Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Time cannot be infinite

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Firstly, we're dealing with two variations of time; time and space-time. From where does one get the claim that if a "new event" occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite? That's ridiculous! The occurrence of an event doesn't change the infinite to anything finite. Only the event itself is finite - as were all previous events. The key in looking to the First Law of Thermodynamics which tells us there are two key properties of matter/energy, is to pay attention to both. Firstly, matter/energy cannot be created. Secondly, matter/energy cannot be destroyed. So from where are you plucking this supposed conversion or "bridge" to the finite?

Do you think that if the universe expands to a point of imbalance and thus becomes completely unstable that the result would be nothing? That's ridiculous. Even in a massive explosion (like a super-nova), nothing is ever lost.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:17:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Firstly, we're dealing with two variations of time; time and space-time. From where does one get the claim that if a "new event" occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite? That's ridiculous! The occurrence of an event doesn't change the infinite to anything finite. Only the event itself is finite - as were all previous events. The key in looking to the First Law of Thermodynamics which tells us there are two key properties of matter/energy, is to pay attention to both. Firstly, matter/energy cannot be created. Secondly, matter/energy cannot be destroyed. So from where are you plucking this supposed conversion or "bridge" to the finite?

Do you think that if the universe expands to a point of imbalance and thus becomes completely unstable that the result would be nothing? That's ridiculous. Even in a massive explosion (like a super-nova), nothing is ever lost.

Explain the distinction you're making between "time" and "space-time".

"From where does one get the claim that if a 'new event' occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite?"

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.

Also, do you believe that Stephen Hawking is wrong when he says that time had a beginning?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 3:55:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:17:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Firstly, we're dealing with two variations of time; time and space-time. From where does one get the claim that if a "new event" occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite? That's ridiculous! The occurrence of an event doesn't change the infinite to anything finite. Only the event itself is finite - as were all previous events. The key in looking to the First Law of Thermodynamics which tells us there are two key properties of matter/energy, is to pay attention to both. Firstly, matter/energy cannot be created. Secondly, matter/energy cannot be destroyed. So from where are you plucking this supposed conversion or "bridge" to the finite?

Do you think that if the universe expands to a point of imbalance and thus becomes completely unstable that the result would be nothing? That's ridiculous. Even in a massive explosion (like a super-nova), nothing is ever lost.

Explain the distinction you're making between "time" and "space-time".
"Time" is simply that, as yet undefined, quality of temporal distance.
"Space-time" is time interwoven with space, affected by gravity and the warping of space, as Einstein showed of space-time in the universe. It shows that the interwoven nature of space and time is loosely connected, and that the degree of separation can be affected by that which affects space (such as matter and gravity).
There is additionally, the conjecture of "Imaginary Time", feeding from Hawking's analogy of the south pole as representative of the beginning of the universe, with time not extending south of the south pole, because there is no south of the south pole within the context of the planet.


"From where does one get the claim that if a 'new event' occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite?"

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.
From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event.

Also, do you believe that Stephen Hawking is wrong when he says that time had a beginning?
Stephen Hawking has said that he was wrong in his initial assertion that time had a beginning. He has since stated more clearly that he believes time is eternal, and space-time had a beginning. I'll see if I can find you a link...

http://www.hawking.org.uk...
- "This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge."

It gets into a general explanation of "imaginary time" around the middle of the article, but jumping to the last paragraph will give you a summary of the entire article.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:04:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.

Your thinking is very wooly. If by eternity you mean all of time (forever) then if you sit for eternity, that's it. You never stand. Your example fails at the first hurdle.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:04:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 3:55:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:17:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Firstly, we're dealing with two variations of time; time and space-time. From where does one get the claim that if a "new event" occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite? That's ridiculous! The occurrence of an event doesn't change the infinite to anything finite. Only the event itself is finite - as were all previous events. The key in looking to the First Law of Thermodynamics which tells us there are two key properties of matter/energy, is to pay attention to both. Firstly, matter/energy cannot be created. Secondly, matter/energy cannot be destroyed. So from where are you plucking this supposed conversion or "bridge" to the finite?

