Infinite time paradox


by Assist
Tags: infinite, paradox, time
Assist
Assist is offline
#1
Apr17-11, 03:06 PM
P: 2
This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Lemurs match scent of a friend to sound of her voice
Repeated self-healing now possible in composite materials
'Heartbleed' fix may slow Web performance
Darken-Sol
Darken-Sol is offline
#2
Apr17-11, 05:22 PM
Darken-Sol's Avatar
P: 154
the present is the changeover from one configuration of the universe to the next. it is the only moment which truly exists. past and future are just potentials.sure we have memories and ideas of what is going to occur but they are not happening. say these words: "this is not real it is only a memory." by the time you finish it will be true. the moment you expierience or remember from that is important. that exists. make a decision, look up. you can ponder all day but, until you expierience looking up, its just a potential, not real. i dont know about xeno or whatever but this is how time seems to function.
John Jones
John Jones is offline
#3
Apr18-11, 06:48 AM
P: 34
Quote Quote by Assist View Post
This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.
The future is always in front, yet it is always the last to arrive. This resolves the mooted existence of an infinite past with a problematic present.

disregardthat
disregardthat is online now
#4
Apr18-11, 11:13 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,682

Infinite time paradox


Quote Quote by Assist View Post
This has most likely been mentioned before and if so I apologise, I have seen a few similar discussions though didn't really see any answers that I was able to understand/accept.

The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)

I got told this is similar to Zeno's paradox so just wondering if anyone can show me the similarities and logical arguments against it (in layman terms lol)

Appreciate any answers.
I personally don't see the similarities to Zeno's paradoxes. I find the argument faulty, a bit like asking why 0 on the number lines exists even though the number line is infinitely long.
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#5
Apr18-11, 11:47 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by Assist View Post
The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)
Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal...Argument_(book)
alt
alt is offline
#6
Apr19-11, 12:47 AM
PF Gold
P: 322
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal...Argument_(book)
Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters. To quote part of the Wiki article;

The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Following Al-Ghāzāli, Craig argues that this cause must be a personal will.


My underlined .. it seems most cosmological arguments reduce to this. The first cause; God, or Big bang .. personally, I'm not to sure about either.
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#7
Apr19-11, 01:40 AM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by alt View Post
Interesting book, though from the summary points, and without having read it, it doesn't seem to take us past any existing impasse on these matters.
I've said often enough how some philosophers get round this impasse - vague beginnings and final causes.

But the thread seems to be about the validity of a Zeno paradox here, and the argument that the paradox means the past cannot be infinite, therefore it must be finite, therefore....etc.

There are good arguments against the validity of the Zeno paradox itself, so whether time is finite or infinite is moot on that score.

See for instance...
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=96
Assist
Assist is offline
#8
Apr19-11, 01:55 AM
P: 2
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
Sounds like you want to discuss this cosmological proof of god's creation of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kal...Argument_(book)
No, I don't really care for any god arguments it was just something I didn't really understand.
dm4b
dm4b is offline
#9
Apr19-11, 12:25 PM
P: 315
Quote Quote by alt View Post
[I]The basic argument
1.Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence (i.e. something has caused it to start existing).
2.The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I don't see how this would prove God.

The Universe must have some sort of "cause". But, it could simply be part of a larger Multiverse, that gave "birth" to it. Then you might ask, where did the Multiverse come from? So, the God question simply gets pushed back a step.

I think more clear here is the ridiculous infinite regression one can get stuck in when analyzing in a "cause and effect" sort of way. What created the Universe? Well, branes "created" the Universe (says the M-Theory cosmologist). But, where did the branes come from? Then, what created the something that created the branes, ad nauseum.

I think this is a hint that thinking linear in time is, at some point, self defeating.
John Jones
John Jones is offline
#10
Apr19-11, 11:08 PM
P: 34
Quote Quote by dm4b View Post
I don't see how this would prove God.
You forgot to say man.
What?
I said you forgot to say man.
You should have said-
I don't see how this would prove God, man.

