Infinite past with a beginning?Difference between 'infinite' and 'not finite'Is there any philosophical significance to the arithmetization of infinity?Cantor and infinitiesIs infinite regress of causation possible? Is infinite regress of causation necessary?Could there ever be evidence for an infinite being?Is the axiom of infinity truly an axiom?A concept in which an infinite force is also limitedHow is it possible for an infinite number of moments to have elapsed prior to now?Is actual infinity physical infinity? Or just the axiom of infinity?Can you divide the natural numbers in half sequentially?
Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Japan - Plan around max visa duration
How long does it take to type this?
The magic money tree problem
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?
Can I use wish to become the ruler of all dragons?
How much RAM could one put in a typical 80386 setup?
A Journey Through Space and Time
strToHex ( string to its hex representation as string)
Why don't electron-positron collisions release infinite energy?
How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Draw simple lines in Inkscape
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Type 1 Error & Type 2 Error's pregnancy test analogy: is it legit?
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Mathematical cryptic clues
Methods for deciding between [odd number] players
Symplectic equivalent of commuting matrices
Why linear maps act like matrix multiplication?
Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?
How is it possible for user to changed after storage was encrypted? (on OS X, Android)
Infinite past with a beginning?
Difference between 'infinite' and 'not finite'Is there any philosophical significance to the arithmetization of infinity?Cantor and infinitiesIs infinite regress of causation possible? Is infinite regress of causation necessary?Could there ever be evidence for an infinite being?Is the axiom of infinity truly an axiom?A concept in which an infinite force is also limitedHow is it possible for an infinite number of moments to have elapsed prior to now?Is actual infinity physical infinity? Or just the axiom of infinity?Can you divide the natural numbers in half sequentially?
I can conceive of an infinite past with a beginning. I can in fact represent this idea by simple diagram, part analogical, part symbolic. So, to me, this idea is a logical possibility.
I initially believed that nearly everyone should be able to do the same. Apparently, I was wrong. Many people object to it, vehemently, on the ground that the ordinary, conventional notion of an infinite past is that of a past which is infinite precisely because it has no beginning.
So, as the argument goes, the notion of an infinite past with a beginning would be a contradiction in terms, and this even though, unlike for example "bachelor", there is no dictionary definition of "infinite past", and there is therefore no dictionary definition of an infinite past as having no beginning.
As I understand it, our initial notion of the infinite came from our sense that time is going to continue and that, therefore, it is literally not finished, i.e. in-finite, or "not complete" as some people like to put it.
Still, since more than a century ago now, mathematicians have learnt to deal with the notion of actual infinite, i.e. the notion of an infinite that would be complete. This is not necessarily the same idea as that of an infinite with a limit, though.
As I understand it, the idea of an actual infinite came as a consequence of assuming the existence of a set containing an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is infinite but the set itself contains all of them and so is an "actual" infinite. This in itself doesn't imply that the set contains a greatest or smallest element but the set is thought of as containing the entirety of an infinity of elements, which seems to imply at least that the set is indeed a "complete", or an actual, infinity.
However, it seems to me that, for example, the interval of Real numbers [0, 1] is already conceived of as an actual infinite. It of course has a "beginning" and an "end". And I think of it as commensurable to an infinite past with a beginning, or even an infinite time with both a beginning and an end.
So, how would it be necessarily illogical to think of the past as both infinite and with a beginning?
Or why would it be somehow necessary that if the past is infinite, it has no beginning?
time infinity infinite
add a comment |
I can conceive of an infinite past with a beginning. I can in fact represent this idea by simple diagram, part analogical, part symbolic. So, to me, this idea is a logical possibility.
I initially believed that nearly everyone should be able to do the same. Apparently, I was wrong. Many people object to it, vehemently, on the ground that the ordinary, conventional notion of an infinite past is that of a past which is infinite precisely because it has no beginning.
So, as the argument goes, the notion of an infinite past with a beginning would be a contradiction in terms, and this even though, unlike for example "bachelor", there is no dictionary definition of "infinite past", and there is therefore no dictionary definition of an infinite past as having no beginning.
