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

[abaddon]

Reciting the integers = working through infinite time.

THIS^. The integer-reciting time-walker does only this if there were no start to time.

Is it possible to recite ALL the integers?

I really think my point can be reduced to that question.

What does the dot-dot-dot in {... , -4, -3, -2, -1} imply? My point can be reduced to that question.

Never mind the signs for numbers there, they're nothing but examples and could be any other integers (because you specified integers for your model). Pay attention ONLY to the ellipsis. Address ONLY the ellipsis.

I'm not a student of mathematics, I had college algebra and don't remember much of it, it's just been work-a-day math since then. So I might be wrong and want to know it if I am. There's no bare assertion; I made an argument to support my idea; it's a challenge to your idea that "ALL the integers" must be counted; it's a challenge to your analogy of counting integers to time's passing. So don't say "you can't just assert <and then put words in my mouth>" to me.

Doesn't the "dot dot dot" mean "and so and so forth"? And doesn't that imply "to infinity"? If so then how do you fit THAT into your simple model? Or, if you haven't fit that into your simple model, why not?

 

[untermensche]

What does the dot-dot-dot in {... , -4, -3, -2, -1} imply? My point can be reduced to that question.

Suppose we say that every negative number corresponds to somebody saying a unique integer.

Are you claiming it is possible that every possible integer was expressed before -1 and -1 was the LAST integer expressed?

If so how would you prove that is possible?

In infinite time in the future is it possible to express ALL the integers?

 

[untermensche]

What's the distinction between "time is infinite" and "time is eternal"?

Eternal is a religious term.

Infinite time is a way to make the term seem more presentable.

 

[abaddon]

What does the dot-dot-dot in {... , -4, -3, -2, -1} imply? My point can be reduced to that question.

Suppose we say that every negative number corresponds to somebody saying a unique integer...

No let's not do that again.

What I'm asking:

Will you pay attention ONLY to the ellipsis and address ONLY the ellipsis within the set I'm presenting to you?

What your response is, time and again:

You pay attention only to the numeral signs and totally ignore the ellipsis.

Are you claiming it is possible that every possible integer was expressed before -1 and -1 was the LAST integer expressed?

No.

In infinite time in the future is it possible to express ALL the integers?

No. You made up the absurdity of someone reciting "ALL the integers", then said infinite time is "like" that in order to transfer the absurdity to infinite time (though it's not clear how "like" they really are). So the only thing you've demonstrated is counting "ALL the integers" in any length of time is an absurd conception. And you've demonstrated nothing more. But it's your baby; so don't blame the absurdity of counting "ALL the integers" on anyone or anything else.

 

[beero1000]

Anybody taught anything by you is getting ripped off.

You have NO ability to think reasonably and no ability to form a rational argument.

You are thoroughly full of shit.

I'm distraught that you have such a low opinion of my intellect. I guess I'll have to go re-evaluate my life now.

You think it is possible to recite ALL the integers in the past and are far too stupid to understand the absolute impossibility of doing it.

You talk about a difference of order type IN THE SAME EXACT SET.

Isomorphic sets, not the same exact set, but the order type is a property of the poset anyway, so that doesn't even matter. 1 hour ago happens after 2 hours ago, but 1 hour from now happens before 2 hours from now. Do you understand the implication of that? Probably not, but we'll chalk that up to your continuing ignorance and go on our merry way.

 

[untermensche]

In infinite time in the future is it possible to express ALL the integers?

No.

That is right.

There is no possible way to express them.

What makes you think it is possible infinite time could be expressed in the past?

What is your proof it is possible for infinite time to have finished at some moment?

- - - Updated - - -

Isomorphic sets, not the same exact set, but the order type is a property of the poset anyway, so that doesn't even matter. 1 hour ago happens after 2 hours ago, but 1 hour from now happens before 2 hours from now. Do you understand the implication of that? Probably not, but we'll chalk that up to your continuing ignorance and go on our merry way.

You are desperate.

Give me the proof it is possible there could be infinite time in the past.

That is where we are.

The folks that believe imaginary things can take life need to prove their nonsense.

 

[fast]

We are in the here and now (which is sequentially subsequent to the most recent passing moments of the past), and we could not have gotten to perch here in this fleeting moment of the here and now (the present) if the past is actually in fact infinite, for in order for that to have happened, not only is it the case that more moments in time would have had to have passed than is physically possible, but there has to in fact be a physical correlate to a non-mental reality.

The notion that it could have physically happened (that we got to arrive here in the present) given infinite time to do so presupposes the kind of logical possibilities that cannot manifest itself in reality, so either we're not in the here and now (which, of course, is false) or an infinite past is not compatible with us in the present.

With that said (about the past), it should be noted that nor is it the case that there is an infinity of time of the future that any substance of our world could physically coexist in. Like a target that cannot be hit, we can never even approach infinity, let alone clasp upon it. We are disillusioned to think it's just beyond our grasp, as it's not even there for even the unlikely chance of the present meeting up with eternity.

We have a concept of infinity, but it applies not to anything of our material world, as neither time nor space can continue indefinitately and take hold of this thing posited as infinity.

Open to logic, I am, but not of the variety that includes the kinds sparked by imaginative processes, so with that being said, the oft taught semblances of notions flirtering around scholastic halls (like logical possibilities) will be met and dealt with the utmost disdain it deserves).

[/Fast drinking trying to portray the gist of U]

 

[untermensche]

We are in the here and now (which is sequentially subsequent to the most recent passing moments of the past), and we could not have gotten to perch here in this fleeting moment of the here and now (the present) if the past is actually in fact infinite, for in order for that to have happened, not only is it the case that more moments in time would have had to have passed than is physically possible, but there has to in fact be a physical correlate to a non-mental reality.