Do you think that if the universe expands to a point of imbalance and thus becomes completely unstable that the result would be nothing? That's ridiculous. Even in a massive explosion (like a super-nova), nothing is ever lost.

Explain the distinction you're making between "time" and "space-time".
"Time" is simply that, as yet undefined, quality of temporal distance.
"Space-time" is time interwoven with space, affected by gravity and the warping of space, as Einstein showed of space-time in the universe. It shows that the interwoven nature of space and time is loosely connected, and that the degree of separation can be affected by that which affects space (such as matter and gravity).
There is additionally, the conjecture of "Imaginary Time", feeding from Hawking's analogy of the south pole as representative of the beginning of the universe, with time not extending south of the south pole, because there is no south of the south pole within the context of the planet.



"From where does one get the claim that if a 'new event' occurs, that somehow creates a connection between something infinite and something finite?"

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.
From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event.

Also, do you believe that Stephen Hawking is wrong when he says that time had a beginning?
Stephen Hawking has said that he was wrong in his initial assertion that time had a beginning. He has since stated more clearly that he believes time is eternal, and space-time had a beginning. I'll see if I can find you a link...

He never said that he was wrong about time having a beginning. He said "However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. " Him saying that he was wrong had nothing to do with time having a beginning. The conclusion of his lecture was that time had a beginning. "The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

http://www.hawking.org.uk...
- "This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge."

"In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. "

Thus, Stephen Hawking doesn't believe that space-time or imaginary time is eternal.

It gets into a general explanation of "imaginary time" around the middle of the article, but jumping to the last paragraph will give you a summary of the entire article.

The central issue is that if time had existed forever, and eternally existing energy is what led to the Big Bang, then the Big Bang occurred as a finite event relative to an eternally existing thing. If a finite event happens within an eternal event, an infinite regression would occur before that event would ever happen. Its the same logic as saying "as soon as I stand up from sitting eternally I'll be standing"
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:05:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.

And I rebutted on the grounds of logic to which you replied. If you begin at "1" then 1 is the first positive integer possible and thus your beginning point.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:06:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 6:04:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.

Your thinking is very wooly. If by eternity you mean all of time (forever) then if you sit for eternity, that's it. You never stand. Your example fails at the first hurdle.

Exactly my point. IF time had existed eternally, and some eternally existing physical object was necessary to cause the big bang, an eternity would pass before a new event began which is impossible.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:10:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event."

It isn't the event itself, it's what led up to the event. A more accurate depiction is saying "as soon as I raise my hand and snap my fingers a sound will emit. I just need to wait an eternity before I raise my hand and snap my fingers." Raising my hand and snapping my fingers is a new event relative to my prior action existing eternally. As for the rest of your argument, that is why something existing outside of time in order to create it is necessitated logically.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:10:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event."

It isn't the event itself, it's what led up to the event. A more accurate depiction is saying "as soon as I raise my hand and snap my fingers a sound will emit. I just need to wait an eternity before I raise my hand and snap my fingers."
Your logic is skewed. There is no requirement to wait an eternity before any event can happen. Nothing about the concept of eternity requires any such thing. That's a bit like saying that because numbers are infinite, you can't count to any number, pick any number, or apply mathematical standards to any number.

Raising my hand and snapping my fingers is a new event relative to my prior action existing eternally.
What prior action are you suggesting existed eternally? Just because time doesn't start or end, doesn't mean we can't measure a segment of time.

As for the rest of your argument, that is why something existing outside of time in order to create it is necessitated logically.
What makes you think anything had to create time? If it has "always existed", then it didn't need to be created. It's the same concept you apply to your God, except with reason, evidence and logic to support it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:39:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:30:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:10:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event."

It isn't the event itself, it's what led up to the event. A more accurate depiction is saying "as soon as I raise my hand and snap my fingers a sound will emit. I just need to wait an eternity before I raise my hand and snap my fingers."
Your logic is skewed. There is no requirement to wait an eternity before any event can happen. Nothing about the concept of eternity requires any such thing. That's a bit like saying that because numbers are infinite, you can't count to any number, pick any number, or apply mathematical standards to any number.

