Is Time Infinite? Discussion & Argument Analysis

[disregardthat]

I have heard the argument that time must have a beginning (I know that discussion about time tends to become vague, because we have no definite definition of time, and that terms can overlap, (especially when talking about infinity) but I hope I make myself clear):

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere)

I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment. Hence the second sentence of the argument uses a period of time that measures the time between this moment, and a moment that does not exist. And that is my reason why I believe the argument is wrong. However, I am not saying I am absolutely sure about the error I have found. I could likely be wrong, but I wish to hear your comments about this, and hopefully your opinions on the matter.

 

[Quatl]

The quote sounds like one of Zeno's paradoxes. You can google that for quite a few options as to how to resolve things like this.
-----------------------------
One other idea that may be relevant is the fact that not all infinities are the same size. The most straight forward examples of this that I recall off hand are those that involve sets with an infinite number of members.

Consider the set of all real numbers (recall that real numbers include all possible fractions as well as whole numbers) between 0 and 1. This set has an infinite number of members. Now compare that set with the set of all real numbers between 0 and 10. This set too is infinite but it is also ten times the size of the previous set.

Likewise the set of whole numbers is an infinite subset of the infinite set of real numbers.

 

[disregardthat]

Yes, but I don't see where the cardinality of the set of real numbers fit into this. I am not measuring the infinity of time with respect to any other thing. I don't think that whether time is continuous or not matters in this case.

This set too is infinite but it is also ten times the size of the previous set.

Now I think you are switching terms, the cardinality of a finite continuous subset of the real numbers are not larger or smaller than any other I presume. The "length" of the interval from 0 to 10, which you perhaps are referring to, is obviously ten times larger than the interval from 0 to 1.
-------------------------------------------
I am aware that it is highly likely that my argument is flawed - or even totally false. Argumenting for such things is hard to keep rigorous. The very sentence that time has existed for an infinite amount of time seems pretty awkward, but my point is hopefully coming through.

I googled Zeno's paradoxes and I realize that I have read them before. They seem to have pretty "simple" solutions based on the fact that infinite series does not necessarily diverge. None of them is analogous to what I am talking about, much less my question.

By the way, the "quote" I am presenting is actually a creatonist's argument, which among other (ridiculous) arguments are supposed to prove the existence of God, and the fundamentalist christianity's view of the world.

 

[Quatl]

Now I think you are switching terms, the cardinality of a finite continuous subset of the real numbers are not larger or smaller than any other I presume. The "length" of the interval from 0 to 10, which you perhaps are referring to, is obviously ten times larger than the interval from 0 to 1.

Nice catch :) that was exactly what I said when I heard this. The whole numbers vs real numbers example is hazier, but still similar objections could be made most likely.

As for the rest, I don't usually bother to argue with creationists, it won't change anyone's mind and it annoys the creationist.

The problem with creationist arguments is that they are not honest. They start from the position and search over reality to find arguments or data that appear to support it, generally they then just disregard anything to the contrary.

I'm not interested in challenging the cherished beliefs of anyone, I'm interested only in learning new things about the universe. Since creationists and I have mutually exclusive goals for argument, neither of us can emerge satisfied.

 

[disregardthat]

Nice catch :) that was exactly what I said when I heard this. The whole numbers vs real numbers example is hazier, but still similar objections could be made most likely.

As for the rest, I don't usually bother to argue with creationists, it won't change anyone's mind and it annoys the creationist.

The problem with creationist arguments is that they are not honest. They start from the position and search over reality to find arguments or data that appear to support it, generally they then just disregard anything to the contrary.

I'm not interested in challenging the cherished beliefs of anyone, I'm interested only in learning new things about the universe. Since creationists and I have mutually exclusive goals for argument, neither of us can emerge satisfied.

Ok, I thought of that the cardinality "rule" that " if there is a bijection between the sets of infinite order then they have the same cardinality" might not apply for real numbers, but I would only assume that it would. Nevertheless, it does not touch the matter.

I didn't say I was debating a creationist, I only said that I heard the argument from a creationist and it got me wondering. Oh, and I have experienced that debating creationists in the subject of metaphysics is useless too =)

 

[Tac-Tics]

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning."

Who says that at any moment in a neighborhood of the present that an infinite interval of time has not passed?

