Is Time Infinite? Discussion & Argument Analysis

[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.