That isn't analogous. You're talking about logical possibilities rather than logically necessitated events. If energy is a pre-requisite to initiate the Big Bang, and energy existed eternally, then the Big Bang is an event relative to an eternally existing pre-requisite energy. Do you agree?

Raising my hand and snapping my fingers is a new event relative to my prior action existing eternally.
What prior action are you suggesting existed eternally? Just because time doesn't start or end, doesn't mean we can't measure a segment of time.

Energy existing in whatever state it existed prior to a state of changing energy existed eternally in that prior state. A change in state is a new event relative to a pre-existing eternal one.

As for the rest of your argument, that is why something existing outside of time in order to create it is necessitated logically.
What makes you think anything had to create time? If it has "always existed", then it didn't need to be created. It's the same concept you apply to your God, except with reason, evidence and logic to support it.

Again, do you believe that hawking is wrong about time having a finite beginning? Time is just a relative duration between two events. If no physical event pre-existed the Big Bang then time hadn't existed yet.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 2:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:39:03 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:30:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:10:11 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
"From where do you derive the idea that any event endures for an eternity? If I snap my fingers, does the event permeate eternity, or is it a relatively short event? Nothing about the linking of events throughout eternity suggests that any of those events are eternal. But try to imagine if time were not eternal. How could that be possible? Is there no moment before the beginning of time? And if there was no moment before time, then how could we have an event which lead to the existence of time, which would have to occur in the next moment? To have a sequence of events, requires time, to cause an event requires a moment before the causal event."

It isn't the event itself, it's what led up to the event. A more accurate depiction is saying "as soon as I raise my hand and snap my fingers a sound will emit. I just need to wait an eternity before I raise my hand and snap my fingers."
Your logic is skewed. There is no requirement to wait an eternity before any event can happen. Nothing about the concept of eternity requires any such thing. That's a bit like saying that because numbers are infinite, you can't count to any number, pick any number, or apply mathematical standards to any number.

That isn't analogous. You're talking about logical possibilities rather than logically necessitated events.
Logic, either way.

If energy is a pre-requisite to initiate the Big Bang, and energy existed eternally, then the Big Bang is an event relative to an eternally existing pre-requisite energy. Do you agree?
I disagree. A 20-second segment of eternal time is no different than a 20-second segment of time which lasts say... 100 million years. Do you not understand that 20-seconds is just 20-seconds? It doesn't matter whether time is infinite or finite, it's still just 20-seconds. You're saying that any portion of eternity = eternity. That's simply not so. A 20-second portion of eternity is still 20-seconds. Therefore, if energy has always existed, it will never last an eternity, because there is no end point for an eternity. So it most certainly didn't pre-exist for an eternity.

Raising my hand and snapping my fingers is a new event relative to my prior action existing eternally.
What prior action are you suggesting existed eternally? Just because time doesn't start or end, doesn't mean we can't measure a segment of time.

Energy existing in whatever state it existed prior to a state of changing energy existed eternally in that prior state.
No, you can't say that the eternity existed eternally, because we've never reached that point and we never will. It has simply always existed, because it can do nothing else. But eternity includes past, present and future, and the energy has not existed into the future. It has only existed past and present.

A change in state is a new event relative to a pre-existing eternal one.
The pre-existing state was not eternal. You're conflating "always existed" with "existed eternally". They're not the same thing. Nothing can ever last an eternity, no matter how long is lasts. You do understand that, right?

As for the rest of your argument, that is why something existing outside of time in order to create it is necessitated logically.
What makes you think anything had to create time? If it has "always existed", then it didn't need to be created. It's the same concept you apply to your God, except with reason, evidence and logic to support it.

Again, do you believe that hawking is wrong about time having a finite beginning?
I'm not positive but I think you are wrong in claiming that Hawking makes that claim. I can't make a strong point of this unless/until I find the reference but I'm fairly certain he has reversed himself on that point.

Time is just a relative duration between two events. If no physical event pre-existed the Big Bang then time hadn't existed yet.
You would have the time prior to the initiation of big-bang, the moment of initiation, and all of the time after. In fact, you can't have an event which initiated big-bang, until you can move from a prior state, existing in a prior time.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.