 

[Hurkyl]

I should like to point out it's easy to:
1. Construct intervals of finite length that have no beginning and no end,
2. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning,
3. Construct intervals of infinite length that have an end,
and with a smidgin of mathematical sophistication,
4. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning and an end


Furthermore, given any interval at all without a beginning, it's easy enough to construct an 'idealized' point to serve as its beginning. Similarly for ends.

 

[disregardthat]

Who says that at any moment in a neighborhood of the present that an infinite interval of time has not passed?

Hi, could you perhaps rephrase or explain that?

I should like to point out it's easy to:
1. Construct intervals of finite length that have no beginning and no end,
2. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning,
3. Construct intervals of infinite length that have an end,
and with a smidgin of mathematical sophistication,
4. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning and an end


Furthermore, given any interval at all without a beginning, it's easy enough to construct an 'idealized' point to serve as its beginning. Similarly for ends.

Yes, analogous to the extended real number line. But any the beginning of any interval of infinite length, the end will never be reached. (analogous to that successive addition of numbers always will be finite).

 

[Tac-Tics]

Hi, could you perhaps rephrase or explain that?

The interval between the beginning of time and now could be infinite, and no contradiction arises.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yes, analogous to the extended real number line. But any the beginning of any interval of infinite length, the end will never be reached.

I can't make out what was intended by this.

(analogous to that successive addition of numbers always will be finite).

In what way is it analogous?

Before you answer, I would like to point out that the fact you cannot produce an infinite number by repeatedly applying (binary) addition to finite numbers says nothing about whether or not infinite numbers exist.

 

[franznietzsche]

But any the beginning of any interval of infinite length, the end will never be reached. (analogous to that successive addition of numbers always will be finite).

Given the existence of infinite bounded sets, I would say this is not true.

 

[disregardthat]

Given the existence of infinite bounded sets, I would say this is not true.

If that is true, it degenerates the hypothetical argument quoted in my original post even more. Why do you mean that the existence of infinite bounded sets imply that an infinitely long interval will in some finite amount of time traverse from beginning to end, given that the "speed" that time traverses is constant? Or did you mean something else?

 

[franznietzsche]

If that is true, it degenerates the hypothetical argument quoted in my original post even more. Why do you mean that the existence of infinite bounded sets imply that an infinitely long interval will in some finite amount of time traverse from beginning to end, given that the "speed" that time traverses is constant? Or did you mean something else?

I was referring to:

I should like to point out it's easy to:
1. Construct intervals of finite length that have no beginning and no end,
2. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning,
3. Construct intervals of infinite length that have an end,
and with a smidgin of mathematical sophistication,
4. Construct intervals of infinite length that have a beginning and an end

I didn't say the intervals had any physical reality. I think I misunderstood the wording of your statement to mean that you could not have an infinite interval of the kind hurkyl described. I didn't think you were talking about actually walking from A to B along that interval.

 

[Schnoodle]

I am a novice but it appears to me that you guys confuse actual infinites with potential infinites. We live in a finite universe, finite space, finite mater, and therefore finite time. While the idea of actual infinites can be postulated and theorized none can, in actuality, be experienced since we ourselves are finite beings. Care also has to be given, Jarle, if you are taking a materialist position, since this position would preclude metaphysics entirely. While I agree on whether time had a beginning or not does not prove nor disprove the God of the Bible, particularly, it would only substantiate that time did have a beginning. As we all know, whatever has a beginning has to have a cause, but to say what that cause is, once we hypothetically show that time did have a beginning, is a long way off from substantiating the God of the Bible. Other arguments have to be reasoned before one can go there. However, for now and for us, it would appear that time, space and matter did indeed have a beginning. To put forth ideas about other dimensions beyond our scope and ability to observe goes beyond the scientific method and undoubtedly enters the realm of metaphysics. However, if one claims to be a materialist, in the strictest definition of the word, can the materialist discuss issues of metaphysics since that person rejects any explanation of reality that does not fall within the scientific field of study and observation?

 

[WaveJumper]

I have heard the argument that time must have a beginning (I know that discussion about time tends to become vague, because we have no definite definition of time, and that terms can overlap, (especially when talking about infinity) but I hope I make myself clear):

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere)

I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment. Hence the second sentence of the argument uses a period of time that measures the time between this moment, and a moment that does not exist. And that is my reason why I believe the argument is wrong. However, I am not saying I am absolutely sure about the error I have found. I could likely be wrong, but I wish to hear your comments about this, and hopefully your opinions on the matter.

