Wisdom of the Infinite Regress

[David Quinn]

I'll ask you a few more specific questions to see if we can get to the heart of things:

1. Do you agree that duration can be quantified?
2. If so, do you agree that duration can be quantified without theoretical problem?
3. If not, please describe all problems of which you are aware.
4. Do you agree that the duration of a beginningless past can only be quantified as infinite, no matter which units it is quantified in?

1. Yes, it is a convenient tool for practical purposes, keeping in mind that it is a conceptual contrivance which doesn't reflect the reality of Nature's seamlessness.

2. For normal practical purposes, there are no problems. Problems arise when one exploits the limitations of quantification for larger, sophistic purposes. For example, we find it convenient to divide the surface of the earth into lines of latitude and longitude. There are many practical benefits in doing this. However, we could use these lines to determine, if we wanted to, that it is impossible to circumnavigate the earth simply by adding more and more lines in between each line of latitude or longitude. That is how unreliable quantification becomes when pushed beyond its natural limits.

3. Infinite regressions, of whatever kind, are generated automatically by the limitations of quantification or the carving up of the continuum. They are an artificial outcome generated by an artificial process.

4. Yes.

guest_of_logic: To me, "the timelessness of Nature" means simply that Nature is not subject to time, because time is instead a property of Nature.

David: Which automatically implies that Nature never came into being at some point in the past - i.e. that it is beginningless.

I don't see that implication. Nature is no less free from subjection to time if time has a beginning as if time is beginningless: time is no less a property of Nature if it has a beginning as if it does not.

This doesn't make any sense. You need to define what timelessness is.

In any case, it seems that we might each have different definitions of "timelessness", in which case this particular bit of back-and-forth is somewhat counter-productive seeing that I didn't even use that word in my essay.

You used the word "atemporal", which, one would assume, means the same thing.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Problems arise [with quantifying duration] when one exploits the limitations of quantification for larger, sophistic purposes. For example, we find it convenient to divide the surface of the earth into lines of latitude and longitude. There are many practical benefits in doing this. However, we could use these lines to determine, if we wanted to, that it is impossible to circumnavigate the earth simply by adding more and more lines in between each line of latitude or longitude. That is how unreliable quantification becomes when pushed beyond its natural limits.

Again, you make reference to the "infinity of points in an otherwise finite interval" model that we have agreed is flawed and that has been superseded by calculus. Do you have a legitimate problem with quantification?

Infinite regressions, of whatever kind, are generated automatically by the limitations of quantification or the carving up of the continuum. They are an artificial outcome generated by an artificial process.

I don't find it "artificial" to observe that no matter how quantified, a beginningless past has an infinite duration: an observation that you have agreed with. To me it is simply an expression of the nature of beginninglessness.

guest_of_logic: Nature is no less free from subjection to time if time has a beginning as if time is beginningless: time is no less a property of Nature if it has a beginning as if it does not.

David: This doesn't make any sense. You need to define what timelessness is.

I edited my post to change the "as"es to "than"s - perhaps that makes more sense to you. My provisional definition of timelessness is "the property of an entity which is not subject to or which does not flow with time; which is beyond the constraints of time", but I acknowledge here that this definition is better suited to a variation of the word that I actually used in my essay: "atemporality".

You used the word "atemporal", which, one would assume, means the same thing [as "timelessness"].

Well no, they're not quite the same thing, but the differences are subtle. First though I want to raise a minor quibble, and that is that I would equate "atemporal" and "timeless", rather than "atemporal" and "timelessness". I notice on dictionary.com a definition of "timeless" that isn't what I mean by "atemporal", and that dictionary.com definition is, "without beginning or end; eternal; everlasting", which is much more the meaning that you're trying to get across for "timeless". Conversely, the definition on dictionary.com for "atemporal" is much more in line with what I wrote above (before even reading the dictionary.com definition): "free from limitations of time" - this compares favourably with part of my above definition of "timelessness", which I acknowledged applies better to "atemporality": "beyond the constraints of time".

[David Quinn]

Problems arise [with quantifying duration] when one exploits the limitations of quantification for larger, sophistic purposes. For example, we find it convenient to divide the surface of the earth into lines of latitude and longitude. There are many practical benefits in doing this. However, we could use these lines to determine, if we wanted to, that it is impossible to circumnavigate the earth simply by adding more and more lines in between each line of latitude or longitude. That is how unreliable quantification becomes when pushed beyond its natural limits.

Again, you make reference to the "infinity of points in an otherwise finite interval" model that we have agreed is flawed and that has been superseded by calculus. Do you have a legitimate problem with quantification?

It is astonishing that you still don't see it. The kind of "infinite regression" reasoning that underpins the first half of your essay is exactly the same as the flawed model exhibited here. It is such a weak, unreliable method of "reasoning" that even a minor mathematical tool like calculus can defeat it. And yet here you are wielding it around without abandon, using it to take on the timelessness of Nature no less, as though nothing were amiss.

You can't be this thick, surely?

You used the word "atemporal", which, one would assume, means the same thing [as "timelessness"].

