Dilemma of beginning of time

[Atla]

Exactly, so you can't logically exclude that T0 + infinity = now.

Infinite time can't have a starting point, and also, n + infinite time = infinite time.

???
How do you know? Do you have magical powers?

Unless you use a non-standard meaning for the term, which you usually do and forget to tell us.

I use a standard notion of the infinite.
However, the notion of an infinite past with a beginning is obviously not usual.
Yet, my point is that there is no logical impossibility to a past with an infinite number of instants and a starting point.
Who is going to prove otherwise?

So apparently now we have a finite starting point, we add infinite time and we arrive at now, which is a finite point in time.

A "finite starting point" apparently is a starting point that is a finite amount of time from now. So, no, if there's an infinite past and a starting point, there's no finite starting point in this sense.

An infinity of time with a beginning and an end. Mutually exclusive concepts, well done.

???
Do you have proven that?!
Oh, I forgot, you never get to prove anything.
Me, I can conceive of an infinity of instants between a beginning of time and an end of time. Not only can I do that, but it is obvious that most rational people can. So, don't you feel a bit lonely with your quirky certainties?
EB

An infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction of terms.

I can concieve of infinitely many instants between beginning and end of time, but then by definition time is finite, not infinite. As usual you apply two layers of logic and ignore the second one.

Maybe you should prove that contradictions are logical, and that most rational people think so.

[Logik]

Seems you really don't understand English.

What does English have to do with arithmetic?

As to what people mean...

They themselves don't know. Look at yourself -You have NO Idea what 'infinity' means

I asked you this simple fucking arithmetic question and you ignored me:
0 * X = 0
X * ∞ = ∞

0 * ∞ = ?

What does a "square circle" mean?

Life must be very confusing to you.
You must be convinced you're never wrong!

Yeah! Project those repressed emotions, pretend like you are talking about me when you are really talking about yourself

I am wrong, about many things in many contexts. This is not one of those situations.

[Speakpigeon]

An infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction of terms.

This is not true.
Sure, from dictionary definition of "infinite", it may seem to you that an infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction.
But, truly, it isn't.
It isn't because there's no definition of "infinite past" in any English dictionary and you can't logically deduce the meaning of a composite expression from the definitions of its component terms.
So, "infinite past" does not necessarily mean a past without a beginning. It may mean an infinite amount of time in the past with a beginning.
So, no, no contradiction in terms.
Only in your imagination.

I can concieve of infinitely many instants between beginning and end of time, but then by definition time is finite, not infinite. As usual you apply two layers of logic and ignore the second one.

No.

Maybe you should prove that contradictions are logical, and that most rational people think so.

Only in your imagination.
EB

[Atla]

An infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction of terms.

This is not true.
Sure, from dictionary definition of "infinite", it may seem to you that an infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction.
But, truly, it isn't.
It isn't because there's no definition of "infinite past" in any English dictionary and you can't logically deduce the meaning of a composite expression from the definitions of its component terms.
So, "infinite past" does not necessarily mean a past without a beginning. It may mean an infinite amount of time in the past with a beginning.
So, no, no contradiction in terms.
Only in your imagination.

I can concieve of infinitely many instants between beginning and end of time, but then by definition time is finite, not infinite. As usual you apply two layers of logic and ignore the second one.

No.

Maybe you should prove that contradictions are logical, and that most rational people think so.

Only in your imagination.
EB

In English, "infinite past" typically means that time had no beginning. Again we arrive at the conclusion that you don't really know how to use English words.

[Logik]

you can't logically deduce the meaning of a composite expression from the definitions of its component terms.

Square circle.

So, "infinite past" does not necessarily mean a past without a beginning. It may mean an infinite amount of time in the past with a beginning.
So, no, no contradiction in terms.

So a "square circle" could totally mean a circle that is squared at the corners.

So no, no contradiction in terms.

[bahman]

Exactly, so you can't logically exclude that T0 + infinity = now.
And in five minutes, and tomorrow, and next year.
This is because infinity is not normally conceived as a number. So, all we can say is that it is logically possible that between T0 and now there's an infinite past. If so, there will also been an infinite past between T0 and tomorrow or between T0 and next year. You can't do ordinary arithmetic with infinity.

One case among infinite cases is impossible.

By definition it is.
what is logically impossibly is zero case, irrespective of whether there are initially a finite or an infinite number of conceivable cases.

You can't do ordinary arithmetic with infinity.

What I have done is allowed.

