Dilemma of beginning of time

[Speakpigeon]

We already discussed this. By no one. I am talking about passage of time when I say it takes time to reach from A to B.

Passage of time relative to what?
EB

Just passage of time.

So, if it's just the passage of time, why would it be impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass?
EB

[bahman]

Passage of time relative to what?
EB

Just passage of time.

So, if it's just the passage of time, why would it be impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass?
EB

Because it takes infinite amount of time.

[Speakpigeon]

Just passage of time.

So, if it's just the passage of time, why would it be impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass?

Because it takes infinite amount of time.

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

[bahman]

So, if it's just the passage of time, why would it be impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass?

Because it takes infinite amount of time.

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite). Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity. So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

[Scott Mayers]

Because it takes infinite amount of time.

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite). Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity. So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

I tried to express something similar to logik. It is called 'bound' when as infinite is exclusive to its own interval. (called 'infinitesimal' with respect to the whole.)

Take any interval in the real number line, say from 2 to 3. Then all numbers, x, in an interval have an infinite number of real numbers:

2 < x < 3

The ends are not necessarily part of this but may be. That is, the expression above for this isn't defined AT the points, 2 or 3. But if a singularity at either ends exist, rather than an infinite approach, we have,

2 <= x <= 3

...where "<=" means less then OR equal to.

If we have,

-∞ < x < (any finite number) OR
(any finite number) < x < ∞ OR
-∞ < x < ∞ ,


These are "not bound" or "open" on AT LEAST one end.

Do you still hold to your original argument, have a better one, or dropped it altogether? I already argued much of this with logik if you were reading. If altered, can you restate your updated argument?

EDIT: Sorry, I see that you agree to my own position in the OP. I was thinking of one of the other threads. Have you read my form of arguing this in my three related threads? Bricks in the Universe's Wall [End of space &/or time], Another Brick for a Wall [Beginning of space &/or time], and The Bricks in Space and Time [Any point in between the beginning and end of space &/or time].

[Logik]

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite). Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity. So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

Besides the fact that I am getting bored talking about infinities, let me point out that finite/infinite is a false dichotomy from a human perspective.

There is: finite/intractable/infinite

Even IF the universe is finite, to us, humans - it's still intractable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... actability

The concept 'intractable' is wayyyy more useful and quantifiable than "infinite".

[Scott Mayers]

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite). Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity. So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

Besides the fact that I am getting bored talking about infinities, let me point out that finite/infinite is a false dichotomy from a human perspective.

There is: finite/intractable/infinite

Even IF the universe is finite, to us, humans - it's still intractable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... actability

The concept 'intractable' is wayyyy more useful and quantifiable than "infinite".

Agree but prefer to maintain infinity for further reference. Because "intractable" means "hard to control of deal with", the original word, "ineffable" was used. It means, "too great or extreme to express in words". And note the connections to religious origins too: the "name" of "YHWY" was considered by many today to mean it is blasphemous to utter. The actual word, YHWY is pronounced, Yeh Ovey and derives "the egg" (as in "I (am) the source". So the original story of this supposed blasphemous rule in religion wasn't actually about religion. It translates to:

"The name of the source of all things is extremely unspeakable (ineffable or intractable).

[Logik]

Agree but prefer to maintain infinity for further reference. Because "intractable" means "hard to control of deal with", the original word, "ineffable" was used. It means, "too great or extreme to express in words". And note the connections to religious origins too: the "name" of "YHWY" was considered by many today to mean it is blasphemous to utter. The actual word, YHWY is pronounced, Yeh Ovey and derives "the egg" (as in "I (am) the source". So the original story of this supposed blasphemous rule in religion wasn't actually about religion. It translates to:

"The name of the source of all things is extremely unspeakable (ineffable or intractable).

From my other thread - I mentioned Rogers' fixed point theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

interpreting "YHWY" as 'the egg' e.g I am the source is a functionally equivalent concept to Rogers' theorem!

IF you accept the premise then you should have no objection to me saying: We are God. You are God. I am God.

