Proof against Infinite past or infinite events between any two events.

BB100

Let us Define Time as simply the whole set of ordered events. An event is the entire characteristics of existence , and if present event, is , or if past event, was. The defenition of the past is all events that was the present but is not. A visual is ( E(nth)....E3, E2, E1, P), where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest. Now a reminder is that any event means that the previous one is no longer true. To give an example is say you the present where we assume only thing that is is a certain apple is above ground and the previous event it was on the ground. In other words different events happen in succession and not simultaneously.

Since I have put for the initial definition of time, Now let us assume there is an infinite past. This would mean that there is a never ending order of events before the present. Such that ( ... E3, E2, E1, P). Now remember that a past event means it had to be the present than no longer. With an infinite past there is all infinite events was the present. Remember the previous point.

Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. With that let us go to an event that is nth of the present, where n corresponds to how many even terms from the present exist. Meaning (E2, E4, E6, ...) , and with infinite past we have an infinite number of even term events. Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. Let us call it Event (!) .Meaning (E(!)...E3, E2, E1, P). As it is the case all past events by definition must have been the present meaning an infinite number of events has occured after Event(!) To ger to the present. But let us remember that any continuing addition of a finite number from a finite number will always be finite. An example is if I count 1 then 2, then 3 ... , any term in that sequence if I select one then it will be some integer which is a finite amonunt away from the first term.

Therefore If you have an infinite past then there exists some past event that must of gone an infinite number of events to get to the present, but since addition from a point will always be a finite number, an infinite past is impossible and so would two event that have infinite events inbetween.

Sir2u

Therefore If you have an infinite past then there exists some past event that must of gone an infinite number of events to get to the present, but since addition from a point will always be a finite number, an infinite past is impossible and so would two event that have infinite events inbetween. — BB100

The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing. So I doubt that the past is infinite.
If your point is basically to say that time is not infinite then you are going in the wrong direction, you would have to prove that there cannot be an infinite future.

jgill

where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest — BB100

So a hypothetical function generating these events is discrete rather than continuous? This is a little like saying "X is the first number to the left of 0". You are clearly assuming time is discrete and not continuous. See below.

Now let us say, since there is a real infinite past then we can list all past events with the Natural Numbers in their terms. — BB100

Therefore there exists some event in the past that is an infinite number of events from the present. — BB100

Why? Why not assume that if one specifies a time in the past, there will always be at least one event occurring before that time? And then at least one event occurring before that event, ad infinitum.

SophistiCat

The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing. So I doubt that the past is infinite. — Sir2u

The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil. — Bertrand Russell

Zophie

I can't help but feel that quote is in desperate need of context..

BB100

↪jgill

Is your question is that between every two past events, there exists an infinite set of events. Remember that a past event means that it was the present then a new event to over. A visual is (E3, E2, E1, P) then you have (E3, E2, E1,P1,P). Meaning that every present that is replaced adds 1 space in terms of placement of sequence of events. The fact is that there can not be an infinite set of events passing from now because successive addition. As I mentioned if you were to count 1 then 2 then 3 and so on, there will never say anything but an integer and the distance between two integers is finite. Therefore by contradiction we can come to know that there is no infinite past because it would require from a present an infinite number of events to occur but successive addition from a point will never be infinite.

BB100

Many of you I would expext would know the half the distance to the wall scenario. Imagine you are facing directly a wall and every step you take is half the distance to it. Since each step happens one after the other, there will never be any step that gets you to contact the wall. If there was an infinite events between any two past events then that would mean that from two points you can say that halfway event ocuured but before that that halfway of that point and so on, therefore it will never reach that other point.

Sir2u

↪SophistiCat

Zophie stole the words from me. :lol:

Sir2u

↪Zophie

:chin: Did he/she notice?

aletheist

Let us Define Time as simply the whole set of ordered events. — BB100

This is McTaggart's C series, which by itself is inadequate as a definition of time, because it lacks direction. The A series is also required to get past, present, and future.

An event is the entire characteristics of existence ... — BB100

This does not really define what an event is, which seems rather crucial for your argument.

A visual is ( E(nth)....E3, E2, E1, P), where P is the present and E1 is the first event that occurred before the present, E2 the second, and then all the rest. — BB100

You are clearly assuming time is discrete and not continuous. — jgill

Indeed, and this was also McTaggart's assumption--time is composed of individual moments, whose contents are individual events--which I consider faulty.

aletheist

Imagine you are facing directly a wall and every step you take is half the distance to it. Since each step happens one after the other, there will never be any step that gets you to contact the wall. — BB100

Why would anyone be restricted to traversing only half the distance to the wall with each step? If the first step goes halfway, and the second step goes the same distance, then you are contacting the wall after just those two steps. Zeno's paradoxes dissolve once we recognize that he is smuggling in a requirement for discrete steps that does not apply to continuous motion--just like assuming time to be composed of discrete moments, rather than continuous.

