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

[untermensche]

Any and all claims of a real infinity when actually checked devolve almost immediately into absurdity.

What was absurd about the universe that I suggested where the only thing that exists is a spinning object. Is the number of times that it spins finite?

Nothing can have already made infinite spins.

There are not an amount that can be made.

They are spins without end.

 

[beero1000]

I need to be less sober when reading this thread.

 

[ryan]

What was absurd about the universe that I suggested where the only thing that exists is a spinning object. Is the number of times that it spins finite?

Nothing can have already made infinite spins.

There are not an amount that can be made.

They are spins without end.

I did not say anything about infinite. Is infinite an implication?

 

[beero1000]

I agree. I only talk in terms of integers because the writer of the Opening Post does. To be clear, I'm not questioning your point so your point needs no clarification at all. I'm asking for a comment on my point.

To fit the arrow example more directly to untermensche's "reciting" integers analogy (in spite of it being a crappy model), let's say it's an arrow that has been flying forever (the OP talks about "infinite yesterdays") but lands in its target. Apparently to untermensche that kills infinity. To my mind, the flight that ended was still infinite regardless of ending. (Though it's debatable that it "ended").

untermensche's infinity-killer idea (or one of them) was that ending anywhere (like at the present moment) stops infinite yesterdays from being possible.

A recitation of increasing integers, no matter when begun, will never complete.

Right. That's what untermensche was on about, but saying it undoes infinity. My point is it does not, the completion or lack of it doesn't matter. You and Kharakov seem more adroit at discussing things at this level of abstraction so I'm asking for other views (and manners of expressing them) than mine on this.

Thanks!

The key phrase here is "no matter when begun", because any recitation of the naturals must have a beginning and no end. Untermensche's question begging is focused on the unjustified assumption that we started the recitation an infinite amount of time ago. But time without beginning doesn't require a moment in time an infinite amount of time ago, only that there is no bound on how far back in time we could have started. He just doesn't understand the difference.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing can have already made infinite spins.

There are not an amount that can be made.

They are spins without end.

I did not say anything about infinite. Is infinite an implication?

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

My position, and nobody have moved me from this position is that real infinities are as imaginary as infinity itself.

The fact that the arrow hits the target proves it did not have to make infinite movements.

 

[untermensche]

The key phrase here is "no matter when begun", because any recitation of the naturals must have a beginning and no end. Untermensche's question begging is focused on the unjustified assumption that we started the recitation an infinite amount of time ago. But time without beginning doesn't require a moment in time an infinite amount of time ago, only that there is no bound on how far back in time we could have started. He just doesn't understand the difference.

Yes if we want to get real for any event to occur there must be a start to it.

And for any time to occur there must be a start to it too.

Saying there can be time with no start is irrational.

If there is time there can be events.

If you claim that time can have no start you are saying some event can have no start.

It is like saying you can have the counting of the integers without ever starting the count.

Irrational. Impossible.

 

[beero1000]

The key phrase here is "no matter when begun", because any recitation of the naturals must have a beginning and no end. Untermensche's question begging is focused on the unjustified assumption that we started the recitation an infinite amount of time ago. But time without beginning doesn't require a moment in time an infinite amount of time ago, only that there is no bound on how far back in time we could have started. He just doesn't understand the difference.

Yes if we want to get real for any event to occur there must be a start to it.

And for any time to occur there must be a start to it too.

Saying there can be time with no start is irrational.

If there is time there can be events.

If you claim that time can have no start you are saying some event can have no start.

It is like saying you can have the counting of the integers without ever starting the count.

Irrational. Impossible.

Blatant question begging and unjustified assertions that are obvious fallacies to everyone but you. You'll have to repeat those assertions infinitely many more times to have any chance of convincing anyone.

Predictable. Boring.

 

[untermensche]

I still await the proof that time can possibly have no start.

I await the proof that it is possible that infinite time can pass and be done before some moment in time.

Many many claims it is possible.

Not one shred of proof or rational argument.

 

[untermensche]

Yes if we want to get real for any event to occur there must be a start to it.

And for any time to occur there must be a start to it too.

Saying there can be time with no start is irrational.

If there is time there can be events.

If you claim that time can have no start you are saying some event can have no start.

It is like saying you can have the counting of the integers without ever starting the count.

Irrational. Impossible.

Blatant question begging and unjustified assertions that are obvious fallacies to everyone but you. You'll have to repeat those assertions infinitely many more times to have any chance of convincing anyone.

Predictable. Boring.

I said before this is all YOUR problem. You clearly did not comprehend it then and still do not.

The second YOU say it is possible for time to exist without beginning you are claiming it is possible for events to occur without beginning.

Your irrational nonsense is not my question begging.

You are putting forth an irrational premise.

It is as possible that infinite time finished before some moment in time as it is to recite all the integers before that moment.

How is it possible to recite without a beginning to the recital?

The same way it is possible to have time without beginning.

It is just your nonsense reflected back to you.

Don't ask me to make sense of it. I have said it makes no sense.

 

[beero1000]

Classic untermensche "logic": If it's possible for some event to occur without a beginning then it must be possible for every event to occur without a beginning.

