If time spanned infinity in both directions,
then there is a new past being created for every second we experience of the future. Then retroactively we miss this "new" past since we only experience the future thus we will not recall this "new" past. It is like saying our position in time is infinity + 1. How can we then say that the universe has always existed if there was/is an infinite past? Conversely, if time had a beginning it needs a cause. Infinite past or not, how can there be any doubt against the universe having a beginning?
Well, what is time actually? Is it really a dimension, able to see back and forth? Or is it the movement and changes that occur in the universe? Is time only an illusion created by the human mind or does it really exist?
| Aredon wrote: |
If time spanned infinity in both directions,
then there is a new past being created for every second we experience of the future. Then retroactively we miss this "new" past since we only experience the future thus we will not recall this "new" past. It is like saying our position in time is infinity + 1. How can we then say that the universe has always existed if there was/is an infinite past? |
Say that again? i think you've hit on an interesting point, but i'm not entirely sure. Could you reword it?
| Aredon wrote: |
| Conversely, if time had a beginning it needs a cause. |
No! Not true, actually! ^_^
It's really counter-intuitive because our brains are hard-wired to think a certain way. We (humans) perceive the universe to be deterministic. This is either because it appears deterministic at the macroscopic level that our awareness evolved at, or because some god happened to set things up that way - either way, that's how we are. However, modern science is increasingly understanding that, fundamentally, the universe is actually indeterministic. In an indeterministic universe, things can happen without cause, so time can have a beginning without something actually causing that beginning.
Our minds are not natively built to handle this possibility - we can't really grok "effects without causes". We can talk about it, but we really can't understand it.
| catscratches wrote: |
| Well, what is time actually? Is it really a dimension, able to see back and forth? Or is it the movement and changes that occur in the universe? Is time only an illusion created by the human mind or does it really exist? |
That all depends on who you ask. According to modern science, time is a real "thing". It actually has a physical existence and is not simply an imaginary artefact we use to make sense of things. We even have discovered that we have a limited amount of control (so far) over it - we can make it stretch or contract by influencing the Higgs field in various ways (the Higgs field being, in the Standard Model, the bridge between time and energy).
So it is incorrect to describe time in terms of movement and change - instead, we should describe movement and change in terms of time. Time is real, movement and change are the imaginary artefacts we use to make sense of things.
But the jury is still out because this science is really rather young. We are pretty sure that time is a "thing", but we really don't know what that "thing" is yet. We don't even know all of the properties of that "thing" yet: is it continuous or quantized? And we don't know yet the limits of control possible over that "thing": can we move arbitrarily in time as we can in the three macroscopic spatial dimensions, can we "fork" time to create multiple alternate histories/futures (is there another "time-like" dimension orthogonal to the one we know)? Big questions, but answers are years down the road.I believe in God, so it goes without saying that I believe He has always 'been' here. Nothingness, therefore, is something I do not believe in, because the existence of God implies there is 'something', and not 'nothing'. The universe may once not have existed, but that does not make it nothingness. I believe that God has always been, therefore there has always been 'something', but outside the universe.
'Nothing' as we know it isn't really nothing... So it doesn't have to be a god before the universe to be something.
| Indi wrote: |
| Say that again? i think you've hit on an interesting point, but i'm not entirely sure. Could you reword it? |
Consider the following case:
If time spanned infinity in both directions, then the present would be the center point of time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|past| < --------- | present | --------- > |future|
|
If time expanded, then for each second that elapses into the future, there is an opposite past being created. In such a case time could be backtracked to its center, the present, before its past and future expand. Thus such an understanding of time, that gradually expands, can be backtracked to a beginning.
Now consider this case:
If time didn't expand and there is an already existing infinite past for time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|
Then by taking one step further into the future, the already infinite past needs to make room for the new past we created which is infinity plus 1.I think so. It doesn't need a start point, nor and end point. It just is.
In the light of this discussion, time as a closed loop seems much more reasonable...
I've come across one theory in which the three spatial dimensions we know are rotating in a time dimension. That would explain the constant speed, and allow for a closed loop. It would also raise the interesting possibility that there would be a place in the universe where time does not pass, and places where it passes much faster.
| Aredon wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Say that again? i think you've hit on an interesting point, but i'm not entirely sure. Could you reword it? |
Consider the following case:
If time spanned infinity in both directions, then the present would be the center point of time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|past| < --------- | present | --------- > |future|
|
If time expanded, then for each second that elapses into the future, there is an opposite past being created. In such a case time could be backtracked to its center, the present, before its past and future expand. Thus such an understanding of time, that gradually expands, can be backtracked to a beginning.
