Dilemma of beginning of time

[Speakpigeon]

Your T0 that is not reachable is called -infinity.

No because it's the origin of time and therefore it is zero time, not infinity.
EB

[Atla]

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.

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English. It's not about belief, you just don't speak English and now you choose to ignore the dictionaries too even though you always try to prove your ramblings using dictionaries.
Also, you totally didn't mention first that you mean infinite past with a beginning.
And yes, infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction of terms. Since infinite by default means that it has no beginning. No beginning with a beginning is a contradiction where I live.

(Such a thing too might still be possible though, just not really logically possible. Which was my point from the start. Something that goes on forever but doesn't go on forever. Right.)

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.
EB

If you didn't mean dimension then you make even less sense becaue then you may have also invented an alternative system of physics.
One that works via "respects".
Do you even understand that time is more than just an empty word, that it refers to something in the actual physical world?

I'm afraid there's no point to this conversation. I'll try to remember that in the future.

OF COURSE THERE ISN'T FFS that's what I keep telling you.

Look I really work a lot lately and am pretty tired so my time and tolerance for idiots is pretty low nowadays.

[bahman]

Your T0 that is not reachable is called -infinity.

No because it's the origin of time and therefore it is zero time, not infinity.
EB

So, now therefore is at infinity since T0+infinity=now and we have any finite number + infinity = infinity.

[Logik]

Your T0 that is not reachable is called -infinity.

No because it's the origin of time and therefore it is zero time, not infinity.
EB

The open interval (-∞, +∞) doesn't have an "origin".

Your insistence that it does is just a desperate attempt to rescue your religion: foundationalism.

[Speakpigeon]

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English.

Here are the definitions you found yourself:

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

As obviously you can't see by yourself, there's no mention of "no beginning".
And there's this one too: "unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc."
Which says an infinite past with a beginning is infinite since it is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
All the other definitions you provided here are consistent with this interpretation.
Assuming an infinite past with a beginning, we can imagine counting the days one by one starting from now and never getting to the beginning of time. Infinite.
You clearly don't understand English too good and you've proved yourself illogical, so there ain't no point talking to you. I could argue till the end of time that you still would come back with extraordinary claims. And that you can't even imagine that an infinite past may for all we know have a beginning says all there is to know about you. You're indeed limited. And you don't even have the time.
So, that will be all.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Your T0 that is not reachable is called -infinity.

No because it's the origin of time and therefore it is zero time, not infinity.
EB

So, now therefore is at infinity since T0+infinity=now and we have any finite number + infinity = infinity.

No, we don't. You can't prove your arithmetic here.
There are also concepts of infinities where your arithmetic is just false.
Prove your arithmetic.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

The open interval (-∞, +∞) doesn't have an "origin".

What does this have to do with anything. You're a triple idiot.
You show yourself an irrelevant fool with each new comment you make.

Your insistence that it does is just a desperate attempt to rescue your religion: foundationalism.

You don't understand English. I insist that it is logically possible than an infinite past would have a beginning.
But prove otherwise if you can.
It's hilarious to see you walk about pretending to be an expert in logic and yet you can't understand that an infinite past with a beginning is a logical possibility.
EB

[Logik]

No, we don't. You can't prove your arithmetic here.
Prove your arithmetic.

Can you provide us with an objective criterion for what you would accept as 'valid proof'?

[Logik]

The open interval (-∞, +∞) doesn't have an "origin".

What does this have to do with anything. You're a triple idiot.
You show yourself an irrelevant fool with each new comment you make.

The fact that you can't see the relevance is evidence of your stupidity.

An open interval is a number line. You know what a number line is, right?

The very fucking thing you use to DO arithmetic. Like 1+2 = 3

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

Your insistence that it does is just a desperate attempt to rescue your religion: foundationalism.

You don't understand English. I insist that it is logically possible than an infinite past would have a beginning.

You don't understand arithmetic. It's not possible.

Of course I COULD be wrong....

But prove otherwise if you can.
It's hilarious to see you walk about pretending to be an expert in logic and yet you can't understand that an infinite past with a beginning is a logical possibility.

The burden of proof lies with you.

Provide us the axioms/theorems of your Mathematical framework in which "finite infinities" allow for any arithmetic.

Damn shame, that me calling you an idiot is a factual claim, whereas you calling me an idiot is your ego crying to be rescued from the moron it has been burdened with.

[Logik]

No, we don't. You can't prove your arithmetic here.
There are also concepts of infinities where your arithmetic is just false.
Prove your arithmetic

Further evidence that your episteme is totally fucked - science doesn't work by proving anything.

Science works by disproving bullshit - the principle of falsification. While you insist on proof, 3 people are throwing disproof at you.
Still - you insist on a sacred cow. Finite infinity.

If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.

[Dontaskme]

Science works by disproving bullshit - the principle of falsification.

Science cannot disprove what it doesn't know, science can only discover what is already here that it didn't know. If it knew, it wouldn't have needed to discover.



.

[Atla]

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English.

Here are the definitions you found yourself:

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

As obviously you can't see by yourself, there's no mention of "no beginning".
And there's this one too: "unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc."
Which says an infinite past with a beginning is infinite since it is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
All the other definitions you provided here are consistent with this interpretation.
Assuming an infinite past with a beginning, we can imagine counting the days one by one starting from now and never getting to the beginning of time. Infinite.
You clearly don't understand English too good and you've proved yourself illogical, so there ain't no point talking to you. I could argue till the end of time that you still would come back with extraordinary claims. And that you can't even imagine that an infinite past may for all we know have a beginning says all there is to know about you. You're indeed limited. And you don't even have the time.
So, that will be all.
EB

No, a beginning is a limit.

How old are you, 6?

And if you think that contradictions like finite infinite, or no beginning with a beginning are logical, then maybe you should avoid logic alltogether.

You are also too much of an idiot to comprehend that I can imagine your idea of infinite past with a beginning.

[Speakpigeon]

No, a beginning is a limit.

Sure, it's a limit.
There's an infinity of Real numbers between 0 and 1. It's an infinite set of numbers. So it's an infinite set. Yet, this infinite set has limits. Not just one limit. Two limits.
So, how does your semantic worldview explain that an infinite something has limits?

How old are you, 6?

I wish.

And if you think that contradictions like finite infinite, or no beginning with a beginning are logical, then maybe you should avoid logic alltogether.

Your words.
This of course is a really idiotic argument. You're getting lower and lower with each new post.

You are also too much of an idiot to comprehend that I can imagine your idea of infinite past with a beginning.

I'm not inside your head.
This is an idiotic argument. You're getting lower and lower with each new post.
I guess you're just upset.
We each have made our points and we disagree. No bad feelings.
EB

[Logik]

We each have made our points and we disagree. No bad feelings.

You haven't made a point yet. You are just disagreeing.

[bahman]

No because it's the origin of time and therefore it is zero time, not infinity.
EB

So, now therefore is at infinity since T0+infinity=now and we have any finite number + infinity = infinity.

No, we don't. You can't prove your arithmetic here.
There are also concepts of infinities where your arithmetic is just false.
Prove your arithmetic.
EB

According to wiki: Infinity is a concept describing something without any bound, or something larger than any natural number (ANN). For any ANN A+B=C where C>A and C>B. Infinity is however bigger than any ANN therefore C<infinity. Thus you cannot reach infinity by adding ANNs.