Infinite regress is logically impossible

[bahman]

Sure. And?

It means that you cannot reach from the infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.

Then how did I place the 0 there?

-∞<--------------------0------------------> +∞

The distance between -∞ and 0 is finite in your picture.

[Skepdick]

It means that you cannot reach from the infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.

Then how did I place the 0 there?

-∞<--------------------0------------------> +∞

The distance between -∞ and 0 is finite in your picture.

The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.

[bahman]

Then how did I place the 0 there?

-∞<--------------------0------------------> +∞

The distance between -∞ and 0 is finite in your picture.

The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.

Yes, but in your picture it is finite.

[Skepdick]

The distance between -∞ and 0 is finite in your picture.

The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.

Yes, but in your picture it is finite.

Which has what to do with anything? It's just a representation to aid the dialogue.

IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.

I don't know how. But it did.

Declaring it "impossible" is argument from incredulity.

[bahman]

The distance from -∞ to 0 is infinite if you use cardinality as the distance metric.

Yes, but in your picture it is finite.

Which has what to do with anything? It's just a representation to aid the dialogue.

I simply disagree with this representation.

IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.

It cannot happen somehow. As I argued: It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point. Therefore, time has a beginning.

I don't know how. But it did.

So you agree what you said does not make logical sense?

Declaring it "impossible" is argument from incredulity.

No, it is not.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you know that time slows down near heavy objects?

So it's still yesterday, at Lizzo's house?

You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.

Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.

I'm listening.

[bahman]

So it's still yesterday, at Lizzo's house?

You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.

Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.

I'm listening.

Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

[Skepdick]

Yes, but in your picture it is finite.

Which has what to do with anything? It's just a representation to aid the dialogue.

I simply disagree with this representation.

So what?

IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.

It cannot happen somehow. As I argued: It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.

Why does it mean that? You can get from 0 to 1 on the Real number line just fine. There are infinitely many points between them too.

Therefore, time has a beginning.

Which is what I am showing. That which we call "the beginning of time" is 0.

Sure, it's a misnomer, but so what?

So you agree what you said does not make logical sense?

No, I don't agree.

I can only explain it to you - I can't make it make sense for you.

Declaring it "impossible" is argument from incredulity.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. You are failing to imagine how it's possible, therefore you claim it to be impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

You, don't want to learn, you don't listen, and I am done with you.

Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.

I'm listening.

Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?

[Skepdick]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system.

X and Y can be different points in space, but the same point in time.

Entangled particles.
Spooky action at a distance.

Or if you don't want to think about this in terms of quantum - there are classical models of concurrency too; in which is time is non-linear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_computing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_clock

[bahman]

Which has what to do with anything? It's just a representation to aid the dialogue.

I simply disagree with this representation.

So what?

Your representation does not imply anything true. It is misleading.

IF time is (in fact) past-infinite The Big Bang still happened. Somehow.

It cannot happen somehow. As I argued: It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point.

Why does it mean that?

That is the property of infinity.

You can get from 0 to 1 on the Real number line just fine. There are infinitely many points between them too.

That is not how the continuum is defined. A change in the continuum is deferential and it is defined as the limit of difference between two points when the distance between two points is arbitrarily small. In another world, dX=limit (X2-X1) when X1 tends to X2. In this manner, the number of points between 0 and 1 is not infinite but arbitrarily large.

Therefore, time has a beginning.

Which is what I am showing. That which we call "the beginning of time" is 0.

Yes, but there is nothing before the beginning of time. You stress that there is.

Sure, it's a misnomer, but so what?

What do you mean?

So you agree what you said does not make logical sense?

No, I don't agree.

I can only explain it to you - I can't make it make sense for you.

It would make sense to me if it was logical.

Declaring it "impossible" is argument from incredulity.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. You are failing to imagine how it's possible, therefore you claim it to be impossible.

Imagine? I imagine it rightly: For any arbitrary point in the infinite past there exists an infinite number of points before. Could we agree on this?

[bahman]

Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system.

X and Y can be different points in space, but the same point in time.

Entangled particles.
Spooky action at a distance.

Or if you don't want to think about this in terms of quantum - there are classical models of concurrency too; in which is time is non-linear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_computing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_clock

No, X and Y are events within spacetime.

[bahman]

Oh, come on now. Don't be angry. I thought it was quite a funny line.

I'm listening.

Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?

No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.

[Immanuel Can]

Ok, let's see if we can work on my argument: Consider a change in a system, X to Y (X and Y are two events). X and Y cannot lay at the same point since otherwise we are dealing with a simultaneous process and there cannot be any change in the system. This means that X and Y must lay on different points in a variable one of the points comes after another. This variable we call time.

"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?

No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.

Okay. Roll on.

[bahman]

"Variable?" Don't you mean "interval"?

No, I mean variable. The interval is the distance between the two points on that variable.

Okay. Roll on.

Please read my argument then. That variable that I call has to exist otherwise all events lay at the same point meaning that we are dealing with a simultaneous process, in other words, there could be no change.