Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?

Doesn't a molecular cloud become when thermonuclear fusion starts (which happens pretty fast) ? That seems to be a pretty specific time in the past.But I understand what you mean, ''sun'' is just a term we attributed. We said ''when this type of matter is arranged in this type of way, then we'll call it this''. But this is precisely why it is important to not equivocate the sun to simply the matter it is composed with.But this is in any case a bit irrelevant. We know that at one point in time the matter had form X, and that later it had form Y. This form Y lasts for a finite amount of time until it goes to form Z, or even back to X. How smooth and imperceptible the transition was done is irrelevant. If we know that at one point it won't be form Y anymore (better yet if we know in how much time this will be, as is the case with the sun) then we can reasonably infer that form Y doesn't extend infinitely in the past either, or else it would have ended an infinite time ago.

No, I was merely confused over the angle you were taking. I had already addressed the situation in the most general terms, and so I took a physical approach this time.In any case... Perhaps you can begin by defending this extremely unobvious proposition.

Picking an object that by your definiton has finite duration and then declaring that it cannot extend infinitely into the past is surely an exercise in stating the bleedin' obvious? I really don't know what you are attempting to show here...

I don't see why time can't theoretically continue forward infinitely, provided things continue to exist that can be measured by time. But surely nothing will ever "make it to infinity". Perhaps it is better to say things could continue to exist for an indefinite time, rather than an infinite time. We can never get from this point to infinity in the future, because surely infinity is not a defined point at the end of a line, which means that nothing could have made it from infinity in the past to this point either. If the past is infinite, how long would something wait to get to this point? It would be an infinite amount of time, which is impossible. I'm not claiming any expert knowledge or making a strong claim. I'm expressing my layman's understanding of time and existence and asking for opinions around that. I appreciate the input from you and everyone else.

You throw "impossible" out there like you know something. Apparently you don't think time continuing on infinitely is impossible, so why not objects? You still have not explained why exactly you think things *need* to stop existing at some point in time.It seems to me that you have simply decided that things cannot exist forever, and your evidence for this is claiming "thats impossible!" like it means something. If you think it is impossible you have to say why, especially because everything science shows points to matter/energy being conserved. That is to say, mass/energy is always conserved; you never get rid of it, you never get more of it.If it seems like I am being confrontational here, I really am trying to avoid it. I just find it annoying for someone to start a thread saying "Can this happen? I say no, because I feel strongly that I am right."

Hi Phage0070 I'm not trying to claim some special knowledge, just making what I consider to be a logical point.I've no problem with time or objects continuing indefinitely. By that I mean you cannot say how long they may exist into the future. I'm not saying anything "needs" to stop existing at some point. They may exist for as long as you could observe them. But you cannot say anything will continue to exist until infinity because that doesn't even make sense. You can never reach infinity. Infinity is not a point. My understanding of infinity is that it means something that is not finite. Therefore, it is not even a measurement. That's why you cannot say anthing can exist for infinity.To try to explain again what I mean about something not being able to have existed from an infinite past: how long would it have existed up to this point? A hundred billion years? A hundred trillion years? A trillion trillion years? A trillion trillion trillion years? No. If you say 1 year you are as close as if you say a trillion trillion trillion years. It doesn't even make sense to quantify how long something could have existed up to this point from an infinite past, because however long you could imagine it might have to wait to get to this point, it would never get here. It would be as far to get to this point from an infinite past, as it would be to get from this point to an infinite future. You'd never get there.If you or anyone else has a different view on the meaning of infinity in that regard, by all means please go ahead. I don't claim to be an expert, I'm just expressing my understanding. Maybe it's a naive understanding, I don't know.

Sure, but that was exactly my point with time itself. Even without objects existing at all you would never reach "infinity" with the passage of time. So if you are incredulous about matter existing for eternity then you must similarly apply that to time itself.And it still comes down to an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot quantify the duration does not mean that it must be finite. FYI, your ability to assign numbers and understand natural phenomenon has no bearing on their existence. (Don't worry, that seems to be a common problem around here.)