Now consider this case:
If time didn't expand and there is an already existing infinite past for time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|
Then by taking one step further into the future, the already infinite past needs to make room for the new past we created which is infinity plus 1. |
i think i see it now, but honestly, i'm not sure. i think part of the problem is that you're using a peculiar definition of infinity.
You can't say "∞ = ∞"... that's just mathematical nonsense. ∞ is not a number, it is a direction. You can't say "here i am with infinity on the left and infinity on the right, therefore i am in the middle." That kind of language is meaningless. If you imagine an infinite line, every point on that line is the "middle"... assuming the term had meaning, which it doesn't. At every single point you can say "i have infinity on the left, and infinity on the right, therefore i am in the middle." At every point it is "true", and at every point it is "false"... it's nonsensical.
So your "gradually radiating timeline" does gradually expand symmetrically outward from a point... but it gradually expands symmetrically outward from every point. So it does have a "beginning"... everywhere - it has an infinite number of "beginnings". Which is a good sign that you're in the realm of nonsense.
As for the one-way motion, i still don't get how that suggests a beginning. Even if you say each step backward is "∞ - 1" (the opposite of saying each step forward is "∞ + 1"), "∞ - 1 = ∞". There is no beginning.Hehe; my brain hurts!
But it is a good conversation here. As for myself, I personally believe all time is infinite including an infinite past. I do not know why I feel or think this - just a gut feeling I suppose!! Haha! I don't feel like to think about it anymore as my brain is not comfortable here. sry...
| tony wrote: |
Hehe; my brain hurts!
But it is a good conversation here. As for myself, I personally believe all time is infinite including an infinite past. I do not know why I feel or think this - just a gut feeling I suppose!! Haha! I don't feel like to think about it anymore as my brain is not comfortable here. sry... |
It is hard to wrap your brain around infinity. ^_^;
Try thinking of a line drawn as a circle - it's a good way to start thinking about infinity. If you start at a point on the circle, you can go in either direction and never come to the end of the line (you will, of course, eventually cross your starting point, but if you ignore that you have an infinitely long path).
Aredon will probably be better equipped to explain his idea, but the way i see it is this: He has put a point on the circle and said that he can go right or he can go left, and that either way the path length is infinity. Since he has infinity on both sides, he is in the "middle".
However, this fails on two counts. First, you can put that starting point anywhere on the circle and make the same argument... so you have an infinite number of "middles". The second is harder to illustrate, but it comes from the understanding that infinity is not a number. You can't put infinity into equations and solve. You can't write "∞ = ∞" and say your equation is balanced.Forgive me if I utterly fail at this... My brain normally does not have this much capacity, especially at this hour of the night. infinity + me = world_goes_kablooie. o.o;;
Now, forgive me for being a smartarse, but if the idea of "infinity" means "everything" (or something you can't quantitate) then wouldn't saying "everything = everything" be the same idea? the same with the circle illustration you used earlier...
suppose you had -two- of those circles. both have infinitely long paths, so why can't that equation work?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a mathematitian, scientist, genius, or philosopher of any kind, so please pardon my post if it is outrageously stupid.
Time does NOT exist! So all there is -> is just NOW!
Now is forever!
Any clearer thoughts now?... I'm not joking. Think about it n then ask the same questions again!
How do you confront this now?
| Kaze_Mitoki wrote: |
Forgive me if I utterly fail at this... My brain normally does not have this much capacity, especially at this hour of the night. infinity + me = world_goes_kablooie. o.o;;
Now, forgive me for being a smartarse, but if the idea of "infinity" means "everything" (or something you can't quantitate) then wouldn't saying "everything = everything" be the same idea? the same with the circle illustration you used earlier... |
That's why the concept of infinity is normally best left alone.
In short, infinity does NOT exist as a number and to think of it as a number gets us into all sorts of bother. Infinity is used in math as a limiting case (more simply called a limit). So, for example, the sum
∞ = ∞ is just plain nonsense in math terms, as Indi has already said, because we could write
∞+1 = ?
In other words we can always add to the 'infinity' that we imagine to leave a bigger infinity.
You can use infinity when you look at set theory, but again it is not a 'number' as such.
For example, consider the set of integer numbers {.. , -1, 0, 1, ..}
It is an infinite set (we actually call it an infinite countable set - but that's another story). So we can have an infinite set of finite quantities, but no quantity within the set is infinity.
