That is how I would define it, but I didn’t use “past” in my statement. You transcribed the term into it. — Mww
So is this where you’re coming from? And by association, is this the hypothetical proposition the truth of which you find doubtful? — Mww
You’re equating your “if the past were infinite” with his “an eternity must have elapsed” — Mww
what I said was that he maintained that if the past were infinite then that implies that an infinite amount of time has elapsed.
I'm not saying Kant maintained that the universe had an infinite past, I'm doubting the truth of that hypothetical proposition. — Amalac
The hypotetical I'm refering to is “If the universe has an infinite past, then an infinite amount of time has elapsed up to the present”. — Amalac
You’re equating your “if the past were infinite” with his “an eternity must have elapsed”
— Mww
No, I don't think those two mean the same thing, — Amalac
I'm saying: The past is infinite ≠ an infinite amount of time has elapsed — Amalac
to say that time has elapsed implies that it elapsed since some moment in time to some other moment in time — Amalac
hence the notion of time elapsing is not applicable to infinite amounts of time, but only to finite intervals of time. — Amalac
Man, this hypothetical’s got a farging mind of its own donnit? Seems “up to the present” makes an appearance in this current iteration, which changes the entire proposition. — Mww
(...)Now, in his first proof, Kant simply argues that the world must have a beginning in time, since otherwise an infinite number of years would have elapsed at the present moment, which is impossible. This concludes the first proof. — Karl Popper
Hmmm......and what of the idea of a succession of a series of times that never completes? Isn’t a succession in a series of times the same as an elapse of time? — Mww
A succession in a series makes no need of an amount for each time of the series. — Mww
Even so, isn’t an infinite series of successive finite intervals of minutes, still an infinite amount of time? — Mww
“....up to every given moment of time, an eternity must have elapsed, and therewith passed away an infinite series of successive conditions....” — Mww
the infinity of a series consists in that it can never be finished by means of successive syntheses. — Kant
The statement that the universe cannot be infinite towards the past because that would imply going through or traversing an infinite number of events to get to the present seems false to me, since it seems to assume that in traveling such a series of events one goes through or traverses from an initial moment to the present, while this infinite universe towards the past by definition has no initial moment.
If, on the contrary, the journey begins at some point in the past which is not an initial moment, it does not matter how much one goes back in the timeline, the events and time from that moment to the present will always be finite, and there is therefore no impossibility in a universe whose time is infinite to the past. — Amalac
Let's me take a stab at your argument, for my own benefit. As I understand what you're saying: even if time had no beginning it would not matter because we are finite, so we can place ourselves anywhere on the timeline and no be bothered about how we got here. — Manuel
Isn't the counterargument here that in order to get to now, we had to begin somewhere. — Manuel
But if time is infinite, how could we place ourselves here? An infinite amount of time has gone on before we got here. — Manuel
Either a part of infinity is finite or if not, it is also infinite. If a part of infinity is also infinite, regardless of not having starting conditions, we could not be here. — Manuel
But this raises more problems, if a part of infinity is finite, wouldn't we have to go through an infinite amount of time to reach a portion of infinity which is not. How's that possible? — Manuel
So, when talking about the timeline of the universe, which part of it are you saying would be infinite, and how would that imply that “we could not be here”? — Amalac
Why is it that we had to begin somewhere?
Doesn't that beg the question by already assuming that there must have been a beginning in time? — Amalac
since in the very definition of time elapsing, a beginning and an end of the lapse of time are pressupposed. — Amalac
It may be possible that there was an initial moment and yet time extends infinitely into the past. Think time dilation and the Big Bang. Just ruminating, pay no mind. — jgill
In a universe with an infinite past, one could say that there would be infinitely many finite intervals of time, which, when added, make up an infinite amount of time.
But if that's all that Kant meant when he said that:
“....up to every given moment of time, an eternity must have elapsed, and therewith passed away an infinite series of successive conditions....”
— Mww
... then I don't see what the supposed contradiction is, he says (in my translation of the Critique):
the infinity of a series consists in that it can never be finished by means of successive syntheses.
— Kant — Amalac
in the same way in which the series of negative integers — Amalac
Hmmm......and what of the idea of a succession of a series of times that never completes? Isn’t a succession in a series of times the same as an elapse of time?
— Mww
I guess you meant to say “Isn't a succession in a series of time the same as a lapse of time?” — Amalac
So, to make the mathematical analogy clear: — Amalac
The contradiction resides in your inclusion of the universe as an uncompleted series. If it was, then the elapsed time of the universe, your “infinitely many finite intervals of time” for the universe is impossible — Mww
The universe would never be “finished by means of successive synthesis”, from which follows necessarily that talk of “in a universe with an infinite past”, is meaningless. — Mww
While it may not be contradictory to speak of a universe with an infinite past, given the existence of it, it is still contradictory to speak of a universe with an infinite elapsed time, which makes no reference to any given time. — Mww
The set of negative integers is an uncompleted series, in which the last member is impossible to represent. — Mww
(...)take again the arguments (of Aquinas) professing to prove the existence of God. All of these, except the one from teleology in lifeless things, depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary. — Bertrand Russell
No, I said what I meant to say. — Mww
Metaphysics.....the most fun to be had without paying for it. — Mww
So if one argues that Kant's argument “proved” that the temporal series of the universe must have had a beginning in time, by the same reasoning one could also prove that the series of negative integers must have a first term, a smallest negative integer, since otherwise the series could not end with -1, which is clearly not the case. — Amalac
And why would there being infinitely many finite intervals of time be impossible given a universe with no beginning in time/ infinite past, exactly? — Amalac
If the Big Bang is true and complete, how can we speak of time before that? — Manuel
The mistake most make when it comes to time is to conceive of it as a kind of extended stuff, and that immediately generates actual infinities. For now any region of time, like any region of space, can be infinitely divided. And thus we have to posit actual infinities. Which can't exist. — Bartricks
Probably useful to note there is no such thing as time in the universe. There is, on the other hand, how we look at it and attempt to understand. — tim wood
If the Big Bang is true and complete, how can we speak of time before that? — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.