Well no, they're not quite the same thing, but the differences are subtle. First though I want to raise a minor quibble, and that is that I would equate "atemporal" and "timeless", rather than "atemporal" and "timelessness". I notice on dictionary.com a definition of "timeless" that isn't what I mean by "atemporal", and that dictionary.com definition is, "without beginning or end; eternal; everlasting", which is much more the meaning that you're trying to get across for "timeless". Conversely, the definition on dictionary.com for "atemporal" is much more in line with what I wrote above (before even reading the dictionary.com definition): "free from limitations of time" - this compares favourably with part of my above definition of "timelessness", which I acknowledged applies better to "atemporality": "beyond the constraints of time".

Alright, let me see if I can work out your thinking here, for at the moment it isn't making sense:

You're advocating that time just popped into being at some point in the past and immediately started flowing, just like that. And this event was caused by an "atemporal quantum principle". Tell me, did this quantum principle also just pop into existence at this time? Or was it already existing beforehand?

- .

[guest_of_logic]

Problems arise [with quantifying duration] when one exploits the limitations of quantification for larger, sophistic purposes. For example, we find it convenient to divide the surface of the earth into lines of latitude and longitude. There are many practical benefits in doing this. However, we could use these lines to determine, if we wanted to, that it is impossible to circumnavigate the earth simply by adding more and more lines in between each line of latitude or longitude. That is how unreliable quantification becomes when pushed beyond its natural limits.

Again, you make reference to the "infinity of points in an otherwise finite interval" model that we have agreed is flawed and that has been superseded by calculus. Do you have a legitimate problem with quantification?

It is astonishing that you still don't see it. The kind of "infinite regression" reasoning that underpins the first half of your essay is exactly the same as the flawed model exhibited here.

I can explain why it's not the same at all by extending your example. If we were to start circumnavigating the Earth, resolving to stop only when we ran out of Earth, we would never stop circumnavigating: our journey would be infinite in length. That is the type of infinity in my analysis: an infinity of limitless extent. The infinity that you refer to above in your example is the contrived splitting up of a quantity that is properly finite and limited in extent: an infinity of instants; it is totally different from the infinity in my analysis.

To summarise: our discussion has revolved around two types of infinity. The first is the one that I actually use: an infinite quantity; an infinity that is a limitless extent. The second is one which you keep on bringing up and which we agree is flawed but which doesn't apply: a contrived infinity of instants over a limited quantity and/or extent. This second type of infinity is irrelevant, because it's not the same type of infinity that my analysis uses, yet you keep on insisting that it somehow is relevant, remarking that it's "astonishing" that I can't see the relevance. It's up to you to demonstrate that purported relevance.

You're advocating that time just popped into being at some point in the past and immediately started flowing, just like that.

Not so much advocating it, as exploring it as a potential solution to the two apparently impossible alternatives of "time has no beginning" and "time started with an uncaused Big Bang" i.e. creation ex nihilo. I advance it as a potential solution having both pros and cons, and not necessarily as the final word on the matter.

And this event was caused by an "atemporal quantum principle". Tell me, did this quantum principle also just pop into existence at this time? Or was it already existing beforehand?

Given that the quantum principle is atemporal ("free from limitations of time" or "beyond the constraints of time"), concepts applied to it like "popping into existence" (which implies a lack of existence "before" the pop, follwed by an existence "after" the pop, and hence implies being subject to the constraints and limitations of time) and "already existing beforehand" (which makes reference to "before", a temporal concept, and hence also implies being subject to the constraints and limitations of time) do not (cannot) apply: they are false reckonings; they are antithetical to the nature of atemporality.

This quantum principle is "beyond" time - its existence does not depend upon and cannot be phrased in terms of time; at best we can say something like that which I wrote in my essay: that it is "cotemporary with every moment, past, present and future" - and even this is probably stretching it.

The "Caveats" section near the end of my essay acknowledges the type of issues that you seem to be trying to raise:

Regarding the nature of the quantum principle's creativity: you might notice that in describing the quantum fluctuations and their effects, I've used words like "generate" and "emerge". These words imply the passage of time, yet the source to which I was applying those words (the quantum principle) is an atemporal one, of which time has no passage. Even the word "creativity" implies the passage of time: something new is born into the present that did not exist in the past. This is the most troubling aspect of the model: that an atemporal source generates temporal effects, especially given that time is an ongoing, continuous flow. We thus far in the model that I've described have no explanation for our experience of a moving present moment - of a flow of time - nor of how the fact that time flows relates to the atemporal quantum principle, and how an atemporal principle can generate effects within time. Perhaps within science there are explanations, but if so, then my very limited knowledge does not afford me any of them.

[guest_of_logic]

Man is not free to eternity, he asks a price.

Do you mean rather that a price is asked of him?

As a theist, do you find infinity something that is somehow 'permitted'?

Perhaps your question is really that of the relationship between divinity and logic: which of the two permits or forbids the other. Not wishing to be presumptuous in matters of divinity to which I am not privy, I have no finding either way.

[Blair]

Has there been a trial of limitation, and in that trial has the worst truth been realised?

Of course. I will die for your sins, again, and for the last time.

When I die it's all over.

[David Quinn]

It is astonishing that you still don't see it. The kind of "infinite regression" reasoning that underpins the first half of your essay is exactly the same as the flawed model exhibited here.

