Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hereandnow wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 12:32 am

arjand
1) is it possible for true infinity to exist?
2) is it plausible to assume that time must have had a beginning?

There is, arjand, an entirely different approach to this issue. Consider the analysis of time not as forward looking or backward looking, then making the impossible attempt to intuitively grasp it---and it is here, at this precipice of the impossible, that one can only embrace the intuitive paradox, far more unsettling than, say, a logical one, as in, "this sentence is false". Quite a thing to do, really, but note: in this, one never comes understand infinity; it remains remote and impossible,so when the issue is taken up as it is here, one has to confess at the outset that s/he doesn't know what the issue really is about at all, literally doesn't know what s/he is talking about.

The thought experiment is similar to the following logic: One cannot view the viewing while you one is viewing. It implies something about the human mind as a factor for consideration in a perception on reality.

I wonder if the origin of the idea that infinity cannot be understood may be a generally shared perspective (by modern humans) by which limitations are imposed to what one ought to consider comprehensible. The underlaying factor may be that the human mind (the observer) is erroneously factored out from consideration. I wonder if logical implications may enable to discover the essence of inifity, and to unlock its potential, for example for morality and successful evolution.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑March 5th, 2020, 12:32 am But this is true for all things, isn't it? There comes to a point in all inquiries where the "words run out" and one is faced with the impossible even in the most mundane affairs, for, as an obvious example, all things are in time, yet all time meanings are relative to the system of time: the befores and afters, and until 5 ams, and the rest of the language in which time is expressed, and all of these are analytically bound to temporal eternity, and eternity is an impossibility to the understanding; so: so much for the temporal assumption about "when' my lamp is, for all time concepts are cancelled by eternity. Spatial terms work out the same way, leaving the where and when of all things impossible, and we live with this impossibility, but ignore it because language about time works, is pragmatically efficient.

If our time references are contextualized meaningful only, then it does no good to use these as a means to grasp infinity in any significant way, for all you will ever get is contextual meanings. But there is one way to go, and this is to rethink time at is basis: in the language that makes time events possible. Ask, what time is it in the Buddhist's ideal meditative state. It has been described as a succession of present moments, a continuity that knows no past of future, but only an eternal present, eternal because it is out of the construction of time found in the everyday events, and there is no past producing existence in its projections of the future. A truly still mind does not produce time events; hence, no time, and timelessness is eternity.

A little wordy. Apologies.

A logical implication of the concept infinity is that it knows no distance or amount. It is oneness. As such, it appears that the human mind may connect the human to the essence of infinity.

A clue may be that the human can easily comprehend endlessness. The human can count into infinity.

Present awareness wrote: ↑March 4th, 2020, 9:29 pm Kalam’s argument is flawed:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:[6]

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore,
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.


1. The universe did not begin to exist, it was always here.
2. I find it odd how people can believe in a beginningless creator and yet not a beginningless universe.

Time is just a measurement. Space is the “now” point in time. Anything moving through space may be measured in terms of time, but may not leave the present moment.

Size does not exist either, except for by comparison. We naturally compare things to ourselves, bigger then us is big and smaller then us is small. However, if we no not exist, those comparisons do not exist either! The entire Milky Way galaxy could fit into a grain of sand and all the galaxies in the universe could simply be brain neurones in some cosmic beings head.

Wikipedia mentions the following:

The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:[5]

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
• The universe began to exist;

Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

In my opinion, the Universe is a mental concept constructed by a human perspective on reality. It is only when the word is used that one could argue that the Universe began. The word per se does not imply that the Universe is an object with a beginning.

The issue may be that the observer (the human mind) is erroneously factored out from consideration.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 29th, 2020, 12:00 pm

I noticed a post by Chris Leong on LessWrong.com who manages Investigations into Infinity.

It cites Immanuel Kant's argument for temporal finitism.

If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.

— Immanuel Kant, First Antinomy, of Space and Time

It appears that he shares your perspective.

The question is still pending: What would an amount represent when there is no total?

arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 4:54 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 29th, 2020, 12:00 pm

I noticed a post by Chris Leong on LessWrong.com who manages Investigations into Infinity.

It cites Immanuel Kant's argument for temporal finitism.

If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed, and there has passed away in that world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence.

— Immanuel Kant, First Antinomy, of Space and Time

It appears that he shares your perspective.

The question is still pending: What would an amount represent when there is no total?

No one is saying that infinity is a particular amount.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 5:16 am No one is saying that infinity is a particular amount.

You specifically argued the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

It is clear that you consider an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) by which you imply that time must have had a beginning.

How is it possible to claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility while in the same time stating that that which is denoted as an amount is not representing a total?

arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 9:29 am It is clear that you consider an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m.) by which you imply that time must have had a beginning.

How is it possible to claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility while in the same time stating that that which is denoted as an amount is not representing a total?