Time is techinacally not flowing, as far as physics is concerned. Hence a beginning and end are not valid scientific attributes of Time. I can find you a frame of reference where the universe is now just 2 minutes old, or another FOR where the universe is 1 million years old, etc. There is no preferred frame of reference outside of our subjective experience where we can meaningfully say - time is flowing. And yes, the situation with the explanation of the perception of Time flowing is rather uncomfortable.

 

[Schnoodle]

I can appreciate your response and thank for responding. However, just because we, as in us in the here and now, do not have a frame of reference that does not mean, explicitly or implicitly, that time did not have a beginning. Nevertheless, I do have a question, and it is possible that my application or the application I have heard from others, is incorrect. It has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, more specifically entropy, of which I am sure you are more familiar than I.
If everything is moving in a direction of usable energy to unusable, that is winding down (so to speak), does this not imply a beginning? If so, does this also imply a beginning of our time? Because that is what we are actually referring to, that is, time in our space. It does no good to speculate about other reference points or rather, planes of existence, because it has no bearing on our continuum.
I have a hard time with an eternal universe, philosophically, as the universe has not the explanatory power for itself. That is, it cannot explain its own existence. The natural laws do not prescribe the existence of anything they only describe current predictable conditions. While this does not provide any “proofs” for a beginning it can give me a reference point to work from, nevertheless, deductive is so much more preferred rather than inductive, but that is all we have to work from.
Furthermore, if the universe is moving toward the direction of heat death as the law of entropy dictates, then what could explain the “rewinding” of an eternal universe? For that matter, what kind of explanation is there for the initial “jump start” of the universe? Are you stating that the universe itself, that is, matter, may have had a beginning but time did not? (No sarcasm intended, a question in earnest.) Because we know based on the second law that the clock has been ticking for all matter, so I assumed a beginning not just for matter but also for time as it relates to space and matter.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't think the question even makes sense. It's like asking "Is distance infinite" or "is mass infinite" in that distance, mass, and time are abstract concepts defined for measurement; they're dimensions.

You can ask whether a particular distance is infinite, or a particular mass, or a particular time, to which the answer will most certainly be "no".

 

[WaveJumper]

I can appreciate your response and thank for responding. However, just because we, as in us in the here and now, do not have a frame of reference that does not mean, explicitly or implicitly, that time did not have a beginning.

No, we do have a frame of reference, however this FOR is not in any way privileged over all the others. You speak of beginnings and ends but in relativity there are many many FOR's where the "universe" has not begun yet(e.g. photons emitted at the BB).

Nevertheless, I do have a question, and it is possible that my application or the application I have heard from others, is incorrect. It has to do with the second law of thermodynamics, more specifically entropy, of which I am sure you are more familiar than I.
If everything is moving in a direction of usable energy to unusable, that is winding down (so to speak), does this not imply a beginning?

Yes, it does imply a beginning, however putting an observation from a particular FOR as the "True" one over all the others is pretty anthropocentric. From our "point of view", the universe is 13.7 b. years old, however this isn't the only available "point of view".

Because we know based on the second law that the clock has been ticking for all matter, so I assumed a beginning not just for matter but also for time as it relates to space and matter.

The clock ticking is one of those human observations which refuses to be framed by our scientific theries and methods. If i had to speculate, i'd say it 's probably consciousness-related.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello all,


Indeed, imho, Time is infinite.

Actually, I would define Time as the infinite energetic source of all motion.

Any and all motion, regardless of its own mechanism, needs to draw from Time in order to evolve and reach its final state.


Regards,

VE

 

[Kronos5253]

Hello all,


Indeed, imho, Time is infinite.

Actually, I would define Time as the infinite energetic source of all motion.

Any and all motion, regardless of its own mechanism, needs to draw from Time in order to evolve and reach its final state.


Regards,

VE

I thought time was a result of motion... A measurement of it... Without motion there is no time.

 

[turbo]

A more probing question might be "is time smooth"? If time is discontinuous on very small scales, might we be able to test that?

 

[ValenceE]

Kronos5253, you replied;

I thought time was a result of motion... A measurement of it... Without motion there is no time.

as I mentionned before, imho, Time is the fuel of motion. It is infinite and a portion of it, any portion you may require, be it Planck or Universal scale, can be defined as a delta t when it is used in equations involving movement, quantized to express a number that makes sense in these same equations.