As I understand it, our initial notion of the infinite came from our sense that time is going to continue and that, therefore, it is literally not finished, i.e. in-finite, or "not complete" as some people like to put it.
Still, since more than a century ago now, mathematicians have learnt to deal with the notion of actual infinite, i.e. the notion of an infinite that would be complete. This is not necessarily the same idea as that of an infinite with a limit, though.
As I understand it, the idea of an actual infinite came as a consequence of assuming the existence of a set containing an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is infinite but the set itself contains all of them and so is an "actual" infinite. This in itself doesn't imply that the set contains a greatest or smallest element but the set is thought of as containing the entirety of an infinity of elements, which seems to imply at least that the set is indeed a "complete", or an actual, infinity.
However, it seems to me that, for example, the interval of Real numbers [0, 1] is already conceived of as an actual infinite. It of course has a "beginning" and an "end". And I think of it as commensurable to an infinite past with a beginning, or even an infinite time with both a beginning and an end.
So, how would it be necessarily illogical to think of the past as both infinite and with a beginning?
Or why would it be somehow necessary that if the past is infinite, it has no beginning?
time infinity infinite
1
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I can conceive of an infinite past with a beginning. I can in fact represent this idea by simple diagram, part analogical, part symbolic. So, to me, this idea is a logical possibility.
I initially believed that nearly everyone should be able to do the same. Apparently, I was wrong. Many people object to it, vehemently, on the ground that the ordinary, conventional notion of an infinite past is that of a past which is infinite precisely because it has no beginning.
So, as the argument goes, the notion of an infinite past with a beginning would be a contradiction in terms, and this even though, unlike for example "bachelor", there is no dictionary definition of "infinite past", and there is therefore no dictionary definition of an infinite past as having no beginning.
As I understand it, our initial notion of the infinite came from our sense that time is going to continue and that, therefore, it is literally not finished, i.e. in-finite, or "not complete" as some people like to put it.
Still, since more than a century ago now, mathematicians have learnt to deal with the notion of actual infinite, i.e. the notion of an infinite that would be complete. This is not necessarily the same idea as that of an infinite with a limit, though.
As I understand it, the idea of an actual infinite came as a consequence of assuming the existence of a set containing an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is infinite but the set itself contains all of them and so is an "actual" infinite. This in itself doesn't imply that the set contains a greatest or smallest element but the set is thought of as containing the entirety of an infinity of elements, which seems to imply at least that the set is indeed a "complete", or an actual, infinity.
However, it seems to me that, for example, the interval of Real numbers [0, 1] is already conceived of as an actual infinite. It of course has a "beginning" and an "end". And I think of it as commensurable to an infinite past with a beginning, or even an infinite time with both a beginning and an end.
So, how would it be necessarily illogical to think of the past as both infinite and with a beginning?
Or why would it be somehow necessary that if the past is infinite, it has no beginning?
time infinity infinite
I can conceive of an infinite past with a beginning. I can in fact represent this idea by simple diagram, part analogical, part symbolic. So, to me, this idea is a logical possibility.
I initially believed that nearly everyone should be able to do the same. Apparently, I was wrong. Many people object to it, vehemently, on the ground that the ordinary, conventional notion of an infinite past is that of a past which is infinite precisely because it has no beginning.
So, as the argument goes, the notion of an infinite past with a beginning would be a contradiction in terms, and this even though, unlike for example "bachelor", there is no dictionary definition of "infinite past", and there is therefore no dictionary definition of an infinite past as having no beginning.
As I understand it, our initial notion of the infinite came from our sense that time is going to continue and that, therefore, it is literally not finished, i.e. in-finite, or "not complete" as some people like to put it.
Still, since more than a century ago now, mathematicians have learnt to deal with the notion of actual infinite, i.e. the notion of an infinite that would be complete. This is not necessarily the same idea as that of an infinite with a limit, though.
As I understand it, the idea of an actual infinite came as a consequence of assuming the existence of a set containing an infinite number of elements. The number of elements is infinite but the set itself contains all of them and so is an "actual" infinite. This in itself doesn't imply that the set contains a greatest or smallest element but the set is thought of as containing the entirety of an infinity of elements, which seems to imply at least that the set is indeed a "complete", or an actual, infinity.