BB100

↪aletheist

This is McTaggart's C series, which by itself is inadequate as a definition of time, because it lacks direction. The A series is also required to get past, present, and future.
-alethiest

The order I thought I visualized with (E(nth)... E3, E2, E1, P). Each event is ordered from the present. The present which is defined as The characterististics of all beings of existence. Meaning that as I am typing, I am 5'11, in The Northeast and all other distinguish descriptions of reality that exists along with it. If I were to finish this text, then The instant that I was writing came became a past event while the one if I finishing is the present. Each event must have been the present and the order from which is based simply if was the present before or after. The future I won't discuss because it is not the current reality or has been, so I can not be certain of I reality will change or not.

Indeed, and this was also McTaggart's assumption--time is composed of individual moments, whose contents are individual events--which I consider faulty.
-alethiest

The existence of time requires that what is , is no longer the case. A change of what characteristics in reality exist and what does not, meaning if a statement X is true and then not, then the we can say statement X is an event along with all other statements that were true along with it. And then not true is another event that we can say came after because it is the present. Remember that all of our observation is the change of certain truths, velocity is the displacement from seconds, which is defined now as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). Wikipedia. Every event that is the present is not any event previous for that event became not what reality.

aletheist

The order I thought I visualized with (E(nth)... E3, E2, E1, P). — BB100

Again, the order is not the issue, it is the direction that is lacking; and this "visualization" wrongly treats events as discrete individuals.

The existence of time requires that what is , is no longer the case. — BB100

Again, you are making what I consider to be a faulty assumption. In my view, time is real but does not exist--it is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it, but it is not a concrete thing that reacts with other concrete things. Instead, it is a law that governs concrete things, enabling them to possess different abstract qualities at different determinations of time.

A change of what characteristics in reality exist and what does not, meaning if a statement X is true and then not, then the we can say statement X is an event along with all other statements that were true along with it. — BB100

A statement is not an event, although it might be a description of an event. Statements can be true or false, but events cannot. In my view, an event is a definite change; if statement X is true at an earlier determination of time and false at a later determination of time, then an event is realized at a lapse of time between those two determinations, during which statement X is neither true nor false.

BB100

↪aletheist

Why would anyone be restricted to traversing only half the distance to the wall with each step? If the first step goes halfway, and the second step goes the same distance, then you are contacting the wall after just those two steps. Zeno's paradoxes dissolve once we recognize that he is smuggling in a requirement for discrete steps that does not apply to continuous motion.

First of all it is a thought experiment that says any point the takes half the distance for every change of distance to some point, then it will never get there. Reason being become it will aways have to make a finite addition of distance that will only have more distance needed to go. We can you use this for a situation if we were to assume there is an infinite set of events between two events. Lets call the two point A and B respectively. Event A is a past event that occured as well as Event B, which occured after. Since In order for Point B to occur then the event evenly between them must have occured first, which we will call A(1/2). Then before Event B to occur, the event Evenly Between Event A(1/2) to Event B must occur first and so on. Therefore if we say there is an infinite event then this process must never stop of It having to go halfway. Therefor Event B cannot happen therefore there is no two past Event that have an infinite set of Events between them because an event is a description of all reality that is and then is replaced. Since each event must have been the present then Infinite set of events between any two events is impossible ot would mean In the example I gave, Event B has Happened and not happened.

BB100

↪aletheist

My First post is still true if we just made Each event from the visual ( E(nth) ... E3, E2, E1, P) an arbritary event besides The present wuth the only condition it is ordered from each in relation to the present, and still get the result. Also define direction, because it is not something I may be not comprehend from you. Past is before , present is the refrence and future is after. Right?

BB100

↪aletheist

A statement is not an event, although it might be a description of an event. Statements can be true or false, but events cannot. In my view, an event is a definite change; if statement X is true at an earlier determination of time and false at a later determination of time, then an event is realized at a lapse of time between those two determinations, during which statement X is neither true nor false.
-Alethiest

True means it is , and false means it is not. Inherently they are present focused because the present is everthing that is, If I said Event A in the past is the present, then that would be false but if, I said simply Event A occured then It is true. Your last statement is false because under the law of non excluded middle a statement has to be either true or false.

aletheist

First of all it is a thought experiment that says any point the takes half the distance for every change of distance to some point, then it will never get there. — BB100

Right, but it is faulty because continuous motion does not require a series of discrete steps, going only halfway to the destination with each step. Likewise, continuous time does not require a series of discrete moments or events.

Past is before , present is the refrence and future is after. Right? — BB100

Yes, that is McTaggart's A series that provides the direction of time.

Your last statement is false because under the law of non excluded middle a statement has to be either true or false. — BB100

It is misleading to call excluded middle a law, because it is not universally applicable. Instead, it is a logical principle that holds only for whatever is determinate. At the lapse of time when a concrete thing is changing from possessing a certain abstract quality to no longer possessing it--i.e., during an event--that thing is indeterminate with respect to that quality, so excluded middle does not hold. By contrast, the principle of contradiction is indispensable--there is no determination of time at which the same statement is both true and false. Look up intuitionistic logic for an example of how this can be worked out formally.