I'd rather say that, without Time there is no movement.

VE

 

[ValenceE]

turbo-1, you wrote;

A more probing question might be "is time smooth"? If time is discontinuous on very small scales, might we be able to test that?

Unfortunately, we cannot test that question because the top notch measurement instrumentation we have to our disposal has limitations as it can only sample at a subcontinuous rate, waaaaaaay below smoothness.

I'd say that the proposed quality of 'smoothness' cannot apply to Time.

Time, being infinite, can be made to equal Unity, and how smooth is Unity ?... pretty damn smooth I would guess.


regards,

VE

 

[blue bloom]

of course the time is NOT Infinite ..
when we think about the time as a dimension ,we can guess that every particle in our world have his forth dimension (the time)..I mean .. the time has started with the big bang ,after that the other dimension appeared respectively ..& as some of you said ,"no time no move"..but the question is what would happen if there is no move ??
simply ..no move means no time ..!
but this sentence is not general ,you ,me & every one in our universe when he exists & becomes part of it , a "cosmic line" of his will be exist with him ..& this cosmic line is an imaginary f course & show us the four dimension of the particle ,since its birth to death ..& its time of course finished at the moment of (DEATH) ..

 

[magpies]

Time from a beings perspective can go back as far as the being wants to say it could. Time from a non beings perspective doesn't exist. You need a being to have a perspective :) The moment the universe had awareness in it time became infinite in both directions.

 

[Schnoodle]

Magpies
“Time from a beings perspective can go back as far as the being wants to say it could.”

I want to thank you for your reply and say that it took me some time to come up with a response. While imagination is foundational to all experimentation and serves a useful purpose in assembling a good hypothesis or theory, we have to leave the world of imagination behind and ask if what I am imagining fits reality. Please understand I am not trying to be sarcastic in this response. However, just because I can imagine something does not make it a reality. I can imagine a world where there is peace and no war but that does not make it so. (No, I am not trying to sound like the Beatles.) I can also say many things but it does not make it so. I have experienced this in many conversations where I have been proven wrong. The statements I made were wrong, even though I said them. I can postulate many things but providing empirical evidence is another matter all together. This touches on one of my issues with current pseudo-science. That is, there are many claiming to be scientists but they, in fact, are not. Many people make many claims that they cannot back up or substantiate empirically. Nevertheless, at this juncture “of time” it appears to have had a definite beginning. To say how long ago this beginning was, we do not know empirically. There are a great number of good theories but nothing can be substantiated.

Time from a non-beings perspective doesn't exist. You need a being to have a perspective :) The moment the universe had awareness in it time became infinite in both directions.

I do not agree with this statement. If there were no life time would still, or could still, be present along with space and matter. Reality, in and of itself, does not require that anyone be present to exist. The reason I come to this conclusion is based on the nature of being. If I did not exist, which at one time I did not, time would continue without me as it did prior to my coming to be. According to the evolutionist, time, space, and matter existed long before the first life forms existed. Therefore, my perspective has no bearing on whether time is infinite or not. I guess our two positions begin from two different foundations. That is, I begin with an objective reality that is no matter what my perspective about it is. If one wants, to begin with a subjective view of reality then what you say is true. However, since there was a universe long before I came into being, then “subjectivity” fails in its ability to explain reality accurately. My awareness of reality does not dictate what the “reality” is. Try to picture it in this way; there is another half to the world in which we live. Because it is 2009, I can view the other side of the world in real time from my recliner in my living room in the United States. However, there has always been this “other side” of the earth, it is and was exactly what it is, and it has not changed just because I am aware of it, or has a perspective of it. There is the objective reality of the other side of the planet, independent of me, as well as the objective reality of all existence independent of me.

Schnoodle

 

[rkyeun]

We don't know if time is infinite. We know it appears to stop for objects that fall into black hole singularity. By inversion if the big bang was also a singularity, we might should expect an infinite time to pour out of it. Black holes look like white holes from the other side of the event horizon, after all.

The claim that time must have a beginning because an infinite history would never reach the present time is fallacious. We are at the now in every instant. It is entirely possible (barring the interference of thermodynamics) that there is an infinite stretch of time behind us, as well as before us. Or this time might be finite. Being at 0 on the real number line doesn't mean there's no infinite ray shooting off into the negatives.

