An infinite past.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't see the relevance of integers here (perhaps you can explain that). The proposition seems obvious otherwise. Were it possible to arrive at the end of infinity, it would not be infinity, by definition.

I clearly see what you're saying. If I can, so can they, especially those who pride themselves on their own logic.

I think they're trolling you, man.

Now you see what the Christians have to put up with.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I clearly see what you're saying. If I can, so can they, especially those who pride themselves on their own logic.

If you can see what he is saying, then perhaps you can explain it better? I created this thread to ask if anyone could present a valid argument. So far we have a number of posters who claim it is 'obviously the case' but can't actually put it into the format of a logical argument.

Remember that this particular claim is not a prerequisite for your religion, so being unable to prove it is not a negative for your religious beliefs, so you don't need to feel threatened.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't see the relevance of integers here (perhaps you can explain that). The proposition seems obvious otherwise. Were it possible to arrive at the end of infinity, it would not be infinity, by definition.

Let me try another tack:

You are saying we cannot arrive where we are because it would be the
"end of infinity". But we are not at the end of anything; there will be another
moment and another and another.

The concept of an infinite past means that you can go back as far as you like
and there will still be a "before". But from any moment in the past
to now is finite. If you disagree with that give a counter-example.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The integers are infinite in the negative direction. It appears to be your claim that the integer 0 is 'the end of infinity' in relation to the set of negative integers. If this is not your claim, then please explain further.

That seems like an oversimplification and I don't understand the relevance. I might need a little more info.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Let me try another tack:

You are saying we cannot arrive where we are because it would be the
"end of infinity". But we are not at the end of anything; there will be another
moment and another and another.

The concept of an infinite past means that you can go back as far as you like
and there will still be a "before". [b]But from ment in the past
to now is finite. If you disagree with that give a counter-example.[/b]

You are saying we cannot arrive where we are because it would be the
"end of infinity". But we are not at the end of anything; there will be another
moment and another and another.

Ah, yes, we certainly are in a position to witness time pass, and see new moments arise. But you don't have the luxury of presuming even this possibility, given an infinite past. To do so you (or twhitehead) must assume what you are trying to prove, that an infinite past can actually be traversed to arrive at the present.

The concept of an infinite past means that you can go back as far as you like
and there will still be a "before". [b]But from any moment in the past
to now is finite. If you disagree with that give a counter-example.[/b]

I don't disagree, but neither do I see its relevance. The issue is how the whole series can be formed, not a finite portion of it. Just because a finite portion can be traversed doesn't mean the entire infinite series can be traversed.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The concept of an infinite past means that you can go back as far as you like
and there will still be a "before". [b]But from any moment in the past
to now is finite. If you disagree with that give a counter-example.[/b]

I don't disagree, but neither do I see its relevance. [/b]

Can you agree that from any moment in the past to now is finite?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Can you agree that from any moment in the past to now is finite?

Sure? I feel like you're leading me somewhere...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Sure? I feel like you're leading me somewhere...

😀

From any moment in the past to now is finite.

any moment

so measuring from past to present and saying we have had an infinite amount of time is wrong.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
That seems like an oversimplification and I don't understand the relevance. I might need a little more info.

As far as I can see, your argument does not use any specific property of time. Therefore it should work equally well for the integers. If it does not, please explain where it does not.
Abstraction is what mathematics is all about. The set of integers is the standard abstract countable infinite set. That is the relevance.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
To do so you (or twhitehead) must assume what you are trying to prove, that an infinite past can actually be traversed to arrive at the present.

Actually no, it is you making the extraordinary claim so it is you that needs to present the proof.
What do you mean by 'traversed' and why do you think an infinite past cannot be 'traversed'?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
😀

From [b]any moment in the past to now is finite.

any moment

so measuring from past to present and saying we have had an infinite amount of time is wrong.[/b]

And this is significant how? As I said, the issue is how the whole series can be formed, not a finite portion of it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As far as I can see, your argument does not use any specific property of time. Therefore it should work equally well for the integers. If it does not, please explain where it does not.
Abstraction is what mathematics is all about. The set of integers is the standard abstract countable infinite set. [b]That is the relevance.[/b]

I can see why you and wolfgang want to move the discussion in this direction. I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but the elapsing of time (you know, that component of the universe which keeps everything from happening at once) is implied whenever anyone talks about the past. A set of integers gives the false impression that the sequence of events exists as one single block. Whereas in an actual, physical universe, time elapses; a movement which requires the complex interplay of matter and energy. Preceding events would recede into the distant past boundlessly, making it impossible for the elapsing of time to ever arrive at specific point. By positing these abstract points on a set of integers, you are begging the question by assuming that the events associated with those points would ever occur in the first place within a past-infinite universe.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can see why you and wolfgang want to move the discussion in this direction.

Yet you keep claiming you can't see the relevance.

I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but the elapsing of time (you know, that component of the universe which keeps everything from happening at once) is implied whenever anyone talks about the past.
Agreed, but what properties of time in particular are you claiming makes your argument not apply to the abstraction of integers

A set of integers gives the false impression that the sequence of events exists as one single block.
I don't think I understand that. In what way are integers not 'one single block' yet 'time' is?

Whereas in an actual, physical universe, time elapses; a movement which requires the complex interplay of matter and energy. Preceding events would recede into the distant past boundlessly, making it impossible for the elapsing of time to ever arrive at specific point.
Yes you have said it is impossible many many times, but where is the reasoning that leads you to this conclusion? What effect does 'the complex interplay of matter and energy' have in your argument?

By positing these abstract points on a set of integers, you are begging the question by assuming that the events associated with those points would ever occur in the first place within a past-infinite universe.
Now you've lost me. Please expand on that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you keep claiming you can't see the relevance.

[b]I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but the elapsing of time (you know, that component of the universe which keeps everything from happening at once) is implied whenever anyone talks about the past.
Agreed, but what properties of time in particular are you claiming makes y ...[text shortened]... place within a past-infinite universe.[/b]
Now you've lost me. Please expand on that.[/b]

You were already lost.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I can see why you and wolfgang want to move the discussion in this direction. I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but the elapsing of time (you know, that component of the universe which keeps everything from happening at once) is implied whenever anyone talks about the past. A set of integers gives the false impression that the sequ ...[text shortened]... sociated with those points would ever occur in the first place within a past-infinite universe.

Now you are losing me!
If you are not happy with the set of integers use the rationals to model time
or tell us why they cannot be used as a model.