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

[Juma]

Define ”time completing”.

When the second hand moves around one time one minute of time has completed.

It has finished. It is in the past.

”One minute” is a timespan. Not time itself.
Do you alwsys mean timespan when you write ”time”?
So that a timespsn hass passed t means that all time in the timespan is before a timepoint t.

If so then your proof is busted since even if tlme has been for ever, every timedpan is finite and thus according to your definitions can pass.

 

[beero1000]

Really. (at least in the reals, and if you want division to be well-defined)

Maybe if you are talking about infinity instead of infinite, but in the former case we can't be in standard math anymore.

I have to think that you and kar are teaking the rules - just a little - to rebuke UM's issue with 0.

But let it be 0 space moved at once; 0 in a strange way is more than nothing. Think of the empty set, no objects. But zero is 1 object just like a 4 is one object.

Something can take up 0 space on the number line on say position 7, but nothing cannot take up even 0 space on the number line. 0 > nothing

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'll repeat myself: In the real number system, you can't divide anything by infinity. If you want to do those operations, you need to go to an extended number system, say the extended reals or, if you want a field, something like the hyperreals, like Kharakov was saying.

 

[untermensche]

When the second hand moves around one time one minute of time has completed.

It has finished. It is in the past.

”One minute” is a timespan. Not time itself.

Do you alwsys mean timespan when you write ”time”?

Time itself does not complete. Time and space are the freedoms that allow events to happen.

Events "complete", like a second hand completing a revolution.

So that a timespsn hass passed t means that all time in the timespan is before a timepoint t.

I'm not sure what you're saying but before some point in time the totality of the prior "span" has completed. Nothing will be added to it.

If so then your proof is busted since even if tlme has been for ever, every timedpan is finite and thus according to your definitions can pass.

If time has been "forever", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, that is saying the time span before every moment in time WAS infinite.

So to get to any moment in time in such an absurd situation requires an infinite amount of time passing first.

Something that is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

I was given my language. I did not invent it.

It is only possible that a finite amount of bounces have already occurred.

If infinite bounces had to occur before you could be born you would not be here.

Your order is bias based on conscious experience. The bounces can be said to begin today and then successively bounce infinitely into the past. A movie does not have an absolute beginning unless someone assigns one. It's all in a dimension and its order is subjective, not objective.

My order?

I show up in the middle of some time span.

It is not possible the amount of time that passed before I got here was infinite.

Infinite time is not an amount of time that can pass.

If some event can only happen after infinite time has passed that event can never happen.

The fact that I do find myself within some time span is proof the time in the past was finite.

 

[Juma]

”One minute” is a timespan. Not time itself.

Do you alwsys mean timespan when you write ”time”?

Time itself does not complete. Time and space are the freedoms that allow events to happen.

Events "complete", like a second hand completing a revolution.

So that a timespsn hass passed t means that all time in the timespan is before a timepoint t.

I'm not sure what you're saying but before some point in time the totality of the prior "span" has completed. Nothing will be added to it.

If so then your proof is busted since even if tlme has been for ever, every timedpan is finite and thus according to your definitions can pass.

If time has been "forever", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, that is saying the time span before every moment in time WAS infinite.

So to get to any moment in time in such an absurd situation requires an infinite amount of time passing first.

Something that is impossible.

A timespan is always between two timepoints and thus always finite.

There is nothing strange with asssuming that time has always been.

 

[untermensche]

A timespan is always between two timepoints and thus always finite.

My point exactly.

 

[untermensche]

In this fantasy world that has no beginning exactly how much time much pass before some event like the starting of a second hand can occur?

 

[ryan]

Your order is bias based on conscious experience. The bounces can be said to begin today and then successively bounce infinitely into the past. A movie does not have an absolute beginning unless someone assigns one. It's all in a dimension and its order is subjective, not objective.

My order?

I show up in the middle of some time span.

You define the order of time as having a beginning and ending like when you say the past must "begin" a finite time ago and "finishes" now. But time is a dimension; there may not be an absolute/natural beginning or end. It is your order, not an objective order. There does not have to be an objective order.

 

[untermensche]

My order?

I show up in the middle of some time span.

You define the order of time as having a beginning and ending like when you say the past must "begin" a finite time ago and "finishes" now.

I define it?

Events happen in an order. Time and space are that which allows ordered events to take place.

