Dilemma of beginning of time

[Logik]

Yes. There is no need to have somebody. Time has to pass whether there is something or not.

Eh? No. Time is a human concept.

Change happens whether there is somebody or not.

[bahman]

Yes. There is no need to have somebody. Time has to pass whether there is something or not.

Eh? No. Time is a human concept.

Change happens whether there is somebody or not.

All events would pass simultaneously if there was no duration between them.

[Speakpigeon]

I said that an infinite past may be possible, but would defy logic.
I absolutely didn't say what you claim.

Fair enough, but I asked you to explain how an infinite past would be illogical, or how it would defy logic. Why can't you just explain that? You claim it's illogical. Explain why.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

If you still don't get it then just forget about it. Even though it's obvious that actual change is illogical.

What's illogical about it?

Because it is change, an everyday illusion but actually an impossibility.

How is change an impossibility?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I didn't claim an infinity of time didn't elapse. I said nobody had to wait for that time to elapse.
EB

Yes. There is no need to have somebody. Time has to pass whether there is something or not.

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!
EB

[Atla]

I said that an infinite past may be possible, but would defy logic.
I absolutely didn't say what you claim.

Fair enough, but I asked you to explain how an infinite past would be illogical, or how it would defy logic. Why can't you just explain that? You claim it's illogical. Explain why.
EB

Again: change, actual change and not just the illusion of change, defies logic. Because it is change, things change, things turn into something else that wasn't there yet, leaving something else behind that's no longer there. That's logically impossible.

It's not that I can't explain it, it's that you just don't get it.

[bahman]

I didn't claim an infinity of time didn't elapse. I said nobody had to wait for that time to elapse.
EB

Yes. There is no need to have somebody. Time has to pass whether there is something or not.

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!
EB

Problem? The problem is that it takes infinite amount of time to reach from past to now. Time passes with specific rate which is finite. Therefore it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now by finite rate of passing.

[Scott Mayers]

Truths are epistemic, infinite reality is ontologic. Mixing them like this is nonsense, you seem to make truths ontologic too.

You are just creating a division line of your own choice. I already KNOW something about REALITY. Thus while you are welcome to dismiss me off-hand because you disagree to a combination of ontological and epistemic philosophy, I'm not going to settle with your own limited perception about what is both real to my senses AND logically valid.

Not my choice. Ontological infinite reality doesn't contain all possible truths, in fact it doesn't contain any truth, since truth statements are epistemic and merely say something about ontological reality, they aren't "physically" part of it like that. Ontological reality only "physically" contains the truth statements in human heads etc. in the form of thoughts etc., and these truth statements have no further effect on / implications for the rest of reality at large.

Therefore in no way does it follow that something must be originated in absolute nothingness (which is an oxymoron anyway since you can't originate something in nothing, and even the idea of "origin" itself may be highly suspect/illogical).

In short, truths are part of the map/the cognitive overlay, not part of the territory. If we allow truths to be part of the territory, then we should also allow every other form of magic to be part of infinite possibilities. So, "because Magic" or "because God did it" is a perfectly fine explanation for any paradox.

Ontology = the study of reality
Epistemology = the study of Knowledge, which originates in logic and is a prerequisite to discussing reality.

You appear to be simply refusing to attend to invest in what I say prejudicial to your belief that logic has no 'rational' connection to reality. The idea of logic is to communicate BETWEEN people ABOUT reality. Reality outside of subjective observations requires communicating to others if only to determine agreement THAT you share the same 'observation', NOT that the interpretation is shared. Then, once this is established, you USE logic to prove or disprove certain INTERPRETATIONS of each others subjective observations.

They are intimately linked. The subjects are separated because you can't speak of Ontological matters (or other areas of philosophy) without FIRST discussing how you can 'know' and what rules is needed to judge each others observations collectively.

If something is Ontological it must be Epistemological; If Epistemological, it is not necessarily Ontological.

You are thus 'choosing' not to attempt to invest in my argument a priori for something you personally hold opposition to regarding what is or is not possible in reality. But you hold that a priori reasoning cannot be real itself [separating truth exclusively from validity]. Thus are you implying that nothing can be 'sound' (both real and valid).

------------- (issue separator)-----

You can't empirically deny that nothing is a never-existent reality without logically implying that only something has always existed. But has your own consciousness ever been in a state of non-existence? Can you not empirically at least interpret it possible that an origin exists?

Similarly, can you empirically assert that existence itself is infinite but bound? (that reality as a whole is infinite in time both forwards and backwards in time such that what is non-existent lies OUTSIDE of this boundary)

[Atla]

Ontology = the study of reality
Epistemology = the study of Knowledge, which originates in logic and is a prerequisite to discussing reality.

You appear to be simply refusing to attend to invest in what I say prejudicial to your belief that logic has no 'rational' connection to reality. The idea of logic is to communicate BETWEEN people ABOUT reality. Reality outside of subjective observations requires communicating to others if only to determine agreement THAT you share the same 'observation', NOT that the interpretation is shared. Then, once this is established, you USE logic to prove or disprove certain INTERPRETATIONS of each others subjective observations.

They are intimately linked. The subjects are separated because you can't speak of Ontological matters (or other areas of philosophy) without FIRST discussing how you can 'know' and what rules is needed to judge each others observations collectively.

