future. Time progresses so that at some point in time (within RF), DAYx becomes the current day. DAYx ends at the end of the day. Once this end of the day is reached, DAYx becomes the past.
10. PD(T) = the set of past days relative to T, within RF.
11. FD(T) = the set of future days relative to T, within RF
12. CD(T) = The set of present (current) days relative to T, within RF. CD(T) contains exactly one day.
13. PD(T), FD(T) and CD(T) are disjoint sets (they have no elements in common)
14. #9: implies: CD(T) is a member of PD(T+1)
15. #9 implies: PD(T+1) includes CD(T)
16. #9 implies: PD(T+1) contains one and only one element that is not an element of PD(T), and this element is CD(T)
17. Time progression within RF includes these temporal processes occurring at the beginning of CD(T+1):
a. creating PD(T+1) from PD(T) U CD(T)
b. creating FD(T+1) by removing element CD(T+1) from FD(T)
18. A completed set is one from whom elements are neither added nor deleted.
19. 16 and 17a implies PD(T) is a completed set because PD(T) is formed by process 17a at the start of T and there are no other processes for adding to PD(T).

Just because we may not understand 'actual infinity' doesn't mean it isn't real. Nature doesn't bend to our understanding, it's the other way around. So within the 'traditional understanding' of time, I claim strict agnosticism.

Nature does not violate logic. Your above arguments are guilty of mischaracterization. Premises are often wrong, leading to incorrect conclusions - but logic is not wrong. You suggest that we don’t understand ‘actual infinity.’ Are you going to start referring to this as a “holy mystery� and dismiss my logic similarly to a Christian who dismisses clear contradictions by claiming he “knows� he’s right, but can’t answer because it’s a “holy mystery.� The fact is, we can deduce the relevant properties of an actual infinity.

So, why should we quit using the 'traditional understanding' of time? Because it doesn't agree with well-tested scientific ideas. I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about it.

You are grossly overstating the case for an alternative view of time being materially inconsistent with the traditional view of time. You, of course, claimed to know more about time than I do. We'll see.

====================================================

You say, "The real-world activity of time progression proceeds from day T-3 to day T-2, then T-1, then to T (the date in question)." I've said that numerous times to which you stated it was wrong. So what is it? Wrong or right?

Where did I tell you it was incorrect the that days proceeded in this fashion? If you’re charging me with contradicting myself, then post the quotes to prove this. While you’re looking for them, I recommend you attempt to understand what I was saying – because I think the root problem is that you weren’t following me.

Right here:

My arguments pertain to the REAL WORLD, where each addition operation is a temporal event, and occur sequentially. This is different from writing down a conceptual series as you have done (1+1=2 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc. etc.). In the real world, you have to actually add 1+1. After completing this, you add 2+1, and so on – these take time.

You explicitly stated that the sequential addition I presented is wrong, and that time is sequential. Which is what I had said. (Which boggles my mind.)

I never said your sequential series is wrong; I said that your comment about successive addition was irrelevant. Here’s the full dialogue (I highlighted to out-of-context comment you quoted in RED; the key thing you overlooked is in bold):

Fredonly: (assume the past is infinite and the number of past days is infinite): Are each of the past days completed (i.e. are they over and done with)?

3. If I were to assume what you propose, then yes. The objection 'we could never reach now' is still irrelevant because you can always add. 1+1=2 2+1=3 3+1=4 etc. etc.

My point is that “completeness� is a property of the past, and that this is different from the future. Your comment about successive addition is irrelevant. All this does is demonstrate a mathematical infinity. We agree that “infinity� is a valid mathematical concept.My arguments pertain to the REAL WORLD, where each addition operation is a temporal event, and occur sequentially. This is different from writing down a conceptual series as you have done (1+1=2 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc. etc.). In the real world, you have to actually add 1+1. After completing this, you add 2+1, and so on – these take time.

You didn’t understand it the first time, so you probably don’t understand it this time either. My simple contention, which should really be pretty obvious, it that the past days (from any specific point in time) are completed. It astounds me that you would deny this. But you did (and do) deny it. For a counter argument you say� you can always add. 1+1=2 2+1=3 3+1=4 etc. etc.�

This series has no relationship to the passage of time from the past to a fixed point in time. That’s why I said it was irrelevant. A sequential series that pertains to the past would be more like a countdown to 0: …6,5,4,3,2,1,0 (where “0�) is the fixed point in time.

Or is it only wrong when you want it to be? Time is sequential blah blah blah. First off, I've already explained how you can move sequentially. Second, that isn't how time actually works, according to well established physics. You've made it extremely evident that you don't understand the relevant physics.

We’ll never get anywhere in a discussion about time if we’re discussing it from two different frameworks. As I said above, I’m discussing time in the traditional sense. I would think that you should be able to think about time in this traditional way – it’s consistent with normal experience and intuition. But you can’t jump back and forth between a traditional view of time, and your (so far) unstated view of time, based (you say) on physics.

Sorry, but normal experiences and intuition have been wrong on numerous accounts. (Here's looking at you, geocentric solar system and flat Earth!) I'll stick with the evidence.

That’s fine, but this means the burden is on you to show that the traditional view of time is wrong in a material way. Otherwise, you’re just dismissing the argument by handwaving.

You accuse me of not knowing how time works because “once you reach point T, it is automatically in the past because you cannot stop time. “ I am not suggesting that you CAN stop time, but I am pointing out that it is absolutely reasonable to examine the set of days prior to a defined point in time.

Of course it's reasonable to examine it, but that doesn't make it correct. Tell me, when examining aleph-0, and you pick an arbitrary point, let's say -5, does that mean there is a finite number before it? So, when looking at a time line, we know we're at some point, let's say Jan. 01, 2011. That's what we're 100% certain of.

You are using “aleph null� incorrectly. Aleph null is a cardinality, not a number line. I’m going to assume you’re actually talking about a number line like this:

Stretching from –infinity on the left to +infinity on the right. Let’s use the 0 point to represent the point in time, Jan 1, 2011.

So, given that point, what is to stop us from looking through progressively smaller negative numbers? You say it's because time progresses sequentially, I say that this is built in to any number line. (It doesn't go from -5 to 3 and then to -4...) Number lines are sequential by definition. You may then say that the number line of aleph-0 has positive numbers on it already, to which I say (and have stated) that all moments in time already exist and that time is symmetric. Your objection? It isn't intuitive. Oh well.

My objection is that you are ignoring the passage of time. Let me approach this differently.
Think about the passage of time. As each day ends, we have just added another day to “the past.� When we reached the day, Jan 1, 2011 we had just added Dec 31, 2010 to the past. There is no other way to add a day to the past, except by having that day begin, and end. Are you with me?

The key feature of past days is that each of them have ENDED. Picture yourself on Jan 1, 2011 – looking back at the past. All of the past days have ended. Any day that hasn’t ended, isn’t in the past. Are you with me still?

Over a month has transpired since Jan 1, 2011. Days have started and ended. Have any of these days been added to PD? In other words, can we now say that there are MORE days prior to Jan 1, 2011, then there used to be? Of course not! 20 years from now, will there be any new days added to PD? Of course not! PD includes all the days it ever will have. No days can be added, because as we proceed into the future, there will be no additional days that are prior to Jan 1, 2011.