Remember that time is the relative duration between two events. When I wake up in the morning, it occurs relative to the prior event of sleeping all night. When I eat breakfast it, occurs relative to the time it took to prepare breakfast.

Eternally existent in time means that the relative sequence never ends. It's boundless. Infinite. If you attribute something eternally pre-existing in order to cause the Big Bang, you have a finite event with an eternally existing energy. If you ran a regression on the duration of time it took for energy to cause the finite event of the Big Bang, it necessitates a beginning of that energy. If there is no beginning of that energy , the regression is unmoved. I've been saying that given an "infinite" amount of time or "eternal" amount of time new event "X" is logically impossible to ever occur. Because it only occurs relative to the preceding event. If the preceding event is endless, then the prior event never ends. If the prior event never ends, a new one can never begin.

If I'm understanding your logic correctly, you believe that a certain potential possibility existed within dynamic energy to cause the Big Bang. As you visualize this, you imagine a long time passing before this possibility is inevitably reached. Once the Big Bang occurs, time continues on as it did, infinitely. The problem, is that once the Big Bang occurred there needs to be a "rewind" to the events leading up to it. If this rewind is endless, no sequential progression is ever reached. If you think about it, if time exists eternally, no sequential progression could occur at all. We'd still be waiting an infinite amount of time to have this present moment. I hope you reconsider that time existed eternally. It's a mathematical impossibility. At least you could believe that whatever caused the Big Bang to exist wasn't constrained by time, even if it isn't God.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
You appear to be suggesting that time and eternity aren't both dealing with time. We always have difficulties dealing with infinites in math because mathematics are modeled after the finite, rather than the infinite. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

What is the total amount of water that will flow down a stream? Do you know? Does that mean you can't measure the flow at a given moment?

Remember that time is the relative duration between two events.
That's not exactly accurate. Time passes with or without events.

When I wake up in the morning, it occurs relative to the prior event of sleeping all night. When I eat breakfast it, occurs relative to the time it took to prepare breakfast.
Those are the events, not the time passing in between. You can wake, eat and go back to sleep over the course of a few minutes, or over the course of many hours. The events may be the same, but they don't define the time which passes.

Eternally existent in time means that the relative sequence never ends.
It means that time never ends. It doesn't mean events continue. For just a moment, imagine the universe simply vanished. Would time stop? Why?

It's boundless. Infinite.
Yeah, I grasp the concept.

If you attribute something eternally pre-existing in order to cause the Big Bang, you have a finite event..
You have a finite event no matter how you look at it.

with an eternally existing energy. If you ran a regression on the duration of time it took for energy to cause the finite event of the Big Bang, it necessitates a beginning of that energy.
I disagree. Why do you think it necessitates a beginning?

If there is no beginning of that energy , the regression is unmoved.
Not at all. A second still lasts a second, and in 1-second, a second will pass. An event which lasts a second, still lasts a second. The problem here is simply that we don' t often deal with infinites so it's a bit cumbersome and foreign to us. But it's no less difficult to imagine time which begins and ends, than to imagine time which doesn't. Both are problematic for us to grasp when our lives are based on starts and endings. I know the argument you're presenting. I've seen it before. It assumes that half of eternity is still eternity, a quarter of eternity is still eternity, and a billionth of eternity is still eternity. That is untrue. And from that flawed assumption, people go on to suggest that a second, or a minute or an event is also an eternity which is equally untrue. One femtosecond short of eternity, isn't eternity. Having an endless supply of water, flowing down a endless stream, on an eternal planet, makes it no more difficult to dip a bucket and extract a gallon of water. It's just not possible to properly position that gallon of water between start and end points, because there aren't any.

I've been saying that given an "infinite" amount of time or "eternal" amount of time new event "X" is logically impossible to ever occur.
I know what you're saying. Believe me, theists have presented this argument for longer than I've been in debate. But the argument fails. If you pull God out of time, then he is either locked in suspension, able to do nothing, or his entire existence comes and goes in the same instant, along with everything you propose he has done. You can't have God BEFORE big-bang, if you don't have time BEFORE big-bang, because "before", is a point relative to time passing.