I hope that makes sense.....Not necessarily. Why would things have turned out any differently than they have? Sure, they might have been very close to having done so, but they didn't. Whatever the reason is for that, it exists. We might not be able to understand the universe down to an atomic level, or understand the workings of the human mind to a pinpoint accurate degree, but the universe doesn't require our understanding of it to work the way it does. It doesn't require us at all.
We tend to be too egotistical when we look at things like alternate realities and time travel. It's not us that make these things impossible.
| Bikerman wrote: |
You can use infinity when you look at set theory, but again it is not a 'number' as such.
For example, consider the set of integer numbers {.. , -1, 0, 1, ..}
It is an infinite set (we actually call it an infinite countable set - but that's another story). So we can have an infinite set of finite quantities, but no quantity within the set is infinity. |
Actually, that's a good way to show how silly things get when you treat infinity as a number.
Start with the set of positive natural numbers: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
The number of elements in this set is infinity: sizeof{ 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } = ∞
Now take the set of negative natural numbers: { -1, -2, -3, -4, ... }
The number of elements in this set is also infinity: sizeof{ -1, -2, -3, -4, ... } = ∞
Now take the set of both positive and negative natural numbers: { -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, ... }
The number of elements in this set is also infinity: sizeof{ -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, ... } = ∞
So we have: ∞ + ∞ = ∞
And when we simplify: ∞ = 0 (!!!)
But it gets better.
Now let's add 0: { -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... }
And the size: sizeof{ -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } = ∞
So we have: ∞ + 1 = ∞
Which simplifies to: 1 = 0 (!!!)
As you can see, all hell is breaking loose. ^_^;LOL....that is taking it beyond my original intent (such is the way in philosophy...good methodology there). 
Seriously though, yes, I think this demonstrates the logical absudities. | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | You can use infinity when you look at set theory, but again it is not a 'number' as such.
For example, consider the set of integer numbers {.. , -1, 0, 1, ..}
It is an infinite set (we actually call it an infinite countable set - but that's another story). So we can have an infinite set of finite quantities, but no quantity within the set is infinity. |
Actually, that's a good way to show how silly things get when you treat infinity as a number.
Start with the set of positive natural numbers: { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
The number of elements in this set is infinity: sizeof{ 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } = ∞
Now take the set of negative natural numbers: { -1, -2, -3, -4, ... }
The number of elements in this set is also infinity: sizeof{ -1, -2, -3, -4, ... } = ∞
Now take the set of both positive and negative natural numbers: { -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, ... }
The number of elements in this set is also infinity: sizeof{ -3, -2, -1, 1, 2, 3, ... } = ∞
So we have: ∞ + ∞ = ∞
And when we simplify: ∞ = 0 (!!!)
But it gets better.
Now let's add 0: { -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... }
And the size: sizeof{ -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } = ∞
So we have: ∞ + 1 = ∞
Which simplifies to: 1 = 0 (!!!)
As you can see, all hell is breaking loose. ^_^; |
Yes, yes it is. Great explanation though.I think that this only exist in theory. Because if you assume the following statement: What is happened in the future will determine the future. If you can travel to the past and make something undone of in another way, the future will change drastic.
So in my opinion there is no infinite past.
| Aredon wrote: |
If time spanned infinity in both directions,
then there is a new past being created for every second we experience of the future. Then retroactively we miss this "new" past since we only experience the future thus we will not recall this "new" past. It is like saying our position in time is infinity + 1. How can we then say that the universe has always existed if there was/is an infinite past? Conversely, if time had a beginning it needs a cause. Infinite past or not, how can there be any doubt against the universe having a beginning? |
Time doesnt span infinitly backwards, Time didnt exist before the big bang
That was a definite starting point. BANG - Then everything comes into existance including time.the big bang... let say that the big bangs work like a breathe? the lungs of matter...
Hm, ok lets say all is zero - then how became zero the infinite?
| spinout wrote: |
| the big bang... let say that the big bangs work like a breathe? the lungs of matter... |
Why would we possibly want to say that? It isn't true, so why say it?
| Quote: |
| Hm, ok lets say all is zero - then how became zero the infinite? |
Firstly we don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite. We know that the observable universe (known as the 'comoving distance) is around 46 billion light years in any direction. We theorise that the entire universe is not LESS than 78 billion light years in extent There is currently no experiment we can devise that could answer the question beyond that point, and therefore it is not, yet, a scientific question - it remains in the realms of philosophy.
