Is infinite chain of effects in the universe possible?

[Polymath257]

Yes exactly that is my point, the claim that “infinit seconds” occured before the big bang is absurd because infinity is not a number. Agree? Yes?

No.

yes that is my point you should join me and try to convince @Polymath257 that reaching infinity is incoherent

Reaching infinity: in other words, counting up to infinity, is impossible. But that is not what happens if there is infinite time into the past.

Yes, that is had always been my point, we agree with each I have no idea why we where discussing as if we where on disagreement (I thought you were affirming the opposite) … who knows maybe I was confusing you with someone else for all this time……………but we agree and you are on my side.

(polymath is the one who disagrees with us)

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

No, I do not disagree that counting up to infinity is impossible. When have I ever said otherwise?

 

[sayak83]

Yes exactly that is my point, the claim that “infinit seconds” occured before the big bang is absurd because infinity is not a number. Agree? Yes?




yes that is my point you should join me and try to convince @Polymath257 that reaching infinity is incoherent



Yes, that is had always been my point, we agree with each I have no idea why we where discussing as if we where on disagreement (I thought you were affirming the opposite) … who knows maybe I was confusing you with someone else for all this time……………but we agree and you are on my side.

(polymath is the one who disagrees with us)

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
No. It's just a colloquial way of putting things. The correct way of stating is that the set of seconds upto the present second constitute an infinite set. The meaning is the same. The meaning is that the set of seconds do not have a terminating lower limit value in the past. That is it.

 

[Polymath257]

No. It's just a colloquial way of putting things. The correct way of stating is that the set of seconds upto the present second constitute an infinite set. The meaning is the same. The meaning is that the set of seconds do not have a terminating lower limit value in the past. That is it.

In other words, there is not a 'first second'.

 

[Link]

Yes, I get that. And the analogy doesn't show what you think it does.

The analogy shows what?

 

[leroy]

No.




Reaching infinity: in other words, counting up to infinity, is impossible. But that is not what happens if there is infinite time into the past.

[/QUOTE]

No, I do not disagree that counting up to infinity is impossible. When have I ever said otherwise?[/QUOTE]

No, I do not disagree that counting up to infinity is impossible. When have I ever said otherwise?

Well as far as I understand you claim that the big bang occurred after an infinite amount of previous events …… to me that seems that you are counting to infinite.

 

[leroy]

[/QUOTE]
No. It's just a colloquial way of putting things. The correct way of stating is that the set of seconds upto the present second constitute an infinite set. The meaning is the same. The meaning is that the set of seconds do not have a terminating lower limit value in the past. That is it.[/QUOTE]
But there is a last second right ? (this moment for example)

If it´s impossible to count “infinite” then how did we get from – infinity to the present?

 

[Polymath257]

No, I do not disagree that counting up to infinity is impossible. When have I ever said otherwise?

Well as far as I understand you claim that the big bang occurred after an infinite amount of previous events …… to me that seems that you are counting to infinite.

Nope. There was no start, so no 'counting', either up or down.

 

[Polymath257]

No. It's just a colloquial way of putting things. The correct way of stating is that the set of seconds upto the present second constitute an infinite set. The meaning is the same. The meaning is that the set of seconds do not have a terminating lower limit value in the past. That is it.

But there is a last second right ? (this moment for example)

Well, time is also likely infinite into the future, so there is no 'last second'. This moment is just one of many.

If it´s impossible to count “infinite” then how did we get from – infinity to the present?

We didn't. There was no point that was -infinity.

 

[Polymath257]

The analogy shows what?

That it is possible to have commands in such a structure.

 

[sayak83]

No. It's just a colloquial way of putting things. The correct way of stating is that the set of seconds upto the present second constitute an infinite set. The meaning is the same. The meaning is that the set of seconds do not have a terminating lower limit value in the past. That is it.

But there is a last second right ? (this moment for example)

If it´s impossible to count “infinite” then how did we get from – infinity to the present?

There is also no last second, as the future time points also exist.
We never started from some time called infinity. There was never any start of any kind nor will there ever be a stop of any kind. The property of an infinite temporal sequence is simply that for any given time instant that exists, existed or will ever exist....there also exists a time instant that is "before" it or "after" it. That is all.

Counting is simply a mathematical operation that we humans are trying to attempt on these time points. And the set of time instants being infinite means that such a counting up or counting down operation done by us will be non-terminating. Nature does not count up from or count down to anything. So it does not matter to nature that our counting process does not stop.

 

[Link]

That it is possible to have commands in such a structure.

Show it without circular asserting the conclusion that it is possible. So far, I've explained how you use circular reasoning and are attacking the conclusion. Lets see if you will do it again.

 

[Polymath257]

Show it without circular asserting the conclusion that it is possible. So far, I've explained how you use circular reasoning and are attacking the conclusion. Lets see if you will do it again.

Initially, there are two alternatives: an infinite regress or none.

I showed that one of the alternative allows for commands to happen. Unless you have some *other* way to eliminate that alternative, it has to be allowed. That is not circular reasoning. It is looking at the different alternatives.

Now, maybe, there is a contradiction, but this has not been shown. Instead, you have shown that in one alternative it is not possible and in the other it is.

 

[Link]

Initially, there are two alternatives: an infinite regress or none.