I conclude the events in the past must be finite because it is impossible that infinite events occurred before some event.

 

[ryan]

You define the order of time as having a beginning and ending like when you say the past must "begin" a finite time ago and "finishes" now.

I define it?

Events happen in an order. Time and space are that which allows ordered events to take place.

I conclude the events in the past must be finite because it is impossible that infinite events occurred before some event.

Think about other dimensions except for time. Your home, for example, does it have a beginning and an end? When we look into the past, objects extending through the temporal dimension should be just as arbitrary. If you had only ever walked through your home once, you might be tricked in the same way in thinking that you home had an absolute beginning and ending. But we know that that is just how you perceive it.

 

[untermensche]

I define it?

Events happen in an order. Time and space are that which allows ordered events to take place.

I conclude the events in the past must be finite because it is impossible that infinite events occurred before some event.

Think about other dimensions except for time. Your home, for example, does it have a beginning and an end?

Most definitely. In several ways. It's size is defined and static. It has a beginning and end. The building of the home had a beginning and like all human structures it will have an end.

When we look into the past, objects extending through the temporal dimension should be just as arbitrary.

There is a very specific and unalterable order to the events in the past.

That is what it means that time has a direction. The events have a direction. The paper burnt does not unburn.

But the issue here is this silly notion of infinite events having somehow already taken place. So that before any event can occur infinite events must occur first.

An absurd possibility.

 

[Juma]

A timespan is always between two timepoints and thus always finite.

My point exactly.

Okay...
then what is your problem with ”time that has always been”? Any time span is between to timepoints and thus finite.
That time itself has always been doesnt mean that there are infinite timespans.

 

[untermensche]

My point exactly.

Okay...
then what is your problem with ”time that has always been”? Any time span is between to timepoints and thus finite.
That time itself has always been doesnt mean that there are infinite timespans.

What is the time span from some present time to time with no beginning?

 

[fast]

Are we on a train (the child's train) where the second is constant, or are we on a train (the scientists train) where the second changes in duration?

 

[George S]

Are we on a train (the child's train) where the second is constant, or are we on a train (the scientists train) where the second changes in duration?

The second never changes in duration. Locally, time is like, well, a metronome. One second per second.

An outside observer might, indeed, observe my clock as running slow. However, to me, my biological rate of getting older is constant.
A clock deeper in a gravity well appears to run slower than one far from a massive object. To the outside observer only. To the subject duration is constant.

You and I might well disagree as to which of two events occurred first. And we could both be right.*

A clock on the passing train appears to someone at the station to run slower than one second per second. Strangely the clock on the station appears to the passenger on the train to be running slower than one second per second. And they both are right. (Yes, Relativity is fun.)
___ETA
* In the case of entangled photons, I might observe that the measurement of polarization of photon A occurs before measurement of B, and you note that B was measured before A. Did one measurement cause the value of the measurement of the other? If so which?

 

[fast]

Are we on a train (the child's train) where the second is constant, or are we on a train (the scientists train) where the second changes in duration?

The second never changes in duration. Locally, time is like, well, a metronome. One second per second.

An outside observer might, indeed, observe my clock as running slow. However, to me, my biological rate of getting older is constant.
A clock deeper in a gravity well appears to run slower than one far from a massive object. To the outside observer only. To the subject duration is constant.

You and I might well disagree as to which of two events occurred first. And we could both be right.

A clock on the passing train appears to someone at the station to run slower than one second per second. Strangely the clock on the station appears to the passenger on the train to be running slower than one second per second. And they both are right. (Yes, Relativity is fun.)

That's a different train. I'm familiar with it, but the two trains I'm talking about are preEinsteinonion. I'm partial to the child's train perspective that does not allow for a second to change even should the number of seconds in a day change due to changes to objects in motion. The reason a mars second is different to an earths second is because of the tie to objects.

Even on earth, the second that remains constant is different than the second that is tied to objects in motion, which accounts for why we have leap years.

If we follow the scientists, there will be a change in duration even without the relativity stuff factored in.

 

[beero1000]

Okay...
then what is your problem with ”time that has always been”? Any time span is between to timepoints and thus finite.
That time itself has always been doesnt mean that there are infinite timespans.

What is the time span from some present time to time with no beginning?

lmao. What are your two timepoints for that time span?