Secondly, science can provide no answer, currently, to whether the BB occurred out of 'nothing' or whether it was a part of a cycle or chain of other events - again there is no current experimental or observational way to test such hypothesese so they remain philosophical questions for the moment.Firstly if you say that time has a cause and therefore has a beggining youre mistaking you can believe it's true but it's not logical and proving would be even harder. Unless you bring god back into this dicussion. Infact you could more easily argue that time has no purpose. But what is time? It's a measuring system devised by us, humans, to make life more livable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time.
For me time is infact that somewhere in a dimension something happens. So if 1 electron would be moving, there will still be time. If everything stops moving and has no energy of any kind (including kinetic) time stops. (Looking beyond the human perspective)
Anyway there is no real answer to this question. I view that if something happens it has to caused by something. If you are arguing that the big bang caused time I stumble on a flaw.
If time didn't exist nothing could have happened since everything is frozen. So the big bang couldn't have happened so if the big bang didn't.... you can see were I am going.
Secondly infinit isn't a number its just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big. That numer can be anything, my math teacher says ∞-∞= any random number. Just ask your math teacher. Don't do sums with ∞ cause it won't do any good. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
Firstly if you say that time has a cause and therefore has a beggining youre mistaking you can believe it's true but it's not logical and proving would be even harder. Unless you bring god back into this dicussion. Infact you could more easily argue that time has no purpose. But what is time? It's a measuring system devised by us, humans, to make life more livable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time. |
I don't know anyone who was saying that time has a purpose. Time is a complex issue - best to start another thread if you want to consider it in depth.
| Quote: |
| For me time is infact that somewhere in a dimension something happens. So if 1 electron would be moving, there will still be time. If everything stops moving and has no energy of any kind (including kinetic) time stops. (Looking beyond the human perspective) |
Quite possibly true.
| Quote: |
Anyway there is no real answer to this question. I view that if something happens it has to caused by something. If you are arguing that the big bang caused time I stumble on a flaw.
If time didn't exist nothing could have happened since everything is frozen. So the big bang couldn't have happened so if the big bang didn't.... you can see were I am going. |
Yes I can see, but that is, itself, limited to a human perception. We know time as a certain phenomenon. We experience time as part of a 4 dimensional spacetime. What happens to cause-effect when that spacetime is removed? The honest (and only scientific) answer is that we have no clue.
| Quote: |
| Secondly infinit isn't a number its just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big. That numer can be anything, my math teacher says ∞-∞= any random number. Just ask your math teacher. Don't do sums with ∞ cause it won't do any good. |
True, sort of. Infinity is a limit - not a number. We use it in math as a limiting case generally.
For example, consider Xeno's paradox - everyone knows it (even if they don't know the name).
You fire an arrow at a tortoise. The arrow arrives at the tortoise, but by the time it arrives the tortoise has moved. The arrow then moves to the new position but by that time the tortoise has, again, moved. Therefore the arrow never hits the tortoise.
Obviously this is bollox.
One way of dealing with this type of problem is to use infinity as a limit.
The problem can be compared to summing an infinite series :
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32...etc
The answer (if we carry on an infinite number of additions) tends to get closer and closer to 2. We use infinity, therefore, as the limiting case. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Secondly infinit isn't a number its just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big. That numer can be anything, my math teacher says ∞-∞= any random number. Just ask your math teacher. Don't do sums with ∞ cause it won't do any good. |
True, sort of. Infinity is a limit - not a number. We use it in math as a limiting case generally.
For example, consider Xeno's paradox - everyone knows it (even if they don't know the name).
You fire an arrow at a tortoise. The arrow arrives at the tortoise, but by the time it arrives the tortoise has moved. The arrow then moves to the new position but by that time the tortoise has, again, moved. Therefore the arrow never hits the tortoise.
Obviously this is bollox.
One way of dealing with this type of problem is to use infinity as a limit.
The problem can be compared to summing an infinite series :
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32...etc
The answer (if we carry on an infinite number of additions) tends to get closer and closer to 2. We use infinity, therefore, as the limiting case. |
The fallacy and the solution in a single post. ^_^;
It is not true that infinity is "just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big" (and if your math teacher told you that, they should be spanked). If you think of it that way, you will end up with the same problems i outlined above. Infinity is not a number, period. It's not "just a really, really, really big number"... it's simply not a number. It is a limit - or as i like to say, it's a direction.
Bikerman's example shows why. If you do that addition for N terms, it will never equal 2. Never. No matter how big the number you put in there for N. Never.