Sure, and I'm not disputing that, but it's not ordinary arithmetic. Infinity is not a number, so T0 + infinity doesn't mean anything in ordinary arithmetic.
So, basically, it's what you believe and you can't justify that it is correct.
EB

What I am arguing is that infinite regime is different regime than finite regime. Why? (1) We cannot reach from finite regime to infinite regime by adding and subtracting times. (2) We cannot reach from infinite regime to finite regime by simply adding or subtracting infinity. -infinity + infinity = any number in another word. The second statement is true otherwise you could reach from infinite regime to finite regime by subtraction. This is opposite the way to reach from finite regime to infinite regime by addition. So if you cannot do it in one way by addition you cannot do it on other way by subtraction either.

[Speakpigeon]

What I am arguing is that infinite regime is different regime than finite regime. Why? (1) We cannot reach from finite regime to infinite regime by adding and subtracting times. (2) We cannot reach from infinite regime to finite regime by simply adding or subtracting infinity. -infinity + infinity = any number in another word. The second statement is true otherwise you could reach from infinite regime to finite regime by subtraction. This is opposite the way to reach from finite regime to infinite regime by addition. So if you cannot do it in one way by addition you cannot do it on other way by subtraction either.

I agree we can't do the maths so don't try to justify your ideas using arithmetic.
And from the fact that we can't do the maths there's nothing to deduce. It's just beyond our ability to analyse.
Yet, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Please note that this question is as old as the Ancient Greeks and we still can't agree on it. My guess is that it's because we don't have a logical proof that an infinite past is logically impossible.
Still, you can keep trying.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

you can't logically deduce the meaning of a composite expression from the definitions of its component terms.

Square circle.

So, "infinite past" does not necessarily mean a past without a beginning. It may mean an infinite amount of time in the past with a beginning.
So, no, no contradiction in terms.

So a "square circle" could totally mean a circle that is squared at the corners. So no, no contradiction in terms.

You're a pathetic idiot.
You think we can deduce from the expression that a floppy disk is essentially a disk which is floppy?!
You think ice cream is somehow the cream of ice?!
You think a a footstool is a particular type of stool that is like a foot?!
A redhead is a red head?
And just guess what it means for you to be a blockhead?!
Lionheart?
Butterfly?
And it's funny to see you argue now that we can deduce from ordinary language...
You're a pathetic idiot.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

In English, "infinite past" typically means that time had no beginning. Again we arrive at the conclusion that you don't really know how to use English words.

What is typically meant is in dictionaries.
So, provide a dictionary definition.
This shows you don't understand how dictionaries work.
Infinite past just means the past being somehow infinite.
Exactly how infinite, it just doesn't say it.
So, no formal contradiction between infinite past and a beginning to time.
Please, stop making stuff up and please support your wild claims with proper evidence.
EB

[Logik]

You're a pathetic idiot.

Evidence to the contrary is abound.

You think we can deduce from the expression that a floppy disk is essentially a disk which is floppy?!

You are not supposed to deduce ANYTHING from any expression, dimwit. You are supposed to understand what meaning the expression is attempting to communicate. The expression is just a medium. Means for communication.

The CONCEPT comes first.
The LANGUAGE to express it comes second.

You think ice cream is somehow the cream of ice?!
You think a a footstool is a particular type of stool that is like a foot?!
A redhead is a red head?
And just guess what it means for you to be a blockhead?!
Lionheart?
Butterfly?
And it's funny to see you argue now that we can deduce from ordinary language...
You're a pathetic idiot.
EB

Look who got triggered.

You are doing what Bertrand Russell called reasoning about properties of the world from the language used to describe it.
You think because YOU do that - everybody does that. Dumb logocentrist.

Every single one of your examples can be Googled. Go to http://images.google.com and type "ice cream". Type "footstool". Type "red head".
No definition required - just picture! Picture causes concept!

This is what , smart people, call Ostensive definition ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition ).
Do you have ANY ostensive definition for "infinity"? Nope, you don't. No need to despair!

Some concepts don't have ostensive definitions and they are tricky to communicate. Like the concept of time.
So we use anything and everything at our disposal. Mathematics, draw pictures, thought experiments.

The problem is, you are unable to communicate the concept of infinity using ANY medium whatsoever.
And that which you are able to communicate is riddled with contingencies.

Contingencies which you happily ignore.

[Logik]

In English, "infinite past" typically means that time had no beginning. Again we arrive at the conclusion that you don't really know how to use English words.

