It's a diagram of a segment of an infinite line.That’s not an infinite line.
What I said, in other words, if we can exist in infinite space, so too present time can exist with infinite past. Do you think space could be infinite?...so what did you think you actually proved?
Do you think space could be infinite? — Zelebg
As an abstract concept, yes, by definition space is infinite. But what is our working definition of "space" concept in reality?Sure, it could be.
How about this one?:Ahhhh....ok, then. A symbolic proof. Thing is....that little squiggly thing at each end of the representational dotted line segment presupposes the very thing you’re using to prove something about it. — Mww
For example, the concept of infinity is inherently an abstract concept, which, it seems, just simply cannot be applied to reality, and so this and similar discussions necessarily lead us to some kind of paradox, one way or another. — Zelebg
Basically, I think we cannot find satisfying resolution to this question until we first do something with our vocabulary, perhaps make definitions of concepts involved more robust or restrictive, or maybe come up with some new concepts and definitions, — Zelebg
For example, does "time" make any sense if nothing moves, if there is no change, and similarily, does "space" make any sense if there is nothing in it? — Zelebg
My point here is that at least in some of your discussions you're confusing the measurement with the thing you are measuring. — InPitzotl
It's kind of irrelevant that our numbering system along that bottom ruler "never ends"... that line segment certainly has a point on it. — InPitzotl
From reading your reply it appears you don't understand the diagram. Let's imagine the units of the above ruler is hours; and the unit of the below ruler is also hours. -1 by the above ruler means one hour ago. -1 on the below ruler also means 1 hour ago. -2 on the below ruler means two hours ago; -3 three hours ago, and so on. By the above ruler, there's a point in time one hour ago. By the below ruler, that point in time is in the infinite past.Do you see this doesn’t relate to my arguments with respect to the thread’s original proposition? — Mww
Sure, ...So neither of these two pictorial renditions prove the absolute necessity, of that which is grounded only in a mere possibility. — Mww
...but proving the possibility is equivalent to disproving the impossibility. The original post is about challenging Popper's proof of impossibility.It is impossible to prove there is a point on an infinite line, if there is no possibility of an infinite line. — Mww
To what does the phrase "illegitimate in experience" refer?This is a perfect example of reason in conflict with itself.....substituting what is legitimate in thought, with what is illegitimate in experience. — Mww
If Sam falls into an eternal black hole, and I watch, Sam would experience nothing unusual when he falls into the event horizon. His watch just ticks along as usual. There it goes... tick tick tick. I, on other hand, will never see him fall into the black hole, because time dilation is so extreme that Sam asymptotically never goes in, on my ruler. So where is the exit point? Why, it's the event horizon. This time reversed illustration is simply meant to convey that your question, whereas it may at first appear to have no answer, might have the simplest of them... the access point is simply an hour ago by the top ruler and is a type of horizon by the bottom one.The universe as a whole is the logical equivalent of your pictorial representation. As such, there is an infinite quantity of constituency in the universe, just as there is an infinite number of points on the line segment, 0 through -1. But the other diagram is bounded by infinity itself, no beginning and no end, which makes it absurd to locate any point on that line. I mean.....where is the access point? — Mww
To what does the phrase "illegitimate in experience" refer? — InPitzotl
————If Sam falls into an eternal black hole — InPitzotl
It is impossible to prove there is a point on an infinite line, if there is no possibility of an infinite line.
