What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

Post #1973

Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?

That post comes AFTER your claim to have answered it five times, so it cannot represent any of those alleged five answers; And the question we are discussing is:

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'? not "Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?"

Try again.

This is the first sentence of the post.

There is no final hour in the concept of time without beginning.

That means there is no highest possible number of hours ago.

IN THE MODEL.

 

[George S]

That post comes AFTER your claim to have answered it five times, so it cannot represent any of those alleged five answers; And the question we are discussing is:

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'? not "Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?"

Try again.

This is the first sentence of the post.

There is no final hour in the concept of time without beginning.

That means there is no highest possible number of hours ago.

IN THE MODEL.

How about this:
In math infinity -1 is undefinable. [Similarly -infinity +1, the unter problem.] However, in the reality of energy infinity -1 is definable and becomes the smallest unit of time. Energy expresses itself in frequency and wavelength. When the wavelength is too short for a higher frequency to exist, you have achieved infinity -1. Time is a measure of change and since energy can not have an expression faster than infinity -1, this is therefore the base unit of time. -- answer in a physics forum by someone claiming to be a professor of physics.

 

[bilby]

That post comes AFTER your claim to have answered it five times, so it cannot represent any of those alleged five answers; And the question we are discussing is:

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'? not "Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?"

Try again.

This is the first sentence of the post.

A post that comes AFTER your claim to have 'answered it five times'. But which is the only example you can find of you having answered it at all.

You are so full of shit.

There is no final hour in the concept of time without beginning.

That means there is no highest possible number of hours ago.

IN THE MODEL.

So you are saying that a past without beginning would be INFINITE. It has no highest possible number of hours ago. Despite having a clearly defined END.

Do you think that this could perhaps be problematic for your thesis that infinite time in the past is not logically possible? Or does the mere fact that infinite time in the past is logically possible not shake that particular belief?

 

[untermensche]

-infinity +1, the unter problem

If you say so.

My problem is that real infinities don't finish.

And the past does at every moment.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are saying that a past without beginning would be INFINITE. It has no highest possible number of hours ago. Despite having a clearly defined END.

In my model the number 1 is the start.

I modeled infinite time in the past with a start.

 

[bilby]

If you say so.

My problem is that real infinities don't finish.

And the past does at every moment.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are saying that a past without beginning would be INFINITE. It has no highest possible number of hours ago. Despite having a clearly defined END.

In my model the number 1 is the start.

I modeled infinite time in the past with a start.

Because we are talking about time. Not something without dimension.

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

The START according to YOU is "1 hour ago".

This stupid equivocation on the meaning of 'start' and 'end' has been your problem from the outset.

Try to fucking concentrate, and hold onto one idea while thinking of the next - IF the START is '1 hour ago', and then you move on to '2 hours ago', etc; Then the FINISH is nonexistent.

You modeled the infinite past with a START at now. Counting BACKWARDS, it has no END.

When we observe the SAME model, but counting FORWARDS, there is an END at '1 hour ago'; and no BEGINNING.

You have modeled time going backwards without end, or forwards without beginning (these are just two ways of looking at the EXACT same thing); Time actually goes forwards; and therefore in your model, the past has an END, but no BEGINNING.

 

[untermensche]

The START according to YOU is "1 hour ago".

In my model 1 hour ago is the first number. Number 1. It is the start to the infinite series.

This is just a model to try to show that time with no beginning is also time without end.

IF the START is '1 hour ago', and then you move on to '2 hours ago', etc; Then the FINISH is nonexistent.

Yes.

You modeled the infinite past with a START at now. Counting BACKWARDS, it has no END.

Yes

When we observe the SAME model, but counting FORWARDS, there is an END at '1 hour ago'; and no BEGINNING.

The model starts at 1. It only starts in one place.

You are taking about some totally different model. Not this model.

 

[bilby]

In my model 1 hour ago is the first number. Number 1. It is the start to the infinite series.

This is just a model to try to show that time with no beginning is also time without end.

There is absolutely no way to tell, from JUST the fact that a period of time has no beginning, whether or not it has an end. So you are doomed to fail before you even start.

IF the START is '1 hour ago', and then you move on to '2 hours ago', etc; Then the FINISH is nonexistent.

Yes.

You modeled the infinite past with a START at now. Counting BACKWARDS, it has no END.