However, if you do that sum for an infinite number of terms, it will equal 2. But that's because infinity is not a number - it is just a shorthand way of saying "if you do the sum forever". Not a really, really large number of times... forever. Just keep going and going and going... and as you keep going, you will get closer and closer to 2. Not go for a really, really large number of times - keep going forever.
Sloppy mathematicians (which your teacher sounds like) and engineers (heh, ^_^; guilty) will treat infinity as a really big number, because if you do that you will get "close enough". Close enough is ok for engineering - not for math (or philosophy, for that matter). Mixing up "close enough" with equal causes all kinds of wacky problems. (If you've ever seen someone prove 1+1=3 or 2+2=5... that's usually how they do it - they treat infinity as a number and go with "close enough" as being the same as equal. Clearly, that's just plain wrong.)Lemme rephrase it like this:
If time didn't begin, then there must be an infinite past.
In order for time to be infinite, then it needs to also be able to move backwards.
If time didn't span both directions then one can trace time back to a beginning.
So let us say that for every minute that elapses into the future, there is a minute added to the past and would thus span both directions infinitely as it expands. Without having to try to imagine a universe where time moved backwards, we can still find the center of time that future and past expanded off and thus that would be the beginning of time regardless if there exists an infinite past or not.
So in order for time to be infinite, it can't expand and must already be infinite and we are merely a point of observation that can move around at will. It is one thing to say that time only moves forwards merely because we are observers of an already infinitely written timeline.
Yet the universe protests itself since the position of matter relies on its past.
By having an infinite past, a piece of matter couldn't have successfully gone through an infinite supply of time already since the present can't be rendered if there is an infinite supply of history since the calculations on the history positions of a piece of matter would have found an end which would contradict infinite past.
| Aredon wrote: |
| In order for time to be infinite, then it needs to also be able to move backwards. |
i'm not sure what you mean by this. Time doesn't move. The arbitrary spot on the time line you point to can move. It can move any direction you want it to move, whether time is infinite or not, until you hit one of the ends, if they exist.
| Aredon wrote: |
| So let us say that for every minute that elapses into the future, there is a minute added to the past and would thus span both directions infinitely as it expands. |
No. This is where the difference between "infinity" and "a really, really, really big number" becomes important.
You can have infinity in one direction. For example, positive numbers (real or integer) - there is one, specific start point, and then the other end is off to infinity (ie, there is no other end). And at any single point on that line you will have an infinite length on one side, and a finite length on the other.
To put it in time terms: if time has a single beginning point, then for every minute that you pass while travelling from the past to the future you take away one minute from the set of minutes in the future and add one minute to the set of minutes in the past. But that past set is, was, and always will be finite, and that future set is, was and always will be infinite... no matter how many minutes you pass. That past set can get huge, but it will always be finite. Always.
The only time you can talk about the past set being infinite in size is when you talk about having counted an infinite number of minutes. But this is just speaking shorthand of the concept, and it never really applies - not in theory or reality - because you can't count an infinite number of minutes so the idea is just an impossible notion. In other words, if time has a beginning point, then no matter how far into the future you are, you will always have a finite amount of time behind you and an infinite amount ahead.
Now, if you want to assume that time has no beginning (and no end), you end up with both the past and future sets being infinite. That means that every minute you pass through takes one minute from the infinite future set and adds one to the infinite past set. However...
| Aredon wrote: |
| Without having to try to imagine a universe where time moved backwards, we can still find the center of time that future and past expanded off and thus that would be the beginning of time regardless if there exists an infinite past or not. |
i've already explained that there is no centre of an infinitely long line. Every point on that line has an "equal" amount of time ahead and behind it: infinity. If you have a semi-infinite line - a line that only goes off to infinity in one direction - then you still have no centre, because you will always have a finite number on one side and infinity on the other, no matter where you are. (And of course, if you have a finite line, it has a centre and you find it in the normal way.)
Any time infinity is involved, whether it's in both directions or only one, the idea of a centre is nonsense. And even if there was a centre, it seems a little arbitrary to call it "the beginning".
| Aredon wrote: |
| So in order for time to be infinite, it can't expand and must already be infinite and we are merely a point of observation that can move around at will. |
That doesn't follow. If time is infinite in one or both directions, expansion is meaningless. (You could talk about the finite end of a semi-infinite line moving... but that doesn't make the line "expand" because it's infinitely long both before and after expansion.) It's not that time can't expand because it's infinite - it's that "expand" makes no sense if it's infinite.
Now, if time was finite in both directions, it could expand, and if its rate of expansion was faster than our rate of travel along it, it would appear to be infinite.