Because it only occurs relative to the preceding event. If the preceding event is endless, then the prior event never ends. If the prior event never ends, a new one can never begin.
None of the events are endless. They occupy exactly the same duration with or without endless time. Time is endless, the events are unchanged whether we have finite time, or infinite time. It still takes 1-second for 9-billion ticks of a cesium 133 clock. NOTHING about the duration of events is even affected. Your problem is that you're trying to decide how much time passed between the start of time, and big-bang. And there is no answer to that question, because time is infinite. But that doesn't mean big-bang can't occur.

If I'm understanding your logic correctly, you believe that a certain potential possibility existed within dynamic energy to cause the Big Bang. As you visualize this, you imagine a long time passing before this possibility is inevitably reached.
No, I'm not suggesting anything about how much time passed or didn't pass before big-bang. I've said nothing on this except that there had to be moment before the initiation of big-bang, or that initiation can't happen.

You don't seem to understand that if you assume a point without time and without matter/energy, you still have a whole set of problems which are just as difficult to process assuming eternal matter/energy and infinite time. We have no experience with such things, so they are difficult concepts to grasp.

Once the Big Bang occurs, time continues on as it did, infinitely.
Basically, yes. However time is now woven in the fabric of space and that means it is affected by that which affects space such as matter and gravity. One of the problems here is that you're envisioning an encapsulated universe with time as part of that universe and something other than time and space outside of that universe. There is nothing outside of the universe. There never has been. The pre-existing was still the universe, just as a chip of dry ice is the cloud of gas it produces when warmed.

The universe isn't God's snow-globe which seems to be about what you're picturing.

The problem, is that once the Big Bang occurred there needs to be a "rewind" to the events leading up to it. If this rewind is endless, no sequential progression is ever reached.
From where do you get the notion that a "rewind" is necessary? If you belch, is there a rewind back to the time you were born?

The sequential progression is as endless as time. You seem to be wanting to make time dependent upon events. Events are not necessary for time to exist.

If you think about it, if time exists eternally, no sequential progression could occur at all. We'd still be waiting an infinite amount of time to have this present moment.
No we wouldn't. Any portion of eternity, is less than eternity. That seems to be the issue you can't get over. So if it helps you to grasp the concept, you can say that a tenth of eternity passed before big-bang. That's less than eternity.

I hope you reconsider that time existed eternally. It's a mathematical impossibility.
I hope you understand that mathematics are a human invention, intended for use as an analogy for that with which we gain experience. We have no experience with infinites, so math isn't the right tool. But that doesn't make eternity any less a part of reality.
Do you understand that math is not a part of nature? It's not even a part of reality. It's a modeling system man has developed to provide approximations analogous to reality. It doesn't work for each and every segment of reality. Mathematics is not the measure by which reality is shown to be real. Some things are beyond the scope of the modeling system, because the modeling system was developed to fit a limited scope.

At least you could believe that whatever caused the Big Bang to exist wasn't constrained by time, even if it isn't God.
That makes no sense. If you eliminate time, then you can have no moment before big-bang, and big-bang can never happen. Time has to have existed first, or you can never reach any event.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 7:20:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.

Don't be the southern exposure of a Northbound horse, Install. That's B.S. If you're not lending to the convo, then keep it shut (figuratively).

What the F makes you idiots (most Christians), think that any time you disagree with an atheist, that we're lying? I've seen thousands (literally) of debates between atheists and theists and the ones who lie the most are (hands down, and without question), the friggin' Christians.

So if you think you can find any lie in anything I've written, bring it on. And until that time, SHUT IT!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 7:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:08:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:06:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:04:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:26:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Because if Event B is reliant on Event A, then event B occurs relative to Event A. If I'm sitting, consider this event A. Event B is me standing. If I sit for eternity, then at some point in time I stand, then standing is a new event relative to sitting for eternity.

Your thinking is very wooly. If by eternity you mean all of time (forever) then if you sit for eternity, that's it. You never stand. Your example fails at the first hurdle.

Exactly my point. IF time had existed eternally, and some eternally existing physical object was necessary to cause the big bang, an eternity would pass before a new event began which is impossible.