Yes

When we observe the SAME model, but counting FORWARDS, there is an END at '1 hour ago'; and no BEGINNING.

The model starts at 1. It only starts in one place.

Yes, at the END. Because there is no beginning, because the past didn't start, because the past has always been, because the past is infinite.

Your attempts to define the beginning cannot succeed. That should be a strong hint.

You are taking about some totally different model. Not this model.

No, we are both talking about your model. The one that starts at the END of the past, and for which you are incapable of defining an endpoint, because there is no BEGINNING to the past, because it is infinite.

 

[untermensche]

The model starts at 1. It only starts in one place.

Yes, at the END.

The model starts at it's start.

It does not start anywhere else.

You have been reduced to gibberish.

This model is merely a model to show time with no beginning is the same thing as time with no end.

The model that shows infinite time in the past could not possibly have passed is the model of reciting ALL the integers.

It is easy to see that in infinite time in the future you could not recite ALL the integers. No matter how much time that passed there would still be more integers. You would never finish reciting them.

The past has finished at every moment.

The number of integers that could have been recited in it is finite since it has finished. It is impossible that ALL the integers were recited in the past.

It is impossible an infinity was completed in the past.

 

[bilby]

Yes, at the END.

The model starts at it's start.

It does not start anywhere else.

You have been reduced to gibberish.

It starts at the end of the past.

You have not yet departed from gibberish; Perhaps you could try to change that?

 

[untermensche]

The model starts at it's start.

It does not start anywhere else.

You have been reduced to gibberish.

It starts at the end of the past.

It starts at one.

It does not end there.

You are claiming it is possible an infinity finished at some moment.

You are claiming it was possible ALL the integers were recited before some moment.

 

[bilby]

It starts at the end of the past.

It starts at one.

It does not end there.

You are claiming it is possible an infinity finished at some moment.

You are claiming it was possible ALL the integers were recited before some moment.

I am claiming that, if the past is infinite, and has no beginning, it is impossible that an infinity did NOT finish at EVERY moment.

I understand that you resile from this, and that you hate hate HATE it; But that's no substitute for an actual logical argument showing it to be impossible; And you have yet to present any such argument.

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming it is possible an infinity finished at some moment.

You are claiming it was possible ALL the integers were recited before some moment.

I am claiming that, if the past is infinite..

That is impossible.

It is impossible that ALL the integers were recited before any moment in time.

You are not allowed to claim the past was infinite.

It is an irrational impossible claim.

 

[bilby]

I am claiming that, if the past is infinite..

That is impossible.

It is impossible that ALL the integers were recited before any moment in time.

You are not allowed to claim the past was infinite.

It is an irrational impossible claim.

All hypotheticals are reasonable.

They can be eliminated as possibilities only by demonstrating that they entail a contradiction, either in logic, or in the way that observed reality fails to match their predictions.

If you reject hypotheticals without any analysis, then you are engaged in faith, not thought. If you don't know how to think, then you should really learn how before you continue to try.

I am allowed to claim anything; If you want to rebut my claims, then you are free to do so using reason and logic; Or using observations that contradict the predictions of my hypotheses. Until you provide such a rebuttal, you can shove your "You are not allowed to claim the past was infinite", back up your arse where you apparently found it.

It is unreasonable to reject any statement beginning 'If...', on the basis that the conditional is contrary to your presumptions.

IF the past is infinite, and has no beginning, then it is impossible that an infinity did NOT finish at EVERY moment.

I understand that you resile from this, and that you hate hate HATE it; But that's no substitute for an actual logical argument showing it to be impossible; And you have yet to present any such argument.

 

[untermensche]

That is impossible.

It is impossible that ALL the integers were recited before any moment in time.

You are not allowed to claim the past was infinite.

It is an irrational impossible claim.

All hypotheticals are reasonable.

You cannot claim it is reasonably possible to do something impossible.

You cannot claim things like it is possible to count to the last integer.

They can be eliminated as possibilities only by demonstrating that they entail a contradiction, either in logic, or in the way that observed reality fails to match their predictions.

Being impossible is a contradiction.

Claiming an infinity completed in the past is irrational and impossible.

It is like claiming you counted to the end of all the integers in the past.

Because infinite time is the time it takes to count all the integers. It is an amount of time that never finishes. Never can finish.