We are the thing that interprets reality. And with the power of constructivist mathematics and by the limits imposed on us by physics - we have the power of creation. WITHIN the domain of that which is 'tractable'. As per the the ideals of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

The story of the bible is nothing but the coming of age of a powerful mind. From infancy until it recognizes its own potential

I don't interpret creationism as BEING created. I interpret it as having the power TO create.

And in that context - I do not care about the origin. I care about the destination.

[Speakpigeon]

Because it takes infinite amount of time.

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite).

You don't have any proof that time passes at all. All we can say is that things, not time, things, seem to change from what we remember about them. You can't see time or touch it. All you can do is build a clock and look at the clock as it changes. So, your insistance that time "passes" is something you would need to substantiate.
Your formula t''= t' + t is a convention that only really applies to clocks, not time itself.
Still, if we assume the past infinite, that doesn't change our convention: between now and any moment in the past, there is a finite amount of time. So, where is the problem?

Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity.

???
How is that relevant?
What would be relevant is if we assume an infinite past and a beginning to time, say T0.
This just means that T0 + infinite past = now, which is equivalent to T0 = now - infinite past.
So, where would be the problem?

So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

In the usual view, there is just one regime.
If we assume the past infinite and no beginning to time, then between now and any moment in the past there is a finite amount of time.
So, where is the problem?

You don't have proof that time passes at all.
It may be that we and all material things change from moment to moment while time doesn't. If time exists at all, it's very plausible that it doesn't pass.
If time doesn't exist, then there never was any infinite past. However, maybe all past events have been preceded by another past event. Which sounds like an infinite past in all but name.
EB

[Scott Mayers]

Agree but prefer to maintain infinity for further reference. Because "intractable" means "hard to control of deal with", the original word, "ineffable" was used. It means, "too great or extreme to express in words". And note the connections to religious origins too: the "name" of "YHWY" was considered by many today to mean it is blasphemous to utter. The actual word, YHWY is pronounced, Yeh Ovey and derives "the egg" (as in "I (am) the source". So the original story of this supposed blasphemous rule in religion wasn't actually about religion. It translates to:

"The name of the source of all things is extremely unspeakable (ineffable or intractable).

From my other thread - I mentioned Rogers' fixed point theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleene%27 ... nt_theorem

interpreting "YHWY" as 'the egg' e.g I am the source is a functionally equivalent concept to Rogers' theorem!

IF you accept the premise then you should have no objection to me saying: We are God. You are God. I am God.

We are the thing that interprets reality. And with the power of constructivist mathematics and by the limits imposed on us by physics - we have the power of creation. WITHIN the domain of that which is 'tractable'. As per the the ideals of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.

The story of the bible is nothing but the coming of age of a powerful mind. From infancy until it recognizes its own potential

I don't interpret creationism as BEING created. I interpret it as having the power TO create.

And in that context - I do not care about the origin. I care about the destination.

I'll be the Sun. You can be the moon. [Aten ptah ra alla amun ra eve el atum] The sol(id) spits out its rays upon the moon light that reflects it afterwards upon the fallen (ie man).

Moon!? Is that you?

[Logik]

I'll be the Sun. You can be the moon. [Aten ptah ra alla amun ra eve el atum] The sol(id) spits out its rays upon the moon light that reflects it afterwards upon the fallen (ie man).

Moon!? Is that you?

Adding even more interpretations/metaphors to the ones we already have moves us further, not closer to consensus

[Scott Mayers]

I'll be the Sun. You can be the moon. [Aten ptah ra alla amun ra eve el atum] The sol(id) spits out its rays upon the moon light that reflects it afterwards upon the fallen (ie man).

Moon!? Is that you?

Adding even more interpretations/metaphors to the ones we already have moves us further, not closer to consensus

Okay, you're not the moon either.

My point is that I am WHERE I am at present and respect the concern of origins if only to determine how to move forward. "Goals" are only destinations if you're not already there.

[Logik]

My point is that I am WHERE I am at present and respect the concern of origins if only to determine how to move forward. "Goals" are only destinations if you're not already there.