This means the past is complete. The set of past days from a fixed point of time is complete. Do you now understand?
==================================================================================

I underlined this because you are ignoring, or not grasping, this concept. It’s not difficult. If you read an email that includes the sentence: “yesterday I stayed home from,� will you be able to determine which day the author is speaking of? Of course you can: look at the date the email was sent (and we’ll assume it was written the same day). That date provides a fixed reference point that places “yesterday� in context – a reference point that doesn’t change, whether you read the email on Feb 5 2011, or Jan 25, 2015. Does this help you now understand what I mean about a fixed reference point? Now let’s broaden the view. If the email also includes the sentence, “in the past, I have never stayed home from work,� it should also be clear that “the past� is relative to the date the email was written.
Can you now please try to understand that, my reference to “the past� in my argument is based on “T� as a fixed reference point – just like the date attached to the email.

You ignore, or do not grasp, the symmetries provided by nature, or the implications from well-tested ideas in physics.
Yes, we can look at the date on an email, reference it to a calender, and figure out what day they were talking about. If this is your example, then it is begging the question. We picked a finite point in time to determine how long ago things happened. We pick arbitrary events to determine lengths of time. What's to stop me from saying that a second should be the time from the end of inflation to now? (Ignoring physics.)
But here you make a claim that cannot ignore physics: "That date provides a fixed reference point that places 'yesterday' in context - a reference point that doesn't change..." Oh my. One of the biggest implications from Eintstein's theories of relativity is that there is no such thing as a 'fixed reference point in time.'

No, you’re wrong. Relativity does not imply there is no such thing as a 'fixed reference point in time.' Relativity simply says you have to look at time from a specific frame of reference. Within any such specific reference frame, my argument holds.

The speed of time is relative to the observer, and this is due to factors such as speed and gravity. This relativity of time has been extremely well-tested using atomic clocks, both on Earth and in space. (In fact, the top of your head ages faster than your feet.) Fixed reference points in time simply don't exist.

You’re stating this wrong. The relativity of simultaneity states that it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. Time passage is not absolute, it’s based on the reference frame. Everything I have said applies perfectly well to any specific reference frame.

Yes, we as a species have arbitrarily picked events to go by, but they're just that: arbitrary. We say that a day consists of one full rotation of the Earth (24 hours). One full rotation according to whom? If you are on a planet with gravity that is much stronger, one full rotation of the Earth will last a completely different amount of time. But you'll most likely object, saying that we use a reference point relative to us. Well that's fine and dandy, but time isn't restricted to us. Therefore, the use of time and days relative to Earth is irrelevant to time as a whole.

My argument works perfectly well from any specific reference point. It does not depend on synchronicity. From any specific frame of reference, time still passes from past to present to future. From any specific frame of reference, there is a past – a set of past days. It all still works.
Try again.

You've done nothing but attack a straw man. Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number. You're begging the question.

I’ll agree with you to a certain extent. The “straw man� that I am attacking is the notion that the past is infinite under the premise of a traditional view of time. It is a qualified argument. Now let me correct your characterization here: “Saying that an infinite amount of numbers/days/seconds/etc. already exist doesn't mean that it is a finite number.� You are stating a contradiction. It is a contradiction to say that an infinite “anything� is a finite number. I never said this. Feel free to find a flaw in my argument, but don’t distort what I’m saying.

And I say the 'traditional understanding' of time is wrong, as evident by observation. Therefore anything that you say about it is irrelevant to the conversation.

Please point me at these observations. So far you’ve simply showed a lack of understanding of relativity.
================================================================

I'm quite aware that saying 'infinity is finite' is a contradiction. That's why I'm not saying it. You've stated explicitly that 'actual infinities cannot exist' and that an infinite amount of time, yet there being a present, would mean that the past is complete (meaning it isn't infinite).

You are twisting it. I did not say that an infinite amount of time means the past is complete.
I pointed out a very obvious observation: that the past is past. All past days have ended. No more past days can pop into existence. This is certainly true if the past is finite. But if you assume the past is infinite, it doesn’t change the nature of the past – it still consists of days that have come to an end.
(and of course, all of the above pertains to any specific frame of reference).

There would be a present whether time is infinite or finite. The difference is that one holds there is no special time, the other holds that there is. (Respectively.)

What do you mean by “special time?�

What question is it that I am begging? I provided premises, inferences, and conclusion. It’s as simple as that.

The question you are begging is that time is finite. You are using finite examples and applying it to infinity, which is incorrect.

The argument is:
At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite.
Begging the question would mean that my conclusion is assumed in the premises. Which premise do you think assumes the conclusion? What “finite examples� are you referring to?
=========================================================================

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

Mama mia! Let me explain it in still another way, step by step.

I am specifying T to be midnight, January 1, 2011.

Here are some examples of days that are in T’s past: Jan 1, 2010; Jan 15, 1954; July 4, 1776;
Here are some examples of days that are in T’s future: Jan 2, 2011; Jan 3, 2011; Jan 4, 2011; Dec 17, 2342.

I hope you will agree that the days in T’s future are NOT ALSO in T’s past.
You’re talking about the ever-changing –present’s view of the past. I agree that the current day will eventually become the past. But what you are overlooking is that I’m discussing the past of a fixed point in time: T = midnight, Jan 1, 2011.

Does this help?

It helps explain that you don't understand what I'm saying, yes. At point T, there is still an infinite set of days before it.

Whether the past is finite or infinite, do you understand that all of these past days have ended, and there can never be a new one? Because if there can never be a new one added to the set, then the set is completed.

Anything that proves your point? Sorry, that isn't how it works.

Your failure to grasp my argument is the root of the problem. I laid it out clearly. If there’s a problem with the logic, identify it – but admit when you have simply failed to grasp the concept (such as what is meant by the past from a fixed reference point). I’m putting my logic out there for you to review and find flaws.

I grasp your argument completely. I'm saying that it is ignorant of modern physics and cosmology and is therefore irrelevant. So, if you would like me to identify where your logic fails, it is this: you are thinking of time incorrectly. I can't get any more blatant than that.

Ignoring physics, you cannot stop time to say that time is 'compete' and that you can't add anything to the past. That's just absurd.

I hope my explanation above has cleared up what you thought was an absurdity. The problem you think you found is really your failure to view “the past� from a fixed reference point.

It did clear it up. However, it is still incorrect.

Yes, yes – I know: you think I’m wrong. I’m still waiting for you to make the case for it, instead of just asserting it.

It can only be considered a false statement if you are begging the question of "infinite time cannot exist." That would be a fallacy. You're basically saying that time is finite because it cannot be infinite, and it can't be infinite because it's finite. I'd be more than happy to put it into a syllogism for you if you still don't get it.

Regarding a syllogism, yes – please put MY comments into a syllogism, but don’t waste your time putting something together an argument with your absurd distortions. Regarding what I “basically� said, is in my proof:
At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite.
You have so far failed to grasp what PD is, have complained (incorrectly) that I’m making up this concept of completeness (in #4). I still can’t tell if you grasped the difference between a mathematical concept of mapping one set to another vs a temporal sequential process. Either this is over your head, or you feel it’s a waste of time to even try to understand – because you’re impatient to get to your physics discussion, that you think will prove the past can be infinite.

P1) We are currently in the present.
P2) The past is completed.
P3) Infinity means never-ending.
P4) If the past is infinite, this would mean that infinity is completed.
P5) But, infinity cannot be completed.
C) Therefore, there cannot be an infinite past.
(If you disagree with my summary of your points, by all means, object.)
If you agree to this syllogism, then P2 and thus P4 are begging the question.

