Dilemma of beginning of time

[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.

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

What does that mean exactly?
Prove to me that T0 + infinite = now is not valid.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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

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

Like the set of Real numbers between 0 and 1?!

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

Go on, show the mathematics.
EB

[Logik]

Like the set of Real numbers between 0 and 1?!

Yes! An infinite set IS an oxymoron!

0 and 1 are members of the integers set - which is itself infinite!

So why did you CHOOSE 0 and 1 ?

Why not -5 and 100?
Why not -1000000 and 25?
Why not -12426348726874613874628374 and 556287672534237427364271234761872361278351212783
Why not 0 and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ?

Go on, show the mathematics.
EB

How do I SHOW YOU mathematics that don't exist?!?!? How do I prove a negative to you?

How's about for this thought experiment:

What is the first real number after 0 ?
What's the last real number before 1?

Do you not see the principle of explosion right before you?
Any two ARBITRARY points you CHOOSE contains an infinite number of real numbers.

Infinite regress.... into the abyss.

All infinitism is bullshit.

[Atla]

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

Okay let's see dictionary definitions. Again I have to "prove" the obvious. Waste of our finite time.

infinite

limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

extending indefinitely : endless

without limits; extremely large or great

unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.

Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate.

Infinite is defined as endless or limitless.

having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude

Infinity (symbol: ∞) is a concept describing something without any bound

etc.

---------------------------

So, "infinite" is, first and foremost, without end/limit/boundary. (Btw it's derived from the latin word "finis", which means end, limit, boundary.)

Your beginning of time is an end/limit/boundary.

A contradiction in terms is something like "unmarried bachelor".

You mean married bachelor, and no, according to your own reasoning, "married bachelor" is not a contradiction of terms either, because the composite expression isn't in dictionaries. So we have no way of telling what it might mean, words can have so many equally used meanings after all.

[roydop]

"Timeless" (transcendent of time) is more accurate than "infinite".

Timelessness is the "real"/Absolute state. It's here now always, but is unexperienced by consciousness with awareness "outward" facing on thoughts.

[Speakpigeon]

Yes! An infinite set IS an oxymoron! 0 and 1 are members of the integers set - which is itself infinite! So why did you CHOOSE 0 and 1 ? Why not -5 and 100? Why not -1000000 and 25? Why not -12426348726874613874628374 and 556287672534237427364271234761872361278351212783 Why not 0 and 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 ? How do I SHOW YOU mathematics that don't exist?!?!? How do I prove a negative to you? How's about for this thought experiment: What is the first real number after 0 ?What's the last real number before 1? Do you not see the principle of explosion right before you? Any two ARBITRARY points you CHOOSE contains an infinite number of real numbers. Infinite regress.... into the abyss. All infinitism is bullshit.

The only explosion I see is you as you try to explain yourself.
Every time you try to explain yourself.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Okay let's see dictionary definitions. Again I have to "prove" the obvious. Waste of our finite time.
infinite
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.

Good. It took you quite while but you did it.
The definition you provided says an infinite may mean unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of duration of time.
So, an infinite past with a beginning is still infinite in extent of duration of time.
An infinite past may mean a past that has for example an infinite number of days or years, etc. Now, assume such an infinite a past but with a beginning. What would be contradictory about it?

So, "infinite" is, first and foremost, without end/limit/boundary. (Btw it's derived from the latin word "finis", which means end, limit, boundary.)

Sorry, it doesn't follow from the definition of infinite. An infinite something only has to be unless in some dimension or quantity to be infinite. Your own definition says that an infinite may mean unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of duration of time. So, an infinite past only needs to have for example an infinite number of years to be infinite and such an idea of an infinite past fits the ordinary notion of an infinite past. Yet, just because it includes an infinity of years doesn't imply it has no beginning.

Your beginning of time is an end/limit/boundary.

Sure, but your own idea of an infinite past also has boundaries, one rather obvious as that. So? It's not infinite because it has a boundary?

You mean married bachelor, and no, according to your own reasoning, "married bachelor" is not a contradiction of terms either, because the composite expression isn't in dictionaries. So we have no way of telling what it might mean, words can have so many equally used meanings after all.

Bachelor: a man who is not married. So, unmarried bachelor means an unmarried man who is not married.
The definitions of infinite you have provided show your restriction to "no beginning" is a non-sequitur.
EB

[Logik]

The only explosion I see is you as you try to explain yourself.
Every time you try to explain yourself.
EB

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

[Speakpigeon]

"Timeless" (transcendent of time) is more accurate than "infinite".