However, it seems to me that, for example, the interval of Real numbers [0, 1] is already conceived of as an actual infinite. It of course has a "beginning" and an "end". And I think of it as commensurable to an infinite past with a beginning, or even an infinite time with both a beginning and an end.
So, how would it be necessarily illogical to think of the past as both infinite and with a beginning?
Or why would it be somehow necessary that if the past is infinite, it has no beginning?
time infinity infinite
time infinity infinite
asked 7 hours ago
SpeakpigeonSpeakpigeon
1659
1659
1
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago
1
1
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
1
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
1
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. Aristotle's arguments aside, this is what people mean when they speak of an infinite past: for any time x, there exists another time y such that y precedes x. Colloquially, "there is no first moment in time". If time has a beginning, it means that there is a time x, such that there is no time y that precedes it. Colloquially, "there is a first moment in time". This is a contradiction; so there cannot be both an infinite past (in the sense described above) and a first moment (a beginning).
Mauro ALLEGRANZA in his comments explains that there can be different ways something can be said to be "infinite", but in the context of philosophical arguments where an infinite past is discussed, it is probably the sense that I describe in my first paragraph.
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
To answer this, we need to visit Hilbert's hotel.
It's an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests.
One day an extra guest turns up and wants a room. Hilbert can't send him down the corridor - it will take literally forever. So he asks all the guests to move one room down the corridor. The guest in room 1 moves into room 2, the guest in room 2 moves into room 3, and so on.
We can see that, while it was already an infinity, this does not mean that it can't be incremented by 1. An infinity does not necessarily equal another infinity.
What if an infinitely big coach turns up with an infinite number of guests? That's ok: you just ask all the existing guests to move into the next even-numbered rooms. The guest in 1 moves into 2, the guest in 2 moves into 4, the guest in 3 moves into 6, the guest in 4 moves into 8, and so on.
Now you have an infinity which is twice as big as it was before.
The point here: something can have a beginning and still be infinite. It can start at zero and go all the way up to a positive infinity. It doesn't have to start from a negative infinity, or even from zero. Can you start at 100 and count infinitely upward? Yes, of course you can. It's infinite as long as it doesn't have an end.
The stumbling block here is that, conventionally thought of, the past does have an end: the present. So there can be an infinite period of time with a beginning, but it has to stretch out into the future as well.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61678%2finfinite-past-with-a-beginning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. Aristotle's arguments aside, this is what people mean when they speak of an infinite past: for any time x, there exists another time y such that y precedes x. Colloquially, "there is no first moment in time". If time has a beginning, it means that there is a time x, such that there is no time y that precedes it. Colloquially, "there is a first moment in time". This is a contradiction; so there cannot be both an infinite past (in the sense described above) and a first moment (a beginning).
Mauro ALLEGRANZA in his comments explains that there can be different ways something can be said to be "infinite", but in the context of philosophical arguments where an infinite past is discussed, it is probably the sense that I describe in my first paragraph.
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. Aristotle's arguments aside, this is what people mean when they speak of an infinite past: for any time x, there exists another time y such that y precedes x. Colloquially, "there is no first moment in time". If time has a beginning, it means that there is a time x, such that there is no time y that precedes it. Colloquially, "there is a first moment in time". This is a contradiction; so there cannot be both an infinite past (in the sense described above) and a first moment (a beginning).
Mauro ALLEGRANZA in his comments explains that there can be different ways something can be said to be "infinite", but in the context of philosophical arguments where an infinite past is discussed, it is probably the sense that I describe in my first paragraph.
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. Aristotle's arguments aside, this is what people mean when they speak of an infinite past: for any time x, there exists another time y such that y precedes x. Colloquially, "there is no first moment in time". If time has a beginning, it means that there is a time x, such that there is no time y that precedes it. Colloquially, "there is a first moment in time". This is a contradiction; so there cannot be both an infinite past (in the sense described above) and a first moment (a beginning).