You are not allowed to just claim it is possible infinite time was possible in the past you have to prove it was possible.

What is your proof infinite time in the past was possible?

 

[bilby]

All hypotheticals are reasonable.

You cannot claim it is reasonably possible to do something impossible.

You cannot claim things like it is possible to count to the last integer.

They can be eliminated as possibilities only by demonstrating that they entail a contradiction, either in logic, or in the way that observed reality fails to match their predictions.

Being impossible is a contradiction.

Claiming an infinity completed in the past is irrational and impossible.

It is like claiming you counted to the end of all the integers in the past.

Because infinite time is the time it takes to count all the integers. It is an amount of time that never finishes. Never can finish.

You are not allowed to just claim it is possible infinite time was possible in the past you have to prove it was possible.

What is your proof infinite time in the past was possible?

Nobody has presented any proof that it is not.

The great thing about proving anything to be possible (that has not been proven impossible) is that they all have the same, simple, single line proof.

'Nobody has presented any proof that it is not'.

Proving that something is real is much harder. But possible is a very low bar.

Of course, everyone who has the slightest grasp of epistemology would already know this; so that you ask the question is really informative regarding your lack of qualification to engage in this discussion to begin with.

You are too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

You are chasing an emotional attachment to a falsehood that you really like.

It's a very common human failing.

 

[untermensche]

'Nobody has presented any proof that it is not'.

We do not assume it is possible. It is easily shown to be impossible.

It is as possible as reciting ALL the integers.

It is now time for all those who claim infinite time in the past is possible to prove it.

Without a proof to merely assume it is possible is warped insanity.

It's like assuming one can flap their arms and fly to the Moon.

What is your proof it is possible that infinite time passed in the past?

What is your proof that it was possible to recite ALL the integers in the past?

 

[untermensche]

Rationally we can assume ALL claims about the possibility of something, without any evidence or rational argument to support them, are false.

We cannot rationally assume any claim is possible merely because it has been made.

All claims must be proven to be possible to be considered possible. Either with evidence or rational argument.

Nobody is allowed to merely claim infinite time in the past is possible. It is a statement about reality.

It is something that MUST be proven to be possible to assume it is possible.

I await the needed proof.

 

[abaddon]

What is your proof that it was possible to recite ALL the integers in the past?

But why require it?

I think that "ALL the integers" do not turn from infinite to finite if you haven't counted all the way from the "dot dot dot" at one end, through -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, to the "dot dot dot" at the other end. Having never started the counting, but having had always been counting, the counting cannot ever be finished even if you're presently counting one of the numbers "in the middle".

The zero's a moving target. There is no "finish" point that turns either the infinite integers or infinite time into finite integers or finite time if not "all" of either have passed. That's what the "dot dot dot" at either end means. Whatever number you're counting at the moment (whichever single number that could possibly be), there's an infinity of numbers you've already counted.

So if "ALL the integers" is supposed to be a one-to-one corresponding analogy to infinite time, don't change the character of infinite integers to make infinite time seem absurd. IOW, don't scrunch "ALL the integers" into a ball that needs to fit, in its totality, before the present moment and then claim absurdity. To maintain the analogy, counting all the integers would be an ongoing counting, but one that never started. So not "ALL the integers" must have been counted within infinite time for infinite time to have passed already at the present moment.

 

[untermensche]

What is your proof that it was possible to recite ALL the integers in the past?

But why require it?

Why abandon an understandable concept for something not understandable at all?

I think that "ALL the integers" do not turn from infinite to finite if you haven't counted all the way from the "dot dot dot" at one end, through -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, to the "dot dot dot" at the other end. Having never started the counting, but having had always been counting, the counting cannot ever be finished even if you're presently counting one of the numbers "in the middle".

Even if you had "always been counting" whatever that could possibly mean you could not finish.

Is reciting the integers a good model for infinite time in the future?

Is there any time missing in the model?

 

[untermensche]

Time moves in one direction.

At any moment in time all the time prior to that moment has passed. A moment need not be defined more than it is a finite amount of time. If a million years is defined as a moment, infinite time is still infinite moments.

Infinite time can be modeled with the idea of reciting the integers. The integers never end just as infinite time never ends.

If the claim is that infinite time can end at some moment that is like saying the counting of the integers could have ended there.

It is a totally irrational claim. It is impossible to rationally claim it.