I showed that one of the alternative allows for commands to happen. Unless you have some *other* way to eliminate that alternative, it has to be allowed. That is not circular reasoning. It is looking at the different alternatives.

Now, maybe, there is a contradiction, but this has not been shown. Instead, you have shown that in one alternative it is not possible and in the other it is.

You have not shown alternative. You've shown what it would be if infinite regress is possible. We don't know if it's possible or impossible, that's the conclusion we are making an argument for. Your model assumes infinite regress is possible, but we are making an argument by analogy to see if its possible without assumption either way. To conclude it's possible by showing a model that assumes its possible, is circular reasoning.

So to refute a conclusion that it's impossible, by stating what it would be if it was possible, is attacking the conclusion. Its purely assertive and circular in reasoning.

 

[leroy]

Nope. There was no start, so no 'counting', either up or down.

Well somethig (A) happended before the big band right

And something (B) happened before A

And something C happened before B etc.

It seems to me that you can’t avoid the process of counting in order to reach the big bang, but feel free to prove (rather than just claiming) the opposite

 

[leroy]

Well, time is also likely infinite into the future, so there is no 'last second'. This moment is just one of many.



We didn't. There was no point that was -infinity.

@sayak83 made a similar point

But an infinite number of causal events happened before the big bag right?


Again necessarily you have to “count” in order to get to the big bang


It seems to me that what you are saying is that:
1 “magically” a universe happens to exists with an infinite age…………(no explanation for how it happened)

2 then a few (finite) events happen

3 then the big bang was caused by some prior events

4 then 13-14B after the big bang we are here



is this a correct representation of your view?

 

[Polymath257]

You have not shown alternative. You've shown what it would be if infinite regress is possible. We don't know if it's possible or impossible, that's the conclusion we are making an argument for. Your model assumes infinite regress is possible, but we are making an argument by analogy to see if its possible without assumption either way. To conclude it's possible by showing a model that assumes its possible, is circular reasoning.

Correct. But you have not eliminated that alternative, so it remains as a possibility.

So to refute a conclusion that it's impossible, by stating what it would be if it was possible, is attacking the conclusion. Its purely assertive and circular in reasoning.

Nope. There are two cases initially: a) where there is no infinite regress and b) where there is. You are wanting to eliminate b) so that only a) remains. You do so by an analogy. But in the case where b) is the case, your conclusion about that analogy fails. So you cannot use that analogy to eliminate the case without a further argument that your conclusion that there is no order given is correct.

In essence, you are showing that your conclusion about the analogy is logically equivalent to the existence of an infinite regress. And that is a correct.

So, without assuming b) is impossible, you need to show no order is ever given. And you have no done that.

 

[Polymath257]

@sayak83 made a similar point

But an infinite number of causal events happened before the big bag right?

In this scenario, yes.

Again necessarily you have to “count” in order to get to the big bang

Why? Once again, counting involves a start and in this scenario *there is no start*.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that:
1 “magically” a universe happens to exists with an infinite age…………(no explanation for how it happened)

2 then a few (finite) events happen

3 then the big bang was caused by some prior events

4 then 13-14B after the big bang we are here

is this a correct representation of your view?

No. 2 is wrong. In this scenario, infinitely many events happened before the BB. Under current theory, the multiverse is exponentially expanding throughout time. Universes like ours 'bud off' from this overall expansion. It is even likely that there are infinitely many universes such as ours in the multiverse.

More specifically, all of space and all of time simply exist. At any given point in time (which is in the universe/multiverse), there is an infinite amount of time 'before' and an infinite amount of time 'after', but this is a purely geometric thing.

Also, you neglected to include the time *after* when we are. It exists (geometrically) as well.

 

[sayak83]

Well somethig (A) happended before the big band right

And something (B) happened before A

And something C happened before B etc.

It seems to me that you can’t avoid the process of counting in order to reach the big bang, but feel free to prove (rather than just claiming) the opposite

That is ordering, not counting. For example the set of real numbers is ordered but cannot be counted at all. A set of integers is ordered and can be counted, but the counting operation is non terminating.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83 made a similar point

But an infinite number of causal events happened before the big bag right?


Again necessarily you have to “count” in order to get to the big bang


It seems to me that what you are saying is that:
1 “magically” a universe happens to exists with an infinite age…………(no explanation for how it happened)

2 then a few (finite) events happen

3 then the big bang was caused by some prior events

4 then 13-14B after the big bang we are here



is this a correct representation of your view?

No, nature does not need to count in order to get from one time point to another. You are the only one who is trying to do this. Nature does not need to count up or count down to get from one state to another.
A simple example is velocity. Velocity is real valued,which means one cannot count up from 3 m/s to 4 m/s. But you can easily increase your cars speed from 3 to 4 m/s by pressing the accelerator.
What nature can do is not constrained by ability us to count the change that is occuring.

 

[Polymath257]

Well somethig (A) happended before the big band right

And something (B) happened before A

And something C happened before B etc.

It seems to me that you can’t avoid the process of counting in order to reach the big bang, but feel free to prove (rather than just claiming) the opposite

And that is counting *backwards*, not counting forwards in time. You cannot count forwards.

And, in this scenario, you never stop counting: there is always a previous moment. Maybe this is just a potential infinity since we can ever only count back a finite interval?

Once again, there is no point infinitely far back. ALL times are finitely far back, but the collection of those times is unbounded.