Yes. Infinite time can never be expressed. It is like expressing the integers. It is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an end to it.

If we ever find an end to time, like time in the past ending at every present moment we know for certain the time before it could not possibly have been infinite. It was ALL expressed. Something that cannot be done with the integers or infinite time.

The notion that it could have physically happened (that we got to arrive here in the present) given infinite time to do so presupposes the kind of logical possibilities that cannot manifest itself in reality, so either we're not in the here and now (which, of course, is false) or an infinite past is not compatible with us in the present.

The idea of infinite time in the past immediately breaks down to absurdity. It is an absurd impossible idea.

To utter it shows an inability to reason.

 

[untermensche]

A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.

We can clearly see this is a dynamic concept. It is the idea of an ever growing ever expanding amount.

So the idea of a real infinity can be thought of as dynamic.

As opposed to a finite amount of time. That is an amount of time that is fixed and unchanging, static.

What is certain is that at every moment in time the past is fixed. It is unchanging. It is static.

It is finite.

 

[ryan]

A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.

We can clearly see this is a dynamic concept. It is the idea of an ever growing ever expanding amount.

So the idea of a real infinity can be thought of as dynamic.

As opposed to a finite amount of time. That is an amount of time that is fixed and unchanging, static.

What is certain is that at every moment in time the past is fixed. It is unchanging. It is static.

It is finite.

But the past is not finite. It does not end right now; it may end or it may not.

 

[untermensche]

But the past is not finite. It does not end right now; it may end or it may not.

The time that passed in the past ends. At the present.

At any moment in time the past is finished, static, unchanging.

Finite.

 

[ryan]

But the past is not finite. It does not end right now; it may end or it may not.

The time that passed in the past ends. At the present.

At any moment in time the past is finished, static, unchanging.

Finite.

Yes, I know that, but you said, "A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.".

But the past increases with every passing moment. It seems to fit your definition of infinity just fine.

 

[Kharakov]

A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.

We can clearly see this is a dynamic concept. It is the idea of an ever growing ever expanding amount.

So the idea of a real infinity can be thought of as dynamic.

No. I suppose some infinities are dynamic, but infinity isn't an "increasing amount", it's an undefined amount.


I notice you still don't understand that a past without a beginning is infinite. I'm impressed by the power of your intellect to resist information.

 

[untermensche]

A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.

We can clearly see this is a dynamic concept. It is the idea of an ever growing ever expanding amount.

So the idea of a real infinity can be thought of as dynamic.

No. I suppose some infinities are dynamic, but infinity isn't an "increasing amount", it's an undefined amount.

That's a cop out.

It is undefined in a specific way.

It is undefined because it expands forever and never stops.

I notice you still don't understand that a past without a beginning is infinite.

I understand that is the concept.

I also understand nobody has shown it is possible.

I assume, as I assume with all things that have no argument or evidence to support them, it is not.

 

[untermensche]

The time that passed in the past ends. At the present.

At any moment in time the past is finished, static, unchanging.

Finite.

Yes, I know that, but you said, "A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.".

But the past increases with every passing moment. It seems to fit your definition of infinity just fine.

You have to look at the past from a present moment in time. From some defined point in time. That is where the past ends.

At a moment in time the past is not expanding, it has all passed, it has all been expressed.

 

[Juma]

No. I suppose some infinities are dynamic, but infinity isn't an "increasing amount", it's an undefined amount.

That's a cop out.

It is undefined in a specific way.

It is undefined because it expands forever and never stops.

I notice you still don't understand that a past without a beginning is infinite.

I understand that is the concept.

I also understand nobody has shown it is possible.

I assume, as I assume with all things that have no argument or evidence to support them, it is not.

In real world you have to assume something possible until you find/realize something that prevents it from being possible.
On the other hand you should assume unnecessary things.
So dont believe in imagined teapots in mars orbit, and dont reject ”time without beginning” until you found a logical or empirical reason to.
Capiche?
something

 

[untermensche]

In real world you have to assume something possible until you find/realize something that prevents it from being possible.

So everybody who says their god is real we just assume it is possible without evidence?

I don't see that as rational or parsimonious.

On the other hand you should assume unnecessary things.

I assume you meant we should not assume unnecessary things.

Like infinite time in the past.

 

[ryan]

Yes, I know that, but you said, "A real infinity is not an amount. It is two ideas. The idea of amount and the idea of an increasing amount without end.".

But the past increases with every passing moment. It seems to fit your definition of infinity just fine.

You have to look at the past from a present moment in time. From some defined point in time. That is where the past ends.

At a moment in time the past is not expanding, it has all passed, it has all been expressed.

This is where derivatives come into play. A position on a hill at the halfway will be increasing as you move up it, finite but increasing. The point at the top of the hill is not increasing.

 

[Juma]

So everybody who says their god is real we just assume it is possible without evidence?

I don't see that as rational or parsimonious.

On the other hand you should assume unnecessary things.

I assume you meant we should not assume unnecessary things.

Like infinite time in the past.

How is that unnecessary? Time has a history. There are two possibilities: either has time a beginning or it has not. There are no other options and it must be of these. So unless you can prove that time had a beginning or that not having a beginning is not possible then you must be open to both possibilties.


The question of gods is totally different. All gods commonly believed in are physically impossible. (Due to specifics in how they are defined)

 

[untermensche]

You have to look at the past from a present moment in time. From some defined point in time. That is where the past ends.

At a moment in time the past is not expanding, it has all passed, it has all been expressed.

This is where derivatives come into play. A position on a hill at the halfway will be increasing as you move up it, finite but increasing. The point at the top of the hill is not increasing.

This is not a curve.

Time is the dimension and you have events within it.

Infinite time means infinite events, events that never end.

But at any moment ALL the events in the past have ended.