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

[fromderinside]

Think of it as "time is". That way there is no need for a beginning. If there were a need for a beginning then time is wouldn't apply would it. Why would there be need for the concept of eternal if there were a need to specify a time beginning?

I disagree with Juma to some extent. Time between two points can be infinite. Consider time points as being on a line. Lines are made up of infinite points else there would be no continuous line between those two points.

"Time is" is nonsensical too. That's like saying "events is" or "change is".

It does not make any sense and those that claim it does think the emperor's new clothing is great.

Delusion.

It would be better if you took the whole construction. Then the emptiness of your assertions would be obvious. If one has no need for a beginning then one is free to say time is. Beginnings imply some causal reason for time to appear. As a construction time measures duration. Put starting points on the construction and one removes the need for a beginning other than as a point of reference as in:

The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

*

Now we have a definition that meets operational needs. A beginning would be the time at which event A took place. We would be able to define time units and relate time to events. Beginning requires an entirely different construction since one would have to have some idea of what was there at that time.

* ^{_{https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/}}

 

[untermensche]

So the frames and all that pertain to them appear by magic the same way infinite time passes?

Why do they ever have to appear?

They are a human construct, not a naturally occurring phenomena.

Without an observer they do not exist.

They think they can push time back forever and somehow get to today.

They don't seem to have any comprehension what forever means.

An eternity for them is something that happened in the past.

Suppose a block universe is true (I don't really think it is, but we can't rule it out either), how old is my future; how long has my future existed for? Similarly, how old is all that has existed and ever will exist?

You seem to think the universe can be something other than how it appears to you. Your vantage point and the scale in which you observe is arbitrary. But from your vantage point and scale everything around you is exactly as it is. The rock is out there. The tree is out there. No thoughts can make them not exist.

The events you see are really happening.

The past you imagine are really events that took place.

Can infinite events have already taken place?

 

[untermensche]

Time goes on from where?

How do you go on if you have no beginning?

Why would you need a beginning? What is so miracolous about a beginning?

What is miraculous and irrational is the idea of no beginning. It makes no sense and cannot be made to make sense. It is an idea that has no real world correlate.

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time

Assume there is no T1. How is there a T2 or a T200,000,000,000,000?

How does anything exist unless it has a beginning?

How did we get to this point in time unless there was a T2 and a T3 and so on until today, whatever T today is?

 

[untermensche]

"Time is" is nonsensical too. That's like saying "events is" or "change is".

It does not make any sense and those that claim it does think the emperor's new clothing is great.

Delusion.

It would be better if you took the whole construction.

The whole construction is this absurd idea of an event happening that has no beginning.

That is what saying "time with no beginning" implies.

If one has no need for a beginning then one is free to say time is.

True.

If you could show me something that had no beginning then we could say it is something real.

Beginnings imply some causal reason for time to appear.

No beginning implies time never appears.

 

[ryan]

Why do they ever have to appear?

They are a human construct, not a naturally occurring phenomena.

Without an observer they do not exist.

Again, it's just the objects in space at rest relative to one another. Humans don't need to be here for that to exist.

Suppose a block universe is true (I don't really think it is, but we can't rule it out either), how old is my future; how long has my future existed for? Similarly, how old is all that has existed and ever will exist?

You seem to think the universe can be something other than how it appears to you.

That's what illusions and dreams do.

Your vantage point and the scale in which you observe is arbitrary. But from your vantage point and scale everything around you is exactly as it is. The rock is out there. The tree is out there. No thoughts can make them not exist.

The events you see are really happening.

The past you imagine are really events that took place.

Can infinite events have already taken place?

There are at least a few ways that I can see it happen.

It boils down to this. Can change exist without a beginning?

 

[untermensche]

They are a human construct, not a naturally occurring phenomena.

Without an observer they do not exist.

Again, it's just the objects in space at rest relative to one another. Humans don't need to be here for that to exist.

Objects in space have a relationship to one another. A single relationship.