If something is Ontological it must be Epistemological; If Epistemological, it is not necessarily Ontological.

You are thus 'choosing' not to attempt to invest in my argument a priori for something you personally hold opposition to regarding what is or is not possible in reality. But you hold that a priori reasoning cannot be real itself [separating truth exclusively from validity]. Thus are you implying that nothing can be 'sound' (both real and valid).

I don't follow Kantian categories, I follow modern scientific knowledge about how the mind works.

You are ignoring the heart of the issue: truth statements are merely in the head, and there is no known reason to assume that they are part of an infinite possibility. By infinite possibility we typically mean an infinite multiverse/multiversal field, why are you assuming that truths are part of it too? And why not just assume any form of supernatural as well then?

You can't empirically deny that nothing is a never-existent reality without logically implying that only something has always existed. But has your own consciousness ever been in a state of non-existence? Can you not empirically at least interpret it possible that an origin exists?

Similarly, can you empirically assert that existence itself is infinite but bound? (that reality as a whole is infinite in time both forwards and backwards in time such that what is non-existent lies OUTSIDE of this boundary)

I didn't empirically deny non-existence (in fact it's part of my worldview). But assuming the idea that something comes from nothing, and assuming that there are origins, are again extra (and illogical) ideas that I see no reason to assume.

Why assume so much from the start, when the simpler picture usually turns out to be correct?

[Speakpigeon]

I said that an infinite past may be possible, but would defy logic.
I absolutely didn't say what you claim.

Fair enough, but I asked you to explain how an infinite past would be illogical, or how it would defy logic. Why can't you just explain that? You claim it's illogical. Explain why.
EB

Again: change, actual change and not just the illusion of change, defies logic. Because it is change, things change, things turn into something else that wasn't there yet, leaving something else behind that's no longer there. That's logically impossible.
It's not that I can't explain it, it's that you just don't get it.

OK, I don't know of any logician that would support your claim, starting with Aristotle, the Stoic, and the Scholastics.
You said it was obvious... So, there has to be people aplenty who will have expressed a similar view, among them some logicians, since you're talking about something logically impossible... So, could you give any reference to the work of some reasonably well-known logician that would somehow support your extraordinary claim here that change is logically impossible?
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Yes. There is no need to have somebody. Time has to pass whether there is something or not.

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!

The problem is that it takes infinite amount of time to reach from past to now. Time passes with specific rate which is finite. Therefore it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now by finite rate of passing.

Reach? What does it mean in this context?
And what's the "rate" you're talking about? A rate is a quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity. So, what's the rate of passing one hour? And rate relative to what?
EB

[Atla]

Fair enough, but I asked you to explain how an infinite past would be illogical, or how it would defy logic. Why can't you just explain that? You claim it's illogical. Explain why.
EB

Again: change, actual change and not just the illusion of change, defies logic. Because it is change, things change, things turn into something else that wasn't there yet, leaving something else behind that's no longer there. That's logically impossible.
It's not that I can't explain it, it's that you just don't get it.

OK, I don't know of any logician that would support your claim, starting with Aristotle, the Stoic, and the Scholastics.
You said it was obvious... So, there has to be people aplenty who will have expressed a similar view, among them some logicians, since you're talking about something logically impossible... So, could you give any reference to the work of some reasonably well-known logician that would somehow support your extraordinary claim here that change is logically impossible?
EB

Ehh no, Western philosophy is based on linear logic that doesn't form circles. Why do you think they have failed to come up with a logical picture of the world for 2500 years?

[Speakpigeon]

Ehh no, Western philosophy is based on linear logic that doesn't form circles. Why do you think they have failed to come up with a logical picture of the world for 2500 years?

OK, but then you're the only one that find your idea "obvious"... Which makes it not obvious.
So, who do you recognise as an authority on logic?
EB

[Atla]

Ehh no, Western philosophy is based on linear logic that doesn't form circles. Why do you think they have failed to come up with a logical picture of the world for 2500 years?

OK, but then you're the only one that find your idea "obvious"... Which makes it not obvious.
So, who do you recognise as an authority on logic?
EB

Actually many people not trained in philosophy intuitively find it nonsensical that the world has been going on forever, always changing. That's one too many infinites and well, the world is alive then? And the world is changing at a finite pace, how do you get that from an infite? And so on, change just doesn't make much sense.

I think it's obvious to almost anyone above some existential intelligence level. But most philosophers weren't bright. (It says Parmenides was against the idea of change and Plato agreed with him but I haven't read them, don't know how they meant it. Plato was thoroughly insane anyway.)

I've never seen an authority on logic. Logic is extremely simple, the more people study it the more confused they seem to get.

[bahman]

OK, so where's the problem with an infinite past?!

The problem is that it takes infinite amount of time to reach from past to now. Time passes with specific rate which is finite. Therefore it is impossible to reach from infinite past to now by finite rate of passing.

Reach? What does it mean in this context?

For example: It took two days to reach from a point to another point".

And what's the "rate" you're talking about? A rate is a quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity. So, what's the rate of passing one hour? And rate relative to what?
EB

By rate I mean degree of progress or change.