I can explain why it's not the same at all by extending your example. If we were to start circumnavigating the Earth, resolving to stop only when we ran out of Earth, we would never stop circumnavigating: our journey would be infinite in length. That is the type of infinity in my analysis: an infinity of limitless extent. The infinity that you refer to above in your example is the contrived splitting up of a quantity that is properly finite and limited in extent: an infinity of instants; it is totally different from the infinity in my analysis.

These are surface differences. Underneath, they are exactly the same in that they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning to make their point. Both strive to create "proofs" based on the validity of the infinite regression model.

You can't just turn a blind eye to this. We have seen how wildly unreliable such a model is. It can lead to the most absurd conclusions. And yet for some reason (i.e. to make room for your god) you have decided to rely on it to form conclusions about the Universe.....

And this event was caused by an "atemporal quantum principle". Tell me, did this quantum principle also just pop into existence at this time? Or was it already existing beforehand?

Given that the quantum principle is atemporal ("free from limitations of time" or "beyond the constraints of time"), concepts applied to it like "popping into existence" (which implies a lack of existence "before" the pop, follwed by an existence "after" the pop, and hence implies being subject to the constraints and limitations of time) and "already existing beforehand" (which makes reference to "before", a temporal concept, and hence also implies being subject to the constraints and limitations of time) do not (cannot) apply: they are false reckonings; they are antithetical to the nature of atemporality.

Let's see if I have this straight:

Reality suddenly decides, out of the blue, to generate an "atemporal quantum principle" out of nowhere - just like that. And then this quantum principle, suddenly existing, reaches inside itself to god knows where and somehow pulls out a flowing world, complete with all the diversity of creation, ticking along peacefully as though nothing had happened.

This is your plausable alternative?

This quantum principle is "beyond" time - its existence does not depend upon and cannot be phrased in terms of time; at best we can say something like that which I wrote in my essay: that it is "cotemporary with every moment, past, present and future" - and even this is probably stretching it.

So the quantum principle is atemporal because it is "contemporary with every moment, past, present and future". Is there anything else that qualifies as being "atemporal". Or is the quantum principle the only one?

-

[IJesusChrist]

If you strongly believe that anything within the quantum realm has the ability to exclude time from it's actions, you are going to be severely surprised before you die.

[guest_of_logic]

I will die for your sins, again, and for the last time.

When I die it's all over.

Is that a singular or a plural "your"?

[guest_of_logic]

These are surface differences. Underneath, they are exactly the same in that they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning to make their point. Both strive to create "proofs" based on the validity of the infinite regression model.

The similarity is only that they both deal with an infinity, which has nothing to do with why the one fails and the other does not. If you want to establish a similarity between the infinite-in-duration of my analysis and the flawed infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration sufficient to carry the flaw from the latter to the former then you'll have to find a specific similarity - your vague handwaving of 'they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning' just doesn't cut it.

I'll frame how I'm seeing things for you, so you can see what I expect if I'm to concede you any point:

The problem with the latter infinity is its positing of "instants" over which time is supposed to flow, because we know from calculus that the proper conceptualisation of such flows is not of instants but of finite intervals taken to the limit. Now, if you want me to concede you any point, please explain how that problem carries over to the former infinity, because I just can't see it: there isn't an instant in sight in my analysis.

Let's see if I have this straight

You haven't.

Reality suddenly decides, out of the blue, to generate an "atemporal quantum principle" out of nowhere - just like that.

You apparently didn't understand my last reply, because you are again applying temporal concepts to that which is atemporal and hence is not subject to time. The quantum principle wasn't "generated", because generation implies a before and an after, which implies subjection to time.

And then this quantum principle, suddenly existing, reaches inside itself to god knows where and somehow pulls out a flowing world, complete with all the diversity of creation, ticking along peacefully as though nothing had happened.

This model doesn't explain why the physical laws of the universe exist and are the way that they are, but then again, nor, ultimately, does yours.

So the quantum principle is atemporal because it is "contemporary with every moment, past, present and future".

Well, no, that's not why it's atemporal: it's atemporal because it's not constrained by time; it doesn't "exist" in time - it exists "outside" of time. That's just the best way I could think of to relate its creative agency to the rest of the (temporal) universe. As I wrote in my last post, though, that description might be stretching it a bit.

Is there anything else that qualifies as being "atemporal". Or is the quantum principle the only one?

I would consider the possibility that anything in the "Platonic realm" is atemporal: anything abstract and conceptual, like an idea or a "truth" or a mathematical equation. Those sort of things seem to exist beyond the constraints of time, even though they can be accessed by minds bound in time.

[David Quinn]

These are surface differences. Underneath, they are exactly the same in that they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning to make their point. Both strive to create "proofs" based on the validity of the infinite regression model.

The similarity is only that they both deal with an infinity, which has nothing to do with why the one fails and the other does not. If you want to establish a similarity between the infinite-in-duration of my analysis and the flawed infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration sufficient to carry the flaw from the latter to the former then you'll have to find a specific similarity - your vague handwaving of 'they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning' just doesn't cut it.