If you look at the relationship it can appear different depending from where you look.

If nobody is looking there is only one relationship.

Without an observer no variation in the appearance of events is possible.

Variation and alternative points of view enter the picture AFTER an observer exists.

You seem to think the universe can be something other than how it appears to you.

That's what illusions and dreams do.

You're describing religion where your evidence is only a dream.

No dream can make the events in the past not the events in the past. No dream can wish them away.

The ONLY issue is whether it is possible there were infinite events before some present event.

The frenzied dance begins when that is asked to the believers of things with no beginning.

Your vantage point and the scale in which you observe is arbitrary. But from your vantage point and scale everything around you is exactly as it is. The rock is out there. The tree is out there. No thoughts can make them not exist.

The events you see are really happening.

The past you imagine are really events that took place.

Can infinite events have already taken place?

Can change exist without a beginning?

Same question as can time exist without a beginning.

Change is where one thing becomes something else.

How does a change occur if it never begins?

How is there change unless something exists to change?

 

[ryan]

Again, it's just the objects in space at rest relative to one another. Humans don't need to be here for that to exist.

Objects in space have a relationship to one another. A single relationship.

If you look at the relationship it can appear different depending from where you look.

If nobody is looking there is only one relationship.

Without an observer no variation in the appearance of events is possible.

Variation and alternative points of view enter the picture AFTER an observer exists.

That's wrong. It is more than appearance; I tried to explained this.

You don't need to know or understand relativity to understand that striking proof I posted. Objectively speaking, the lights turned on at the same time AND they didn't. Both happened; I hope you really think about this and understand this. No human should live and die without understanding this; it's absolutely amazing!

You seem to think the universe can be something other than how it appears to you.

That's what illusions and dreams do.

You're describing religion where your evidence is only a dream.

But you're the one saying that appearances are real.

Can change exist without a beginning?

Same question as can time exist without a beginning.

Change is where one thing becomes something else.

How does a change occur if it never begins?

How is there change unless something exists to change?

What if we live in a repeating universe (Big Bounce theory)? Wouldn't it just make sense to say that change is an intrinsic property of reality/existence/universe? "Beginning" of change would have no meaning. It would be like asking how old the color green is in that same universe.

 

[untermensche]

Objects in space have a relationship to one another. A single relationship.

If you look at the relationship it can appear different depending from where you look.

If nobody is looking there is only one relationship.

Without an observer no variation in the appearance of events is possible.

Variation and alternative points of view enter the picture AFTER an observer exists.

That's wrong. It is more than appearance; I tried to explained this.

I do not accept that there can be human creations without humans.

You seem to think the universe can be something other than how it appears to you.

That's what illusions and dreams do.

You're describing religion where your evidence is only a dream.

But you're the one saying that appearances are real.

No I am saying the representations in our minds point to things that are really happening.

Humans are actually walking around. The Big Bang actually happened.

No dream can make that go away.

Can change exist without a beginning?

Same question as can time exist without a beginning.

Change is where one thing becomes something else.

How does a change occur if it never begins?

How is there change unless something exists to change?

What if we live in a repeating universe (Big Bounce theory)?

I answered this once already.

It is impossible that there were infinite bounces before a current bounce.

If infinite bounces must occur before a current bounce then the current bounce can never happen.

 

[Juma]

Why would you need a beginning? What is so miracolous about a beginning?

What is miraculous and irrational is the idea of no beginning. It makes no sense and cannot be made to make sense. It is an idea that has no real world correlate.

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time

Assume there is no T1. How is there a T2 or a T200,000,000,000,000?

How does anything exist unless it has a beginning?

How did we get to this point in time unless there was a T2 and a T3 and so on until today, whatever T today is?

How did T(0) (the alleged first time) hapen if there wasnt a T(-1)? Etc...

 

[untermensche]

What is miraculous and irrational is the idea of no beginning. It makes no sense and cannot be made to make sense. It is an idea that has no real world correlate.