I never said P4. Regarding P2, I made the separate argument that the past (irrespective of whether it’s infinite or finite) is completed. I laid it out for you in a new way above. Do you still insist the past is not completed? First answer this in terms of a traditional view of time, in which days get added to the past one by one, as they end. If you think there’s a different answer by using another view of time, then answer and explain.

The only thing I feel is a waste of time is this entire conversation, because you can't even understand what physics tells us about time.

Then why don’t you explain it to me? So far, the physics error has been your misunderstanding of relativistic synchronicity.
=====================================================

And I already answered it.

You addressed it based on your misunderstanding, which I’ll demonstrate here by quoting you:

You can't create another past day by moving forward in time. We're talking about the past, from time T. Time progresses after T, but that is the FUTURE of T.

Wow, you can't create the past by moving into the future? Then what is the past?

You were saying that time proceeds, so another day is added to the past; ignoring the fact that I was talking about the PAST of a specific, fixed point in time. It is such a trivial observation that, from a fixed reference point in time (T), the set of days prior to T is fixed; no days are added because days only get added as time moves forward. You refuse to acknowledge this very obvious point.

At -5, is there a finite set of numbers before or after it? No. Both sides proceed to infinity. Your objection that time is not like a number line is an argument from ignorance.

You sure like to use the term “argument from ignorance.� Do you even know what it means? Once again, it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). Exactly which of my propositions, in this portion of the argument, do you think I’m asserting in this way? You seem to be insisting that the number line proves time is infinite. Connect THESE dots for me please! I’ll point out one way a number line differs from time: a number line depiction of time depicts all points of time simultaneously. It is not an examination of the way time proceeds; time proceeds one day at a time, not simultaneously. So the fact that there is at least this one difference proves that time and a number line are not identical. Now, proceed to prove that a number line, extending from –infinity to +infinitey is an accurate description of time.

Your statement, “Both sides proceed to infinity� is an observation about the number line, not about the way time works. Time does not move in both directions. Time moves from past to present to future.
Your question/answer: , “At -5, is there a finite set of numbers before or after it? No.� certainly applies to a number line. At to whether or not time itself proceeds to an infinite past, that certainly doesn’t follow from looking at a conceptual number line. This is the very point we’re debating; it is the point that I have argued against and you have not found a valid logical flaw. You try dismissing it through misunderstanding of my logic, through an appeal to (what amounts to) “divine mystery� and through a misunderstanding of yours regarding Special Relativity.
=====================================================================

First, I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists. Second, even if I were to grant your misquote, that doesn't mean the past is complete. That's not what infinity means, and I think I've explained that already.

You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be. Although you didn’t state it, it could be that this is because you are not treating time in the traditional sense. If, for example, you think time proceeds in both directions – past ->present->future AND future->present->past, then this would explain your objection. However, we can’t have a meaningful conversation unless we nail down a specific view of time. As I’ve said, my argument applies to a traditional view of time. I ask you to look at my argument in these terms, and either find a flaw or accept it. If you accept it, we can move on to your making the case for a different view of time.

My word, you quote the answer to your objection. "You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be." First off, if you draw the conclusion that because I can't explain something it cannot be true, then you are making an argument from ignorance.

Yet again, the misue of the term “argument from ignorance.� This current objection of yours is downright silly. I give a logical argument supporting my position, then you admit you can’t explain why I’m wrong. Seriously man, there are only 2 possible reasons you can’t explain it: 1) because I’m actually right; 2) I’m wrong, but you can’t figure out why.
But to assert that MY argument is an argument from ignorance is…strange (I’m trying to be polite).

Second, I did explain it in the very passage you quoted me saying! "I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists."
You say that my objection could come from me viewing time in both directions, but I didn't state it explicitly. I ask, what do you think 'symmetry' means? I said that the well-tested ideas of physics tell us that time is symmetric, in CPT symmetry, and this wasn't explicit how?
With this in mind, tell me how CPT symmetry has bearing on whether or not the past is infinite.

CPT doesn’t mean that any specific reference point experiences time in both directions. It does not imply a violation of the arrow of time. Time still progresses from past to present to future and my logic holds. If time is proceeding in the opposite direction in a mirror universe, this has no impact on our reference frame of time progression. The two “time lines� are independent and do not connect. It is not a single timeline that proceeds in two directions; it is two different time lines. What are the overall implications of the existence of two independent timelines? Here’s what I make of it: time is a local phenomenon, local to a universe, and has no bearing on my argument. You undoubtedly disagree – so please state your case.
References:
“the observable universe itself does not show symmetry under time reversal, primarily due to the second law of thermodynamics. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry�

“The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa.� -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmet ... plications

If you can’t bring yourself to examine my argument within the framework of a traditional view of time, that’s fine, but please don’t suggest you’ve disproven my qualified argument.

The reason your argument is disproven is because you are thinking of time incorrectly. Within the 'traditional understanding' of where the Earth is in our solar system is, the logic was that the Earth wasn't moving as evident by the falling of objects. This conclusion is correct (that the Earth doesn't move) in the 'traditionally understood' ideas about the Earth, yet are proven wrong by the modern understandings. Likewise, even if your logic is correct by 'traditional understanding,' which I could care less about, it is wrong by our modern understanding.

Then make your case. Show how my premises about time are invalid with a “modern understanding� of time. Feel free to focus on this, and steer away from the logic that you "care less about." The posts will then be less onerous.

[charris]

If logic contradicts well-tested observation, then that just means our logic is wrong.

No - this doesn't mean the logic is wrong; it means the premises are wrong.

I'm not talking about the laws of logic, I'm talking about the logic itself.

For example, if we see something coming from nothing, then the logical statement 'something can't come from nothing' is simply wrong.

I agree that the statement “something can’t come from nothing� is falsified by an observation of something coming from nothing, but let’s examine the logic.
There are two possibilities: a) something can come from nothing; or b) something cannot come from nothing.
There are no observed instances of something coming from nothing.
Tentative conclusion: something cannot come from nothing

Well actually, we do see things come from nothing. They're called virtual particles. (And please, tell me that the vacuum isn't nothing. It furthers my point that you don't understand physics.)

In everyday discussion, we usually omit the “tentative� qualifier – but it’s generally assumed that scientific theories are tentative; i.e. they are falsifiable. In the present example, as soon as we have evidence of something coming from nothing – then we have a new observation that falsifies the tentative conclusion.

I don't want this conversation to turn into something else, so I will agree and move on.

Another example would be the shape of the Earth. With simple logic, you can look at the horizon and say, 'The Earth is flat. Just look and see.' Yet this is clearly contradicted by observation. The logic was wrong.

Again, It wasn't a logical error, it was lack of relevant observation. The only observations the ancients had was that the earth appeared flat. We could say this was the tentative scientific conclusion. In the absence of contrary evidence, no other conclusion would be rational to accept. This theory was falsified when astronomical observations were logically analyzed, and it was determined that the observations could best be explained if the world was spherical.

Yes, they based their conclusions off of bad premises. This is called faulty logic. Regardless of whether they could only observe a specific amount of the Earth, it was bad logic.

So I'm sorry to say, if well-tested ideas in physics say that time is infinite, then the normal logic that things have a finite time is wrong. This is why I pointed out that I'm thinking of time in the way that physics tells us to think of it, not just every day logic.