If I wrote that it was a sloppy colloquial way of speaking. I'm not arguing that infinity is a definite amount or quantity. If that's why you're being so obsessive about this then oy vey. I'd have to search for it, but I know I confirmed with you early on that no one is saying that an infinity is a definite amount or quantity. You need to be able to read that and flip the obsessiveness toggle that was triggered by a colloquial phrase.

Then, if infinity isn't an amount, why would the logical impossibility ¹ be applicable?

arjand wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:29 pmTP argues that time is to be perceived as a state (T1, T2 etc.) and that it is logically impossible that an infinite amount of such states could have preceded any given state.

TP's argument considers the concept infinite amount which is a logical impossibility ¹. Because infinity does not have a beginning, it cannot be counted and the idea of an infinite amount is invalid.

From the idea of an amount of time he formulated the argument that it would be impossible that an infinite amount of time could have preceded a given state, by which he appeared to imply that time must have had a beginning.

The logical impossibility ¹ is to be considered valid. The question then remains: what causes TP to believe that time must have had a beginning?

You referenced time as being a state by naming it T1, T2, etc. That implies that you perceive time as an amount which is also evident from the fact that you argue that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable to time by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 11:40 am Then, if infinity isn't an amount, why would the logical impossibility ¹ be applicable?

arjand wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:29 pmTP argues that time is to be perceived as a state (T1, T2 etc.) and that it is logically impossible that an infinite amount of such states could have preceded any given state.

TP's argument considers the concept infinite amount which is a logical impossibility ¹. Because infinity does not have a beginning, it cannot be counted and the idea of an infinite amount is invalid.

From the idea of an amount of time he formulated the argument that it would be impossible that an infinite amount of time could have preceded a given state, by which he appeared to imply that time must have had a beginning.

The logical impossibility ¹ is to be considered valid. The question then remains: what causes TP to believe that time must have had a beginning?

You referenced time as being a state by naming it T1, T2, etc. That implies that you perceive time as an amount which is also evident from the fact that you argue that the logical impossibility ¹ is applicable to time by which is implied that time must have had a beginning.

Time is identical to motion or change.

We can name different states of motion or change. If we wanted to, we could name them "Joe," "Anne," "Billy," "Reya," etc. Would that be an "amount" in your view?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 11:43 am Time is identical to motion or change.

It implies that your argument regarding Tn is applicable to time.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 11:43 am We can name different states of motion or change. If we wanted to, we could name them "Joe," "Anne," "Billy," "Reya," etc. Would that be an "amount" in your view?

Numbers are intended to codify quantity. Giving a name to each unit in the quantity wouldn't change anything.

At question is the validity of the consideration that an infinite amount of time is impossible.

You used the word amount yourself in your original argument. Do you want to retract your view that time must have had a beginning?

arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 1:17 pm Numbers are intended to codify quantity. Giving a name to each unit in the quantity wouldn't change anything.

Why is it so hard to get a yes or no. I can't tell if you're saying that yes, Billy, Anne, etc. would be an amount, or no, it wouldn't be.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 1:26 pmWhy is it so hard to get a yes or no. I can't tell if you're saying that yes, Billy, Anne, etc. would be an amount, or no, it wouldn't be.

You are demanding a direct answer to your question. As such it is evident that you hold value in a certain communication etiquette.

I asked the first question that has remained unanswered until now. By your demanded etiquette, it seems fair that you would answer the question.

With regarding the naming of time states. It does not appear to be relevant whether T1 receives the name Billy, and T2 receives the name Anne. At question is whether an infinite amount of Tn is impossible, by which it is implied that time must have had a beginning.

The paper cited in the OP addresses the claim by the Kalam cosmological argument that time must have had a beginning. It seems logical that your argument must have been intended as a defense for that claim.

You specifically argued the following:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 15th, 2020, 5:11 pm Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 18th, 2020, 8:32 am You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

It is clear that you consider an infinite amount relative to Tn (i.e. 6:38 p.m., Billy or Anne) by which you imply that time must have had a beginning.

How is it possible to claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility while in the same time stating that that which is denoted as an amount is not representing a total?

The pending question: What would an amount represent when there is no total?

arjand wrote: ↑March 9th, 2020, 2:20 pm

Yeah, definitely, if you don't want to answer, just ignore the question and steer things to what you'd prefer to talk about and I'll obediently follow.

I did answer your question: it doesn't make a difference what name you would assign to individual time states. What is at question is whether it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective.

How is it possible to claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility while in the same time stating that that which is denoted as an amount is not representing a total?

arjand wrote: ↑March 10th, 2020, 12:56 pm I did answer your question:

You misunderstood me to be querying whether you believe you answered the question. I wasn't. Per my assessment, which is what matters to me (as you can imagine), you didn't answer.

An answer would explicitly confirm whether you'd say that names like "Billy" and "Anne" are amounts.

amount - a quantity of something, especially the total of a thing or things in number, size, value, or extent.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/amount

A single name Billy may be considered an amount of 1 [name]. The answer is therefore yes.