Dilemma of beginning of time

[bahman]

What is wrong with my argument and calculation?

I already told you.
EB

Where?

[Speakpigeon]

So for dozens of comment your point was that it's seen as infinite and I'm stupid, and now your point is that it's seen as finite (which I said all along) and I'm stupid.

You're wasting my time.
A finite interval contains an infinity of points. So my point, if you had cared to follow the conversation, is that the same thing can be finite in one respect and infinite in another. Well, I guess this went well above your head.
You clearly prefer a well-ordered world when all infinite things are in one pigeon-hole and all finite things are in another pigeon-hole.
You are also ignoring the fact that language relies on short-cuts. It's not because we say "finite interval" that we understand it as not infinite as well as finite. In other words, you are literal-minded as well as narrow-minded. No conversation possible.

(And here we are even ignoring the fact that time is not a mathematical construct, like a set, so your reasoning is irrelevant anyway.)

Yeah, and as I already said, "time" is not time. So, what are we even talking about?!
Sapiens sapiens... What a joke.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

What is wrong with my argument and calculation?

I already told you.

Where?

Somewhere between the beginning of time and now.
EB

[bahman]

I already told you.

Where?

Somewhere between the beginning of time and now.
EB

You are not making any sense. Sounds like you don't want to discuss the subject anymore when you are about to be convinced.

[Speakpigeon]

You are not making any sense. Sounds like you don't want to discuss the subject anymore when you are about to be convinced.

LOL
EB

[Atla]

You're wasting my time.
A finite interval contains an infinity of points. So my point, if you had cared to follow the conversation, is that the same thing can be finite in one respect and infinite in another. Well, I guess this went well above your head.
You clearly prefer a well-ordered world when all infinite things are in one pigeon-hole and all finite things are in another pigeon-hole.
You are also ignoring the fact that language relies on short-cuts. It's not because we say "finite interval" that we understand it as not infinite as well as finite. In other words, you are literal-minded as well as narrow-minded. No conversation possible.

No you fucking idiot, I was talking about the infinite past (= past with no beginning, changing forever) being illogical. Which then you started criticizing.

If YOU had followed the conversation you would have realized that your "finite in one respect and infinite in another respect thing" doesn't address that, can't address that.

You are also just assuming like an idiot that just because we can talk about conceptual constructs like number sets being both finite and infinite, we can do the same with time. Time is not a concept but a "feature" of the observable universe.

You also fail to comprehend that simply calling such an interval both finite and infinite leads to nonsense. The "respects" need to have some ordering, that's why overall it's seen as finite.

Your infinite time with a beginning is also overall seen as finite. I was talking about INFINITE time not finite. Understand?

But in your idiot head all you have been able to believe is that: I can't see something as finite and infinite at the same time.
Well duh, you are the one who doesn't even understand the implications of your own strawman.

Yeah, and as I already said, "time" is not time. So, what are we even talking about?!
Sapiens sapiens... What a joke.
EB

I was talking about time, what does putting it into quotation marks change?
Do you not understand what people talk about when they talk about time?
Or are we supposed to comment without words now?

[Speakpigeon]

No you fucking idiot, I was talking about the infinite past (= past with no beginning, changing forever) being illogical. Which then you started criticizing.

No, it's you who said "infinite past with a beginning" is a contradiction of terms.

An infinite past with a beginning is a contradiction of terms.

I dutifully commented that obviously it's not.
Shouldn't have been a big deal but instead of admitting your mistake, here you are still trying to drown the fish.

If YOU had followed the conversation you would have realized that your "finite in one respect and infinite in another respect thing" doesn't address that, can't address that.

It was not meant to address "that". It was meant to address your denial that the past could be finite in respect of having a beginning and infinite in respect of duration.

Time is not a concept but a "feature" of the observable universe.

Yeah, and "time" is not a word either so what are we even talking about.

You also fail to comprehend that simply calling such an interval both finite and infinite leads to nonsense. The "respects" need to have some ordering, that's why overall it's seen as finite.

No.
The only restriction is that we use terminological shortcuts to express ourselves and therefore we have to choose the aspect we want to emphasise. When we say "infinite past", the aspect emphasised is obviously that the thing is infinite, infinite in duration. The term "beginning" doesn't even feature in the expression. So, the expression "infinite past with a beginning" isn't a contradiction in terms.
And then there's nothing else to argue about.

Your infinite time with a beginning is also overall seen as finite. I was talking about INFINITE time not finite. Understand?