Until we have any understanding of what 'time' is, how it works and how to control it. It is pretty obvious to me that this train is going somewhere and I am not driving it.

So it's clear that we aren't 'already there'

[bahman]

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite). Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity. So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

I tried to express something similar to logik. It is called 'bound' when as infinite is exclusive to its own interval. (called 'infinitesimal' with respect to the whole.)

Take any interval in the real number line, say from 2 to 3. Then all numbers, x, in an interval have an infinite number of real numbers:

2 < x < 3

The ends are not necessarily part of this but may be. That is, the expression above for this isn't defined AT the points, 2 or 3. But if a singularity at either ends exist, rather than an infinite approach, we have,

2 <= x <= 3

...where "<=" means less then OR equal to.

If we have,

-∞ < x < (any finite number) OR
(any finite number) < x < ∞ OR
-∞ < x < ∞ ,


These are "not bound" or "open" on AT LEAST one end.

Do you still hold to your original argument, have a better one, or dropped it altogether? I already argued much of this with logik if you were reading. If altered, can you restate your updated argument?

EDIT: Sorry, I see that you agree to my own position in the OP. I was thinking of one of the other threads. Have you read my form of arguing this in my three related threads? Bricks in the Universe's Wall [End of space &/or time], Another Brick for a Wall [Beginning of space &/or time], and The Bricks in Space and Time [Any point in between the beginning and end of space &/or time].

I already gave my opinion about of the subject Bricks in the Universe's Wall. I have to think about two other subjects.

[bahman]

Take? If you walk for A to B it will take some time. But the ground that exists between X and Y is at X and at Y at the same time so it doesn't take any time for the ground to be both at X and at Y. So, why would that be a problem for an existing infinite time to be a both at A and at B? The passage of time may be an entirely subjective impression for example. In this case, time doesn't pass. It just exists both in the past and now and in the future.
What would be the problem with that?
EB

You cannot reach infinity because following reason: Time passes according to following rule: t''=t'+t, where t being initial time, t' being time passed and t'' being final time (when t, t' and t'' are finite).

You don't have any proof that time passes at all. All we can say is that things, not time, things, seem to change from what we remember about them. You can't see time or touch it. All you can do is build a clock and look at the clock as it changes. So, your insistance that time "passes" is something you would need to substantiate.

Think of two events, X and Y. Lets assume that time does not exist. Two event are simultaneous. The reality is temporal therefore time exist.

Your formula t''= t' + t is a convention that only really applies to clocks, not time itself.

No, by watch we measure time elapse between two events. The click of a watch itself is an event.

Still, if we assume the past infinite, that doesn't change our convention: between now and any moment in the past, there is a finite amount of time. So, where is the problem?

There is infinite amount of time between now and infinite past. This is subject of our discussion rather than the bold part in your statement.

Infinity however has this property infinity=infinity+infinity.

???
How is that relevant?

It is relevant. I want to show that there are two exclusive regimes. One cannot reach from one regime to another regime by simply the operation of sum.

What would be relevant is if we assume an infinite past and a beginning to time, say T0.
This just means that T0 + infinite past = now, which is equivalent to T0 = now - infinite past.
So, where would be the problem?
The problem is that T0 is in infinte past so T0+infinite past=infinite, the second infinity could be anywhere on time (even infinite future).

That is not correct. T0+infinity=infinity. The infinity on the right hand could be any where even infinite future.

So, here we have two different regimes in time, one is finite and another one is infinite. These to regimes are mutually exclusive because of the way that sum operates.

In the usual view, there is just one regime.

As it shown there are two regimes.

If we assume the past infinite and no beginning to time, then between now and any moment in the past there is a finite amount of time.
So, where is the problem?

Yes. That is how the sum operates when time is finite.

You don't have proof that time passes at all.

I did. Please note the first comment.

It may be that we and all material things change from moment to moment while time doesn't. If time exists at all, it's very plausible that it doesn't pass.

Temporality is real, without it all events would be simultaneous.

If time doesn't exist, then there never was any infinite past. However, maybe all past events have been preceded by another past event. Which sounds like an infinite past in all but name.
EB

Time is real.