Is the past infinite?

[fudgetusk]

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I  have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

[Strange]

Doesn’t make much sense to me. 

There are an infinite number of integers but you can still say “5” without having to count up from -infinity. 

And if the universe is spatially infinite, you are still “here”. You didn’t have to travel from infinity to get here. 

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I  have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

If the universe is infinite then then that doesn't mean lifeforms on this earth are subject to infinity. We are born and die.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

 How did we get to NOW?

 

I largely agree with Strange, but since this is a philosophical topic I'll answer this. 

Why does it matter?

[Vmedvil]

It didn't come from nothing, it came from another dying universe the energy, The moment energy entered this universe time started before that the universe was void of Energy, thus no time as nothing ever changed, how does one measure time in a void?

 

For instance measure time in this picture can you? (Void Main)

Now this one, measure time. (Void Main DO  Print"_" Clear Screen LOOP)

What is the difference?

Edited December 2, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Tub]

On 12/2/2017 at 11:48 AM, fudgetusk said:

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I  have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

Hello, fudgetusk. I'm neither Greek,nor a philosopher, sadly, but this is interesting so i'll try to give  some reply - always remembering that a reply isn't always an answer. Anyway, as i see it, the past has no existence so no duration and if something doesn't exist, or have any duration,  can it be said to be infinite?  If the past ( or the future ) doesn't exist, then there is only the present " Now ", with no time existing before or after it. The "Now " must therefore be timeless and, if it is timeless, time cannot accumulate as the past so the past cannot be infinite. Again, if the " Now " is timeless, it must always be new - never happened before, never happen again - and can something new have a past? The Universe can never be the same thing twice and the whole movement of Life is in the present " Now ", so everything that happens only happens in that present and so can never be set back infinitely: the present can never be the past, and vice-versa. Of course we have the very necessary and useful  time of our clocks and calendars but these are psychological concepts and the intellectual product of memory and without these devices does time exist at all?  So, after all that  rambling, i would have to say that ,for me at least, the past is not infinite.

P. S. Who was the Philosopher?  Was it Zeno ?

[fudgetusk]

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:11 PM, Itoero said:

If the universe is infinite then then that doesn't mean lifeforms on this earth are subject to infinity. We are born and die.

When I say NOW I do not mean the now we are experiencing. Rather any NOW along the so called infinite timeline.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:23 PM, dimreepr said:

I largely agree with Strange, but since this is a philosophical topic I'll answer this. 

Why does it matter?

I'm looking for examples of the universe acting illogically. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too.

On ‎02‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:40 PM, Vmedvil said:

It didn't come from nothing, it came from another dying universe the energy, The moment energy entered this universe time started before that the universe was void of Energy, thus no time as nothing ever changed, how does one measure time in a void?

 

For instance measure time in this picture can you? (Void Main)

Now this one, measure time. (Void Main DO  Print"_" Clear Screen LOOP)

What is the difference?

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical. of course I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing." which leads us back to the other argument that the past is infinite. You can tell I've asked this question before.

15 hours ago, Tub said:

Hello, fudgetusk. I'm neither Greek,nor a philosopher, sadly, but this is interesting so i'll try to give  some reply - always remembering that a reply isn't always an answer. Anyway, as i see it, the past has no existence so no duration and if something doesn't exist, or have any duration,  can it be said to be infinite?  If the past ( or the future ) doesn't exist, then there is only the present " Now ", with no time existing before or after it. The "Now " must therefore be timeless and, if it is timeless, time cannot accumulate as the past so the past cannot be infinite. Again, if the " Now " is timeless, it must always be new - never happened before, never happen again - and can something new have a past? The Universe can never be the same thing twice and the whole movement of Life is in the present " Now ", so everything that happens only happens in that present and so can never be set back infinitely: the present can never be the past, and vice-versa. Of course we have the very necessary and useful  time of our clocks and calendars but these are psychological concepts and the intellectual product of memory and without these devices does time exist at all?  So, after all that  rambling, i would have to say that ,for me at least, the past is not infinite.

P. S. Who was the Philosopher?  Was it Zeno ?

It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical.

As for your explanation. The past cannot be found but it did exist. I do think time exists.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

They will never find an answer.

How do you know that?

5 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical.

I assume by "logical" you are using the informal sense of "makes sense to me, personally". That isn't helpful on a science site.

Although, there is no evidence for it, it is not illogical for the universe to come from nothing.

But, if you think there really is a logical argument to make, then you need to make it using logic rather than an unsupported assertion.

[fudgetusk]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

How do you know that?

I assume by "logical" you are using the informal sense of "makes sense to me, personally". That isn't helpful on a science site.

Although, there is no evidence for it, it is not illogical for the universe to come from nothing.

But, if you think there really is a logical argument to make, then you need to make it using logic rather than an unsupported assertion.

Science itself says that you cannot create energy.

You seem to know your stuff. could you take a look at this thread please?

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by fudgetusk

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Science itself says that you cannot create energy.

Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

[fudgetusk]

when I say nothing I mean absolute nothing. No void. No reality. No possibility of anything existing. I have a pal into physics and we have had arguments about this subject. He sees nothing illogical about the idea that the past is infinite. But he knows the only other answer is illogical. So he's backed into a corner. It's easier to believe in an infinite past because the idea boggles the mind. Then he can say "why is it illogical?" and there is no answer to give because it is just something that is obviously illogical. Like the number one being the number two.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, fudgetusk said:

it is just something that is obviously illogical

Sorry, that is not how logic works. An opinion is not logic.

1 minute ago, fudgetusk said:

Like the number one being the number two.

It can be proved, using logic, that this is not the case. It is not just an opinion.