If well tested theories in physics leads to the conclusion that the past is infinite - then that would certainly show there is something wrong with my premises. However, be careful to avoid making invalid logical inferences from the math of physics. People do this all the time.

Oh my. First, tell me the difference between a well tested idea and a well tested theory. Second, tell me how you are defining theory. Because I define a scientific theory as an explanation of observations.

Even within the 'traditional understanding' of time, making objections about potential/actual infinities due to sequential movement is an argument from ignorance.

An "argument from ignorance" is an assertion that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). I think you are suggesting that the proposition, “the past is completed� is an argument from ignorance.

That is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Since I considered this intuitively obvious, I haven’t previously provided a formal argument supporting this, but I’ll do so now (note that I have included the condition that this argument applies within any specific frame of reference. This is to satisfy your objection about relativistic synchronicity – which I address later):
1. RF: Any specific reference frame .
2. Day= a fixed, finite duration of time within RF
3. T = a specific day within RF
4. Premise: Within RF, time proceeds in one direction only: from past to present to future.

Stop. I still don't accept P4. You've failed to show why I should ignore the relevant physics of CPT symmetry.

5. The present = the Current Day (CD) within RF, which is the day that has started but not yet ended
6. At any time within RF, there is one and only one CD.
7. The past (or the set of past days) = the set of days that have ended within RF
8. The future (or the set of future days)= the set of days that have not yet started within RF

From which direction of time?

9. Restatement of #4 (stating time progression using the terms of 5,6,7): Time progresses as follows (within RF): DAYx is a specific day in the future. Time progresses so that at some point in time (within RF), DAYx becomes the current day. DAYx ends at the end of the day. Once this end of the day is reached, DAYx becomes the past.

I still don't accept this.

10. PD(T) = the set of past days relative to T, within RF.
11. FD(T) = the set of future days relative to T, within RF
12. CD(T) = The set of present (current) days relative to T, within RF. CD(T) contains exactly one day.
13. PD(T), FD(T) and CD(T) are disjoint sets (they have no elements in common)
14. #9: implies: CD(T) is a member of PD(T+1)
15. #9 implies: PD(T+1) includes CD(T)
16. #9 implies: PD(T+1) contains one and only one element that is not an element of PD(T), and this element is CD(T)
17. Time progression within RF includes these temporal processes occurring at the beginning of CD(T+1):
a. creating PD(T+1) from PD(T) U CD(T)
b. creating FD(T+1) by removing element CD(T+1) from FD(T)
18. A completed set is one from whom elements are neither added nor deleted.

All points in time would already exist (and there is an infinite number of them), thus you are not adding or deleting points in time.

19. 16 and 17a implies PD(T) is a completed set because PD(T) is formed by process 17a at the start of T and there are no other processes for adding to PD(T).

Sure, and the completed set is infinite.

Just because we may not understand 'actual infinity' doesn't mean it isn't real. Nature doesn't bend to our understanding, it's the other way around. So within the 'traditional understanding' of time, I claim strict agnosticism.

Nature does not violate logic. Your above arguments are guilty of mischaracterization. Premises are often wrong, leading to incorrect conclusions - but logic is not wrong.

Again, I'm not talking about the laws of logic. I should have been specific, so I apologize.

You suggest that we don’t understand ‘actual infinity.’ Are you going to start referring to this as a “holy mystery� and dismiss my logic similarly to a Christian who dismisses clear contradictions by claiming he “knows� he’s right, but can’t answer because it’s a “holy mystery.� The fact is, we can deduce the relevant properties of an actual infinity.

Um, no, I'm not saying we can't know anything about infinity. I'm saying that if you insist on differentiating between potential and actual infinities, then we should claim strict agnosticism. That is the complete opposite of a holy mystery.

So, why should we quit using the 'traditional understanding' of time? Because it doesn't agree with well-tested scientific ideas. I don't think there's anything else that needs to be said about it.

You are grossly overstating the case for an alternative view of time being materially inconsistent with the traditional view of time. You, of course, claimed to know more about time than I do. We'll see.

When the traditional view of time is wrong from observations, then yes, it's inconsistent. You may be able to include the traditional view of time into what we know time to be, but the traditional sense alone is wrong.

====================================================

Right here:

My arguments pertain to the REAL WORLD, where each addition operation is a temporal event, and occur sequentially. This is different from writing down a conceptual series as you have done (1+1=2 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc. etc.). In the real world, you have to actually add 1+1. After completing this, you add 2+1, and so on – these take time.

You explicitly stated that the sequential addition I presented is wrong, and that time is sequential. Which is what I had said. (Which boggles my mind.)

I never said your sequential series is wrong; I said that your comment about successive addition was irrelevant. Here’s the full dialogue (I highlighted to out-of-context comment you quoted in RED; the key thing you overlooked is in bold):

Fredonly: (assume the past is infinite and the number of past days is infinite): Are each of the past days completed (i.e. are they over and done with)?

3. If I were to assume what you propose, then yes. The objection 'we could never reach now' is still irrelevant because you can always add. 1+1=2 2+1=3 3+1=4 etc. etc.

My point is that “completeness� is a property of the past, and that this is different from the future. Your comment about successive addition is irrelevant. All this does is demonstrate a mathematical infinity. We agree that “infinity� is a valid mathematical concept.My arguments pertain to the REAL WORLD, where each addition operation is a temporal event, and occur sequentially. This is different from writing down a conceptual series as you have done (1+1=2 2+1=3, 3+1=4 etc. etc.). In the real world, you have to actually add 1+1. After completing this, you add 2+1, and so on – these take time.

You didn’t understand it the first time, so you probably don’t understand it this time either.

Sure, you said 'irrelevant' and not 'wrong.' You did still say, however, that the sequential series I explained is different from the (somehow) different sequential series you wrote down. So, when you make a correction to something, what does that mean? It means the original proposition is wrong, even if it is only wrong for the conversation.

My simple contention, which should really be pretty obvious, it that the past days (from any specific point in time) are completed. It astounds me that you would deny this. But you did (and do) deny it. For a counter argument you say� you can always add. 1+1=2 2+1=3 3+1=4 etc. etc.�

This series has no relationship to the passage of time from the past to a fixed point in time. That’s why I said it was irrelevant. A sequential series that pertains to the past would be more like a countdown to 0: …6,5,4,3,2,1,0 (where “0�) is the fixed point in time.

What is the difference between "...6,5,4,3,2,1,0" and ...0-6=-6, 0-5=-5, 0-4=-4, 0-3=-3, 0-2=-2, 0-1=-1 0-0=0? You could argue that I'm using a limit instead of simply stating numbers like a countdown, but, like you said, time progresses, which is addition and subtraction. After all, how do you get from 6 to 5?

Sorry, but normal experiences and intuition have been wrong on numerous accounts. (Here's looking at you, geocentric solar system and flat Earth!) I'll stick with the evidence.

That’s fine, but this means the burden is on you to show that the traditional view of time is wrong in a material way. Otherwise, you’re just dismissing the argument by handwaving.

I already tried, but you kind of just ignored it. I tried to explain the symmetries and simple explanations of them from places like wikipedia, and provide explanations from physicists about time, but you dismissed them. (Handwaving?)
But, if you're looking for an extremely detailed explanations, it is beyond reasonable to expect it on here. I'll be happy to provide references for you to examine yourself, but I can't simplify books down into paragraphs. There's just too much information to do that.
Books:
"Timeless Reality," "Comprehensible Cosmos" and "God - The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger
"From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carroll (Highly recommended)
"The Non-Existence of God" by Nicholas Everitt

Of course it's reasonable to examine it, but that doesn't make it correct. Tell me, when examining aleph-0, and you pick an arbitrary point, let's say -5, does that mean there is a finite number before it? So, when looking at a time line, we know we're at some point, let's say Jan. 01, 2011. That's what we're 100% certain of.