I'll frame how I'm seeing things for you, so you can see what I expect if I'm to concede you any point:

The problem with the latter infinity is its positing of "instants" over which time is supposed to flow, because we know from calculus that the proper conceptualisation of such flows is not of instants but of finite intervals taken to the limit. Now, if you want me to concede you any point, please explain how that problem carries over to the former infinity, because I just can't see it: there isn't an instant in sight in my analysis.

That doesn't matter. The only issue at hand is whether infinite regression reasoning is valid and reliable. It doesn't matter if the units which make up the regression are "instants" or not.

In the case of the "infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration" scenario, a greater form of reasoning and common sense is brought to bear and finds the infinite regression reasoning wanting. The same applies to the infinite regression reasoning in your essay. It proves untenable in the face of a greater form of reasoning and common sense.

A person could, under the influence of another agenda, ignore the greater form of reasoning and common sense and keep insisting until he is blue in the face that his infinite regression reasoning is perfectly sound and proves that it is impossible for time to flow. It just depends on whether he wants to keep blocking his ears or not.

Reality suddenly decides, out of the blue, to generate an "atemporal quantum principle" out of nowhere - just like that.

You apparently didn't understand my last reply, because you are again applying temporal concepts to that which is atemporal and hence is not subject to time. The quantum principle wasn't "generated", because generation implies a before and an after, which implies subjection to time.

So it wasn't generated at some point in the past, nor has it been around forever .......

And then this quantum principle, suddenly existing, reaches inside itself to god knows where and somehow pulls out a flowing world, complete with all the diversity of creation, ticking along peacefully as though nothing had happened.

This model doesn't explain why the physical laws of the universe exist and are the way that they are, but then again, nor, ultimately, does yours.

Cause and effect, my friend. Cause and effect explains all. But you do have to understand what this means.

Is there anything else that qualifies as being "atemporal". Or is the quantum principle the only one?

I would consider the possibility that anything in the "Platonic realm" is atemporal: anything abstract and conceptual, like an idea or a "truth" or a mathematical equation. Those sort of things seem to exist beyond the constraints of time, even though they can be accessed by minds bound in time.

What about Nature itself?

-

[Ataraxia]

I'll ask you a few more specific questions to see if we can get to the heart of things:

1. Do you agree that duration can be quantified?
2. If so, do you agree that duration can be quantified without theoretical problem?
3. If not, please describe all problems of which you are aware.
4. Do you agree that the duration of a beginningless past can only be quantified as infinite, no matter which units it is quantified in?

1. Yes, it is a convenient tool for practical purposes, keeping in mind that it is a conceptual contrivance which doesn't reflect the reality of Nature's seamlessness.

It seems to me you could've stopped there.

[David Quinn]

Do you think I've been too long-winded?

-

[Ataraxia]

Not at all. Laird was asking questions, so they required separate answers.

I just felt that first line summed up the issue. I get the impression Laird sees time as a "thing-itself" rather than what it really is: an arbitrary measuring tool used by man to (hopefully) make predictions.

[guest_of_logic]

These are surface differences. Underneath, they are exactly the same in that they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning to make their point. Both strive to create "proofs" based on the validity of the infinite regression model.

The similarity is only that they both deal with an infinity, which has nothing to do with why the one fails and the other does not. If you want to establish a similarity between the infinite-in-duration of my analysis and the flawed infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration sufficient to carry the flaw from the latter to the former then you'll have to find a specific similarity - your vague handwaving of 'they both rely wholly upon the "infinite regression" reasoning' just doesn't cut it.

I'll frame how I'm seeing things for you, so you can see what I expect if I'm to concede you any point:

The problem with the latter infinity is its positing of "instants" over which time is supposed to flow, because we know from calculus that the proper conceptualisation of such flows is not of instants but of finite intervals taken to the limit. Now, if you want me to concede you any point, please explain how that problem carries over to the former infinity, because I just can't see it: there isn't an instant in sight in my analysis.

That doesn't matter. The only issue at hand is whether infinite regression reasoning is valid and reliable. It doesn't matter if the units which make up the regression are "instants" or not.

In the case of the "infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration" scenario, a greater form of reasoning and common sense is brought to bear and finds the infinite regression reasoning wanting. The same applies to the infinite regression reasoning in your essay. It proves untenable in the face of a greater form of reasoning and common sense.

A person could, under the influence of another agenda, ignore the greater form of reasoning and common sense and keep insisting until he is blue in the face that his infinite regression reasoning is perfectly sound and proves that it is impossible for time to flow. It just depends on whether he wants to keep blocking his ears or not.

Much as I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I'm sorry to say that I'm still just seeing vague handwaving from you. I provided you with a very specific challenge: to explain how the problem with instants in the model we both agree is flawed carries over to the model of my own analysis. You sidestepped that challenge, so I can only assume that you disagree that the problem is indeed with instants. Fine, but then you provide no specific alternative. All you do is speak in generalities: you find "infinite regression reasoning" to be "wanting" due to "a greater form of reasoning and common sense". That doesn't help me much to understand what you find wrong with my analysis. Let me try another list of specific questions to see whether you can finally articulate the exact problem that you're seeing:
1. What exactly do you mean by "infinite regression reasoning"?
2. Given your above answer:
2a. what is it about my analysis that makes this term applicable to it, and,
2b. what is it about the infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration model that makes this term applicable to it?
3. Do you consider all "infinite regression reasoning" to be "wanting", or just some cases of it (i.e. at least the cases raised in this discussion)?
4. If just some cases, then on what basis do you distinguish them from those that do not want?
5. What specifically is this "greater form of reasoning and common sense" that you refer to?
6. Given your clarification of these terms in your answers to (1) and (5): after applying this "greater form of reasoning and common sense", what specifically is found "wanting" in "infinite regression reasoning"?