But all of this is probably not related to what you're talking about... because you're using terminology that is just confusing you. Time does not move. You can't say it only moves forward or it moves backward as you move forward. It just doesn't move. It's a dimension, not a metric.
| Aredon wrote: |
Yet the universe protests itself since the position of matter relies on its past.
By having an infinite past, a piece of matter couldn't have successfully gone through an infinite supply of time already since the present can't be rendered if there is an infinite supply of history since the calculations on the history positions of a piece of matter would have found an end which would contradict infinite past. |
This is another form of Zeno's paradoxes. You are saying that it doesn't make sense to reach a point if you have to travel through an infinite number of points to get to that point. And that would be true, if it applied. The problem is the same one i outlined above with the semi-infinite line. The history of a piece of matter is a semi-infinite line: it starts at the moment you are interested in (the present, for example), and extends backward in time infinitely. What that means is that no matter what point in the past you choose to start measuring from, you will always have a finite amount of time between that point and your point of interest.
i find it easy to think in terms of numbers. Let's say the number you are interested in is 69. Now, there are an infinite number of numbers before 69 (and an infinite number ahead). So is it impossible to count to 69? Of course not. And it does not matter where you start from. 0, 1, 40, or -10,000... no matter where you are on the number line (before 69), you will always have a finite number of numbers between you and 69, and an infinite number of numbers before that.
Now, you can say you have an infinite number of numbers between 69 and "the beginning"... but that has no basis in theory or reality because there is no "beginning". Again, you are talking about an impossible notion. No matter how far back you go in the number line, there is always a finite number of numbers between you and 69, and an infinite number of numbers between you the imaginary beginning.
But even if you consider the concept of a "beginning" in an infinite past, your argument still doesn't fly... because an infinite line can have an end (which would make semi-infinite). It just can't have two. So if you have a point in time you are interested in, you can still have an infinite past and an infinite future... you are just treating them as two semi-infinite lines spreading out from your point of interest. | Aredon wrote: |
If time spanned infinity in both directions,
then there is a new past being created for every second we experience of the future. Then retroactively we miss this "new" past since we only experience the future thus we will not recall this "new" past. It is like saying our position in time is infinity + 1. How can we then say that the universe has always existed if there was/is an infinite past? Conversely, if time had a beginning it needs a cause. Infinite past or not, how can there be any doubt against the universe having a beginning? |
Wel I gues you look at it like this:
For every second time goes forward (+1) time goes one second backward (-1) so you say that time Started where these two come together, at zero (0). There fore you say that time had a beginning.
However you can look at time as a line, this is all time together from the past present and future:
<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
X is the present time
wich makes this:
<-----------------------------------------------X
This is all speculative of course since no one can find any evidence for it. Exept "logical" evidence. Wich may de deffirent from perspective.
however I don't know how the scientists think about this.
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| I believe in God, so it goes without saying that I believe He has always 'been' here. Nothingness, therefore, is something I do not believe in, because the existence of God implies there is 'something', and not 'nothing'. The universe may once not have existed, but that does not make it nothingness. I believe that God has always been, therefore there has always been 'something', but outside the universe. |
As Indi said the universe is largely undefined many things can happen randomly maybe the universe happened randomly it was POOF and there happened something, the universe was created.
| Aredon wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Say that again? i think you've hit on an interesting point, but i'm not entirely sure. Could you reword it? |
Consider the following case:
If time spanned infinity in both directions, then the present would be the center point of time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|past| < --------- | present | --------- > |future|
|
If time expanded, then for each second that elapses into the future, there is an opposite past being created. In such a case time could be backtracked to its center, the present, before its past and future expand. Thus such an understanding of time, that gradually expands, can be backtracked to a beginning.
Now consider this case:
If time didn't expand and there is an already existing infinite past for time,
| Code: |
|past| < ------ | present | ------ > |future|
|
Then by taking one step further into the future, the already infinite past needs to make room for the new past we created which is infinity plus 1. |
As I said above it depends on how you look at it, however stating that the past needs to make space for the future, is not entirely right since infinit + something is still infinite one cann look it at as a hallway,
At room 0 you can go in two directions: to room 1,2,3,4,5 etc. to infinity.
And to to room -1,-2,-3,-4,-5 etc to (-)infinity.
Room 0 happens to to be filled on the 17 of may 2008 at 13:54:51
Every second a monkey appears in a empty room next to one with one in it. Since there is an endless amount of rooms you can fit also an endless amount of monkeys in it. With already an endless amount of rooms filled with monkey's.
| Lord Klorel wrote: |
I think that this only exist in theory. Because if you assume the following statement: What is happened in the future will determine the future. If you can travel to the past and make something undone of in another way, the future will change drastic.