The second never changes in duration. Locally, time is like, well, a metronome. One second per second.

An outside observer might, indeed, observe my clock as running slow. However, to me, my biological rate of getting older is constant.
A clock deeper in a gravity well appears to run slower than one far from a massive object. To the outside observer only. To the subject duration is constant.

You and I might well disagree as to which of two events occurred first. And we could both be right.

A clock on the passing train appears to someone at the station to run slower than one second per second. Strangely the clock on the station appears to the passenger on the train to be running slower than one second per second. And they both are right. (Yes, Relativity is fun.)

That's a different train. I'm familiar with it, but the two trains I'm talking about are preEinsteinonion. I'm partial to the child's train perspective that does not allow for a second to change even should the number of seconds in a day change due to changes to objects in motion. The reason a mars second is different to an earths second is because of the tie to objects.

Even on earth, the second that remains constant is different than the second that is tied to objects in motion, which accounts for why we have leap years.

If we follow the scientists, there will be a change in duration even without the relativity stuff factored in.

My definitions handle all of those by not requiring that kind of regularity for clocks. More interestingly though, how can you account for seconds changing on your clock without another equivalent clock in order to compare them?

 

[untermensche]

Are we on a train (the child's train) where the second is constant, or are we on a train (the scientists train) where the second changes in duration?

You are on a train where events can happen.

It does not matter what the relative speed of the events are.

How many events have taken place between some present event and "events without beginning"?

How many events must occur before any event can occur in such a system?

 

[Juma]

Okay...
then what is your problem with ”time that has always been”? Any time span is between to timepoints and thus finite.
That time itself has always been doesnt mean that there are infinite timespans.

What is the time span from some present time to time with no beginning?

You question doesnt make sense. ”Time with no beginning” is description of time itself. Not a timepoint.

 

[fast]

What is the time span from some present time to time with no beginning?

lmao. What are your two timepoints for that time span?

The second never changes in duration. Locally, time is like, well, a metronome. One second per second.

An outside observer might, indeed, observe my clock as running slow. However, to me, my biological rate of getting older is constant.
A clock deeper in a gravity well appears to run slower than one far from a massive object. To the outside observer only. To the subject duration is constant.

You and I might well disagree as to which of two events occurred first. And we could both be right.

A clock on the passing train appears to someone at the station to run slower than one second per second. Strangely the clock on the station appears to the passenger on the train to be running slower than one second per second. And they both are right. (Yes, Relativity is fun.)

That's a different train. I'm familiar with it, but the two trains I'm talking about are preEinsteinonion. I'm partial to the child's train perspective that does not allow for a second to change even should the number of seconds in a day change due to changes to objects in motion. The reason a mars second is different to an earths second is because of the tie to objects.

Even on earth, the second that remains constant is different than the second that is tied to objects in motion, which accounts for why we have leap years.

If we follow the scientists, there will be a change in duration even without the relativity stuff factored in.

My definitions handle all of those by not requiring that kind of regularity for clocks. More interestingly though, how can you account for seconds changing on your clock without another equivalent clock in order to compare them?

I'm not sure I understand, but let me answer and you tell me where I missed the point, lol.

If a second (according to my super duper never lose time clock) is a day/24/60/60, then the amount of time is exact and corresponds directly with how long a particular animal times 120 can and must hold his breath when submerging under water.

Again, let's take my state of the art watch that never loses or adds time no matter how we might otherwise fiddle with time. A second times 60 times 60 times 24 gives us what I'll call a permi-day--the number of seconds in a permanent day.

Well, it just so happens that the thingamabopper doesn't rotate around the other thingamabopper with such exact precision, so, and over time (oh, about four years), there is a difference in the number of actual seconds. That leaves us with the option of either altering the second (which is a no no to the child, and surprisingly to the scientists as well) and adding on another whole day which can mathematically be compared in seconds.

Let's go back to the animal. When it goes under, it stays under for exactly 120 child seconds, no more, no less. If it stayed under for less, it dies. If it stays under for more, it dies. The animal never dies, so it stays under for exactly 120 permi-seconds.

If you take a four year period which is 365+365+365+366 days, then the animal dies because a true second doesn't correspond to the calculable second, since the sum of the previous figure divided by four/365/24/60/60 is not the same as if the 366 was a 365.