Shrunk wrote:
Not quite. More correctly, there is no beginning to the journey, because it has always been ongoing.

Again, you shouldn't feel too bad about making such an obvious error, because William Lane Craig, who actually has a valid Philosopher's License, makes the very same mistake. And, if I am not mistaken, he has actually written books entirely on the topic of time. So you'd think he'd understand what it means to say that time extends infinitely into the past. But apparently not.

Something which never gets started cannot be "ongoing". You fail to comprehend this point.

Your argument is based on quite an odd way to look at time, as if we are standing here at a point of time known as "the present" and we are waiting for time to extend forward from a non-existent beginning to meet us. But how did we get here, "the present", without the necessary amount of time having elapsed?

If there is no beginning, then the past is infinite/endless and so there is no end to it. Hence, the present moment will never come to pass.

A more accurate way of looking at an infinite past is to view it as a series of dominoes which have always been falling, one against the other, forever. There is never a point in time in which one domino is not in the process of knocking over the next one, and each such point of time would be "the present" for that particular moment. So it makes no sense to say we could sit in a point of time we perceive as "the present" without there being one domino knocking over another domino.

There is no such thing as a domino effect which does not involve the felling of a first domino. If that event did not happen, there would be no process. Like I say, something which never gets started cannot proceed.

Your argument is based on a model in which we are sitting in "the present" waiting for the chain of dominos to catch up to us. That's not how it works.

Time is inexorably flowing in one direction and finitely increasing with each passing moment.

BooBoo wrote:

Something which is endless cannot be quantified.

Sure it can. The real line is quantified by the cardinal C, the integer line by the cardinal aleph-0



Eta: added quote

BooBoo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Not quite. More correctly, there is no beginning to the journey, because it has always been ongoing.

Again, you shouldn't feel too bad about making such an obvious error, because William Lane Craig, who actually has a valid Philosopher's License, makes the very same mistake. And, if I am not mistaken, he has actually written books entirely on the topic of time. So you'd think he'd understand what it means to say that time extends infinitely into the past. But apparently not.

Something which never gets started cannot be "ongoing". You fail to comprehend this point.

Correction: Something which has always been ongoing never got started.

Your argument is based on quite an odd way to look at time, as if we are standing here at a point of time known as "the present" and we are waiting for time to extend forward from a non-existent beginning to meet us. But how did we get here, "the present", without the necessary amount of time having elapsed?

If there is no beginning, then the past is infinite/endless and so there is no end to it. Hence, the present moment will never come to pass.

Only if it had a beginning. There you go again, insisting time which had no beginning had a beginning. Are you familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction?

A more accurate way of looking at an infinite past is to view it as a series of dominoes which have always been falling, one against the other, forever. There is never a point in time in which one domino is not in the process of knocking over the next one, and each such point of time would be "the present" for that particular moment. So it makes no sense to say we could sit in a point of time we perceive as "the present" without there being one domino knocking over another domino.

There is no such thing as a domino effect which does not involve the felling of a first domino. If that event did not happen, there would be no process. Like I say, something which never gets started cannot proceed.

No. It was an analogy. Kind of like the analogy of Hilbert''s Hotel, which some religious apologists are found of using. If someone were to ask "Where do you find the bricks and mortar to build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms", he'd kind of be missing the point, wouldn't he?

Your argument is based on a model in which we are sitting in "the present" waiting for the chain of dominos to catch up to us. That's not how it works.

Time is inexorably flowing in one direction and finitely increasing with each passing moment.

That's what you think, yes. You still don't seem to understand the model against which you're arguing. "Understanding" is sort of a prerequisite to "arguing against."

Newmark wrote:

The set of integers has no beginning. It's easy to see, because it has no least element, and no number is less than every integer. You can't just redefine the concept of “beginning” on the fly.

But the more important issue is that the numbers themselves aren't important. I've used the integers as they're quite easy to grasp (or should be), but any ordered set that can be placed in an isomorphic relationship to the integers would have the same properties. The elements could be any symbols whatsoever, yet the set would be infinite in size. For any pair of elements A and B so that A < B, there would be a finite number of elements E where A < E < B. While 0 does carry some importance among the integers, any element in this set could be mapped to zero, thus rendering just an arbitrary point.

Let me just explain this once again. In your set of negative integers that go on forever, you are actually starting from zero, just as you do for positive integers: ...-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3.....

If we imagine zero to be the "present", there is no problem in supposing that time will extend forever into the future without end (i.e sempiternal). But there is a very big problem in supposing not so much that time can extend forever into the past, but that an infinite amount of time has already elapsed to get to the present moment (i.e zero). To repeat, you are ignoring the flow of time in your set of integers which flows only in one direction and would flow towards zero (from the past) and not away from it (only for the future).