So in my opinion there is no infinite past. |
I guess you mean the "close" future will determine the "far future". Yes the future will change drastic however it doesn't mean that the past is not infinit. Sorry i don't get this reasoning, and i guess it is flawed, maybe you should try to explain it better.
| mattyj wrote: |
Time doesnt span infinitly backwards, Time didnt exist before the big bang
That was a definite starting point. BANG - Then everything comes into existance including time. |
Hmm, how do you know scientists have been ablo to say what happened just after the big bang
They didn't know why it happened, nor do they know wheter there was something before that.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I don't know anyone who was saying that time has a purpose. Time is a complex issue - best to start another thread if you want to consider it in depth. |
I meant cause anyway... i guess... it was some time ago, (don't remember.) 
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | Anyway there is no real answer to this question. I view that if something happens it has to caused by something. If you are arguing that the big bang caused time I stumble on a flaw.
If time didn't exist nothing could have happened since everything is frozen. So the big bang couldn't have happened so if the big bang didn't.... you can see were I am going. |
Yes I can see, but that is, itself, limited to a human perception. We know time as a certain phenomenon. We experience time as part of a 4 dimensional spacetime. What happens to cause-effect when that spacetime is removed? The honest (and only scientific) answer is that we have no clue. |
Okay you'r right my limited human perception stands in the way i will say nothing more about that.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Klaw 2 wrote: | | Secondly infinit isn't a number its just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big. That numer can be anything, my math teacher says ∞-∞= any random number. Just ask your math teacher. Don't do sums with ∞ cause it won't do any good. |
True, sort of. Infinity is a limit - not a number. We use it in math as a limiting case generally.
For example, consider Xeno's paradox - everyone knows it (even if they don't know the name).
You fire an arrow at a tortoise. The arrow arrives at the tortoise, but by the time it arrives the tortoise has moved. The arrow then moves to the new position but by that time the tortoise has, again, moved. Therefore the arrow never hits the tortoise.
Obviously this is bollox.
One way of dealing with this type of problem is to use infinity as a limit.
The problem can be compared to summing an infinite series :
1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32...etc
The answer (if we carry on an infinite number of additions) tends to get closer and closer to 2. We use infinity, therefore, as the limiting case. |
Well I said that it's for a really big number, wich is not true it isn't a number my bad. Yes it can better be seen as a limit.
| Indi wrote: |
The fallacy and the solution in a single post. ^_^;
It is not true that infinity is "just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big" (and if your math teacher told you that, they should be spanked). If you think of it that way, you will end up with the same problems i outlined above. Infinity is not a number, period. It's not "just a really, really, really big number"... it's simply not a number. It is a limit - or as i like to say, it's a direction.
Bikerman's example shows why. If you do that addition for N terms, it will never equal 2. Never. No matter how big the number you put in there for N. Never.
However, if you do that sum for an infinite number of terms, it will equal 2. But that's because infinity is not a number - it is just a shorthand way of saying "if you do the sum forever". Not a really, really large number of times... forever. Just keep going and going and going... and as you keep going, you will get closer and closer to 2. Not go for a really, really large number of times - keep going forever.
Sloppy mathematicians (which your teacher sounds like) and engineers (heh, ^_^; guilty) will treat infinity as a really big number, because if you do that you will get "close enough". Close enough is ok for engineering - not for math (or philosophy, for that matter). Mixing up "close enough" with equal causes all kinds of wacky problems. (If you've ever seen someone prove 1+1=3 or 2+2=5... that's usually how they do it - they treat infinity as a number and go with "close enough" as being the same as equal. Clearly, that's just plain wrong.) |
No sorry i was wrong about really big number, i should have said infinite. But then... infinite = infinite. I tried to...never mind. And no my math teacher never said that, i just thought it up at the moment however, if i took an extra minit to think about it i wouldn't post something that stupid.
No my math teacher ain't sloppy I made a stupid mistake. However my math teacher is educated to be an engineer he studied math and something in engineering, funny coincidence.
Actually stating that a really big number is infinite means that you are an infinite amount of percent of, while stating that 1+1=3 you are only a sloppy 50% of so saying 1+1=3 is a smaller flaw than what i said.
Anyway, really sorry for my sloppidity.(
)
| Aredon wrote: |
Lemme rephrase it like this:
If time didn't begin, then there must be an infinite past.