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time

Assume there is no T1. How is there a T2 or a T200,000,000,000,000?

How does anything exist unless it has a beginning?

How did we get to this point in time unless there was a T2 and a T3 and so on until today, whatever T today is?

How did T(0) (the alleged first time) hapen if there wasnt a T(-1)? Etc...

That is not the question.

People are claiming the past has no T1.

How do you get to any other T unless you have a T1?

 

[ryan]

What if we live in a repeating universe (Big Bounce theory)?

I answered this once already.

It is impossible that there were infinite bounces before a current bounce.

If infinite bounces must occur before a current bounce then the current bounce can never happen.

Why not? There's no marker for the nth bounce universe to "pass by" or counter for the nth bounce of a ball.

 

[untermensche]

I answered this once already.

It is impossible that there were infinite bounces before a current bounce.

If infinite bounces must occur before a current bounce then the current bounce can never happen.

Why not? There's no marker for the nth bounce universe to "pass by" or counter for the nth bounce of a ball.

How can infinite bounces have ALREADY occurred?

That is no different from saying ALL the integers have ALREADY been spoken.

 

[Elixir]

To wit:

Beavis: "I hate numbers."
Butthead: "Yeah, there's like, too many of them and stuff"

 

[abaddon]

People are claiming the past has no T1.

How do you get to any other T unless you have a T1?

You don't get to any specific "T" if time didn't begin. Your analogy to human-made signs, and the recitation of them, is what is absurd. You want the absurdity of it to transfer to the other, different concept about infinite time but it doesn't.

If an integer-reciting time-walker had been walking forever, no one can say what exact digit he was on precisely 14 billion years ago, nor what digit he's presently reciting because it inserts the presumption that he started at a number and that's a presumption that doesn't belong in the concept of infinity. You can't make the logical possibility impossible by inserting things (like "ALL the integers" should be countable) that are not "claimed" within the concept and are not a logical necessity for that concept.

When a person refers to an infinite set like {... , -4, -3, -2, ...} they cannot start with the first number. Because there isn't one. Which doesn't break the concept of infinity for the set. But somehow you want it to break infinity as applied to time, the thing you say is, or should be, an exact analogy to infinite integers. So it breaks nothing but your absurd request for a first number, or start or end to the counting, or to fit all of an infinite set on the inside of another infinity.

If you could show me something that had no beginning then we could say it is something real.

No you try applying "make it real" to your own claims for a change. To say the beginning of time is real and not just an imagination, show it. If time began, then how? And didn't existence begin too if time began? How?

 

[untermensche]

You don't get to any specific "T" if time didn't begin.

Exactly. If there is no T1 you can never get to any higher T. You can't get anywhere.

Your analogy to human-made signs, and the recitation of them, is what is absurd.

If there is time there can be events. So using events as a model for time is nothing absurd.

And if you want to talk about infinite events then reciting the integers is a good model for infinite events or infinite time.

If an integer-reciting time-walker had been walking forever, no one can say what exact digit he was on precisely 14 billion years ago, nor what digit he's presently reciting because it inserts the presumption that he started at a number and that's a presumption that doesn't belong in the concept of infinity.

No. But you test the presumption that time can have no beginning and it proves to be impossible in the real world.

It is impossible infinite events occurred before some event.

It is impossible that all the integers were counted before some event.

You can't make the logical possibility impossible by inserting things (like "ALL the integers" should be countable)

All the integers are not countable. It is impossible to count them. As impossible as it is for infinite time to have already passed.

When a person refers to an infinite set like {... , -4, -3, -2, ...} they cannot start with the first number.

That is not analogous to time.

ALL the time that passed in the past has already passed at any present moment.

You could model it with the present as 0 but the present is not a zero.

So you could model the past as (...-4,-3,-2,-1,0) because the time that passed in the past has an end. The present.

The question is: If it had an end does it need a beginning?

How exactly do you get to the end unless you begin?

