Aristotle view of infinite time

[nadavsof]

Aristo proved that there cannot be an infinitely large piece of matter. He did that by saying that if you cut an infinitely large matter you get two distinct parts.

At least one of the parts is infinite (or else the whole thing is finite). Take the infinite part. It has at least one edge (where the cut was). Cut a small part of it near the edge. What you have now is surely finite. What's left is surely infinite. So what's left is missing a piece and yet it is the same size of the whole thing because both are infinite. And that cannot be.

So there isn't an infinitely large matter. And that's true for anything that can be cut in a way that can create an edge.

Then Aristo said that the same thing cannot be done with time because a moment cannot be seperated from the previous one nor the next one. So time cannot be cut in a way that creates an edge (he actually gave a more formal proof). And from that concluded that time can be infinite.

He also showed some other evidence that time not only could be but actually is infinite.

My question is.

If time is infinite then infinite number of seconds had to pass before the present time could arrive. But even after a lot of seconds still infinite number of seconds would be left.

So the present would have never come. Yet it did. So time is not infinite. It can only go to infinity forward, but it has a beginning.

I have a good reason to think I'm wrong yet i can't find the mistake.

Any help?

[Sciency]

Aristo proved that there cannot be an infinitely large piece of matter. He did that by saying that if you cut an infinitely large matter you get two distinct parts.

At least one of the parts is infinite (or else the whole thing is finite). Take the infinite part. It has at least one edge (where the cut was). Cut a small part of it near the edge. What you have now is surely finite. What's left is surely infinite. So what's left is missing a piece and yet it is the same size of the whole thing because both are infinite. And that cannot be.

So there isn't an infinitely large matter. And that's true for anything that can be cut in a way that can create an edge.

Then Aristo said that the same thing cannot be done with time because a moment cannot be seperated from the previous one nor the next one. So time cannot be cut in a way that creates an edge (he actually gave a more formal proof). And from that concluded that time can be infinite.

He also showed some other evidence that time not only could be but actually is infinite.

My question is.

If time is infinite then infinite number of seconds had to pass before the present time could arrive. But even after a lot of seconds still infinite number of seconds would be left.

So the present would have never come. Yet it did. So time is not infinite. It can only go to infinity forward, but it has a beginning.

I have a good reason to think I'm wrong yet i can't find the mistake.

Any help?

Yes. Well, I made a thread about it, but I guess it's too much text to read (theory about everything). The logical paradox you think of does only exists because your logic about time is flawed. Time does not exist. Time is relative. Something that we know almost certainly. Spacetime is just an abstract way to interpretated the universe. So, you are right, if we talk about time, it goes infinitly into both directions, future and past. The thing is, that time does not move. A moment is part of time no matter where it is. The only thing that makes you expirience time as something fluid and moving is because you are a consciousness. That means, if there were no consciousness in our universe, time would never pass. If you look at the history of our universe and the future as a line, an infinite line, the line does not change. But as your consciousness is obviously something outside of spacetime, something that interpretates spacetime, you only see the parts you can see, not the future nor the past. But both of them still exists, they are as real and present as the moment you are expiriencing right now. Infact, there is most likely (well, in theory most certainly) a consciousness that is expiriencing a dinosaur right "now". It is "now" because time does no exist outside your consciousness, well atleast not as you know it.

This is the whole dilemma and many people on this earth still view nature as something completely wrong. In physics class for example they teach students about models of atoms, and they think that's how the world really looks like, but infact it is only a way to visualize the concepts of nature for ourselves. That means that atoms do not exists. Space does not exist and neither does time. It's all abstract and the consciousness creates it's own universe so to speak, a universe that looks like something. The thing is, the universe we are acting in does not look like anything at all.

[jackles]

Yeah time is just the observer watching stuff change. Its like watching stuff move. The moving is just a change of flux status of stuff and you observer it and call it time. You are the time as an observer of the flux.

[BeyondTheAstral]

Aristo proved that there cannot be an infinitely large piece of matter. He did that by saying that if you cut an infinitely large matter you get two distinct parts.

At least one of the parts is infinite (or else the whole thing is finite). Take the infinite part. It has at least one edge (where the cut was). Cut a small part of it near the edge. What you have now is surely finite. What's left is surely infinite. So what's left is missing a piece and yet it is the same size of the whole thing because both are infinite. And that cannot be.

So there isn't an infinitely large matter. And that's true for anything that can be cut in a way that can create an edge.

Then Aristo said that the same thing cannot be done with time because a moment cannot be seperated from the previous one nor the next one. So time cannot be cut in a way that creates an edge (he actually gave a more formal proof). And from that concluded that time can be infinite.

He also showed some other evidence that time not only could be but actually is infinite.

My question is.

If time is infinite then infinite number of seconds had to pass before the present time could arrive. But even after a lot of seconds still infinite number of seconds would be left.

So the present would have never come. Yet it did. So time is not infinite. It can only go to infinity forward, but it has a beginning.

I have a good reason to think I'm wrong yet i can't find the mistake.

Any help?

Interesting theory but Aristotle's argument is flawed you cannot add or subtract from infinity, infinity has no edges therefore you cannot cut into it. I am sure any Mathematician will validate that this is the case .

As for time "Sciency" covered that point.

[HexHammer]

OP proves nothing.

It depends if the infinitive large amount of matter goes both ways, or if the mass of matter has a beginning, then you can cut finitive amounts of matter off.

[BeyondTheAstral]

OP proves nothing.

It depends if the infinitive large amount of matter goes both ways, or if the mass of matter has a beginning, then you can cut finitive amounts of matter off.

Really!
If its infinite it will go in all directions.
There are no beginnings or endings in infinity.

[HexHammer]

OP proves nothing.

It depends if the infinitive large amount of matter goes both ways, or if the mass of matter has a beginning, then you can cut finitive amounts of matter off.

Really!
If its infinite it will go in all directions.
There are no beginnings or endings in infinity.

That's strange! In math there's proved to be infinitives with a beginning, then it can go for matter too.

[jackles]

Infinite time is stationary consciousness. Stationary time moves the event so giving the event tense. But its change of event status inside unmoving time that gives the effect to the observer of time moving as the event changes.