You are using “aleph null� incorrectly. Aleph null is a cardinality, not a number line. I’m going to assume you’re actually talking about a number line like this:

Stretching from –infinity on the left to +infinity on the right. Let’s use the 0 point to represent the point in time, Jan 1, 2011.

Is aleph-0 not the set of all real numbers? I thought we agreed to use infinity as a set, not numbers? Thus, if you examine a set of numbers, in this case aleph-0 (the set of all natural numbers), you are examining all natural numbers. I was assuming you would know I was using time as a one-to-one correspondence to the natural numbers...

So, given that point, what is to stop us from looking through progressively smaller negative numbers? You say it's because time progresses sequentially, I say that this is built in to any number line. (It doesn't go from -5 to 3 and then to -4...) Number lines are sequential by definition. You may then say that the number line of aleph-0 has positive numbers on it already, to which I say (and have stated) that all moments in time already exist and that time is symmetric. Your objection? It isn't intuitive. Oh well.

My objection is that you are ignoring the passage of time.

And you're ignoring the symmetry of time.

Let me approach this differently.
Think about the passage of time.

Think about the symmetry of time.

As each day ends, we have just added another day to “the past.� When we reached the day, Jan 1, 2011 we had just added Dec 31, 2010 to the past. There is no other way to add a day to the past, except by having that day begin, and end. Are you with me?

I understand you, but I do not agree. It's been that way since the beginning.

The key feature of past days is that each of them have ENDED. Picture yourself on Jan 1, 2011 – looking back at the past. All of the past days have ended. Any day that hasn’t ended, isn’t in the past. Are you with me still?

I still understand you, and I still disagree with you. Time is symmetric.

Over a month has transpired since Jan 1, 2011. Days have started and ended. Have any of these days been added to PD? In other words, can we now say that there are MORE days prior to Jan 1, 2011, then there used to be?

All points in time already exist.

Of course not! 20 years from now, will there be any new days added to PD? Of course not! PD includes all the days it ever will have. No days can be added, because as we proceed into the future, there will be no additional days that are prior to Jan 1, 2011.

Because all points in time already exist.

This means the past is complete. The set of past days from a fixed point of time is complete. Do you now understand?

Again, I never didn't understand. I just disagree with you.
==================================================================================

You ignore, or do not grasp, the symmetries provided by nature, or the implications from well-tested ideas in physics.
Yes, we can look at the date on an email, reference it to a calender, and figure out what day they were talking about. If this is your example, then it is begging the question. We picked a finite point in time to determine how long ago things happened. We pick arbitrary events to determine lengths of time. What's to stop me from saying that a second should be the time from the end of inflation to now? (Ignoring physics.)
But here you make a claim that cannot ignore physics: "That date provides a fixed reference point that places 'yesterday' in context - a reference point that doesn't change..." Oh my. One of the biggest implications from Eintstein's theories of relativity is that there is no such thing as a 'fixed reference point in time.'

No, you’re wrong. Relativity does not imply there is no such thing as a 'fixed reference point in time.' Relativity simply says you have to look at time from a specific frame of reference. Within any such specific reference frame, my argument holds.

Except there's no such thing as a specific reference frame. Time is different for everyone, even if it is a microscopic difference. If you climb a mountain, time is different than when you were on the bottom of a mountain. If you are in space away from any large body of mass, like a star or a planet, then time moves differently. There's no such thing as an absolute time or anything like it. Time changes based on gravity and speed, and is different for everyone.

The speed of time is relative to the observer, and this is due to factors such as speed and gravity. This relativity of time has been extremely well-tested using atomic clocks, both on Earth and in space. (In fact, the top of your head ages faster than your feet.) Fixed reference points in time simply don't exist.

You’re stating this wrong. The relativity of simultaneity states that it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. Time passage is not absolute, it’s based on the reference frame. Everything I have said applies perfectly well to any specific reference frame.

So why should I pick your reference frame over any other one?

Yes, we as a species have arbitrarily picked events to go by, but they're just that: arbitrary. We say that a day consists of one full rotation of the Earth (24 hours). One full rotation according to whom? If you are on a planet with gravity that is much stronger, one full rotation of the Earth will last a completely different amount of time. But you'll most likely object, saying that we use a reference point relative to us. Well that's fine and dandy, but time isn't restricted to us. Therefore, the use of time and days relative to Earth is irrelevant to time as a whole.

My argument works perfectly well from any specific reference point. It does not depend on synchronicity. From any specific frame of reference, time still passes from past to present to future. From any specific frame of reference, there is a past – a set of past days. It all still works.
Try again.

Nope, time is symmetric. So you try again.

And I say the 'traditional understanding' of time is wrong, as evident by observation. Therefore anything that you say about it is irrelevant to the conversation.

Please point me at these observations. So far you’ve simply showed a lack of understanding of relativity.

And you've simply showed a lack of understanding of physics. I've provided explanations already, you just dismissed them.
I cannot possibly give you the complete explanation of why CPT symmetry is correct, which is why I gave your links and references explaining it.
We have things like space-translation invariance: the models of physics are invariant to the translation of the origin of a spatial coordinate system, space-rotation invariance: the models of physics are invariant to the translation of the aces of a spatial coordinate system, time-translation invariance: the models of physics are invariant to the translation of the origin of the time variable, point-of-view invariance: the models of physics cannot depend on any particular point of view... And the implications of these are all observed. *In any space-time model possessing time-translation invariance, energy must be conserved. *In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved. *In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved. You say that we can use specific reference frames. This violates the principle of covariance: the models of physics cannot depend on our choice of reference frames. No violations of CPT symmetry have been observed in any experiment, directly testing it or otherwise. You ask what observations? All that have ever been made.
================================================================

I'm quite aware that saying 'infinity is finite' is a contradiction. That's why I'm not saying it. You've stated explicitly that 'actual infinities cannot exist' and that an infinite amount of time, yet there being a present, would mean that the past is complete (meaning it isn't infinite).

You are twisting it. I did not say that an infinite amount of time means the past is complete.

I pointed out a very obvious observation: that the past is past. All past days have ended. No more past days can pop into existence. This is certainly true if the past is finite. But if you assume the past is infinite, it doesn’t change the nature of the past – it still consists of days that have come to an end.
(and of course, all of the above pertains to any specific frame of reference).

Then why do you continuously object? You said in post 32 "It is the notion of ‘completeness’ that presents the problem of an infinite past." Which is exactly what I said when I summarized your point. An infinite amount of time, yet there being a present, would mean that the past is complete (from there being a present), which means it isn't infinite. That's exactly what I said you said. But, so you won't say I took it out of context...