Yes, I do but you don't.
We're all talking of an infinite past, not of an infinite past with no beginning.
EB

[Atla]

When we say "infinite past", the aspect emphasised is obviously that the thing is infinite, infinite in duration.

That's definition number 2 of infinite, as I have demonstrated (which is obvious to most others here).
I have nothing else to say on the matter.

[Speakpigeon]

That's definition number 2 of infinite, as I have demonstrated (which is obvious to most others here).
I have nothing else to say on the matter.

Here are all the definitions you yourself provided...

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English.

infinite
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
extending indefinitely : endless
without limits; extremely large or great
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.
Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate.
Infinite is defined as endless or limitless.
having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude

Each one of those is compatible with an infinite past with a beginning.

• An infinite past with a beginning is limitless or endless in size and impossible to measure or calculate.
  An infinite past with a beginning is extending indefinitely.
  An infinite past with a beginning is without limits in its duration.
  An infinite past with a beginning is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
  An infinite past with a beginning has no boundaries or limits as o its duration.

The "no beginning" clause is all in your imagination.
You're welcome to come back to the real world.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Where?

https://www.iep.utm.edu/infinite/
Should be compulsory reading for all would-be philosophers of the infinite.
EB

[Logik]

Each one of those is compatible with an infinite past with a beginning.

• An infinite past with a beginning is limitless or endless in size and impossible to measure or calculate.
  An infinite past with a beginning is extending indefinitely.
  An infinite past with a beginning is without limits in its duration.
  An infinite past with a beginning is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
  An infinite past with a beginning has no boundaries or limits as o its duration.

The "no beginning" clause is all in your imagination.
You're welcome to come back to the real world.
EB

Do you even recognize how fucking idiotic it is to argue over definitions which have no empirical (testable) grounding?

It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. --William James

What are the empirical differences between "infinite time with beginning" and "infinite time without beginning" ?

The above paragraph should be compulsory reading for all philosophers. Full stop.

[Atla]

That's definition number 2 of infinite, as I have demonstrated (which is obvious to most others here).
I have nothing else to say on the matter.

Here are all the definitions you yourself provided...

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English.

infinite
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
extending indefinitely : endless
without limits; extremely large or great
unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.
Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate.
Infinite is defined as endless or limitless.
having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude

Each one of those is compatible with an infinite past with a beginning.

• An infinite past with a beginning is limitless or endless in size and impossible to measure or calculate.
  An infinite past with a beginning is extending indefinitely.
  An infinite past with a beginning is without limits in its duration.
  An infinite past with a beginning is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
  An infinite past with a beginning has no boundaries or limits as o its duration.

The "no beginning" clause is all in your imagination.
You're welcome to come back to the real world.
EB

No, according to definition number 1, a beginning is a limit.
What you are talking about is definition 2. In a language like English we default to the first definition. Keeps flying miles over your head.

[Dontaskme]

Do you even recognize how fucking idiotic it is to argue over definitions which have no empirical (testable) grounding?

I AM the last idiot, it's ok, argue to your hearts content...no one is listening.

[Logik]

No, according to definition number 1, a beginning is a limit.
What you are talking about is definition 2. In a language like English we default to the first definition. Keeps flying miles over your head.

So if we switched the order of the definitions Speakpigeon would be right and you would be wrong ?

That sure smells like an appeal to a linguistic authority. If two dictionaries ordered them differently which dictionary is "wrong" ?

Dumb logocentrists the both of you.

[Speakpigeon]

That's definition number 2 of infinite, as I have demonstrated (which is obvious to most others here).
I have nothing else to say on the matter.

Here are all the definitions you yourself provided...

By default, infinite past means past with no beginning in English.

Each one of those is compatible with an infinite past with a beginning.

• An infinite past with a beginning is limitless or endless in size and impossible to measure or calculate.
  An infinite past with a beginning is extending indefinitely.
  An infinite past with a beginning is without limits in its duration.
  An infinite past with a beginning is unlimited or unmeasurable in duration of time.
  An infinite past with a beginning has no boundaries or limits as o its duration.

The "no beginning" clause is all in your imagination.
You're welcome to come back to the real world.
EB

No, according to definition number 1, a beginning is a limit.
What you are talking about is definition 2. In a language like English we default to the first definition. Keeps flying miles over your head.

Definition No. 1 is: "limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate".
And an infinite past with a beginning is extending indefinitely.
And an infinite past with a beginning is limitless in extent and size.
And an infinite past with a beginning is impossible to measure or calculate.
So, you're wrong AND you don't understand English too good.
EB