I was merely pointing out that your analogy, as stated, had an obvious flaw. There you weren't talking about a physical object but an eternal action (sitting). You then leap to your favourite hobbyhorse. I don't see the connection. What you are doing is defining any conditions/object which led to the Big Bang (if this even has any meaning) as having a duration of eternity. Why does this have to be the case?

What you are in effect saying is that no new event can ever occur in such a scenario. If this is really the direction of your argument, you should be thinking of the repercussions on the god you are trying to insert into the picture. If no new event can ever arise in eternity (according to you), then please explain how your god created something new (our universe) 14 billion years ago. Your own argument defeats you.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:30:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:05:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.

And I rebutted on the grounds of logic to which you replied. If you begin at "1" then 1 is the first positive integer possible and thus your beginning point.

Ok, so you're an idiot. I'm not saying that time is EXACTLY like the positive number lines. Ergo, rebutting the "positive number lines example" doesn't rebut time.

I'm saying that the "positive number lines" example is an example of something infinite that has a finite end point, ergo things with finite end points can, indeed, exist. You seem to acknowledge this, so you've conceded the point. If you want to make this rebuttal stick, you'd have to show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning, and you can't, because there are plenty of contrary examples (e.g. the negative number line).
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 6:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 2:06:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Exactly my point. IF time had existed eternally, and some eternally existing physical object was necessary to cause the big bang, an eternity would pass before a new event began which is impossible.

I've been reading the other posts. You seem to be taking energy as the eternally existing physical object and attempting to make your case. That's fine but you are confusing objects with actions. The fact that energy has existed eternally doesn't necessarily mean that it remains in the same exact state throughout. Imagine that energy cycling regularly between pure energy and space-time/energy/matter as in our universe, then returning back to pure energy (the cyclic universe scenario) in an infinite series. We happen to find ourselves in one of those cycles. Where is the problem?

For what it's worth though, I agree with Hawking. Space-time 'began' with the Big Bang. You obviously have some agenda with this. If time is bounded, how does it help your cause? For my mind, any idea of a god existing outside of time is meaningless. I've asked this before and you have ignored the question: If the universe was created, please identify the moment in time where it didn't exist. What clock was ticking as god poof'ed the universe into being?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 7:06:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

Why is this in the religion forum?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 10:56:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 7:41:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Nice "evidence" there; an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Does mommy know you're on the internet Muzebreak? Do you have to be helped into your chair?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 12:09:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 10:56:43 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 7:41:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Nice "evidence" there; an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Does mommy know you're on the internet Muzebreak? Do you have to be helped into your chair?

The Wikipedia page argues both sides of the issue. It points out that attempting to insert infinities into physics leads to problems as much as answers. But that's for the very reason I gave; mathematics were developed by humans as a means to roughly model the conditions we usually encounter in reality. Math (as we have developed it), no more applies to infinities than it applies to the aesthetics of applied facial makeup.

That said, we have more than sufficient cause to believe infinities exist. Christians have their imaginary God who has "just always existed", and physics has the evidence for a universe which transformed from that which has "just always existed".

The interesting thing is that Christians seem so polarized against anything "always existing", until it comes to their God. And then that's the claim they make for their God, to avoid having to explain his origin. You argue against infinity, then insist that God is infinite. You argue against eternity, then insist that God is eternal. You reject the very concepts you apply to your God when applied to anything else.

And the fact of the matter is this; you still have not one single shred of evidence that your God even exists. And like it or not; that is Step One in ANY explanation for ANYTHING.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:30:19 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:05:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.

And I rebutted on the grounds of logic to which you replied. If you begin at "1" then 1 is the first positive integer possible and thus your beginning point.

Ok, so you're an idiot. I'm not saying that time is EXACTLY like the positive number lines. Ergo, rebutting the "positive number lines example" doesn't rebut time.

I'm saying that the "positive number lines" example is an example of something infinite that has a finite end point, ergo things with finite end points can, indeed, exist. You seem to acknowledge this, so you've conceded the point. If you want to make this rebuttal stick, you'd have to show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning, and you can't, because there are plenty of contrary examples (e.g. the negative number line).