That’s certainly interesting, but the points I made still hold. The past and future are different. The past is completed, and the future is not realized, is not complete, but it has potential. It is the notion of ‘completeness’ that presents the problem of an infinite past. An infinite past implies an actual infinite number of days have been completed. You previously expressed displeasure at my suggestion that there’s a difference between actual infinity and potential infinity. These are most certainly very real distinctions, and are at the heart of the matter. You can’t make the distinction go away. An infinite past implies an actual, completed infinity; an infinite future does not – it only implies a potential infinity. This difference is part of the asymmetry of time, and it is the reason it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite. It is logically impossible to have a completed infinity. It seems possible, on the surface, if you consider the symmetric nature of a number line you might draw to represent time. This is the mistake most people make. You have to think deeper than this representation. Time proceeds one day at a time (which is not apparent on a number line). The only way to reach today, from an infinite past, is for an infinite number of days to be completed. But this is impossible, because infinity entails incompleteness. The future is always incomplete; you can always go out one more day, and then another, and so on. If time were symmetric, going both forward and backward, then one could say the same thing about the past. But it's not symmetric. TIme moves in one direction. The past has no potential. What's done is done. We can't add one more day to the past (like we can the future) because the past is already completed.

There would be a present whether time is infinite or finite. The difference is that one holds there is no special time, the other holds that there is. (Respectively.)

What do you mean by “special time?�

By special time, "I mean x number of days from the beginning."

What question is it that I am begging? I provided premises, inferences, and conclusion. It’s as simple as that.

The question you are begging is that time is finite. You are using finite examples and applying it to infinity, which is incorrect.

The argument is:
At point in time “T�:
1. PD is the set of all days prior to T
2. If the past is infinite, then PD is an infinite set.
3. An infinite set cannot be complete
4. At time T, the set PD is completed – no additional days can be added (because of the arrow of time)
5. Therefore PD cannot be an infinite set; i.e. the past is not infinite.
Begging the question would mean that my conclusion is assumed in the premises. Which premise do you think assumes the conclusion? What “finite examples� are you referring to?

I've stated numerous times which premise assumes the conclusion. In this case, 3 and 4.
As for the finite examples, I'm referring to everyday experiences. Nothing specific mentioned.
=========================================================================

It helps explain that you don't understand what I'm saying, yes. At point T, there is still an infinite set of days before it.

Whether the past is finite or infinite, do you understand that all of these past days have ended, and there can never be a new one? Because if there can never be a new one added to the set, then the set is completed.

I'll say it again, all points in time, past and future, already exist. If you take this to mean that the past is complete, fine.

Yes, yes – I know: you think I’m wrong. I’m still waiting for you to make the case for it, instead of just asserting it.

Ditto. And I already have: you are ignoring what modern physics has to say about time.

P1) We are currently in the present.
P2) The past is completed.
P3) Infinity means never-ending.
P4) If the past is infinite, this would mean that infinity is completed.
P5) But, infinity cannot be completed.
C) Therefore, there cannot be an infinite past.
(If you disagree with my summary of your points, by all means, object.)
If you agree to this syllogism, then P2 and thus P4 are begging the question.

I never said P4. Regarding P2, I made the separate argument that the past (irrespective of whether it’s infinite or finite) is completed. I laid it out for you in a new way above. Do you still insist the past is not completed? First answer this in terms of a traditional view of time, in which days get added to the past one by one, as they end. If you think there’s a different answer by using another view of time, then answer and explain.

You did say P4. You said it in the syllogism you gave, actually. It is a combination of 2-4. PD is an infinite set, infinite sets cannot be complete, the past is complete. And you said it specifically in post 32.
Why is it important whether you made P2 independent of any of the other premises? You've still used it as a reason that the past cannot be infinite. I state that all points in time, both in the past and the future, already exist. If you take that to mean the past is completed, fine. But I will not answer anything in the traditional view of time because that is not relevant to the position I hold.

The only thing I feel is a waste of time is this entire conversation, because you can't even understand what physics tells us about time.

Then why don’t you explain it to me? So far, the physics error has been your misunderstanding of relativistic synchronicity.

Because I cannot simplify numerous books into a few paragraphs. And no, I have made no error in understanding relativity. There is no special reference point. There may be individual reference points, but it is just that: individual. It is different for everyone, unless we all agree to a specific point (such as the duration of the second. Which changes based on gravity and velocity).
=====================================================

At -5, is there a finite set of numbers before or after it? No. Both sides proceed to infinity. Your objection that time is not like a number line is an argument from ignorance.

You sure like to use the term “argument from ignorance.� Do you even know what it means? Once again, it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). Exactly which of my propositions, in this portion of the argument, do you think I’m asserting in this way?

The existence of actual infinities cannot exist.

You seem to be insisting that the number line proves time is infinite. Connect THESE dots for me please! I’ll point out one way a number line differs from time: a number line depiction of time depicts all points of time simultaneously. It is not an examination of the way time proceeds; time proceeds one day at a time, not simultaneously. So the fact that there is at least this one difference proves that time and a number line are not identical. Now, proceed to prove that a number line, extending from –infinity to +infinitey is an accurate description of time.

Then you're attacking a straw man, because I've stated already that infinite time would mean that all points in time, past and future, already exist.

Your statement, “Both sides proceed to infinity� is an observation about the number line, not about the way time works. Time does not move in both directions.

Actually, the arrow of time could flow opposite of ours in an 'inflationary biverse,' according to the Cosmological Friedmann equations from general relativity...

Time moves from past to present to future.
Your question/answer: , “At -5, is there a finite set of numbers before or after it? No.� certainly applies to a number line. At to whether or not time itself proceeds to an infinite past, that certainly doesn’t follow from looking at a conceptual number line. This is the very point we’re debating; it is the point that I have argued against and you have not found a valid logical flaw. You try dismissing it through misunderstanding of my logic, through an appeal to (what amounts to) “divine mystery� and through a misunderstanding of yours regarding Special Relativity.

No divine mystery (that's a straw-man), no misunderstanding (another straw man), and no misunderstandings of the theories of relativity. I've already pointed out the logical flaw: time is symmetric, and in an infinite time all points in time would already exist.
=====================================================================

My word, you quote the answer to your objection. "You declare the past is NOT complete, but you are unable to explain how this can be." First off, if you draw the conclusion that because I can't explain something it cannot be true, then you are making an argument from ignorance.

Yet again, the misue of the term “argument from ignorance.� This current objection of yours is downright silly. I give a logical argument supporting my position, then you admit you can’t explain why I’m wrong. Seriously man, there are only 2 possible reasons you can’t explain it: 1) because I’m actually right; 2) I’m wrong, but you can’t figure out why.
But to assert that MY argument is an argument from ignorance is…strange (I’m trying to be polite).

Oh my word. I'm starting to think you're trying to take things out of context. (And I'm sure you'll say the same about me.) I never said I couldn't explain it. And you saying that I did just means you ignored your quote of me below. I can explain it, and I did explain it.

Second, I did explain it in the very passage you quoted me saying! "I said that every point in time already exists. That includes the past and the future, and thus you aren't adding anything as it already exists."
You say that my objection could come from me viewing time in both directions, but I didn't state it explicitly. I ask, what do you think 'symmetry' means? I said that the well-tested ideas of physics tell us that time is symmetric, in CPT symmetry, and this wasn't explicit how?
With this in mind, tell me how CPT symmetry has bearing on whether or not the past is infinite.

CPT doesn’t mean that any specific reference point experiences time in both directions.

Please tell me when I said it did. I explicitly stated that CPT symmetry meant that the laws of physics work in both directions of time, thus making an infinite past possible.

It does not imply a violation of the arrow of time.

Again, I never said it did. I said that the arrow of time is a result of entropy (to which you seem to have never heard of this explanation).