So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

Shrunk wrote:

Correction: Something which has always been ongoing never got started.

Something which has always existed never gets started. That is true. But any process or sequence of events had to have got started or else it would not be "ongoing".

[Only if it had a beginning. There you go again, insisting time which had no beginning had a beginning. Are you familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction?

I wrote: "If there is no beginning, then the past is infinite/endless and so there is no end to it."

If there is a beginning, however, then the past is finite, the present is real and the future is possible.

No. It was an analogy. Kind of like the analogy of Hilbert''s Hotel, which some religious apologists are found of using. If someone were to ask "Where do you find the bricks and mortar to build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms", he'd kind of be missing the point, wouldn't he?

The domino effect is a bad analogy to use if you wish to show that a process does not require a start to it.

That's what you think, yes. You still don't seem to understand the model against which you're arguing. "Understanding" is sort of a prerequisite to "arguing against."

So are you suggesting that the passage of time is an illusion and that only the eternal exists? If so, you are positing a theistic argument.

scott1328 wrote:So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

The present would never begin to exist.

BooBoo wrote:

scott1328 wrote:So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

The present would never begin to exist.

Every moment of time is the present at the time it happens. You can't have time without presents.

hackenslash wrote:

BooBoo wrote:1. It is simpler for nothing to exist than for something to exist.

Factually incorrect. Indeed, it's impossible for nothing to exist. That alone fucks your ignorant bollocks up the arse.

Interesting point. But why is it "impossible" for nothing to exist?

BooBoo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Correction: Something which has always been ongoing never got started.

Something which has always existed never gets started. That is true. But any process or sequence of events had to have got started or else it would not be "ongoing".

Not if it has always been ongoing.

You're really having a hard time following this, aren't you? Don't give up. I'm sure you'll get it.

[Only if it had a beginning. There you go again, insisting time which had no beginning had a beginning. Are you familiar with the Law of Non-Contradiction?

I wrote: "If there is no beginning, then the past is infinite/endless and so there is no end to it."

If there is a beginning, however, then the past is finite, the present is real and the future is possible.

But then time won't go back into the past infinitely.

No. It was an analogy. Kind of like the analogy of Hilbert''s Hotel, which some religious apologists are found of using. If someone were to ask "Where do you find the bricks and mortar to build a hotel with an infinite number of rooms", he'd kind of be missing the point, wouldn't he?

The domino effect is a bad analogy to use if you wish to show that a process does not require a start to it.

It's a domino effect without a beginning and which has been going on forever. No start needed. Of course, you're going to have the same trouble understanding that as you are the idea of time without a beginning. But do you get the part where there is never a moment where a domino is not falling, and that moment is the present? (No, I suppose not.)

That's what you think, yes. You still don't seem to understand the model against which you're arguing. "Understanding" is sort of a prerequisite to "arguing against."

So are you suggesting that the passage of time is an illusion and that only the eternal exists?

No. See? You just don't understand. Chin up, though, and keep trying.

Shrunk wrote:

BooBoo wrote:

scott1328 wrote:So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

The present would never begin to exist.

Every moment of time is the present at the time it happens. You can't have time without presents.

Indeed. But whatever point in time we call the "present", there would had to have been an infinite amount of time preceding it if there was no beginning. So for the present moment to be realized an infinity of time in the past would had to have elapsed which is clearly nonsense since that which is infinite is endless and does not end but continues forever. So the present (or future) would never come to pass and all would be in the past.

the past is an illusion. There is only the eternal present.

Problem solved

scott1328 wrote:So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

Someone's brain will fry out becase they can't imagine that.

BooBoo wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

BooBoo wrote:1. It is simpler for nothing to exist than for something to exist.

Factually incorrect. Indeed, it's impossible for nothing to exist. That alone fucks your ignorant bollocks up the arse.

Interesting point. But why is it "impossible" for nothing to exist?

It is incoherent. What does exist mean?
'nothing exists' is equivalent to 'non-existant exists'.

I suspect you are thinking more of 'something is empty'.

Shrunk wrote:

Not if it has always been ongoing.

You're really having a hard time following this, aren't you? Don't give up. I'm sure you'll get it.

Let us try a thought experiment, shall we? Let's say there is this object moving in space and on a single trajectory. Its movement is "ongoing". Now, by referring to Newton's laws of motion, I would conclude that the object was initially at rest before a force was applied that caused it to begin to move. You might respond that the object has always been moving and was never pushed. The trouble with that hypothesis is that it would necessarily mean that the object had traveled an infinite distance which would mean that space is infinite but which would also mean that it couldn't be infinite since the object is still continuing to finitely cover more distance! So that's now fully done and dusted, isn't it?