In order for time to be infinite, then it needs to also be able to move backwards.
If time didn't span both directions then one can trace time back to a beginning.
|
hmm time infact can move only forwards...
| Aredon wrote: |
| So let us say that for every minute that elapses into the future, there is a minute added to the past and would thus span both directions infinitely as it expands. Without having to try to imagine a universe where time moved backwards, we can still find the center of time that future and past expanded off and thus that would be the beginning of time regardless if there exists an infinite past or not. |
But what if all the past already happened, it doesn't need to go backwards?
| Aredon wrote: |
| So in order for time to be infinite, it can't expand and must already be infinite and we are merely a point of observation that can move around at will. It is one thing to say that time only moves forwards merely because we are observers of an already infinitely written timeline. |
A okay so "now" is a mere point of observation wich moves down this infinit line. However if the universe is "random" than the future is still going to be filled in, the future is empty untill the presents meets the future.
| Aredon wrote: |
Yet the universe protests itself since the position of matter relies on its past.
By having an infinite past, a piece of matter couldn't have successfully gone through an infinite supply of time already since the present can't be rendered if there is an infinite supply of history since the calculations on the history positions of a piece of matter would have found an end which would contradict infinite past. |
...but a lot of things happen random, so we can't calculate what happened in the past also we know that in the past there was matter wich is not here now and the other way around, (radioactive decay to name something). And also according to the big bang theory. Matter was created then and did not exist before that. So what you say is not enterily right. It is mere speculative it doesn't prove anything. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
The fallacy and the solution in a single post. ^_^;
It is not true that infinity is "just a name for a nummer that just happens to be really really big" (and if your math teacher told you that, they should be spanked). If you think of it that way, you will end up with the same problems i outlined above. Infinity is not a number, period. It's not "just a really, really, really big number"... it's simply not a number. It is a limit - or as i like to say, it's a direction.
Bikerman's example shows why. If you do that addition for N terms, it will never equal 2. Never. No matter how big the number you put in there for N. Never.
However, if you do that sum for an infinite number of terms, it will equal 2. But that's because infinity is not a number - it is just a shorthand way of saying "if you do the sum forever". Not a really, really large number of times... forever. Just keep going and going and going... and as you keep going, you will get closer and closer to 2. Not go for a really, really large number of times - keep going forever.
Sloppy mathematicians (which your teacher sounds like) and engineers (heh, ^_^; guilty) will treat infinity as a really big number, because if you do that you will get "close enough". Close enough is ok for engineering - not for math (or philosophy, for that matter). Mixing up "close enough" with equal causes all kinds of wacky problems. (If you've ever seen someone prove 1+1=3 or 2+2=5... that's usually how they do it - they treat infinity as a number and go with "close enough" as being the same as equal. Clearly, that's just plain wrong.) |
No sorry i was wrong about really big number, i should have said infinite. But then... infinite = infinite. I tried to...never mind. And no my math teacher never said that, i just thought it up at the moment however, if i took an extra minit to think about it i wouldn't post something that stupid.
No my math teacher ain't sloppy I made a stupid mistake. However my math teacher is educated to be an engineer he studied math and something in engineering, funny coincidence.
Actually stating that a really big number is infinite means that you are an infinite amount of percent of, while stating that 1+1=3 you are only a sloppy 50% of so saying 1+1=3 is a smaller flaw than what i said.
Anyway, really sorry for my sloppidity.() |
Oh, i wasn't singling out you or your math teacher specifically. This is a widespread misconception - i would say that virtually every high-school kid that has done anything with infinity believes this, and many university level students too. i've even seen this printed in textbooks - that's how bad the spread of this myth is.
That's why every time i see someone repeat the mistaken claim, i jump on it. It's the only way we can put a dent in this misconception.
Oh, i'm guilty of it too - i use it like that all time, especially in my work. Hell, i'm so sloppy at work that i've actually simulated "infinity" by using numbers like "999999" in programs. It's nonsense ^_^; but it works, well enough at least. The only time the difference really matters to me is when i'm doing math proofs, or thinking of infinity physically or philosophically.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| hmm time infact can move only forwards... |
No no! Time can't move! You get it right here: | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| A okay so "now" is a mere point of observation wich moves down this infinit line. |
Yes! Time is an infinite (probably) line, which doesn't move. What moves is the point of observation.
We say "time moves", "time flies", "time is standing still", etc.... but that's all just metaphor - it's anthropomorphizing time. Time doesn't really "do" anything - it's just a dimension that we can move around in.