Lol it can only "begin" at a finite point even if the string is infinite. You can't begin with infinite and end at a finite point. It's the same logic as saying "as soon as I stop counting to infinity I'll be finished with this task." My objection is over whether or not time had a beginning. If it had a beginning it has a finite point. That means it will never *be* infinite only continuing on infinitely. So at any time in the future, no matter how long it may be, time will always had a defined beginning point.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 1:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 10:56:43 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 7:41:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:49:32 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/22/2014 5:41:22 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/22/2014 4:18:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Something existing eternally but existing in time is mathematically impossible.
Physicists work with infinity on a regular basis.

When their maths fails, yes. More atheshit lies right here.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Nice "evidence" there; an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

Does mommy know you're on the internet Muzebreak? Do you have to be helped into your chair?

So you're saying that the information there is invalid? If you'd like, I can point you to scientific papers on matters layed out in that page. For instance, here's one on infinite plane waves.

http://link.springer.com...

Here is one discussing things in relation to the multiverse hypothesis, in which it is posited that there are infinite universes.

http://iopscience.iop.org...

By the way, not all wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone. There were days when that was true, but edits are now moderated. Specifically, the page I linked is a locked page. That is, no one can edit it, bar a select few, so as to prevent vandalism.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 2:01:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 6:30:19 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:05:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.

And I rebutted on the grounds of logic to which you replied. If you begin at "1" then 1 is the first positive integer possible and thus your beginning point.

Ok, so you're an idiot. I'm not saying that time is EXACTLY like the positive number lines. Ergo, rebutting the "positive number lines example" doesn't rebut time.

I'm saying that the "positive number lines" example is an example of something infinite that has a finite end point, ergo things with finite end points can, indeed, exist. You seem to acknowledge this, so you've conceded the point. If you want to make this rebuttal stick, you'd have to show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning, and you can't, because there are plenty of contrary examples (e.g. the negative number line).

No, positive number lines are an example of something with a *finite beginning point* but continuing on infinitely. "Show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning ..."
I don't have to. It's a logical impossibility the other way around. Essentially by saying that something infinite has a finite end point you're saying that something endless ends. It's illogical.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2014 4:48:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/23/2014 2:01:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/23/2014 6:30:19 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/22/2014 2:05:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/18/2014 6:53:51 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:37:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/17/2014 1:34:24 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/17/2014 12:41:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Time is the relative span between a sequence of events. If something existed eternally in time, then this thing has an infinite sequence as an event. If a new event began, such as an explosion or conversion of some kind within this eternally existing thing, then a bridge has been made from something infinite to finite. But in order for something to convert from infinite to finite, an infinite regression would need to be made before this finite event could happen because a new event requires a sequence relative to the prior event. Thus, time cannot be infinite.

The logic is fallacious because there are things which are infinite yet have definite end points. (E.g. a ray).

So something that is infinite in one direction can nevertheless terminate at some point in the other direction. (Consider all positive integers).

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
http://www.hawking.org.uk...

That still infers that time began. If you begin at a positive integer, that is your beginning point.

No... it doesn't. I simply referenced the positive integers as an example of something infinite with a finite terminator to demonstrate that the general class of things can exist. I did not present it as an actual representation of time.

And I rebutted on the grounds of logic to which you replied. If you begin at "1" then 1 is the first positive integer possible and thus your beginning point.

Ok, so you're an idiot. I'm not saying that time is EXACTLY like the positive number lines. Ergo, rebutting the "positive number lines example" doesn't rebut time.

I'm saying that the "positive number lines" example is an example of something infinite that has a finite end point, ergo things with finite end points can, indeed, exist. You seem to acknowledge this, so you've conceded the point. If you want to make this rebuttal stick, you'd have to show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning, and you can't, because there are plenty of contrary examples (e.g. the negative number line).

No, positive number lines are an example of something with a *finite beginning point* but continuing on infinitely. "Show that ALL possible infinite sequences with finite end points must have the end point at the beginning ..."
I don't have to.

Yes you do.

It's a logical impossibility the other way around.

Except, you know, it isn't. (Negative number line, no beginning, finite end)

Essentially by saying that something infinite has a finite end point you're saying that something endless ends. It's illogical.

Except it's known that things can have finite end points yet be infinite.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(geometry)#Ray