But then time won't go back into the past infinitely.

If there is a beginning then, yes, time won't go back into the past endlessly. On the other hand, if there is no beginning then the past is endless which means that it never ends and the present never begins.

It's a domino effect without a beginning and which has been going on forever. No start needed. Of course, you're going to have the same trouble understanding that as you are the idea of time without a beginning. But do you get the part where there is never a moment where a domino is not falling, and that moment is the present? (No, I suppose not.)

A domino effect is a process. A process needs to be started. Without the felling of the first domino, there can be no subsequent dominoes falling. Now, as for the present moment, it is true that the present could be positioned anywhere in time. The trouble with having no beginning, however, is that it doesn't matter what you take the present moment to be, there would always have been an infinite amount of time that preceded it.

No. See? You just don't understand. Chin up, though, and keep trying.

Well, you haven't explained your model. Because I don't see any reason to suppose that time is not a linear (possibly sinusoidal) succession of moments that flows in one direction only.

GrahamH wrote:
I suspect you are thinking more of 'something is empty'.

I think Hackenslash may be on to something. I might go one step further and say that not only is a maximally great being possible but that its non-existence is impossible.

scott1328 wrote:So what if there is an infinity of past time what horrible bad thing happens?

A lot of arguments for the existence of God will fail. How much more horrible can it get?

BooBoo wrote:Let us try a thought experiment, shall we? Let's say there is this object moving in space and on a single trajectory. Its movement is "ongoing". Now, by referring to Newton's laws of motion, I would conclude that the object was initially at rest before a force was applied that caused it to begin to move. You might respond that the object has always been moving and was never pushed. The trouble with that hypothesis is that it would necessarily mean that the object had traveled an infinite distance which would mean that space is infinite but which would also mean that it couldn't be infinite since the object is still continuing to finitely cover more distance!

So? If space is infinite, that's exactly how it would work. An object that was always moving could do so without ever running out of space in which to move, because the amount of space available to it is infinite. There is no logical problem with this.

But then time won't go back into the past infinitely.

If there is a beginning then, yes, time won't go back into the past endlessly. On the other hand, if there is no beginning then the past is endless which means that it never ends and the present never begins.

That argument is a non-sequitur. That time recedes into the past infinitely does not mean the present cannot exist. More on this below.

A domino effect is a process. A process needs to be started. Without the felling of the first domino, there can be no subsequent dominoes falling. Now, as for the present moment, it is true that the present could be positioned anywhere in time. The trouble with having no beginning, however, is that it doesn't matter what you take the present moment to be, there would always have been an infinite amount of time that preceded it.

I see now that the domino analogy was probably a poor one to use with someone who is struggling to comprehend the basic principles here, as you are. It allows for too much confusion on your part if you insist on viewing the passage of time as a physical process like the falling of dominoes. It is also potentially confusing because the dominoes which have not yet fallen, and which represent the future, still have a concrete existence, whereas that future may not exist in that sense under certain models of time.

So, instead, think of a pendulum that has been swinging back and forth forever, with no beginning to the process of swinging. It doesn't matter that an infinite number of swings has occurred; it can still continue to swing and, thereby, create more time. The next swing of the pendulum, which represents the future until it occurs, will always occur, becoming the present, and then the past.

Again, no logical contradictions arise from this.

Here's your problem: You're trying to argue that an actual infinite cannot exist. And to support this position, you keep saying that we could never arrive at the present moment if an infinite amount of time must elapse before we get here. But that is only the case if an actual infinite cannot exist. Your argument can be accurately summarized as "An actual infinite cannot exist, because an actual infinite cannot exist."

The term for that fallacy is "Begging the question". It's one of the most basic of the logical fallacies but, again, you need not feel so bad for committing it. As I have said before, even someone professionally trained as a philosopher like William Lane Craig makes the same error (and I only keep bringing him up because he seems to be the philosophizer who is most Famous On The Internet for making this argument). How someone can obtain a PhD in philosophy with such a poor grasp of the bare basics of logic is puzzling to me, but I guess that's a subject for another discussion.

Well, you haven't explained your model. Because I don't see any reason to suppose that time is not a linear (possibly sinusoidal) succession of moments that flows in one direction only.

Well, if you think I'm saying it isn't, then you're still not following the argument. Patience, you'll get it eventually!

BooBoo wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
I suspect you are thinking more of 'something is empty'.

I think Hackenslash may be on to something. I might go one step further and say that not only is a maximally great being possible but that its non-existence is impossible.

What a joker.
At least your nonsense can raise a laugh now and then.