(September 3, 2012 at 1:17 pm)idunno Wrote: What I'm suggesting here is dependent on the A theory of time in which there is a linear progression. The starting point I am referring to is the present moment. Starting from this point in time, if you were to head back to the infinite past you wouldn't reach the end even if you had an infinite amount of time to do so. If you reach the end, in an infinite amount of time, you've not actually gone an infinite distance. If you reach an end point, your destination wasn't actually infinite. I'm repeating myself here but I don't know how many other ways it can be said.
Then stop repeating and justify the bolded assertion. Why doesn't traversing for an infinite amount of time not equal traversing an infinite distance?