Ok, I've put as much thought into this as I could during the day, and this is where I'm at.'Everything that has an end has a beginning' is pretty difficult to prove, but a sub-category of this large claim I think I can prove.''Everything that has to end in a finite amount of time must have a beginning''Proof:A has an end in X amount of time, where X is any finite number.At T=0, X=xTherefore, at T=-100, X=x+100.T= -1000, X=x+1000Let us suppose that A had no beginning, soT= -∞. X= x+∞ = ∞Which contradicts that X must be finite, therefore A must have a beginning.As I said this is a sub-claim of the original claim, and the proof of the more general one is probably much more complicated (if it even exists). I initially had this proof in mind for the original claim, but after our exchange of yesterday realized that it only proved the sub-claim.Of course, there's always the possibility that there is a loophole in my proof. It isn't my forte since I wasn't introduced to this procedure until last year at university. For some reason it is almost completly absent from our educational system at lower levels.

I never get these. You seem to be claiming that where n is infinite and x is finite, that n/x, for example one half of infinity, would somehow be finite. This isn't right, it's roughly equivalent to claiming that where o is nil and x is finite, that xo, for example twice zero, is somehow nonzero. It isn't, it won't be.In short, in order for something that began an infinite amount of time ago, to have to have also ended an infinite amount of time ago, it would have to be finite. As long as it's infinite, it may begin an infinite amount of time ago, and end now, and it will be a distinct fraction of an infinity, which is itself by nature also infinite.Infinity isn't a single number, it's a very large class of numbers, a much larger class than for example the set of real numbers, which is itself infinite.

Ok, I hope I didn't get anything wron in what you said.There are some things you can do with infinity. You can divide it by a finite (∞/2=∞) but not an infinite (∞/∞ = undetermined). You can add a finite to it (∞+2=∞; ∞-2=∞) or even an infinite of the same sign (∞+∞=∞) but not of opposite sign (∞-∞ =/= 0)In any case I'm probably not saying anything new to you, just want to make sure though. Yeah inuitively that's what I come down to also. The proof I posted was just if we know something must have a finite future, then it must also have a finite past.If it has absolutely no possibility to continue on infinitely in the future, and cannot have an infinite past.Therefore, my proof does not cover the example Son-Goku gave. A particle that had it's 'life' end by falling in a black hole could have continued on infinitely in the future. It was just a matter of (bad) luck that it fell down there. Therefore it could also have an infinite past. I'm not sure to classify infinity as a 'very large class of numbers' is mathematically accurate. Are you referring to cardinality ? ? Because I have only skimmed that subject.

Yes, it does cover SG's example, and thus is contradicted by SG's example . Although SG colloquially spoke of a particle, what he is actually thinking of is the geodesic along which such a particle will be defined. The geodesic extends infinitely to the past (to i^- on a Penrose Diagram of the black hole in question) but only finitely to the future (to the future singularity, T=0, if we are talking a Schwarschild black hole.) This geodesic is fixed - there is no choice involved.

Ok. Then where is the error in my attempted proof ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Well, it's a bit of a no-where proof to be honest You state that X(t) is finite, then force upon it a condition which will necessarily make X(t) infinite should X(t) be defined for all t, then use this to state that X(t) cannot be defined for all t because otherwise it would not be finite - this is good politics but lousy logic

Yeah I just realized I could do use the very same ''logic'' to prove that everything that has a beginning has an end (Matrix anyone ? ). Which is easily recognizable as false.For some reason I can easily visualize an infinite future, but thinking about an infinite past I don't seem to arrive at the same mental images and conclusions.you're right, I should get into politics. Or maybe it's too late and I should go to sleep.

I'm not certain what you mean here. Are you saying that time is a thing in itself that can exist without objects/events? Maybe you could expand a bit more on what you mean by that. Does that mean that you disagree with my argument that as we could never reach infinity from this point (in time or space), that logically means that in reverse you could never reach this point - or any other point - from an infinite distance (in time or space)?Edited by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, : Didn't do a preview - what a twat!