Mauro ALLEGRANZA in his comments explains that there can be different ways something can be said to be "infinite", but in the context of philosophical arguments where an infinite past is discussed, it is probably the sense that I describe in my first paragraph.
Aristotle said the past is infinite because, for any past time we can imagine an earlier one. Aristotle's arguments aside, this is what people mean when they speak of an infinite past: for any time x, there exists another time y such that y precedes x. Colloquially, "there is no first moment in time". If time has a beginning, it means that there is a time x, such that there is no time y that precedes it. Colloquially, "there is a first moment in time". This is a contradiction; so there cannot be both an infinite past (in the sense described above) and a first moment (a beginning).
Mauro ALLEGRANZA in his comments explains that there can be different ways something can be said to be "infinite", but in the context of philosophical arguments where an infinite past is discussed, it is probably the sense that I describe in my first paragraph.
answered 5 hours ago
AdamAdam
5408
5408
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
So, how would you call an infinite past with a beginning?
– Speakpigeon
5 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Speakpigeon Perhaps "dense", or "continuous"? Density states that for any two moments in time, there is another moment between them (plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-temporal/#InsBasModFloTim). Continuity states that time is like the real number line, with no "holes" in it. Both imply there are infinitely many moments in time (if time is linear). One infinity is countable, one is not.
– Adam
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
Those two things aren't necessarily contradictions. Imagine an observer A falling into a black hole (ignore decay, we're simply after topology). To observer B, outside the black hole, it looks like it takes an infinite amount of time to fall past the event horizon. To A, nothing special happens, so he passes the horizon... but will eventually meet an end. Flip this picture around in time, and there's a beginning for A, but it's infinite for B (what's more, oddly, the beginning for A predates the projected infinity for B).
– H Walters
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@HWalters Nice. I don't know enough about relativity to really comment about that, but would it mean to B, there is really no beginning of time (i.e. is there a symmetry that means your scenario can really be flipped around like that? There's something about an infinite future that doesn't seem quite as problematic as an infinite past, but maybe that's just me). I suppose my argument might presuppose a classical picture of time, which might be sufficient for the OP's purpose. If I qualified the entire argument with "in a particular reference frame" would that allow it to apply to relativity?
– Adam
4 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
@Adam An infinite past with a beginning is an infinite past and therefore has to be called just that. I accept that, historically, our initial notion of an infinite past has been without a beginning but that's just a question of the evolution of the vocabulary. The question is: Why would the idea of an infinite past with a beginning be impossible?
– Speakpigeon
3 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
To answer this, we need to visit Hilbert's hotel.
It's an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests.
One day an extra guest turns up and wants a room. Hilbert can't send him down the corridor - it will take literally forever. So he asks all the guests to move one room down the corridor. The guest in room 1 moves into room 2, the guest in room 2 moves into room 3, and so on.
We can see that, while it was already an infinity, this does not mean that it can't be incremented by 1. An infinity does not necessarily equal another infinity.
What if an infinitely big coach turns up with an infinite number of guests? That's ok: you just ask all the existing guests to move into the next even-numbered rooms. The guest in 1 moves into 2, the guest in 2 moves into 4, the guest in 3 moves into 6, the guest in 4 moves into 8, and so on.
Now you have an infinity which is twice as big as it was before.
The point here: something can have a beginning and still be infinite. It can start at zero and go all the way up to a positive infinity. It doesn't have to start from a negative infinity, or even from zero. Can you start at 100 and count infinitely upward? Yes, of course you can. It's infinite as long as it doesn't have an end.
The stumbling block here is that, conventionally thought of, the past does have an end: the present. So there can be an infinite period of time with a beginning, but it has to stretch out into the future as well.
New contributor
add a comment |
To answer this, we need to visit Hilbert's hotel.
It's an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests.
One day an extra guest turns up and wants a room. Hilbert can't send him down the corridor - it will take literally forever. So he asks all the guests to move one room down the corridor. The guest in room 1 moves into room 2, the guest in room 2 moves into room 3, and so on.
We can see that, while it was already an infinity, this does not mean that it can't be incremented by 1. An infinity does not necessarily equal another infinity.