It might even be the case that time is cyclical, and that falling into a black hole spits you out of the big bang as cosmic confetti.

 

[magpies]

To schnoodle.

First I don't think your responce to my first statement was very good in the sense that it didn't deal with the "why" of what I said. It seemed to try to shake it away by saying that it's not real. What I said was ment to hint at the fact that as beings we can look into the past for just about forever. While it might only result in a past that has nothing changing it would still be a part of the past. This ability alone hints that time is infact infinite just like space is infinite.

Secondly my second part was more hinting at how it takes awareness for time to make a difference. Also I think quantum mechanics speaks to this that it takes an observer to make things work and that to me suggest that for as long as the universe has been around there has been an observer of some type. Might be god could be a space flea idk for sure.

 

[pallidin]

I have heard the argument that time must have a beginning (I know that discussion about time tends to become vague, because we have no definite definition of time, and that terms can overlap, (especially when talking about infinity) but I hope I make myself clear):

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere)

I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment. Hence the second sentence of the argument uses a period of time that measures the time between this moment, and a moment that does not exist. And that is my reason why I believe the argument is wrong. However, I am not saying I am absolutely sure about the error I have found. I could likely be wrong, but I wish to hear your comments about this, and hopefully your opinions on the matter.

Well, it's not too hard to think of forward infinity.
Perhaps this can be applied backwards as well.

 

[ozzer]

<<o>> the present echoes infinitely into both the past and the future. The present can also be infinite as you can dissect a second an infinite amount of times. Going back to what someone said about time only existing with movement; let's say movement was to stop right now and with it time froze, How long will it freeze? Say it froze indefinitely, then time would be frozen for an infinite amount of time. When you stop one clock another one starts.

 

[JohnScott]

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere)

I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment. Hence the second sentence of the argument uses a period of time that measures the time between this moment, and a moment that does not exist. And that is my reason why I believe the argument is wrong. However, I am not saying I am absolutely sure about the error I have found.

I agree with you that the argument is flawed, and for the reason that you said.
Sentence 1 says that time has no beginning. One conclusion that we could draw from sentence 1 is if we had a time machine and could travel backwards in time and we start from "now" (present time) we could never reach a "beginning" because there IS no beginning. (Time extends forever into the past.)
But sentence two (restated) says that if time had started at the "beginning" and proceeded forward then time could never reach now because the time from the beginning until now is infinite. However we already said that there IS no beginning. Sentence two implies/assumes a beginning and therefore contradicts sentence one.

 

[petm1]

Big bang was the beginning, relative to our now, of Minkowski space-time. I may not be able to think of space and time as separate in my "now", but I have no problem thinking of time as infinite with space the finite portion of time created at big bang. Juxtaposition of mass was created by the focal point of motion called big bang splitting into the billions of massive points we call atoms, with space the time between these massive points relative to the massive points themselves. In my mind you do not need motion to have time you need motion to define the space within a duration of time, relative to matter.

 

[mal4mac]

I have heard the argument that time must have a beginning (I know that discussion about time tends to become vague, because we have no definite definition of time, and that terms can overlap, (especially when talking about infinity) but I hope I make myself clear):

"Assume time has no beginning, but that it has existed for an infinitely long time back.
Then it would have taken an infinite amount of time until this moment.
As an infinite amount of time will never end, this moment could never have occurred,
and hence time cannot be infinite - it must have a beginning." (This is not quoted from anywhere)

I believe this argument is flawed, because there exist no point on the time line such that there is a period of infinite length between that and this moment...

Can you point to the "beginning" point on your time line? No? Then how can you know there is a finite distance between it and now?

 

[G037H3]

nothing is infinite but the real numbers, and almost none of the reals exist in nature, even taking into consideration ratios between sets of things

so no, time isn't infinite...eternal recurrence is a powerful philosophical tool for decomposing meaning out of things, though ;D

 

[petm1]

nothing is infinite but the real numbers, and almost none of the reals exist in nature, even taking into consideration ratios between sets of things

so no, time isn't infinite...eternal recurrence is a powerful philosophical tool for decomposing meaning out of things, though ;D

The only part of space/time that is counted with the real numbers is time, do you think this is why it looks eternal? We can start the count of a clock at zero only in the present, time is unaffected by our actions, which is some where in the middle of this duration we call time.