Dilemma of beginning of time

[Speakpigeon]

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

Well, as your idea that time is illusory is illusory, I suppose time may well be infinite after all.
Unless you could prove otherwise.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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

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.

Sorry, your "demonstration" is gibberish.
I asked for T0 + infinite = now.

The chance for having a specific X is exactly zero.

Explain because it doesn't make sense.
EB

[bahman]

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

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.

Sorry, your "demonstration" is gibberish.
I asked for T0 + infinite = now.

Isn't T0 -infinity? X in the above equation is any number including now.

The chance for having a specific X is exactly zero.

Explain because it doesn't make sense.
EB

infinity < -infinit + infinity < infinity. So the total number of case that -infinity +infinity is is as order as infinity. Therefore the chance for having a specific case is X/infinity which this is zero for finite time, X being now for example.

[Atla]

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

No, it's an "infinite with an end". A "finite infinite" (something that's probably impossible anyway) where the finite is the underlying layer of logic. You can't process this and treat the layers equally and sequentually, which is why you fail at logic.

[Speakpigeon]

I asked for T0 + infinite = now.

Isn't T0 -infinity?

No. T0 would be zero. The true zero of time.

X in the above equation is any number including now.

I asked for T0 + infinite = now.

Explain because it doesn't make sense.

infinity < -infinit + infinity < infinity.

Sorry, that too doesn't make sense.

So the total number of case that -infinity +infinity is is as order as infinity. Therefore the chance for having a specific case is X/infinity which this is zero for finite time, X being now for example.

Unless you should always feel you are now.
Oh, wait, but this is just what seems to be happening!
EB

[Speakpigeon]

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.

No, it's an "infinite with an end". A "finite infinite" (something that's probably impossible anyway) where the finite is the underlying layer of logic. You can't process this and treat the layers equally and sequentually, which is why you fail at logic.

You don't seem to understand much about anything. There are things that are both finite and infinite. Finite in some respect, and infinite in some other respect. Like there are things with parts that are red and parts that are not. Nothing complicated in that. No need to go into some special pleading or any logical trick. It's just life and we're already pretty used to deal with things that are finite in some respect and infinite in some other respect. That you clearly don't understand that is just bluffing. Are you for real, man?
EB

[Logik]

You don't seem to understand much about anything. There are things that are both finite and infinite. Finite in some respect, and infinite in some other respect.

You mean like there are things that are square in some respect, circular in other, and triangular in yet another?

Like this 3-dimensional object: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZlTTS.png

So you are necessarily claiming that "time" is finite from one perspective and infinite from another perspective.

Question: how many dimensions do you think "time" has?

[Atla]

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.

No, it's an "infinite with an end". A "finite infinite" (something that's probably impossible anyway) where the finite is the underlying layer of logic. You can't process this and treat the layers equally and sequentually, which is why you fail at logic.

You don't seem to understand much about anything. There are things that are both finite and infinite. Finite in some respect, and infinite in some other respect. Like there are things with parts that are red and parts that are not. Nothing complicated in that. No need to go into some special pleading or any logical trick. It's just life and we're already pretty used to deal with things that are finite in some respect and infinite in some other respect. That you clearly don't understand that is just bluffing. Are you for real, man?
EB

So you continue to strawman what I write and you also pretend that I'm not aware of the obvious. (Now that I've shown that my original statetement about infinite time referred to the standard meaning, which is time without end, time that goes on forever. Because that's how English works, we default to the primary meaning if no deviation from it was mentioned.)

And when we talk about time we certainly don't automatically assume 2 dimensions of time. As far as I'm concerned there is only 1 detectable dimension of time for us, actually.

[Speakpigeon]

Now that I've shown that my original statetement about infinite time referred to the standard meaning, which is time without end, time that goes on forever. Because that's how English works, we default to the primary meaning if no deviation from it was mentioned.

That's not how language works. If we say "infinite past" it just means infinite past. Not infinite past with no beginning. That most people believe without cause that an infinite past necessarily has no beginning is irrelevant. I made clear myself that I was talking about an infinite past with a beginning, yet you insisted it was contradiction in terms. So, basically, you don't understand English.

And when we talk about time we certainly don't automatically assume 2 dimensions of time. As far as I'm concerned there is only 1 detectable dimension of time for us, actually.

I didn't mention any "dimension". I talked about things that are both finite and infinite. Finite in some respect, and infinite in some other respect.
You don't seem to understand English too good. Or you are just of bad faith.
I'm afraid there's no point to this conversation. I'll try to remember that in the future.
EB

[bahman]

I asked for T0 + infinite = now.

Isn't T0 -infinity?

No. T0 would be zero. The true zero of time.

There is no such thing as the true zero of time. If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

Explain because it doesn't make sense.

infinity < -infinit + infinity < infinity.

Sorry, that too doesn't make sense.

Sorry the correct inequality is -infinity < -infinit + infinity < infinity.

[Speakpigeon]

No. T0 would be zero. The true zero of time.

There is no such thing as the true zero of time.

You seem to know a lot. How could you possibly know that?!

If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

Sure, "if", but if not, then we can just assume T0.
Alternatively, prove to me T0 doesn't exist.

Sorry the correct inequality is -infinity < -infinit + infinity < infinity.

OK, but that has nothing to do we the idea that perhaps T0 + infinite past = Now.
EB

[bahman]

No. T0 would be zero. The true zero of time.

There is no such thing as the true zero of time.

You seem to know a lot. How could you possibly know that?!

I already said: If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

Sure, "if", but if not, then we can just assume T0.
Alternatively, prove to me T0 doesn't exist.

That is the definition of infinity, it is not reachable by simply summing a finite variable.

[bahman]

Double post.

[Speakpigeon]

I already said: If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

So what?!
If there is a beginning in time and we started from now going back in time we would go on for an infinite amount of time without reaching T0. Where's the problem?!

Sure, "if", but if not, then we can just assume T0.
Alternatively, prove to me T0 doesn't exist.

That is the definition of infinity, it is not reachable by simply summing a finite variable.

What does that have to do with anything. That we couldn't go to Sirius doesn't mean Sirius doesn't exist.

OK, I guess we're not going anywhere. You have a lot of preconceptions about the notion of time based on nothing. Your claim to disprove an infinite past is junk. You can't even articulate the beginning of an argument.
So, to answer your first post...

We are discussing two things in here: (1) Time cannot be emergent (cannot have any starting point) and (2) Time cannot be eternal. This leads to a dilemma. We first discuss (1) and then (2).
1) Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. Time therefore cannot be emergent variable of a dynamical theory since time cannot be emergent and fundamental variable at the same time. Therefore there is no theory that can explain the origin of time, in another word, time cannot have any beginning.
2) Time cannot be eternal since it takes infinite amount of time to reach from eternal past to now.
So here is the dilemma: Time can neither have any beginning nor can be eternal.

So, no, there's no dilemma. Time could logically be finite or infinite, infinite with or without a beginning, finite with or without a beginning.
Or maybe time just doesn't exist if it is for example just a figment of our imagination or a metaphysical construct to provide a framework for our impression of change.
We just don't know and it's quite likely we never will.
Your post is simplistic and essentially a massive non-sequitur.
But you don't have to believe me.
EB

[bahman]

I already said: If we take now as a reference point then we can go back infinite amount of time and still can go infinite amount of time...

So what?!
If there is a beginning in time and we started from now going back in time we would go on for an infinite amount of time without reaching T0. Where's the problem?!

Your T0 that is not reachable is called -infinity.