Timelessness is the "real"/Absolute state. It's here now always, but is unexperienced by consciousness with awareness "outward" facing on thoughts.

That's not what "infinite time" means.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

I can only explain it to you.

Your explanations are invariably nonsense. You would need to control yourself and actually try to explain what you think. Instead, you visibly go berserk, apparently because what people say seems to upset you. And it's no just me. You do it with very nearly every other poster.
EB

[Logik]

I can only explain it to you.

Your explanations are invariably nonsense.

No. They aren't.

You lack the background knowledge to parse them.

You would need to control yourself and actually try to explain what you think. Instead, you visibly go berserk, apparently because what people say seems to upset you. And it's no just me. You do it with very nearly every other poster.
EB

Yes. I get frustrated with people who want to be spoon-fed knowledge yet refuse to do the work required to attain it.

Intellectual laziness is abound!

[roydop]

"Timeless" (transcendent of time) is more accurate than "infinite".

Timelessness is the "real"/Absolute state. It's here now always, but is unexperienced by consciousness with awareness "outward" facing on thoughts.

That's not what "infinite time" means.
EB

Well, as time is illusory, I suppose it would appear infinite.

[bahman]

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.

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

What does that mean exactly?

It means that there are two different ways of performing sum depending in which regime you are.

Prove to me that T0 + infinite = now is not valid.
EB

Ok, we consider that -infinity+infinite=X. We subtract a -infinity - infinity + infinity = X- infinity. This can be rewritten as -infinity + infinity = -infinity. In the same way we can show that -infinity + infinity = +infinity. These together mean that -infinity + infinity is any number. The chance for having a specific X is exactly zero.

[Atla]

Maybe one about "contradiction in terms"?

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

Okay let's see dictionary definitions. Again I have to "prove" the obvious. Waste of our finite time.
infinite
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.

Good. It took you quite while but you did it.
The definition you provided says an infinite may mean unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of duration of time.
So, an infinite past with a beginning is still infinite in extent of duration of time.
An infinite past may mean a past that has for example an infinite number of days or years, etc. Now, assume such an infinite a past but with a beginning. What would be contradictory about it?

So, "infinite" is, first and foremost, without end/limit/boundary. (Btw it's derived from the latin word "finis", which means end, limit, boundary.)

Sorry, it doesn't follow from the definition of infinite. An infinite something only has to be unless in some dimension or quantity to be infinite. Your own definition says that an infinite may mean unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of duration of time. So, an infinite past only needs to have for example an infinite number of years to be infinite and such an idea of an infinite past fits the ordinary notion of an infinite past. Yet, just because it includes an infinity of years doesn't imply it has no beginning.

Your beginning of time is an end/limit/boundary.

Sure, but your own idea of an infinite past also has boundaries, one rather obvious as that. So? It's not infinite because it has a boundary?

You mean married bachelor, and no, according to your own reasoning, "married bachelor" is not a contradiction of terms either, because the composite expression isn't in dictionaries. So we have no way of telling what it might mean, words can have so many equally used meanings after all.

I have demonstrated using the list the obvious, namely that the primary meaning of infinite is: without end/limit/boundary. Almost all the definitions are primary definitons from various dictionaries.

"Unmeasurable in extent" is one of the secondary meanings (and what goes on forever is already unmeasurable in extent), and intellectually honest people won't right away use one of the secondary meanings without making this clear first, especially not when it comes to time. But please keep digging yourself into that hole.

Bachelor: a man who is not married. So, unmarried bachelor means an unmarried man who is not married.

That's why it's not a contradiction in terms. And suddenly you know the meaning of a composite expression too, huh, without dictionary?

The definitions of infinite you have provided show your restriction to "no beginning" is a non-sequitur.
EB

I never restricted the meaning, but "infinite" does have a primary meaning. Look at this point I really think you're a waste of time, no point in continuing this.

[Speakpigeon]

The definitions of infinite you have provided show your restriction to "no beginning" is a non-sequitur.

I never restricted the meaning, but "infinite" does have a primary meaning. Look at this point I really think you're a waste of time, no point in continuing this.

You don't seem to realise that my use of "infinite" in infinite past complies with what you call primary meaning.
A past with an infinite number of years and a beginning would contain a number of years without any limit. It would be infinite exactly in the sense of "infinite" you see as primary.
EB