What if an infinitely big coach turns up with an infinite number of guests? That's ok: you just ask all the existing guests to move into the next even-numbered rooms. The guest in 1 moves into 2, the guest in 2 moves into 4, the guest in 3 moves into 6, the guest in 4 moves into 8, and so on.
Now you have an infinity which is twice as big as it was before.
The point here: something can have a beginning and still be infinite. It can start at zero and go all the way up to a positive infinity. It doesn't have to start from a negative infinity, or even from zero. Can you start at 100 and count infinitely upward? Yes, of course you can. It's infinite as long as it doesn't have an end.
The stumbling block here is that, conventionally thought of, the past does have an end: the present. So there can be an infinite period of time with a beginning, but it has to stretch out into the future as well.
New contributor
add a comment |
To answer this, we need to visit Hilbert's hotel.
It's an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests.
One day an extra guest turns up and wants a room. Hilbert can't send him down the corridor - it will take literally forever. So he asks all the guests to move one room down the corridor. The guest in room 1 moves into room 2, the guest in room 2 moves into room 3, and so on.
We can see that, while it was already an infinity, this does not mean that it can't be incremented by 1. An infinity does not necessarily equal another infinity.
What if an infinitely big coach turns up with an infinite number of guests? That's ok: you just ask all the existing guests to move into the next even-numbered rooms. The guest in 1 moves into 2, the guest in 2 moves into 4, the guest in 3 moves into 6, the guest in 4 moves into 8, and so on.
Now you have an infinity which is twice as big as it was before.
The point here: something can have a beginning and still be infinite. It can start at zero and go all the way up to a positive infinity. It doesn't have to start from a negative infinity, or even from zero. Can you start at 100 and count infinitely upward? Yes, of course you can. It's infinite as long as it doesn't have an end.
The stumbling block here is that, conventionally thought of, the past does have an end: the present. So there can be an infinite period of time with a beginning, but it has to stretch out into the future as well.
New contributor
To answer this, we need to visit Hilbert's hotel.
It's an infinitely long corridor with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests.
One day an extra guest turns up and wants a room. Hilbert can't send him down the corridor - it will take literally forever. So he asks all the guests to move one room down the corridor. The guest in room 1 moves into room 2, the guest in room 2 moves into room 3, and so on.
We can see that, while it was already an infinity, this does not mean that it can't be incremented by 1. An infinity does not necessarily equal another infinity.
What if an infinitely big coach turns up with an infinite number of guests? That's ok: you just ask all the existing guests to move into the next even-numbered rooms. The guest in 1 moves into 2, the guest in 2 moves into 4, the guest in 3 moves into 6, the guest in 4 moves into 8, and so on.
Now you have an infinity which is twice as big as it was before.
The point here: something can have a beginning and still be infinite. It can start at zero and go all the way up to a positive infinity. It doesn't have to start from a negative infinity, or even from zero. Can you start at 100 and count infinitely upward? Yes, of course you can. It's infinite as long as it doesn't have an end.
The stumbling block here is that, conventionally thought of, the past does have an end: the present. So there can be an infinite period of time with a beginning, but it has to stretch out into the future as well.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 1 hour ago
Ne MoNe Mo
1112
1112
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61678%2finfinite-past-with-a-beginning%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Ther are "many" concepts of infinite at play here : having an infinite number of elements (this is the post-Cantorian sense) : e.g. the set N of all natural numbers. Conceived as a single entity (as an actual infinite) it is one set with infinite many elements. The same for [0,1], but in addition it also "continuous" , i.e. we can subdivide it without end (in the Aristotelian sense) meaning that for every two numbers in it we can always find something in between (not so for two consecutive naturals in N. In addition, it is limited from below and above.
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
So, it is infinite, infinitely divisible and at the same time limited. Thus the 0 of N can be thinked as the beginning of the number sequence. [0,1] instead is not a sequence with a "beginning" in the same sense. THus, what is the "correct" model of time : N, [0,1], [0, infinity], [-infinity, + infinity] ? Other ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
6 hours ago
1
I once saw a bumper sticker which read, "You don't have to believe everything you think." CS
– Charles M Saunders
2 hours ago