Infinite regress is logically impossible

[Skepdick]

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

That's not true. It presents you precisely with an infinity leading up to a point.

That is the property of infinity.

No, it isn't. We solved Zeno's paradoxes with calculus.

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.

I can't make any sense of this nonsense. How does 0 tend to 1?

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

Says who ?!?

You stress that there is.

Yes. And?

What do you mean?

I mean time starts at 0. And we ignore whatever's before that - don't care.

It would make sense to me if it was logical.

It is logical. Why doesn't it make sense to you?

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?

You seem determined to trip over Zeno's paradox...

[Skepdick]

No, X and Y are events within spacetime.

OK.Let them be events within spacetime where their time-coordinate is identical.

It's just their space coordinate which differs. The instant X changes - so does Y; and vice-versa.

X and Y are entangled.

[attofishpi]

Like that, like tick-tock in a clock.

Are you going to provide an example of X event and Y event?

The tick is X and the tock is Y.

Ok, carry on with your argument, explain away.

[bahman]

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

That's not true. It presents you precisely with an infinity leading up to a point.

No, it does not represent an interval between minus infinity to infinity. Why? Because it is finite.

That is the property of infinity.

No, it isn't. We solved Zeno's paradoxes with calculus.

What you are saying does not make any sense. I said: "It means that you cannot reach from an infinite number of points before your chosen point to your chosen point." Could we agree on this?

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.

I can't make any sense of this nonsense. How does 0 tend to 1?

I didn't say to tend 0 to 1.

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

Says who ?!?

What?

You stress that there is.

Yes. And?

What you said is inconsistent.

What do you mean?

I mean time starts at 0. And we ignore whatever's before that - don't care.

So you agree that time has a beginning?

It would make sense to me if it was logical.

It is logical. Why doesn't it make sense to you?

OK.

[bahman]

No, X and Y are events within spacetime.

OK.Let them be events within spacetime where their time-coordinate is identical.

It's just their space coordinate which differs. The instant X changes - so does Y; and vice-versa.

X and Y are entangled.

I am not interested in entanglement.

[bahman]

Are you going to provide an example of X event and Y event?

The tick is X and the tock is Y.

Ok, carry on with your argument, explain away.

Here is the 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.

[attofishpi]

The tick is X and the tock is Y.

Ok, carry on with your argument, explain away.

Here is the 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

What do you mean by "point"?

[bahman]

Ok, carry on with your argument, explain away.

Here is the 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

What do you mean by "point"?

I mean point. A dot.

[attofishpi]

Here is the 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

What do you mean by "point"?

I mean point. A dot.

What do you mean by a "dot"?

--> this --> .

[bahman]

What do you mean by "point"?

I mean point. A dot.

What do you mean by a "dot"?

--> this --> .

Yes. To be more precise a point is a geometrical entity with zero size.

[attofishpi]

I mean point. A dot.

What do you mean by a "dot"?

--> this --> .

Yes. To be more precise a point is a geometrical entity with zero size.

What do you mean by "zero size"?

..the more you bring meta-data into the metaphysics, the more unreasonable things can eventuate, ergo, keep it simple.


That complicates things, so which do you prefer in your above argument?

A:- The event of a dot that appeared on your computer monitor and the event of a dot that appeared on my computer monitor..

or

B:- An event that is a photon appearing from the atom on your monitor and the event of a photon that is appearing from an atom on my monitor?

or

C:- something you have in mind?

[bahman]

What do you mean by a "dot"?

--> this --> .

Yes. To be more precise a point is a geometrical entity with zero size.

What do you mean by "zero size"?

Don't you know the definition, volume, surface, line, and points?

..the more you bring meta-data into the metaphysics, the more unreasonable things can eventuate, ergo, keep it simple.


That complicates things, so which do you prefer in your above argument?

A:- The event of a dot that appeared on your computer monitor and the event of a dot that appeared on my computer monitor..

or

B:- An event that is a photon appearing from the atom on your monitor and the event of a photon that is appearing from an atom on my monitor?

or

C:- something you have in mind?

Whatever you choose, A or B. Like falling apple, etc.

[attofishpi]

Yes. To be more precise a point is a geometrical entity with zero size.

What do you mean by "zero size"?

Don't you know the definition, volume, surface, line, and points?

Not at all, and I am not certain that physicists do either (when it comes to a particle)

..the more you bring meta-data into the metaphysics, the more unreasonable things can eventuate, ergo, keep it simple.


That complicates things, so which do you prefer in your above argument?

A:- The event of a dot that appeared on your computer monitor and the event of a dot that appeared on my computer monitor..

or

B:- An event that is a photon appearing from the atom on your monitor and the event of a photon that is appearing from an atom on my monitor?

or

C:- something you have in mind?

Whatever you choose, A or B. Like falling apple, etc.

Let's go with B then, continue my compadre!

[attofishpi]

--> <--

Bahman, did Skeppy already stump you, or am I still bowling?

[bahman]

What do you mean by "zero size"?

Don't you know the definition, volume, surface, line, and points?

Not at all, and I am not certain that physicists do either (when it comes to a particle)

..the more you bring meta-data into the metaphysics, the more unreasonable things can eventuate, ergo, keep it simple.


That complicates things, so which do you prefer in your above argument?

A:- The event of a dot that appeared on your computer monitor and the event of a dot that appeared on my computer monitor..

or

B:- An event that is a photon appearing from the atom on your monitor and the event of a photon that is appearing from an atom on my monitor?

or

C:- something you have in mind?

Whatever you choose, A or B. Like falling apple, etc.

Let's go with B then, continue my compadre!

Please just read the 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.

Basically what I am saying is that there are two types of process, simultaneous when there is no time and events occur at the same point, and temporal when there is a time and events occur in different point.