Someone who will exist shall never be born.

[Nymus Anon]

After an infinite amount of time passes, more people will surely be born. But since an infinite amount of time must pass before they will be born, they will never be born, since an infinite amount of time can't be feasibly passed, even though they shall eventually be born after such time passes, which must be able to happen, since it has already happened. An infinite amount of time must have also passed before the time that we were born, since there can't have been a beginning of time, because there had to have always been something, or at least nothingness for something to appear in, or else nothing would be able to exist. Therefore, an infinite amount of time has passed before we were born, which should be impossible, but the people who will never be born will be able to view it from the same perspective (after they are impossibly born) because for them the beginning would be their birth, and there will be more people that can't feasibly be born in their future, but surely will be, and we will be as impossibly far in the past.

This is assuming of course, that we will be around that long.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

...infinity plus one

Are there people who once existed but were never born because they existed infinity years ago?

Is it just like saying there are some (i.e. infinitely many i.e. almost all) numbers so big they shall never be counted to?

 

[Black Rose]

We only exist in the present some would say. Time happens because of entanglement. An event is not known to be past or future until two particles are connected.

 

[Nymus Anon]

@artsu No, they would have just existed for forever. And yes, it is just so far away that it will never feasibly happen according to our perception, even though it will, since that point in time does/will eventually exist.

@anime Regardless of that, the past has still happened, the future will still happen, and infinite things and concepts shall still exist.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

Unless you take the multiverse theory into account. In which case they have existed in a infinite amount of ways and have not.

(Also, this just reminded me of a experiment that may have proved reality isn't, but I didn't read the article cause time constraints. Finna see if it's not bogus)

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

is time infinite in both directions? how can the time before we were born be "infinite" when reasonable estimates are feasible? isnt that just the time between the bigbang and our birth?

 

[Nymus Anon]

How did the thing that caused the big bang happen or exist? Also before that, there had to have been a place where there was nothing for things to appear into, and the place where things can exist must always have existed. If not, how did it happen to exist and what caused it to exist and how does anything exist period anyways. But throughout any creation or blank nothingness time has been passing for an infinite amount and always will. So yes, time would be infinite in both directions and we can perceive ourselves as in the middle at any time because our distance to/from either end shall never change. And therefore the time infinitely far in the future is unreachable to us.

 

[Jane]

What if the universe and it's origin is as incomprehensible to humans as math is to turtles (no offence, i love turtles)

 

[Cognisant]

After an infinite amount of time passes

An infinite amount of time cannot pass, it's infinite.

 

[Nymus Anon]

That's why they will never be born.
And an infinite amount of time must have already passed before this point, so it must be able to happen.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

@artsu No, they would have just existed for forever. And yes, it is just so far away that it will never feasibly happen according to our perception, even though it will, since that point in time does/will eventually exist.

@anime Regardless of that, the past has still happened, the future will still happen, and infinite things and concepts shall still exist.

Maybe it's a "proof" then that the past actually isn't infinite?

I think time should be able to go both ways, so if you can claim that one shall exist but never be born, then they should also be able to have existed but never been born.

I tend to think of the timeline as changing as we move through time, i.e. the past as being non-static*, but that's just my own views. Mayyybe quantum physics says something to a similar effect, I'm not sure on that one.

* for a mathematical visual, picture the tangent to a curve as being time, and the curve is being drawn as you go, and the tangent is automatically generated, so what you see is an infinite line shifting in direction - thus a difference between the time which we can project (future and past) and true time (the everchanging present).

 

[Nymus Anon]

Interesting. Also, maybe the point of a "creation" such as a Big Bang or other theory if you believe that, could be a kind of middle point where time moves in two opposite directions and the direction we perceive as the past would be the future on the other side and vice versa. If that is the case, then there could be unborn people that will eventually happen, and people so far in the past they existed for us but will never be born.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Interesting. Also, maybe the point of a "creation" such as a Big Bang or other theory if you believe that, could be a kind of middle point where time moves in two opposite directions and the direction we perceive as the past would be the future on the other side and vice versa. If that is the case, then there could be unborn people that will eventually happen, and people so far in the past they existed for us but will never be born.

