Is the idea of something with no beginning logically impossible?

[Speakpigeon]

Is the idea of something with no beginning logically impossible?

 

[untermensche]

Is the idea of something with no beginning logically impossible?

Negatives can't be proven.

What a person could try to do is prove it is possible.

Which is impossible.

 

[beero1000]

Are you trying to be clever with those poll options?

 

[Random Person]

Yes, if you're stuck on the laws of physics.

 

[PyramidHead]

The question doesn't specify the exact sense of the word 'beginning' being used. There are footpaths that have a beginning, before which there is no path. There are footpaths that go in a loop, with no beginning or end. So obviously something without a beginning isn't impossible in that sense.

In the other sense, a beginning is where something starts in terms of time. But time is just a dimension like width or depth. If something has no beginning spatially speaking because it loops around on itself (like the surface of a sphere), there's no reason why the same couldn't be true of time.

 

[untermensche]

There are footpaths that go in a loop, with no beginning or end.

If you see one set of footprints in a circle do you conclude there was no beginning or ending?

 

[PyramidHead]

There are footpaths that go in a loop, with no beginning or end.

If you see one set of footprints in a circle do you conclude there was no beginning or ending?

No, because sets of footprints have a beginning. I didn't say NOTHING has a beginning, just that not EVERYTHING does.

 

[untermensche]

If you see one set of footprints in a circle do you conclude there was no beginning or ending?

No, because sets of footprints have a beginning. I didn't say NOTHING has a beginning, just that not EVERYTHING does.

Does any circular path not have a beginning in time as well?

If a circular path somehow arises in an instant then that instant was the beginning.

I don't think you have pointed to anything real without a beginning.

Sure an imaginary enclosed figure of any kind, circle, triangle, square, etc. does not have a beginning.

 

[PyramidHead]

No, because sets of footprints have a beginning. I didn't say NOTHING has a beginning, just that not EVERYTHING does.

Does any circular path not have a beginning in time as well?

If a circular path somehow arises in an instant then that instant was the beginning.

I don't think you have pointed to anything real without a beginning.

Sure an imaginary enclosed figure of any kind, circle, triangle, square, etc. does not have a beginning.

The beginning of a path is not the part that was made first! It's entirely possible to build a path starting at its terminus, or somewhere in the middle, and finish with the part people are supposed to start from. Even if the Camino de Santiago was built starting at its destination, the beginning of the path would still be in Saint Jean Pied de Port. It wouldn't matter that its origin in time were somewhere else.

Also, there are plenty of paths that have two ends, but neither one can be shown to be the beginning or the ending. There's a path from behind my apartment through the back woods that empties out into a clearing near the water. Does the path begin at my apartment, or does it begin at the water and end behind my apartment? There's no answer to the question that is true for all who traverse it.

Of course, this is just the spatial sense of the word "beginning", and I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about time.

 

[untermensche]

Does any circular path not have a beginning in time as well?

If a circular path somehow arises in an instant then that instant was the beginning.

I don't think you have pointed to anything real without a beginning.

Sure an imaginary enclosed figure of any kind, circle, triangle, square, etc. does not have a beginning.

The beginning of a path is not the part that was made first! It's entirely possible to build a path starting at its terminus, or somewhere in the middle, and finish with the part people are supposed to start from. Even if the Camino de Santiago was built starting at its destination, the beginning of the path would still be in Saint Jean Pied de Port. It wouldn't matter that its origin in time were somewhere else.

Also, there are plenty of paths that have two ends, but neither one can be shown to be the beginning or the ending. There's a path from behind my apartment through the back woods that empties out into a clearing near the water. Does the path begin at my apartment, or does it begin at the water and end behind my apartment? There's no answer to the question that is true for all who traverse it.

Of course, this is just the spatial sense of the word "beginning", and I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about time.

If you start building a path the moment you start is the beginning of the existence of the path.

So no matter what else we say about the path it did have a beginning. It is not something without a beginning, some mysterious entity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Are you trying to be clever with those poll options?

Oops! My mistake.

The second option should read: "NO, it's not logically Impossible".

Sorry to had confusion where clarity is needed.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Of course, this is just the spatial sense of the word "beginning", and I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about time.

Yes, of course, in relation to "existence".
EB.

 

[bilby]

Are you trying to be clever with those poll options?

I presume that there is a missing 'im' in the answer 'NO, it is not logically [im]possible', as this assumption is consistent with the thread and poll titles; I have voted accordingly.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Define "something".

 

[Kharakov]

Are you trying to be clever with those poll options?

I presume that there is a missing 'im' in the answer 'NO, it is not logically [im]possible', as this assumption is consistent with the thread and poll titles; I have voted accordingly.

I'd vote that way too, but don't want to forget in 3 years and wonder why the hell I voted the way I voted.

 

[Lion IRC]

I thought metaphysics allows us to think outside the square.

So a past-eternal God is no more impossible than a past-eternal universe/multiverse/megaverse/ominverse.

But the real question is whether, throughout an infinite past, everything that possibly can happen has already happened an infinite number of times. And if a thing HASNT happened yet, why not?

 

[untermensche]

So a past-eternal God is no more impossible than a past-eternal universe/multiverse/megaverse/ominverse.

The correct configuration is: A past-eternal universe/multiverse/megaverse/ominverse is no less absurd than a past-eternal God.

Both cases are just giving magic powers to something.

It just depends what you're looking for.

Some big father figure to pat your head?

Or a way to pretend any of this makes sense simply because we can understand how some of it works?

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think a past-eternal (ever-present) thing is magical per se.
If it is past eternal, then it is. No need to pretend.
Just a brute fact.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think there is any substantive difference between talking about the eternal past and the eternal present (now).

The (perceived) existence of the past as something real and the reality of the present are both equally dependent on perception.

The brain in a jar can just as easily conjure up both/either.

 

[fast]

Asking if something is impossible is vague, but you weren't vague, as you specified usage. You didn't say physically impossible but rather logically impossible, so what you're asking has been fine tuned, so even if something is physically impossible, it's not therefore logically impossible.

There are many events that are physically impossible to occur, but that doesn't negate the fact those same very physical events are logically possible, so I'm going to be careful not to allow the physical possibility interfere with my analysis .

What's pertinent to consider is whether there's a contradiction. I don't readily see one. My vote is no, it's not logically [im]possible.