So [the atemporal quantum principle] wasn't generated at some point in the past, nor has it been around forever .......

Now you seem to get it.

David: And then this quantum principle, suddenly existing, reaches inside itself to god knows where and somehow pulls out a flowing world, complete with all the diversity of creation, ticking along peacefully as though nothing had happened.

guest_of_logic: This model doesn't explain why the physical laws of the universe exist and are the way that they are, but then again, nor, ultimately, does yours.

David: Cause and effect, my friend. Cause and effect explains all. But you do have to understand what this means.

Ah, David, always with you this having of your cake whilst eating it too. On the one hand Ultimate Truth is utterly simple, but then, on the other, you are one of the very select few who actually understands it ... in its utter simplicity!

Your cause and effect is at best but an infinitely deferred explanation of the physical laws of the universe, and not an ultimate one. It is also very much entangled with them.

What about Nature itself? [i.e. does it qualify as being "atemporal"? --Laird]

Sure, if we consider Nature in the broadest sense, in which time is a property of Nature.

guest_of_logic: Do you agree that duration can be quantified?

David: Yes, it is a convenient tool for practical purposes, keeping in mind that it is a conceptual contrivance which doesn't reflect the reality of Nature's seamlessness.

Ataraxia: I just felt that first line summed up the issue. I get the impression Laird sees time as a "thing-itself" rather than what it really is: an arbitrary measuring tool used by man to (hopefully) make predictions.

I'm not seeing anything in David's answer that might affect the integrity of my analysis. To quantify duration is not to make any assumption that rejects the "seamlessness" of time, and to quantify it as infinite certainly is not. David seems to object to my analysis on the basis that it relies on "artificially segmenting time", which is a very ambiguous objection, and one that he doesn't seem to be able to elaborate on in any specific kind of way.

Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite, which would entail that an infinity of time has been traversed, which would entail the existence of an "actual infinite", which is logically impossible. I expressed it in similar words in my essay, but rather than addressing the essence of my argument, David instead seized on the interpretative words that followed, in which I made reference to "seconds" passing just to help people wrap their heads around the argument: it is, if anything, that interpretation that makes use of a "conceptual contrivance", and not anything in the essence of the argument itself.

Ataraxia, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say about the possible differences in the way that you and I view time. I don't understand what you mean by "thing-itself" and "arbitrary measuring tool". Making a rough guess as to what you mean, though, wouldn't you say that a "tool" qualifies as a "thing-itself"?

[Pincho Paxton]

Infinite regress doesn't exist because there is a scale limit to everything. Let's just take the simple mirror facing another mirror. A mirror has resolution just like a TV. It is made from atoms, so atoms can be the minimum resolution of the mirror. As all of the pictures get smaller, you will eventually reach the minimum resolution of the atom. All things have a minimum resolution. The chain ends as close to zero as you can get. In the mind we have the observer, so who is observing the observer? Well we have to apply the zero rule even to this situation. The mind is an accumulation of energy, and a thought requires the power of an electron. As you step beck through the degrees of energy required for a thought, you go back to the observer. The observer is as close to zero as you can get which is a two state situation. +1 and -1, meaning that the observer is there, and also not there. The observer is a ghost which is quite a coincidence when it comes to the paranormal explanation of the soul, and spirit. It is quite possible that this paranormal explanation was a by product of the truth which was hidden deep in our subconscious knowledge. So where does +1 -1 exist? It is popping in, and out of existence, and when it is out of existence it has to be ready to exist once more. I can only assume that there is another dimension for 'out of existence'. I am not happy with another dimension that is ready to pop into our dimension, but have to accept it as I can't find an alternative explanation. But I do have a well known example of this situation, and it is called 'The Bose-Einstein Condensate'. When atoms are frozen to almost zero they become ghosts, they can pass through one another. This example identifies the dimension of being both there, and not there, and it identifies a minimum quantifiable measure close to zero where infinite regression is broken. that is the minimum measure of temperature. The minimum measure of size is the Aether collapsing into a Photon, and Electron. The minimum measure of the mind is a virtual photon that is both there, and not there.

Basically there are rules to nature. never use zero, only use Infinity liberally, but avoid it as much as possible. Infinite regress is something that should be avoided at all costs.