If you could show me something that had no beginning then we could say it is something real.

No you try applying "make it real" to your own claims for a change. To say the beginning of time is real and not just an imagination, show it. If time began, then how? And didn't existence begin too if time began? How?

No. An analogous challenge would be for me to show you something with a beginning to demonstrate it is possible for something to have a beginning.

 

[Juma]

What is miraculous and irrational is the idea of no beginning. It makes no sense and cannot be made to make sense. It is an idea that has no real world correlate.

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time

Assume there is no T1. How is there a T2 or a T200,000,000,000,000?

How does anything exist unless it has a beginning?

How did we get to this point in time unless there was a T2 and a T3 and so on until today, whatever T today is?

How did T(0) (the alleged first time) hapen if there wasnt a T(-1)? Etc...

That is not the question.ö

That is my question. Answer it.

 

[untermensche]

What is miraculous and irrational is the idea of no beginning. It makes no sense and cannot be made to make sense. It is an idea that has no real world correlate.

Assume there was time a T1. What is the difference for something happening at a later time

Assume there is no T1. How is there a T2 or a T200,000,000,000,000?

How does anything exist unless it has a beginning?

How did we get to this point in time unless there was a T2 and a T3 and so on until today, whatever T today is?

How did T(0) (the alleged first time) hapen if there wasnt a T(-1)? Etc...

That is not the question.ö

That is my question. Answer it.

You are asking how time started.

How could anyone possibly know? We see a lot of things with starts though and nothing with no start.

It is not necessary to explain how time started to show it must have started.

The time in the past could not have been infinite.

It is impossible that infinite time already passed before some moment in time.

So again how can there be a today if there was no T1? How is that possible?

 

[fast]

I keep going into a fog over something.

If a computer ticks once per second, then what's the consequence of the ticks changing speed?
Common sense tells me that the second hasn't changed, but if you tie the definition of a second to the tick, it's still ticking along at once per second.

Those are two different conceptions of a second. It depends on whether you tie the second to the tick.

Time conception 1) the second remains constant no matter the change in tick frequency
Time conception 2) the second fluctuates in accordance to the motion of objects.

I think 1 is a superior notion. It might be arbitrary, but there needs to be a consistency for comparison purposes.

 

[Elixir]

I keep going into a fog over something.

If a computer ticks once per second, then what's the consequence of the ticks changing speed?
Common sense tells me that the second hasn't changed, but if you tie the definition of a second to the tick, it's still ticking along at once per second.

Those are two different conceptions of a second. It depends on whether you tie the second to the tick.

Time conception 1) the second remains constant no matter the change in tick frequency
Time conception 2) the second fluctuates in accordance to the motion of objects.

I think 1 is a superior notion. It might be arbitrary, but there needs to be a consistency for comparison purposes.

1 second = 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133 transition.
Since 1967, anyhow. If cesium transition cycles change their frequency (not likely) then there could be an issue. Otherwise... not so much.

 

[fast]

I keep going into a fog over something.

If a computer ticks once per second, then what's the consequence of the ticks changing speed?
Common sense tells me that the second hasn't changed, but if you tie the definition of a second to the tick, it's still ticking along at once per second.

Those are two different conceptions of a second. It depends on whether you tie the second to the tick.

Time conception 1) the second remains constant no matter the change in tick frequency
Time conception 2) the second fluctuates in accordance to the motion of objects.

I think 1 is a superior notion. It might be arbitrary, but there needs to be a consistency for comparison purposes.

1 second = 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133 transition.
Since 1967, anyhow. If cesium transition cycles change their frequency (not likely) then there could be an issue. Otherwise... not so much.

Yes, I've read that, and that perspective aligns with perspective number 1. Now, if the frequency did so happen to change and we could account for the change, we could do some math to keep our second constant in duration.

I think time is independent of our ability to measure it. Right now, we can, but time intervals don't magically change, so there is no good reason to suppose that a future inability to measure time plays a factor in the constant duration of time intervals.