— Mww
...but proving the possibility is equivalent to disproving the impossibility. The original post is about challenging Popper's proof of impossibility. — InPitzotl
Sort of; it's "Kant's argument as Popper presents it" (see below).It wasn’t Popper’s, it was Kant’s. — Mww
The one does not preclude the other:And it wasn’t a challenge as much as a misunderstanding by the thread’s author, of the original argument logically proving the impossibility of the world having no beginning. — Mww
There is definitely a challenge here ("isn't that as fallacious as"...).Maybe I don't quite understand Kant's argument as Popper presents it, but: isn't that as fallacious as arguing that the series of negative integers cannot be infinite because otherwise it could never reach -3? — Amalac
We seem to have vastly different views of modality. One need not prove a necessity nor an existence to prove a possibility. I can prove it possible for me to run from A to B by running from C to D, or running on a treadmill. Or, I can prove a wooden floor can hold 500 pounds by analysis (I need never put a 500 pound weight on it). In this case, the impossibility argument is based on an alleged absurdity; showing the alleged absurdity viable suffices to undermine the argument.To prove a possibility, one must prove a necessity, and to prove a necessity one needs prove an existence. — Mww
Sure, that's possible too. Per the illustration, it's even possible that there was a prior to the infinitely long ago, as illustrated by the line. I drew this diagram intentionally depicting such a prior, and intentionally making it ambiguous whether there was a beginning or not. But the infinitude nevertheless demonstrates the argument invalid by undermining the alleged absurdity; even if the universe in fact turns out to have a beginning.The common rejoinder is, of course.....why not both. A beginning for the world and that beginning infinitely long ago. — Mww
Obvious does not entail correct. The counterarguments do exactly what was intended... they undermine the alleged absurdity. Undermining the alleged absurdity suffices to undermine the argument. Your confusion that the burden must be way higher is just your confusion.The contradictions so blatantly obvious, the counterarguments so lackluster......eventually regressing into such modern conceptual monstrosities as (gaspsputterchoke) “spagettification” — Mww
By my reading and treatment, this thread is more about an argument's validity than about time's actual beginning or lack thereof. — InPitzotl
To me, it's unknown whether time had a beginning. — InPitzotl
But it's certain that argument is invalid. — InPitzotl
Apparently not, because you keep saying something follows that doesn't follow.And you thought I didn’t get it. — Mww
"Negative", "zero", and "positive" are classes of numbers. In terms of ordering, 0 divides the classes; greater numbers are positive, lesser are negative, and 0 per se is in neither (in the typical scheme). By beginning we usually talk about the lower end; so in this case, that would be discussions about horizons. This refocus on the upper end "to make a point" doesn't seem to make it pretty well. Even so, nothing meaningful is entailed on that side either, so let's talk both.I grant the present represented by zero is synonymous with the beginning of negative hours, just as Kant’s argument stipulated the beginning of the world. — Mww
Nothing about the extent of that blue line follows from the extent of the ruler. Be it horizon or origin, the line may not reach it, may reach it exclusively, reach it inclusively, or may go beyond it. I cannot rule in or out any of those things on the basis of pontificating on the nature of the number classes.It follows that there must be a time where negative hours did not exist, just as there must have been a time when the world did not exist,
Not sure what you're saying here. 0 is the beginning of the negative numbers by your scheme, but 0 is not negative; so the beginning point is exclusive.for that which has a beginning must have a time relative to it necessarily. — Mww
...I've discussed the number cases above. We have classes with inclusive and exclusive endpoints and classes with no endpoints.In the case of the numbers — Mww
No, that does not follow. The horizon can be an exclusive endpoint or an inclusive endpoint (or a non-endpoint). We can have a future horizon just like that as well. There is no meaningful restriction to the extent of that blue line that you can infer from any infinitude of a ruler.But no matter its beginning, it did have one, therefore it could not have had an infinite past in which no beginning is to be found. — Mww
I just don’t see why we would want or need to say that an infinite amount of time elapsed, if the past were infinite — Amalac
What does one mean by past? Elapsed time ending in the present (now).
So, if the past is infinite, an infinite amount of time must've elapsed. — TheMadFool
There is no past. The present has passed but the pass does not exist. Existence is moving forward, — val p miranda
I have a feeling that you might want to look into, analyze thoroughly, an expression that seems to be, luckily or not, a stock phrase employed by those who face major employment issues, that phrase being, "my career ended before it even started" — TheMadFool
How on earth can something end before it started? — TheMadFool
An infinite past has no start and yet, here we are, in the present, an end as it were. — TheMadFool
That's just a figure of speech, obviously. — Amalac
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.