[fudgetusk]

An opinion can be logic. And the evidence backs me up. No scientist has explained where the universe came from yet.  But we are straying from the point. if science says "something can come from nothing" then they are wrong. It is basic logic that something cannot come from nothing. I put across the point that science itself says you cannot create energy. Is science wrong?

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

An opinion can be logic

Nope. It might, by chance, be consistent with logic but it isn't logic. That is like saying "an opinion can be arithmetic".

8 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

And the evidence backs me up.

We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted.

8 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

It is basic logic that something cannot come from nothing.

No. It appears to be a premise of your argument. If you start with that as an assumption then you can conclude that the universe didn't come from nothing. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question. (Which you would know if you knew what logic was...)

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

I suggest taking an introductory course in logic and/or philosophy.

8 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

I put across the point that science itself says you cannot create energy. Is science wrong?

Science is always (potentially) wrong. That is how it works.

I don't think that science says that you cannot create energy.

That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored)

There zero evidence that the universe was created anyway. So the whole question is moot.

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Strange

[fudgetusk]

You seem to be getting hot under the collar. This always happens when I force people to see this issue. An Opinion can match logic. Therefore be logic. Logic does not have to be  a fundamental law of physics.  Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. einsten did not include eating food in his equations.

 

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.^[1] In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

>>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored)

Which was?

>>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero

Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to.

http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/btbb/michio-kaku-beginning/

Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical.

>>We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted.

We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from. Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.

Edited December 5, 2017 by fudgetusk

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:

I'm looking for examples of the universe acting illogically.

 

You won't find any.

1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:

I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from.

Your belief is irrelevant, the universe exists it's here.

1 hour ago, fudgetusk said:

They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too.

 

Science depends on data, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". 

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

You seem to be getting hot under the collar.

Not at all. I have no idea why you would think that.

37 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

This always happens when I force people to see this issue.

People with "personal theories" base don belief rather than evidence always seem to think they are frightening people or making them angry with their "dangerous new ideas". The which the only response is: pfffft.

39 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant

But we aren't talking about a "given frame of reference", we are talking about a hypothetical creation event. So that argument doesn't apply. You need to read up on the difficulty of applying that "law" to the whole universe as described by GR.

But, then again, the net energy of the universe could be zero so no energy was created.

40 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

>>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored)

Which was?

The zero energy hypothesis.

41 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

>>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero

Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to.

It isn't now. But it would have been before. 

I don't know much about Kaku, but the little I have seen of his popular science writings should be ignored as sensationalistic nonsense.

42 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical.

You have no evidence for this beyond your personal beliefs. Not a good basis for science.

43 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from.

Therefore the universe doesn't exist? 

You really need to sharpen up your critical thinking skills. Honestly, it is not "getting hot under the collar" to point out the enormous benefits of studying logic, rather than just saying that if you belief something then it is "logical".

44 minutes ago, fudgetusk said:

Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.

Common sense is the enemy of science and rational thought in general.

[sci-man]

I think that it is infinite until proven otherwise because there is always going to be a past even if nothing is there. we humans have no idea when the universe actually began if you've seen men in black then you know there was a universe in a marble imagine if we are in a marble in someone's hand right now.There could be other universes in a multiverse with other multiverses in a marble and we would never know unless we could live forever.

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Not at all. I have no idea why you would think that.

People with "personal theories" base don belief rather than evidence always seem to think they are frightening people or making them angry with their "dangerous new ideas". The which the only response is: pfffft.

But we aren't talking about a "given frame of reference", we are talking about a hypothetical creation event. So that argument doesn't apply. You need to read up on the difficulty of applying that "law" to the whole universe as described by GR.

But, then again, the net energy of the universe could be zero so no energy was created.

The zero energy hypothesis.

It isn't now. But it would have been before. 

I don't know much about Kaku, but the little I have seen of his popular science writings should be ignored as sensationalistic nonsense.

You have no evidence for this beyond your personal beliefs. Not a good basis for science.

Therefore the universe doesn't exist? 

You really need to sharpen up your critical thinking skills. Honestly, it is not "getting hot under the collar" to point out the enormous benefits of studying logic, rather than just saying that if you belief something then it is "logical".

Common sense is the enemy of science and rational thought in general.

i'm just going to make a time machine and go see how the universe was made or go back as far as possible then see it for myself and record it.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, sci-man said:

i'm just going to make a time machine and go see how the universe was made or go back as far as possible then see it for myself and record it.

Pictures or it didn't happen!

[dimreepr]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Pictures or it didn't happen!

I've got a selfie from a restaurant at the other end. 

 

 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I've got a selfie from a restaurant at the other end. 

Who's your friend?

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Who's your friend?

The other guy in the photo with Dimreepr is Arthur Dent.  ;-)

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

The other guy in the photo with Dimreepr is Arthur Dent.  ;-)

LOL

Fancy a rib?

[Vmedvil]

4 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

You seem to be getting hot under the collar. This always happens when I force people to see this issue. An Opinion can match logic. Therefore be logic. Logic does not have to be  a fundamental law of physics.  Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. einsten did not include eating food in his equations.

 

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.^[1] In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

>>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored)

Which was?

>>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero

Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to.

http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/btbb/michio-kaku-beginning/

Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical.

>>We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted.

We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from. Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.

I never said it came from nothing I said the Energy came from another dying universe, which still holds the conservation  of energy.  The Energy was never Created from nothingness the energy was transferred from another system like heat transfer in thermodynamics. 

You quoted the Third law of thermodynamics without understanding 1 and 2.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Itoero]

6 hours ago, fudgetusk said:

When I say NOW I do not mean the now we are experiencing. Rather any NOW along the so called infinite timeline.

I think I get why you think like that. It's one of the reasons I don't believe in an infinite timeline. 'Infinity'  throws away all boundaries and rules.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Itoero