Yeah I've thought of the possibility of another universe being overlapped with ours but travelling in the opposite direction time-wise, and the interactions between the forward and backwards moving aspects of the universe occur in a sort of probabilistic grey-zone which prevents paradoxical exchanges of information from occurring. I thought maybe dark matter was involved in this, but it's all just speculation.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In deterministic fashion, time will always be finite when you have a point of reference to measure it, the "infinite" status is broken immediately.

Time is infinite because it is not a thing that decreases or is consumed. Time itself is unending, it is the capacity for things to happen, not the happenings themselves. An infinite amount of time does not mean a numerically large amount of time, but rather a gap where nothing happens. Imagine the time between the moment you fall asleep and the moment you awake, it is virtually instantaneous because you aren't consciously perceiving anything in between.


>After an infinite amount of time passes, more people will surely be born.

There is no "after". More people will be born after a certain finite period of time.

>But since an infinite amount of time must pass before they will be born

see above

>, they will never be born, since an infinite amount of time can't be feasibly passed, even though they shall eventually be born after such time passes, which must be able to happen, since it has already happened.

An infinite amount of time has not passed. If the birth happened, then the time up til that point was finite.

>An infinite amount of time must have also passed before the time that we were born,

Immeasurable? Perhaps. Infinite? Not if you believe in astronomy. Scientists have measured the universe to be 14 billion years old. Anything before that is immeasurable, but it's finite, even if 20 other universes existed previously.

>since there can't have been a beginning of time, because there had to have always been something, or at least nothingness for something to appear in, or else nothing would be able to exist.

The "Beginning" of time is a misnomer. My preferred conception of the "beginning" lies with Stephen Hawking's idea of time being spherical with North and South "poles". There is no edge therefore no beginning, if you keep heading in one direction you'll eventually end up right back where you started.

But either way the beginning is the point when things started happening in observable space.

However I agree that something arising from nothing is an issue. Perhaps everything around us are all shades of nothing?

>Therefore, an infinite amount of time has passed before we were born, which should be impossible, but the people who will never be born will be able to view it from the same perspective (after they are impossibly born) because for them the beginning would be their birth, and there will be more people that can't feasibly be born in their future, but surely will be, and we will be as impossibly far in the past.

This revolves around the same concept. It isn't infinite once you have points of reference. Immeasurably large is still finite.

 

[AndyC]

In an infinite amount of time given our certain circumstances, it is absolute that someone will be born, and I think what you are trying to say is that as time becomes lesser, the probability that someone will be born shall also become lesser. Like rolling a dice, ehe chances of getting a 6 will remain the same, yet overall, after 112 goes, you probably rolled a 6, no guarantee unless you do it infinite times. What I'm saying is, over time, the more trials there are of birth, the more likely it will have occurred given that you have a dice/there are the resources for a birth. Absolute probability can only be achieved through an infinite amount of time, allowing for an 'infinite' amount of variable combinations, the increase of probability slows with every trial, to the point you need an infinite amount to reach absolute certainty. The assumption that without ABSOLUTE PROBABILITY no one will be born is where the fault lies, sure maybe no one will be born, but there is still the probability that someone will be because of our circumstances. And that's when you get into Multiverse theories, and obviously, there will be instances where no one will be born even given an infinite amount of time in some. Sorry for going overboard, I'm bored and trying to fill in time.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Several issues with your reasoning imo.

First you speak of infinities in the context of countable phenomena such as humans. I don't want to delve into details, however humanity is a provably finite process in the context of a mathematical infinity.

You don't define the scope of events. For example in a finite-sized universe after infinite time, there's bound to occur a finite amount of events (states) before everything repeats. Which brings you to the conclusion that a finite universe/multiverse has no possible infinities and time cannot be infinite, because there is no functional distinction between any of its repeatable cycles, all information is lost.

Physically speaking, there's no proof there are any real infinities, infinity is a mathematical concept, it applies to reality when sufficiently large or unknown variables are taken into consideration and requires a proper definition of scope.

Finally, there's no way for humanity to remain the same. If you agree that apes aren't people, then you must agree that evolved humans won't be humans as well. After a relatively short amount of time in the context of infinity, humans will evolve sufficiently far away from their form as to no longer be considered human. Actually, humans might naturally evolve into a form that doesn't rely on "birth" be it literal or figurative.

There's more like improper use of "never" in a logic statement, etc. I'll leave it at that.