[David Quinn]

Much as I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I'm sorry to say that I'm still just seeing vague handwaving from you. I provided you with a very specific challenge: to explain how the problem with instants in the model we both agree is flawed carries over to the model of my own analysis. You sidestepped that challenge, so I can only assume that you disagree that the problem is indeed with instants. Fine, but then you provide no specific alternative. All you do is speak in generalities: you find "infinite regression reasoning" to be "wanting" due to "a greater form of reasoning and common sense". That doesn't help me much to understand what you find wrong with my analysis. Let me try another list of specific questions to see whether you can finally articulate the exact problem that you're seeing:
1. What exactly do you mean by "infinite regression reasoning"?
2. Given your above answer:
2a. what is it about my analysis that makes this term applicable to it, and,
2b. what is it about the infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration model that makes this term applicable to it?
3. Do you consider all "infinite regression reasoning" to be "wanting", or just some cases of it (i.e. at least the cases raised in this discussion)?
4. If just some cases, then on what basis do you distinguish them from those that do not want?
5. What specifically is this "greater form of reasoning and common sense" that you refer to?
6. Given your clarification of these terms in your answers to (1) and (5): after applying this "greater form of reasoning and common sense", what specifically is found "wanting" in "infinite regression reasoning"?

1. Any reasoning which relies on an infinite regression for support.

2a. The analysis in your essay relies on an infinite regression for support.

2b. Its reasoning relies on an infinite regression for support.

3. All of it is unreliable, because it relies on contrived divisions of a continuum.

5. In the case of the "infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration" model that we have been referring to, calculus and the human experience of time flowing. In the case of your essay, the understanding of reality's timelessness and the knowledge that all divisions are illusory.

6. It frequently throws up absurd conclusions and hence cannot be relied upon.

So [the atemporal quantum principle] wasn't generated at some point in the past, nor has it been around forever .......

Now you seem to get it.

Alas, you're dreaming.

guest_of_logic: This model doesn't explain why the physical laws of the universe exist and are the way that they are, but then again, nor, ultimately, does yours.

David: Cause and effect, my friend. Cause and effect explains all. But you do have to understand what this means.

Ah, David, always with you this having of your cake whilst eating it too. On the one hand Ultimate Truth is utterly simple, but then, on the other, you are one of the very select few who actually understands it ... in its utter simplicity!

The barrier that prevents people from realizing the simplicity of truth isn't an intellectual one, but that of being unable to emotionally let go of what is unreal.

Your cause and effect is at best but an infinitely deferred explanation of the physical laws of the universe, and not an ultimate one. It is also very much entangled with them.

Sorry, try again.

What about Nature itself? [i.e. does it qualify as being "atemporal"? --Laird]

Sure, if we consider Nature in the broadest sense, in which time is a property of Nature.

Is time also a property of the atempory quantum principle?

-

[Ataraxia]

guest_of_logic: Do you agree that duration can be quantified?

David: Yes, it is a convenient tool for practical purposes, keeping in mind that it is a conceptual contrivance which doesn't reflect the reality of Nature's seamlessness.

Ataraxia: I just felt that first line summed up the issue. I get the impression Laird sees time as a "thing-itself" rather than what it really is: an arbitrary measuring tool used by man to (hopefully) make predictions.

Laird: I'm not seeing anything in David's answer that might affect the integrity of my analysis. To quantify duration is not to make any assumption that rejects the "seamlessness" of time,

David said the seamlessness of Nature, not time. Time is 'seamed' by definition.

and to quantify it as infinite certainly is not.

to quantify something as infinite is a contradiction in terms. Surely.

Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite,

again, you are thinking of time as thing-itself rather than as a measurement, a means of man quantifying and describing events.

which would entail that an infinity of time has been traversed, which would entail the existence of an "actual infinite", which is logically impossible.

I get the point you are trying to establish here Laird, but in my view it is the wrong way to think about time, existence, begininglessness, infinity or anything else.

Just consider what you are proposing: a time when there existed no-thing. When existence didn't exist, so to speak; a time when there were no events. It is meaningless, furthermore, like your "actual infinity", it is logically impossible.

[guest_of_logic]

David,

guest_of_logic: 2b. what is it about the infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration model that makes this term ["infinite regression reasoning"] applicable to it?

David: 2b. Its reasoning relies on an infinite regression for support.

You seem to be misusing the term "regression" here. In case you don't realise your misuse, please check out the dictionary.com definitions of regression and regress. The ones that seem to me to be most apt in this context are this one for "regress": "The act of reasoning backward from an effect to a cause"; and this one for "regression": "the act of going back to a previous place or state; return or reversion". Those descriptions simply don't apply to the infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration model.

Perhaps there's an apter term to describe what you're trying to get at. As it is, you've failed to identify a relevant commonality between the scenario of infinity-of-instants-in-an-otherwise-finite-duration that we agree is flawed and the scenario of infinite-in-duration of my analysis: you haven't identified a commonality sufficient to carry the flaw from the former to the latter.

guest_of_logic: 5. What specifically is this "greater form of reasoning and common sense" that you refer to?

David: 5. [...] In the case of your essay, the understanding of reality's timelessness

Unless you elaborate on what that understanding is, then you're simply asserting your opposing conclusion without presenting a case for it: timelessness entails a beginningless past, which is the very scenario that my essay argues against - I already know that that's your opposing conclusion, but by what argument do you reject my analysis and support your own opposing conclusion? You haven't provided an argument - at least not in other than vague generalities, and something very dubious regarding "artificially" "carving up" a continuum, which I'll address next.

and the knowledge that all divisions are illusory.