Time still progresses from past to present to future and my logic holds.

Please tell me where I said otherwise. I said time is symmetric, meaning the laws of physics work both ways. I never once said there is no arrow of time.

If time is proceeding in the opposite direction in a mirror universe, this has no impact on our reference frame of time progression. The two “time lines� are independent and do not connect. It is not a single timeline that proceeds in two directions; it is two different time lines.

The results from the Cosmological Friedmann equations would state that both universes came from the same event, meaning the two directions of time are connected.

What are the overall implications of the existence of two independent timelines? Here’s what I make of it: time is a local phenomenon, local to a universe, and has no bearing on my argument. You undoubtedly disagree – so please state your case.

Do I disagree that time is a local phenomenon? Of course not. I state that it is relative, but not that our time exists in some other universe from, say, the inflationary process. The Freidmann equations show how two universes could come from the same event, and thus be connected, and have different arrows of time, however.

References:
“the observable universe itself does not show symmetry under time reversal, primarily due to the second law of thermodynamics. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry�

T-symmetry isn't the same as CPT symmetry. It's included in CPT symmetry, but the violations to T-symmetry are accounted for with the inclusion of CP-symmetry.

“The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa.� -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmet ... plications

This reference doesn't help you at all, if you actually understood it.
The mirror image would be connected to our universe; antimatter is just another way of looking at regular matter going backwards in time; and again, CPT symmetry isn't saying our universe can run backwards, it says the laws of physics can.

The reason your argument is disproven is because you are thinking of time incorrectly. Within the 'traditional understanding' of where the Earth is in our solar system is, the logic was that the Earth wasn't moving as evident by the falling of objects. This conclusion is correct (that the Earth doesn't move) in the 'traditionally understood' ideas about the Earth, yet are proven wrong by the modern understandings. Likewise, even if your logic is correct by 'traditional understanding,' which I could care less about, it is wrong by our modern understanding.

Then make your case. Show how my premises about time are invalid with a “modern understanding� of time. Feel free to focus on this, and steer away from the logic that you "care less about." The posts will then be less onerous.

I've been making my case. What do you think this whole conversation has been?

I'll tell you what. Neither of us are going to convince the other. We both think we are correct. Why don't we agree to disagree and move on with life? :p

[fredonly]

I'll tell you what. Neither of us are going to convince the other. We both think we are correct. Why don't we agree to disagree and move on with life? :p

I realize you disagree with the view I've presented, but I'm not going to dismiss your view until I hear more about it. For starters, I see some interesting assertions scattered among your comments:

all points in time, past and future, already exist.

Are you saying there's no fundamental difference between past, present and future? Yesterday exists, today exists,and tomorrow all exist but are simply located at a different point in spacetime? I'd appreciate a clarification, and also tell me your level of certainty. I.e. is this simply possible, is it a near certainty, or something in between?

the arrow of time could flow opposite of ours in an 'inflationary biverse,' according to the Cosmological Friedmann equations from general relativity

Not clear what you really think, since you have two qualifiers: "could flow" and "according to the Cosmological Friedmann equations." Do you really think this is the case? If so, what is your level of certainty?

I explicitly stated that CPT symmetry meant that the laws of physics work in both directions of time, thus making an infinite past possible.

Similar question here. "...making the infinite past possible" seems like a non-statement; equivalent to saying that CPT symmetry doesn't rule out an infinite past- which is a completely neutral statement and therefore irrelevant.

I said that the arrow of time is a result of entropy (to which you seem to have never heard of this explanation).

I've heard the assertion, but I have never heard a case to support it - it sounded like a hypothesis, but without empirical evidence to support it. But my question is the same as above: how convinced are you that this is true? Is it (merely) possible, is it likely? Is it a certainty?

I said time is symmetric, meaning the laws of physics work both ways. I never once said there is no arrow of time

If indeed past, present, and future are all existent - then this symmetry would certainly follow. Do you agree - and that's all there is to it? or is there more reason to support it? In particular, what if the first assertion is not correct, and yesterday and tomorrow actually do not exist in any real sense? Would there still be a reason to accept symmetry? Is your level of certainty the same as with that prior assertion?

The Freidmann equations show how two universes could come from the same event, and thus be connected, and have different arrows of time, however.

Again with the "could" qualifier. Is this possible, likely, or near certainty?


I think these are fair questions since you told me earlier that you thought an infinite past was possible, but not definite. I want to know exactly which assertions are important to your view of time, and how certain you are about them. This will help me understand your view better, and also help me understand your objections to my argument.

Thanks.

[RevSpecter]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

The reason I disagree that infinite time exists is because I subscribe to the Big Bang model of how the universe began. For example the unification of the forces happened just after the Big Bang and they separated as the Universe expands & Cools. Time gravity and the emergence of matter began at t=10-6 seconds (the lower case 't' represents time). Before the big bang only the 'cause' existed (ie the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist, ie God=the 'cause'). So we went from a scientific 'argument' or theory to a philosophical argument (the KCA). The Big Bang model of the universe is supported by science, and is a bane to atheists because our classical physics break down at about three min. before the big bang opening the door to metaphysics. However, hopefully our ability to use logic etc remains intact, hence using the KCA which is a deductive argument in the form of a logical syllogism intrigues me and forms the basis of how I validate the existence of God to non believers.

There is a minor problem and that is can causality exist without time. Sure it can! Ha ha! But its counter-intuitive to think so eh?

rs

[Board]

I have posted this quote a few times here. I would defer to one of the greatest thinkers of our era on this topic.

"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe."

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8

Hubble's observations suggested that there was a time, called the big bang, when the universe was infinitesimally small and infinitely dense. Under such conditions all the laws of science, and therefore all ability to predict the future, would break down. If there were events earlier than this time, then they could not affect what happens at the present time. Their existence can be ignored because it would have no onservational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined. It should be emphasized that this beginning in time is very different from those that had been considered previously. In an unchanging universe a beginning in time is something that has to be imposed by some being outside the universe; there is no physical necessity for a beginning. One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!

[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 8-9.]

Time prior to the big bang is irrelevant and I'm sorry... but a god is not required.

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

[fredonly]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

I disagree that this is a pointless objection: "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." It’s a shorthand statement about the logical contradiction inherent in an infinite past. I went through this in excruciating detail in my exchanges with charris in a series of posts, above. I will point out that this “logical contradiction� of which I speak is based on certain assumptions about the nature of time.

The reason I disagree that infinite time exists is because I subscribe to the Big Bang model of how the universe began.

What do you mean by “subscribe?� Why rule out the possibility of predecessor states of the universe? There are a number of emerging theories about this.

For example the unification of the forces happened just after the Big Bang and they separated as the Universe expands & Cools. Time gravity and the emergence of matter began at t=10-6 seconds (the lower case 't' represents time). Before the big bang only the 'cause' existed (ie the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist, ie God=the 'cause').

nteresting. You would apply the label “God� to this ‘cause’. “God� could be a quantum fluctuation, or a collision of branes.

So we went from a scientific 'argument' or theory to a philosophical argument (the KCA). The Big Bang model of the universe is supported by science, and is a bane to atheists because our classical physics break down at about three min. before the big bang opening the door to metaphysics.

BANE to athesists? Are you serious? It’s simply an unresolved challenge, but an active branch of theoretical physics.

However, hopefully our ability to use logic etc remains intact, hence using the KCA which is a deductive argument in the form of a logical syllogism intrigues me and forms the basis of how I validate the existence of God to non believers.

