For every point in time in the past at Time A, there must be a point twice as far past at Time B. And for every point of Time B, there must also be a point twice as far past that Time C. Now, you can extend that series backward in time infinitely in an infinite past, but because this series is infinite, you will never reach our Time. In short, there is no such thing as an infinite amount of time that can pass.
The beginning of time would require an immaterial reality. Because time must begin, that immaterial reality must be real. Hence, you cannot say that change cannot begin without already existing.
The beginning of material spatial Order is not imaginary. It’s logic. All Order must ultimately be derived from an initial spatial Order. To think otherwise is irrational.
You would never reach “our time” UNLESS you had an infinite amount of time to do it … which the universe has had.
Since this is the third time I have had to say that to you, perhaps I should break it down even more for you.
If the universe had started 1000 years ago, it would have spent 1000 years to get up to now.
If the universe had started 1,000,000 years ago, it would have spent 1,000,000 years to get up to now.
If the universe had started 10^50 years ago, it would have had 10^50 years to get up to now.
And
If the universe had stated an infinite time ago, it would have had an infinite time to get up to now.
Of course “an infinite time ago” means that it actually had no beginning. It has always been and will always be.
The “beginning of time” is a nonsense concept that can never make sense, with or without any immaterial reality.
You keep uttering that nonsense, now try to explain why.
You are using the expression “an infinite time ago” as if it were an actual number. Infinity is not a number, but a concept. “1000”, “1,000,000” and “10 to the 50th power” are ALL actual numbers. And then you make the fatal mistake of continuing the series with a NON-NUMBER. “Infinity” is not a NUMBER, but a concept.
You are using the expression “an infinite time ago” as if it were an actual number. Infinity is not a number, but a concept. “1000”, “1,000,000” and “10 to the 50th power” are ALL actual numbers. And then you make the fatal mistake of continuing the series with a NON-NUMBER. “Infinity” is not a NUMBER, but a concept.
[/quote]
the philosophy dummies think this makes sense james
“Infinity” is a concept. This is why 1 divided by infinity is undefined, because “infinity” is a concept. It’s like saying one divided by justice. It’s meaningless and undefined. Now, if you could actually show me an infinitesimal, you would make your case. But, you can’t. And the entire notion of infinitesimals runs counter to current physics where there is a presumed smallest indivisible unit. It’s you guys who aren’t making logical sense.
It is merely an expression for an endlessly large amount. The obvious point is that no matter how large the number is, that same amount of time has already passed in order to get to now. And if that amount is said to be infinite, then that is how much time has passed also.
There was no mistake, and certainly not a fatal one.
jBannon: an infinitesimal is larger then zero and smaller then any real number.
Why the need for it? To explain the function of limits. it exists in a philosophical , or mathematical sense, that is, there is a need for it as a conceptual entity.
If
if this non existent entity did not exist (in this sense, for which mathematicians had to invent new conceptual math, then the whole field of calculus could have been chucked away. The fact is, infinitesimal calculus was a revolution in both math, and science.
The philosophical requirement for it was primary, and it is based on the idea, that resembles Zeno’s paradox , that if you go toward a direction, and cut in half every half distance traveled, eventually the distance traveled will become almost zero in length. Why? Because, a limit can not ever be reached in such a sequence. If it did, the function would no longer be based on the idea of conic sections having this property.
Turtle: the whole idea can be extended to sense, the differentiation of sense from nonsense posits a limit, whereby the difference between sense and nonsense is variably undetermined. Common sense, will justify most judgments , but give no real justice as to which is it. One man’s sense is another man’s …well, You know.
An endless amount of time could not have passed. You cannot “pass” an infinite amount of anything. If I were in a car, I could never pass an infinitely long bus. It’s impossible. Because I could never pass that infinitely long bus, I could never get in front of it. I could never arrive to this point in time we call “now”. I can’t make it any simpler than that. What you are claiming is simply irrational and illogical. Time must have a beginning.
Just because an “infinitesimal” makes sense in terms of math, does not mean the concept of “infinitesimal” exists in reality. Reality trumps all math. Show me an infinitesimal. And the use of calculus as a means of modeling reality in terms of physics does not mean that “infinitesimals” must exist in reality. Show me a perfect circle in reality. Obviously, the mathematical concept of a perfect circle is useful for modeling in reality, but that does not mean the mathematical concept of the perfect actually exists in the real world.
But so is the ‘processing’ or understanding of numbers conceptual. It is the association of things “counted” in a non numerical way, with assigninged signs to them. The number 4, for instance signifies an act, where a childhoods out all his fingers on one hand less one, say the thumb. Then, that is associated with a sign in the representation of three lines con joined in a certain way.
A concept does not have to exist in material reality, except as the reality of a thought. Material reality trumps all math. Without material reality, there is no such thing as math except in the mind of God.
Just because I can’t show you an(1) infinitesimal, is tantamount to saying I can not show you a (4), but only in its application, such as putting apples on the table and saying, there is four of them. Four=4 is another extension of idea of signification conceptual entities. The infinitesimal is an extension to the extension of the concept associated with the use of math. It is pie, for instance which runs the same virtual series . At some point usage implies a limit where the extension of it, reaches a practical limit.
Trigonometric functions develop into limiting situation because of curved, rather than straight surfaces.
Some say even material reality subsists in the mind of God, well at least those who believe it, and continue to want to believe it.