I'll ignore for now the problems in using that assertion as a basis upon which to reject my analysis, and instead repeat this point: that my argument anyway doesn't rely on divisions. I explained this in my last post, in response to Ataraxia. Perhaps you'll acknowledge it this time:

Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite, which would entail that an infinity of time has been traversed, which would entail the existence of an "actual infinite", which is logically impossible. I expressed it in similar words in my essay, but rather than addressing the essence of my argument, David instead seized on the interpretative words that followed, in which I made reference to "seconds" passing just to help people wrap their heads around the argument: it is, if anything, that interpretation that makes use of a "conceptual contrivance", and not anything in the essence of the argument itself.

David: So [the atemporal quantum principle] wasn't generated at some point in the past, nor has it been around forever .......

guest_of_logic: Now you seem to get it.

David: Alas, you're dreaming.

Then we dream together, because that description applies equally to your "Totality".

The barrier that prevents people from realizing the simplicity of truth isn't an intellectual one, but that of being unable to emotionally let go of what is unreal.

Here's an alternative perspective: "The barrier that prevents people from adopting a simplistic platform of truth is the recognition of that platform's failure to deal adequately and holistically with what is unknown and transcendent".

guest_of_logic: Your cause and effect is at best but an infinitely deferred explanation of the physical laws of the universe, and not an ultimate one. It is also very much entangled with them.

David: Sorry, try again.

Why? Are you having difficulty understanding?

Is time also a property of the atempory quantum principle?

No, although it might be explained with reference to that principle.

Ataraxia,

Laird: I'm not seeing anything in David's answer that might affect the integrity of my analysis. To quantify duration is not to make any assumption that rejects the "seamlessness" of time,

Ataraxia: David said the seamlessness of Nature, not time.

Owing to the fact that it's time that's at issue I couldn't see how this was relevant unless it was intended to likewise apply to time. Perhaps you can explain its relevance as-is though.

Time is 'seamed' by definition.

What do you mean by 'seamed'?

Laird: and to quantify it as infinite certainly is not.

Ataraxia: to quantify something as infinite is a contradiction in terms. Surely.

Imprecise phrasing on my part - try this instead: "and to recognise it as infinite and therefore beyond quantification certainly is not."

Laird: Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite,

Ataraxia: again, you are thinking of time as thing-itself rather than as a measurement, a means of man quantifying and describing events.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Measurement; thing-itself; experience - we could discuss which is most applicable, but that discussion would be beside the point. The point is that time is "measured" or experienced by all of us in an inter-subjectively correlated and/or shared way, isn't it?

Laird: which would entail that an infinity of time has been traversed, which would entail the existence of an "actual infinite", which is logically impossible.

Ataraxia: I get the point you are trying to establish here Laird, but in my view it is the wrong way to think about time, existence, begininglessness, infinity or anything else.

So what in your view then is the right way to think about "time, existence, begininglessness [sic], infinity or anything else"?

Just consider what you are proposing: a time when there existed no-thing. When existence didn't exist, so to speak; a time when there were no events. It is meaningless, furthermore, like your "actual infinity", it is logically impossible.

As David initially seemed to, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of atemporality. In fact, I'm not proposing a "time when there existed no-thing" [italics added by me, Laird]. I'm simply proposing that time had/has a beginning. There is no "prior to" that beginning, and hence there is no situation of "a time when there were no events" because there is no time "prior to" that beginning.

dejavu,

How is actual infinity logically impossible?

"Actual infinity" is intended in the sense of being able to actually count to infinity. You can't - it's impossible. You can only keep on counting towards it.

What cares the truth for genius?

[Ataraxia]

Laird: I'm not seeing anything in David's answer that might affect the integrity of my analysis. To quantify duration is not to make any assumption that rejects the "seamlessness" of time,
Ataraxia: David said the seamlessness of Nature, not time.
Laird: Owing to the fact that it's time that's at issue I couldn't see how this was relevant unless it was intended to likewise apply to time. Perhaps you can explain its relevance as-is though.

Right. And that is your misunderstanding of David's position.

At bottom when one is speaking about time - or for that matter any other type of arbitrary projection of ours upon Reality - we are no longer speaking about Nature/ Totality/the All.

Time is 'seamed' by definition.

What do you mean by 'seamed'?

bounded. When you talk about a 'moment in time' you have given it finitude. In fact, as soon as you name it, you have separated it from 'all that is'. In other words, when you apply time to the thinking about Nature you are creating seams.

Laird: Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite,

Ataraxia: again, you are thinking of time as thing-itself rather than as a measurement, a means of man quantifying and describing events.

Laird:I don't understand what you're getting at. Measurement; thing-itself; experience - we could discuss which is most applicable, but that discussion would be beside the point.

well I think the inverse is true of this discussion. 'Emptiness' is exactly the point!

The point is that time is "measured" or experienced by all of us in an inter-subjectively correlated and/or shared way, isn't it?

right, but time is not an objective thing-itself' "out there". Nothing is. As you agree, it is an inter-subjective measure that we can talk about in a shared way. However it is not (objectively) real in an ultimate sense. Therefore it is no particular useful as a starting, a priori, proven axiom (for want of a better word) to then begin making deductions about Nature and the nature existence. The All is the starting position, talking about time, and for that matter all the other "10 thousand things", comes subsequently.