I actually consider the KCA a plausible argument – in a narrow sense. It’s a reasonable argument for there being an actual first cause. Where Craig goes wrong is in his leaps from this narrow point, insisting the “cause� must be a personal agent – with all the complexity that entails. I’d be happy to debate the points with you if you like.

There is a minor problem and that is can causality exist without time. Sure it can! Ha ha! But its counter-intuitive to think so eh?

Sure, it’s possible. But it’s also true that there is something that was uncaused (i.e. the first cause). Assigning the characterstic of “personal agent� to the first cause is not a deduction. The universe itself (in a prior state of timelessness) could have been the first cause.

[charris]

I'll tell you what. Neither of us are going to convince the other. We both think we are correct. Why don't we agree to disagree and move on with life? :p

I realize you disagree with the view I've presented, but I'm not going to dismiss your view until I hear more about it. For starters, I see some interesting assertions scattered among your comments:

Then I will do my best to clear them up. I just feel like we've done nothing but bicker and that neither of us got anything out of it.

all points in time, past and future, already exist.

Are you saying there's no fundamental difference between past, present and future? Yesterday exists, today exists,and tomorrow all exist but are simply located at a different point in spacetime? I'd appreciate a clarification, and also tell me your level of certainty. I.e. is this simply possible, is it a near certainty, or something in between?

Well, the fundamental difference is that we don't remember the future, we only remember the past. It would be located somewhere else than where we currently are in time, and we eventually traverse it (not necessarily us, but someone/something). I like Richard Dawkins' scale of belief, so I will adopt it for this. (1 being I know for certain 'x' is true, 7 being I know for certain 'x' is not true.) For this, I give it a 3, I'm very uncertain, but I'm inclined to believe this is true from the results of physics.

the arrow of time could flow opposite of ours in an 'inflationary biverse,' according to the Cosmological Friedmann equations from general relativity

Not clear what you really think, since you have two qualifiers: "could flow" and "according to the Cosmological Friedmann equations." Do you really think this is the case? If so, what is your level of certainty?

Is this what the equations show? Absolutely. I would place that as a 1 on the belief scale. If I could put the math here to show you I would. As far as it's real-world applications, I would place it at a 3.

I explicitly stated that CPT symmetry meant that the laws of physics work in both directions of time, thus making an infinite past possible.

Similar question here. "...making the infinite past possible" seems like a non-statement; equivalent to saying that CPT symmetry doesn't rule out an infinite past- which is a completely neutral statement and therefore irrelevant.

Irrelevant, no. It certainly leaves open the possibility for a finite or infinite past, just like it leaves open the possibility for a finite or infinite future. CPT symmetry basically shows that no matter what point in time, in any direction, the laws of physics will work the exact same as we observe them to in our point in time going 'forward.'

I said that the arrow of time is a result of entropy (to which you seem to have never heard of this explanation).

I've heard the assertion, but I have never heard a case to support it - it sounded like a hypothesis, but without empirical evidence to support it. But my question is the same as above: how convinced are you that this is true? Is it (merely) possible, is it likely? Is it a certainty?

Entropy on the macroscale is the only thing in existence that isn't symmetric in the direction of time. However, this is only on the macroscale. On the microscale, there is not a thing that cannot work the same in CPT symmetry. This is because the second law of thermodynamics is probabilistic, and that it applies to the observed affects on the macroscale of what happens on the microscale (aka entropy). The macro-observation is what gives us the apparent arrow of time. If we were to only view things on the micro scale, then we would have no sense of the direction of time. This is a 1.0000000000000001 on the scale of belief. (It isn't strictly '1' because I don't believe anything can be stated for absolute certainty, except things like 'there is a computer in front of me at this moment' type of thing.)

I said time is symmetric, meaning the laws of physics work both ways. I never once said there is no arrow of time

If indeed past, present, and future are all existent - then this symmetry would certainly follow. Do you agree - and that's all there is to it? or is there more reason to support it? In particular, what if the first assertion is not correct, and yesterday and tomorrow actually do not exist in any real sense? Would there still be a reason to accept symmetry? Is your level of certainty the same as with that prior assertion?

The first person I ever heard suggest that all points in time would exist if time were infinite, Richard Carrier, didn't mention anything about symmetry, so I don't think it is required for symmetries to exist in order for all points in time to exist. However, the knowledge of CPT symmetry and how accurate it is strengthens the idea tremendously. It's like a square and a rectangle: you can have a rectangle without it being a square, but not vice versa. You can have all points in time exist without CPT symmetry, but not vice versa.
As far as my level of certainty on the existence of symmetries, it is in the range of 1.000000000001, as it has been tested numerous times and held up.

The Freidmann equations show how two universes could come from the same event, and thus be connected, and have different arrows of time, however.

Again with the "could" qualifier. Is this possible, likely, or near certainty?

If the Freidmann equations are applicable to what happened at the moment of inflation, then it is near certainty. However, I would not put it anything more due to the lack of knowledge of gravity on the quantum level.

I think these are fair questions since you told me earlier that you thought an infinite past was possible, but not definite. I want to know exactly which assertions are important to your view of time, and how certain you are about them. This will help me understand your view better, and also help me understand your objections to my argument.

Thanks.

Not a problem. Hopefully any conversation hence forth won't be as negative.

(First Hawking quote)

That is certainly a possibility, yes. It's called the 'no-boundaries' model, if I'm not mistaken.

(Second Hawking quote)

Our current understanding of the Big Bang model shows that our knowledge is incomplete, but that it is unlikely that the universe began in a singularity. Hawking readily acknowledges this, and stated this when he himself (along with Penrose) published the theorems showing that the universe began in a singularity.

Time prior to the big bang is irrelevant and I'm sorry... but a god is not required.

It isn't necessarily irrelevant, but I'm certainly not going to argue about the latter statement :p

The reason I disagree that infinite time exists is because I subscribe to the Big Bang model of how the universe began.

Your phrasing makes me suspicious of how much you know about it... The big bang doesn't rule out an infinite time. There are numerous explanations that allow this, and the theory of inflation makes it almost necessary for there to at least be time before our universe.

For example the unification of the forces happened just after the Big Bang and they separated as the Universe expands & Cools. Time gravity and the emergence of matter began at t=10-6 seconds (the lower case 't' represents time).

So you're saying that time began in a moment of time? (I think you meant t=10^-6, btw). If there is a point where time didn't exist, then the switch from no time to time would be t=0, not t=10-6 (or 10^-6).

Before the big bang only the 'cause' existed (ie the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist, ie God=the 'cause').

If a cause doesn't exist in time, it has no ability to do anything, being that events (like causing something to happen) take place in time.

So we went from a scientific 'argument' or theory to a philosophical argument (the KCA).

You did, but neither I nor freedonly did. We kept it strictly non-metaphysical.

The Big Bang model of the universe is supported by science,

It is.

and is a bane to atheists because our classical physics break down at about three min. before the big bang opening the door to metaphysics.

Not in the slightest. We have plausible scientific explanations even without the theory of quantum gravity, and it will only get better. No metaphysics required (and none wanted).

However, hopefully our ability to use logic etc remains intact, hence using the KCA which is a deductive argument in the form of a logical syllogism intrigues me and forms the basis of how I validate the existence of God to non believers.

The KCA fails on numerous accounts, even if time did begin at the big bang.