What is typically meant is in dictionaries.
So, provide a dictionary definition.
This shows you don't understand how dictionaries work.
Infinite past just means the past being somehow infinite.
Exactly how infinite, it just doesn't say it.
So, no formal contradiction between infinite past and a beginning to time.
Please, stop making stuff up and please support your wild claims with proper evidence.
EB

Look at this Logocentrist.

The only way he knows how to think about the world is WORDS.

Stop reading. Get out a little. LOOK around you!

Join the dots between the WORDS and their Ostensive definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition

[Atla]

In English, "infinite past" typically means that time had no beginning. Again we arrive at the conclusion that you don't really know how to use English words.

What is typically meant is in dictionaries.
So, provide a dictionary definition.
This shows you don't understand how dictionaries work.
Infinite past just means the past being somehow infinite.
Exactly how infinite, it just doesn't say it.
So, no formal contradiction between infinite past and a beginning to time.
Please, stop making stuff up and please support your wild claims with proper evidence.
EB

I googled "infinite past" and almost everywhere it is described as time without beginning.

Not that such "evidence" was needed since people who speak English already know this.

But if a composite expression isn't in one of your dictionaries, you are lost.

Maybe you should just finally admit to yourself that you're quite idiotic here.

[bahman]

What I am arguing is that infinite regime is different regime than finite regime. Why? (1) We cannot reach from finite regime to infinite regime by adding and subtracting times. (2) We cannot reach from infinite regime to finite regime by simply adding or subtracting infinity. -infinity + infinity = any number in another word. The second statement is true otherwise you could reach from infinite regime to finite regime by subtraction. This is opposite the way to reach from finite regime to infinite regime by addition. So if you cannot do it in one way by addition you cannot do it on other way by subtraction either.

I agree we can't do the maths so don't try to justify your ideas using arithmetic.
And from the fact that we can't do the maths there's nothing to deduce. It's just beyond our ability to analyse.
Yet, that's exactly what you're trying to do.
Please note that this question is as old as the Ancient Greeks and we still can't agree on it. My guess is that it's because we don't have a logical proof that an infinite past is logically impossible.
Still, you can keep trying.
EB

The math I did in infinite regime and finite regimes is valid.

[Speakpigeon]

In English, "infinite past" typically means that time had no beginning. Again we arrive at the conclusion that you don't really know how to use English words.

What is typically meant is in dictionaries.
So, provide a dictionary definition.
This shows you don't understand how dictionaries work.
Infinite past just means the past being somehow infinite.
Exactly how infinite, it just doesn't say it.
So, no formal contradiction between infinite past and a beginning to time.
Please, stop making stuff up and please support your wild claims with proper evidence.

I googled "infinite past" and almost everywhere it is described as time without beginning.

Described, not defined, and I didn't say any different. It just shows most people are narrow minded dimwits.
I said there are no dictionary definition of the expression "infinite past". Since you can't deduce the meaning of an expression from its component terms as many words have several senses and mere juxtaposition of two words doesn't make a definition of the juxtaposition, the expression "infinite past" only imply the idea of a past which is infinite in duration. So, there's no contradiction in terms. That most people think of the infinite past as a past without a beginning doesn't change the fact that there's no contradiction in terms. A contradiction in terms is something like "unmarried bachelor". Nothing remotely similar with "infinite past". You're wrong. Just admit it.

Not that such "evidence" was needed since people who speak English already know this.

I do too. But I don't feel constrained by what idea of infinite past other people have. I was reasoning logically. There's nothing in the idea of an infinite past that would require a beginning. A past which is infinite and has a beginning is an infinite past. Now, prove to me such a thing is logically impossible.
Oops, I forgot again. You never prove anything.

But if a composite expression isn't in one of your dictionaries, you are lost.

Don't worry, I'm very well aware of what people mean. I've discussed this for many years since that are always people who insist an infinite past is impossible.
My point is not what people mean but your claim that the idea of an infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction in terms. Dictionaries don't define "infinite past" so your contention is patently wrong.

Maybe you should just finally admit to yourself that you're quite idiotic here.

When you will have evidenced your arguments. I'm still waiting for this dictionary definition.
Maybe one about "contradiction in terms"?

contradiction in terms
(logic) a statement that is necessarily false; He is brave and he is not brave.

So, go on, tell me why the statement "An infinite past has a beginning" would be necessary false.
EB

[Logik]

So, go on, tell me why the statement "An infinite past has a beginning" would be necessary false.
EB

Because anything with a beginning is finite. And so you are saying "a finite infinite time"

A dictionary can't tell you this. You need to learn some Mathematics.