[guest_of_logic]

Laird: I'm not seeing anything in David's answer that might affect the integrity of my analysis. To quantify duration is not to make any assumption that rejects the "seamlessness" of time,

Ataraxia: David said the seamlessness of Nature, not time.

Laird: Owing to the fact that it's time that's at issue I couldn't see how this was relevant unless it was intended to likewise apply to time. Perhaps you can explain its relevance as-is though. [emboldening added by Ataraxia]

Ataraxia: Right. And that is your misunderstanding of David's position.

Ataraxia [continuing]: At bottom when one is speaking about time - or for that matter any other type of arbitrary projection of ours upon Reality - we are no longer speaking about Nature/ Totality/the All.

I don't see your point. It almost looks like you're implying that the only thing that can be talked about is Nature/Totality/the All. If you are implying that, then there's no point to communication in general. If you're not implying that, then please explain what we need to bear in mind about Nature/Totality/the All in a discussion of the impossibility of the infinitude of a beginningless past.

Ataraxia: Time is 'seamed' by definition.

Laird: What do you mean by 'seamed'?

Ataraxia: bounded. When you talk about a 'moment in time' you have given it finitude. In fact, as soon as you name it, you have separated it from 'all that is'. In other words, when you apply time to the thinking about Nature you are creating seams.

I think you basically mean that "time is a bounded part of the Totality, and is not the Totality itself" - correct? If so then I still don't see any relevance to my argument against a beginningless past.

Laird: Here my argument is in its essence, without reference to any measuring units or any sort of "artificial segmentation" beyond the distinction between past, present and future: for time to lack a beginning would entail that the duration of the past is infinite,

Ataraxia: again, you are thinking of time as thing-itself rather than as a measurement, a means of man quantifying and describing events.

Laird: I don't understand what you're getting at. Measurement; thing-itself; experience - we could discuss which is most applicable, but that discussion would be beside the point.

Ataraxia: well I think the inverse is true of this discussion. 'Emptiness' is exactly the point!

What do you mean by that word, especially in this context - how does "emptiness" affect my argument?

Laird: The point is that time is "measured" or experienced by all of us in an inter-subjectively correlated and/or shared way, isn't it?

Ataraxia: right, but time is not an objective thing-itself' "out there". Nothing is. As you agree, it is an inter-subjective measure that we can talk about in a shared way. However it is not (objectively) real in an ultimate sense.

Since you've agreed that time is perceived in an inter-subjectively correlated and/or shared way, doesn't it then follow that time has (or at least depends on) some form of "objective" existence independent of each subject (else how is its experience correlated and shared between the subjects?)?

Therefore [time] is no particular useful as a starting, a priori, proven axiom (for want of a better word) to then begin making deductions about Nature and the nature existence. The All is the starting position, talking about time, and for that matter all the other "10 thousand things", comes subsequently.

What "proven axiom" about Nature would you then bring to bear on my argument?

[Ataraxia]

I don't see your point.

my point is you didn't read properly David's reply and that by conflating time and Nature, you missed his point.

I think you basically mean that "time is a bounded part of the Totality, and is not the Totality itself" - correct? If so then I still don't see any relevance to my argument against a beginningless past.

Its relevance is that you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

What do you mean by that word, especially in this context - how does "emptiness" affect my argument?

Well i'm pretty much done with this. Maybe i don't express myself very well but there is nothing much more i can add, mate.

Give Dan's most recent vid a look and have a long think about it, if you haven't already. It pretty much addresses the problem you are having here (to my satisfaction at least) and explains a lot better than i could.

What "proven axiom" about Nature would you then bring to bear on my argument?

"every thing is caused"

[guest_of_logic]

Well i'm pretty much done with this. Maybe i don't express myself very well but there is nothing much more i can add, mate.

No worries. I'm just battling to work out how what you're saying relates to the topic of this thread, which is why I keep on asking questions to try to get you to clarify, but if there's nothing more that you can say then let's leave it at that. I watched Dan's video again but also couldn't see how it relates.

[guest_of_logic]

I couldn't find where you had mentioned 'actual infinity'

I first referred to it in the OP:

The first problem with beginningless time: the traversal of an actual infinity

The first problem is that of an infinite amount of time having passed prior to the present moment, and is raised in the first thread linked to above. This problem is often referred to in words similar to these: "it is impossible for an actual infinite to exist, and the traversal of an infinity of time constitutes such an impossible actual infinite". The way that this statement is sometimes interpreted is that if we count in some unit of time such as seconds, we will never actually reach infinity, which seems to be what a universe of an infinite past requires.

---

That we can't count to infinity doesn't make it logically impossible.

They seem to be one and the same to me in this case. How could it be logically possible to count to infinity? What condition would obtain when we finally reached infinity?

There is no such condition. There's always more that can be counted.

[guest_of_logic]

I should have been more clear. Of course it is not logically possible to count to infinity. Did you really think I meant that? Not being able to do so does not make infinity logically impossible.

I did think that you meant that due to your grammar. Apologies for the misreading.

There's a Wikipedia article on this subject that you might find interesting. It might make for some discussion, but, putting on my Topic Nazi hat, I'll make it clear that my argument only requires the agreement that you already gave: that it is impossible to actually count to infinity: all other types of actual infinity are beside the point (of my argument in this thread, that is).