Eli

Ok hey guys this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion, but I need help!!!! I'm not the brightest student in logic and I have no idea what I'm doing.
I need help solving this natural deduction proof (PLEASE):
1. P & Q
2. ~(P & Q) /~Q

BB100

↪aletheist

Right, but it is faulty because continuous motion does not require a series of discrete steps, going only halfway to the destination with each step. Likewise, continuous time does not require a series of discrete moments or events.
-Alethiest

First of all, a continous function means infinite points inbetween any point with no gap. This works fine in a static dimension like a graph where you conenct points, But this is impossible in Time for What I mentioned. The point is is there exist discrete points in a continous function like the Natural Number Integers in a plane.

aletheist

First of all, a continous function means infinite points inbetween any point with no gap. — BB100

That is the mathematical continuum, not true continuity. I deny that the real numbers are truly continuous. A truly continuous line is not composed of discrete points.

The point is is there exist discrete points in a continous function like the Natural Number Integers in a plane. — BB100

No, again, I deny that time is composed of discrete point-like moments; i.e., durationless instants.

BB100

↪aletheist

I am confused by what you mean true continouity. A duration is literally the time inbetween events, which I explained are just the ordered events measured relatively, a second being just the composition of the periods of a cesium atom. When you say I traveled 7 feet in 8 seconds, and am saying this change of phenomena, myself , changed from a certain reference point as did the phenomena of cesium atom's radiation. It is just in an event where a change of certain phenomena in it is compared from a previous phenomenon.

BB100

Also, Alethiest, you mentioned zeno's paradox, And I say that we are not traveling over an infinite set of distances
For the reason that travel implies time in it where there would be an infinite set of events. What actually happens is like you throw a ball in the air. It is not going through a continous motion, but like a film Instants of change is occuring that we perciew as continous. Our own thinking exists like this as well. The empericial evidence is that we only have finite information everytime we measure between events.

Heracloitus

I am confused by what you mean true continouity. — BB100

I wonder if aletheist is referring to Bergson’s notion of durée. Continuous time (durée) is a heterogeneous multiplicity, which differs in kind to that of mathematical time, which through spacialization has become homogeneous multiplicity. For Bergson true continuity cannot be stitched together from snapshots, or points, as these discrete moments are themselves cleaved off from real, time par excellence (durée) which is essentially indivisible.

Or perhaps aletheist is not drawing from bergson at all...

A Seagull

No measurement can ever be infinite, ergo there is no infinity in the real world.

SophistiCat

↪Zophie

↪Sir2u

If you postulate that time must have a starting point ("The idea of time, I believe, presupposes a starting point from which to measure its passing"), then you trivially get the conclusion that the past cannot be infinite. Of course, no one who does not already believe the conclusion would be satisfied with that postulation, and even those who do ought to be leery about getting their prize without honest toil.

You could say that time is just what we postulate 'time' to be, and you could then postulate it to have a beginning. But a more honest and satisfying approach would be to take 'time' as referring to something beyond mere postulation, something empirically known.

(The original quote was in the context of Russell's work on Principia, where he objected to defining mathematical entities as already possessing all the desired properties, as opposed to constructing them from more primitive elements. But the sentiment behind that quip applies just as well here.)

BB100

Zeno's paradox assumes anyway that we travel at all points in the distance between two points and claims motion is impossible from the half the distance truth. But that just proves that motion is not continous for motion is change of distance which would be different events and as I proved already an addition synthesis will never be a non integer mraning no infinite events have occured. Distance is continous for 1/10 of a meter exists along with 2/10 of a meter. Time though, is successive, meaning one event after the other.

SophistiCat

No measurement can ever be infinite, ergo there is no infinity in the real world. — A Seagull

There seem to be some steps missing before "ergo..."

BB100

↪SophistiCat

I did not assume it had a beginning, but assumed not finite and used contradiction to say it is at the end. If have an infinite past, then there exists an event in the past that is an infinite events away from the present and has another infinite events before it. Since all events must be present or present then not. An infinite events has successively occured but that is a contradiction for successive addition of terms from a point will never be anything but an integer term. Essentially you get finite terms=infinite terms, thus a conyradiction of no infinite past or infinite set of evenys between points.

SophistiCat

↪BB100

I wasn't replying to you. You have other problems, but they are too many to sort through. You have a non sequitur at just about every step.

BB100

↪A Seagull

that assumes that measurement = reality. Unjustified, for we did not measure gravitationtional waves until a a set number of years ago, But it existed before we observed it. Let me make it clear that infinite past being impossible makes all other possiblities of infinity like infinite space impossible.

BB100

↪SophistiCat

If I I have one then name the first one you find and we can start from there for me to clarify.

Proof against Infinite past or infinite events between any two events.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions