You do know that time slows down with speed. Does that fit in your immutable time construct. Time is relative.
So is space. If we disappear, does the universe cease to exist?
This plays on ambiguity in “Can something happen after an infinite amount of time?”. Your dollar-offer speaks to “Can something happen after an infinite amount of time has elapsed since a particular point in time?”. However, this is quite distinct from “Can something happen with an infinite amount of time having preceded it, without beginning?”, as I have illustrated.
I’m not assuming the universe follows the infinite number line model. I’m saying, the infinite number line model demonstrates a counterexample to your argument. It shows that your argument is invalid, since your argument makes claims about what is logically necessary (i.e., true in all models), and yet, those things aren’t true in that particular model.
But that’s a meaningless question. The event either happens after an infinite amount of time, or after a particular point in time. As soon as you define a particular point in time, it ceases to be infinite. So to say “after an infinite amount of time since a particular point in time” is like saying “round square”. It has to be one or the other.
Alright, let me just put it this way:
Suppose I propose, tentatively, as a simple possibility, that time follows the number-line model (as many people would naively assume it does). What is it that you can say to demonstrate that I am wrong? Note that the dollar-offer thing continues to hold true in the number-line model: if someone says to me, at time N, “I will offer you a dollar, which you can redeem once an infinite amount of time has passed (starting now)”, I will never be able to redeem the offer, because there will be no number whose difference from N is infinite.
(Also, it is often the case that I wish to say, in a messageboard discussion with multiple divergent threads, “Everybody else, stop what you’re doing and only pay attention to my point”. :))
I’m sorry, Indistinguishable, I’m just not understanding you.
Does your number line model assume an infinite amount of time, in both directions, from right now?
Then I would say it’s wrong because you can’t have an infinite amount of time, and then have right now.
Yes, in the sense that the model is one of a universe in which time is like a number-line, so that, for any integer N, no matter how large, both “N years before now” and “N years after now” exist.
Why not? Isn’t this what you’re trying to prove? Just saying it doesn’t constitute a proof.
Let me put it another way: you accept that there can be an infinite amount of time after now, right? Well, what if I were to say “I have here a dollar, but if anyone ever brings me an infinitely old newspaper, I’ll give them the dollar”? No one ever could get my dollar, right? Does this prove that time must have an ending point, finitely far in the future? Why not? It’s the same as the argument you propose, only chronologically reversed.
We have standard responses? Dang. I guess I oughta start going to the meetings…
Wait…we have meetings? And rules? An organizational structure of some type? Damn…sounds like Scientology. I want out. Who is the Head Atheist, and where do I sign?
I am. Now stop what you’re doing and only pay attention to my point.
This assumes an infinite universe.
Any model we work with should make no assumption about whether or not the universe is infinite.
This is the basis of why I’m struggling to comprehend what you’re saying.
So it’s safe to assume that, within the laws of our universe as we understand them, that whether the cat is dead or alive it is certainly not levitating around inside the box? Nor is it passing it’s time inside the box by typing up critical reviews of Shakespear by the light of the vial.
If I had faith that cats had an inherent dislike of King Lear then I may presuppose the latter to the point of being apologetic when the box is finally opened.
“Of course he’s not typing now, he’s finished. There’s no way of knowing what he wrote moments before we opened the box.”
And yet, tomorrow (or is it tonight? I have no idea.) the kind folks at CERN are going to attempt to open a very small box to find out what sort of cat sits inside. It may be probable that this tiny little cat, let’s call him Higgs, is purrrfectly content following our rules and physical laws but there is a chance that, being a cat and all contrary like that, Mr. Higgs-kitty will have his own ideas about what time and space are and follow whatever damned laws he chooses.
I’ll not dance around the rim of solipsism any longer, nor shall I continue lest I be accused of blatant apologetics, but as for me, I shall wait and see what wonders still lie hidden in the woodwork.
If you travel at the speed of light for 10 years and then come back . You will have not aged . Everybody here would have aged 20 years. How does that fit a numberline time. ?
CalD, in what way does your argument not apply to the number line?
-4…-3…-2…-1…0…1…2…3…4
I put a dot on 0. I put another dot on a number infinitely far to the right of the first dot. Is that possible? No.
Does that imply that the number line is finite? No.
And your bit about assuming the universe is infinite. You can’t assume that it’s infinite, but you can’t assume that it’s finite, either.
It’s probably past time that this was sent to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’m not assuming a universe which is temporally infinite; I’m pointing out that there are mathematical structures (which we may think of as models for how the universe could, a priori, potentially be) which are infinite. I’m not claiming that the temporal structure of the universe is, in fact, that of the number-line; I’m just saying this is, at the outset, one possibility which has not yet been ruled out. It is up to you to provide an argument to rule it out.
Any argument which claims to prove that the universe is not temporally infinite would have to explain what is wrong with such a model as the number-line, and it would have to do so without simply making the stipulation “Well, models must can’t be infinite” (since this amounts to simply making the assumption “Well, the universe can’t be temporally infinite”).
Ah, Strinka… you’re the only one who truly understands me.
It doesn’t. I’m not claiming the model I put forth to be one which matches Einsteinian relativity; I’m claiming it’s a model which matches all the premise of the OP’s argument, yet not its conclusion (thus demonstrating the invalidity of that argument).
OK. I think you’ve got a pretty decent and interesting point you’re trying to make here (notwithstanding the fact that I tend to think that time began with the Big Bang a finite amount of time ago). Basically, as far as I can tell, all CalD has really managed to prove is that if time stretches infinitely into the past, the beginning of time is infinitely long ago. If we accept his offer of a dollar (i.e. that we can define two points in time that are infinitely far apart), there’s no reason we can’t flip it around to the past.
Yeah, the concept of something being prolonged for all of eternity is relatively easy to wrap the mind around (heck, there’s certain construction projects around town that I think have that as a goal). We can just call it never. That’s easy to understand. Saying that I’m never going to get CalD’s dollar is, however, not exactly equivalent to saying that I’m going to get the dollar after an infinite amount of time has passed. And saying that time itself started to exist infinitely long ago isn’t the same as saying that time never started. Our difficulty in conceiving the concept of negative infinity when it comes to time doesn’t make it impossible (although, as noted, I think that the current state of our understanding of the origins of the universe indicate that it actually is impossible).
And here I am still waiting for my dollar. Unfortunately I’m not infinitely old, only 54 earth years. Call me when we reach infinity and if the dollar is worth something as an antiquity maybe I’ll meet you on the street corner.
Sorry if this has been proposed before, but I didn’t want to read the rest of the thread. 