Style's the thing, man.
NightShift
NightShift is offline
#11
Jun28-11, 09:28 PM
P: 7
I think I know what you mean with Zeno's paradoxes. You can divide a interval of time to an infinite amount, it is similar to the analogy that there will be an infinite amount of steps you have to take to walk across a room if the amount of distance your walking is half of what is left.
So, to demostrate this notion from what I read in a calculus book(which is also where I read Zeno's paradox). Let x be the amount of time one perceives a constant amount of time.
So, we take the Limit as x --> infinity of (x/(constant interval of time)) = infinity
We can examine that anything less of infinity would give us a figure that tells us the multiples of time the being feels regarding the (constant interval of time).

And to finally answer your question...I'm not sure...time still passes for us regardless. It could be infinite for the being that has his perception of time that continuously increases so that he will fall deeper and deeper into an eternity of time...
brushman
brushman is offline
#12
Jun29-11, 01:00 AM
P: 117
The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)
I don't really see a problem. I would think that if there was an infinite amount of time in the past, then that just means the universe had no beginning and we are currently living in the "present".

I haven't read the zeno paradox though.
pawprint
pawprint is offline
#13
Jun29-11, 03:34 AM
PF Gold
P: 60
Hi Assist. You will find Peter Lynds has written on Zeno's paradoxes, singularities and 'infinite time' (among other things). Take a look at http://www.peterlynds.net.nz/papers.html. Interesting reading. Accusations have been made that he is not a real person, but whoever wrote those papers is certainly a deep thinker.
F-MA=0.
Gabe21
Gabe21 is offline
#14
Jun30-11, 04:19 PM
P: 52
time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesnt really exist
petm1
petm1 is offline
#15
Jul1-11, 11:30 AM
petm1's Avatar
P: 366
time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesnt really exist

Time is duration an outward motion of matter called dilation, it is not an illusion. Time is relative motion as counted or measured by each observers clock and space is the illusion for it is nothing more than relative time between events as seen by each observer. Matter is what we see in each of our futures but mass is the connective tissue centered moment to moment within our past. Our consciousnesses keeping up with the speed of light is that which gives each of us the illusion of a static state called the present but only with math can you make time stand still, even then you are only representing a moment of time. How long was the duration before the motion that started our universe and how long will the duration go on after, how could you know other than as a infinite time?
aegrisomnia
aegrisomnia is offline
#16
Jul7-11, 10:42 AM
P: 14
if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present
Who said that there is an infinite amount of time in the past?

Assuming that there were... than perhaps time is an artificial construction of the human mind which seeks to measure change. In other words, there was no point in "time" when the past existed. Maybe only the present "exists" in a physically-meaningful sense.

We get the same paradox if we ask how we can be sitting on zero non-physical unicorns, if there are infinitely many non-physical unicorns.
Willowz
Willowz is offline
#17
Jul8-11, 06:17 PM
P: 256
Quote Quote by Assist View Post
The problem is if there is an infinite amount of time in the past then how is there a present? (I know there can be issues with defining present as well but let's generalise it.)
Maybe if you lived in the fourth dimention. But, you can at least specify what you are saying with some philosophical theory, such as eternalism. And then counter it with presentism. Back each theory up with some relevant findings and we can have a great debate!
petm1
petm1 is offline
#18
Jul9-11, 10:06 AM
petm1's Avatar
P: 366
We get the same paradox if we ask how we can be sitting on zero non-physical unicorns, if there are infinitely many non-physical unicorns.

Try this thought experiment, think back to big bang, but instead of an outside view of a small space, think of an inside view of a large space about the same as we see today as if Planck's scale were truly relative.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Time paradox (?) Special & General Relativity 7
Time paradox? Special & General Relativity 2
[SOLVED] Infinite electric flux paradox General Physics 4
The ultimate physical paradox: infinite from infinitesimal cosmos Special & General Relativity 0
Precession-Time Paradox Astrophysics 7