These threads are a compendium of all the different ways untermensche can fuck up simple logic. It would be impressive if it wasn't so sad.

 

[Kharakov]

By your words you indicate you don't understand that an arc length can be bisected, then that arc length, then that arc length.... never being "0".

Spacetime appears smooth- all experiments indicate that it is, the foundations of modern physical science assume that it is and make correct predictions using that assumption. This means that spacetime can be subdivided infinitely. This means that any time you spin around, you've faced an infinite amount of directions.

If you turn your head 1 micron, you're scanning a huge volume of space. If you turn your head .5 microns, you're scanning a huge volume of space.... so on and so forth. You're not going to get meaningful information without a telescope array, but...

What is 360 degrees divided by infinity?

The fact that you can divide it by any real number (other than 0) should be enough to show you how many times you can divide it.

How many degrees are these alleged infinite divisions?

The point is that in continuous space, turning slightly results in you scanning through infinite possible arc lengths. You'd need to understand continuous space a bit better to get it though.

 

[untermensche]

Classic untermensche "logic": If it's possible for some event to occur without a beginning then it must be possible for every event to occur without a beginning.

These threads are a compendium of all the different ways untermensche can fuck up simple logic. It would be impressive if it wasn't so sad.

That's about as bad as it gets.

The start of the reciting of the integers is one event.

Not every event.

If time can exist without beginning then one event can exist without beginning.

Even if this whole nonsense about no beginnings is too absurd to take seriously.

I await the proof that it is possible that time can exist without a beginning.

I await the proof that an infinity can complete before some moment in time.

Concepts with no real world correlate, like no beginnings, requite robust proofs.

When there are not even weak speculations how it could be possible to take any of it seriously takes a special kind of "education".

 

[untermensche]

What is 360 degrees divided by infinity?

The fact that you can divide it by any real number (other than 0) should be enough to show you how many times you can divide it.

That is an evasion.

How many degrees are these alleged infinite divisions?

The point is that in continuous space, turning slightly results in you scanning through infinite possible arc lengths. You'd need to understand continuous space a bit better to get it though.

Another evasion.

If you divide 360 degrees by infinity how many degrees are in each division?

 

[beero1000]

Classic untermensche "logic": If it's possible for some event to occur without a beginning then it must be possible for every event to occur without a beginning.

These threads are a compendium of all the different ways untermensche can fuck up simple logic. It would be impressive if it wasn't so sad.

That's about as bad as it gets.

The start of the reciting of the integers is one event.

Not every event.

If time can exist without beginning then one event can exist without beginning.

Even if this whole nonsense about no beginnings is too absurd to take seriously.

I await the proof that it is possible that time can exist without a beginning.

I await the proof that an infinity can complete before some moment in time.

Concepts with no real world correlate, like no beginnings, requite robust proofs.

When there are not even weak speculations how it could be possible to take any of it seriously takes a special kind of "education".

Lmao. You think that's better. Too absurd to take seriously is right.

 

[untermensche]

Your proofs are somewhat wanting.

 

[beero1000]

Your proofs are somewhat wanting.

I have yet to see any evidence that you know what a proof is, let alone possess the ability to judge their quality. You can't even recognize the logical fallacies you spout in basically every post, so before you start passing judgement, you could stand to have a little less confidence in your own abilities, and a little more education in formal logic.

 

[Juma]

The fact that you can divide it by any real number (other than 0) should be enough to show you how many times you can divide it.

That is an evasion.

How many degrees are these alleged infinite divisions?

The point is that in continuous space, turning slightly results in you scanning through infinite possible arc lengths. You'd need to understand continuous space a bit better to get it though.

Another evasion.

If you divide 360 degrees by infinity how many degrees are in each division?

The same is true about any timespan between any two events.

 

[untermensche]

Your proofs are somewhat wanting.

I have yet to see any evidence that you know what a proof is, let alone possess the ability to judge their quality. You can't even recognize the logical fallacies you spout in basically every post, so before you start passing judgement, you could stand to have a little less confidence in your own abilities, and a little more education in formal logic.

You have NOTHING. You have no evidence, no argument, no sense.

You talk about something like "no beginning" as if you have some understanding of it. You don't.

It is a nonsensical totally irrational idea that breaks down into absurdity if you try to examine it.

Which is why you have supported your nonsense in no way.

You are a tiresome smug child that doesn't understand the difference between things made up and the real world.

 

[untermensche]

That is an evasion.

How many degrees are these alleged infinite divisions?

The point is that in continuous space, turning slightly results in you scanning through infinite possible arc lengths. You'd need to understand continuous space a bit better to get it though.

Another evasion.

If you divide 360 degrees by infinity how many degrees are in each division?

The same is true about any timespan between any two events.

Yes.

If you divide anything by infinity you get zero.

You cannot end up with zero in the real world and still claim to have something.

You can only do that in the imaginary world of mathematics.

What this takes is understanding the difference between things imaginary and things real.

 

[Kharakov]

I need to be less sober when reading this thread.

Infinite spins. Maybe not.