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

[Speakpigeon]

I think this qualifies as "clear definitions of 'infinite' and 'past'".

I would also agree that it does "express the common usage of these words".

And, crucially, according to these definitions, an interval of time with no beginning will be infinite.


So, now, anybody thinks s/he can do better? Maybe shorter?
EB

Minor caveat and subtlety here: According to my definitions, you can have intervals without beginning or ending that still count as finite, as long as they are contained within a finite interval of time.

The classic example being a variant of Zeno's paradox: If I perform actions over halving intervals, i.e. for 1 min, for 1/2 min, for 1/4 min, etc. The total interval of time described there would count as finite even though it has no end, because it is contained in a finite interval of time. You could similarly describe intervals with no beginning that would count as finite as well. I thought a little about it, and I think I do want to count those intervals as finite, but I'd be interested in seeing opinions one way or the other.

Yes, and that's a good point.

It also shows how complex our notions can be.

Finite intervals of time like this are just ordinary intervals from which you just remove one or both ends.

And if time is continuous like the Reals, there's a bijection between for example an infinite past in the usual sense and a finite interval of time, however small, that would have no beginning, as long as time is really infinitely divisible like the Reals, which maybe it is not (and quite plausibly, the past is not infinite either).

So, now, you'd have to offer another way to define the notion of infinite past so as to make the distinction with the case above.

Can you do that? You're the specialist here I guess.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Minor caveat and subtlety here: According to my definitions, you can have intervals without beginning or ending that still count as finite, as long as they are contained within a finite interval of time.

The classic example being a variant of Zeno's paradox: If I perform actions over halving intervals, i.e. for 1 min, for 1/2 min, for 1/4 min, etc. The total interval of time described there would count as finite even though it has no end, because it is contained in a finite interval of time. You could similarly describe intervals with no beginning that would count as finite as well. I thought a little about it, and I think I do want to count those intervals as finite, but I'd be interested in seeing opinions one way or the other.

If it took a millions years to watch each 1 second of a movie, I'm afraid I will have missed the forest for the trees.

Wow, as each finite second passes, there (according to my grasp of the conception you describe), a seemingly infinite number of precision points in time will pass per second. In other words, after 3 minutes and 8 seconds begins and before 3 minutes and 9 seconds arrive, there will be a point in time at 3 minutes and 8.7473020394736820294774389202836482283739283739293738847302833892937483027374730283636392937362792833928373827384732792837483029322 seconds

I see you're trying to reach for infinity, you Bright Angel.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

I think we just don't know.
It's at least conceivable that time isn't a fixed frame within which events would occur forever at the same rate.
Maybe time is dependent on something else and is somehow occurring possibly at different rates. And if all events in our universe still occurred at the same rate relatively to each other, we wouldn't notice the change of rate of time itself.
In this case, apparent time, the one we would be able to observe wouldn't be the real time envisaged here. A second on our clocks might take one day a million years of real time and only a nanosecond the following day, and we would not be able to tell. If all our clock are similarly affected, and us with them, and everything else in our universe, we wouldn't be able to tell.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter.

No matter the relative speed of events infinite time would mean infinite events.

Time with no beginning would mean event with no beginning, change with no beginning.

Absurd on it's face.

When things are absurd on their face to go any further with the nonsense is irrational.

 

[beero1000]

Minor caveat and subtlety here: According to my definitions, you can have intervals without beginning or ending that still count as finite, as long as they are contained within a finite interval of time.

The classic example being a variant of Zeno's paradox: If I perform actions over halving intervals, i.e. for 1 min, for 1/2 min, for 1/4 min, etc. The total interval of time described there would count as finite even though it has no end, because it is contained in a finite interval of time. You could similarly describe intervals with no beginning that would count as finite as well. I thought a little about it, and I think I do want to count those intervals as finite, but I'd be interested in seeing opinions one way or the other.

Yes, and that's a good point.

It also shows how complex our notions can be.

Finite intervals of time like this are just ordinary intervals from which you just remove one or both ends.

And if time is continuous like the Reals, there's a bijection between for example an infinite past in the usual sense and a finite interval of time, however small, that would have no beginning, as long as time is really infinitely divisible like the Reals, which maybe it is not (and quite plausibly, the past is not infinite either).

So, now, you'd have to offer another way to define the notion of infinite past so as to make the distinction with the case above.

Can you do that? You're the specialist here I guess.
EB

I don't think that's a problem, because the particular elements used to define the set T don't really matter (by construction). We could use any other set T' that is order isomorphic to T (like in your example (0,1) and R), and there won't be any difference in the results other than the labels used to describe moments in time, e.g. there is no operational difference between moments in time labeled with all of the real numbers and moments in time labeled with the real numbers from (0,1). What matters is the speed at which that the labels are passed by our clocks during those moments.

Specifically, I didn't define a time metric to measure the 'length' of time, so the elements of T (the moments in time) are just labels and don't need to be numbers at all. Even if T consists of numbers, it doesn't necessarily follow that a length on intervals T gives the appropriate metric we use to measure time. That's why I included the term 'ticks' for the clock.

If I had to define length for an interval of time, I would use clock ticks (as we do in real life) - for a given time interval, the number of ticks within the interval determines the length of the interval of time (up to the precision of your 'clock'). Then, an infinite interval of time would be one that contains an infinite number of 'ticks'. A nice aspect of this definition is that it is equivalent to the topological definition I gave originally, as long as the interval under consideration contains at least one tick of the clock (or even any moment between two ticks, but whatever ).

 

[fast]

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.

I think we just don't know.
It's at least conceivable that time isn't a fixed frame within which events would occur forever at the same rate.
Maybe time is dependent on something else and is somehow occurring possibly at different rates. And if all events in our universe still occurred at the same rate relatively to each other, we wouldn't notice the change of rate of time itself.
In this case, apparent time, the one we would be able to observe wouldn't be the real time envisaged here. A second on our clocks might take one day a million years of real time and only a nanosecond the following day, and we would not be able to tell. If all our clock are similarly affected, and us with them, and everything else in our universe, we wouldn't be able to tell.
EB

I think something might have gotten lost in the translation. I want a persistent ever enduring time interval (a second) that cannot succumb to effects of the real world. I want a perfect second, like the one we have with my super duper state of art watch.

There are 365 1/4 days in a year, but a second isn't based on that. A second is 1/60 of 1/60 of 1/24 of 365 days; otherwise, a second wouldn't be what elixir said.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter.

No matter the relative speed of events infinite time would mean infinite events.

Time with no beginning would mean event with no beginning, change with no beginning.

Absurd on it's face.

When things are absurd on their face to go any further with the nonsense is irrational.

A world of no events is not a world without time.

 

[fast]

Also, if something happens and a year passes in 364 days, the formula is to be rejected and replaced with a recalculation where the second remains constant and the number days in a year changes keeping the weird number elixir gave consistent and ever enduring.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't matter.

No matter the relative speed of events infinite time would mean infinite events.

Time with no beginning would mean event with no beginning, change with no beginning.

Absurd on it's face.

When things are absurd on their face to go any further with the nonsense is irrational.

A world of no events is not a world without time.

I agree.

So how is there an event without a start to the event?

How is there a change without a start to the change?

 

[abaddon]

A world of no events is not a world without time.

I agree.

So how is there an event without a start to the event?

How is there a change without a start to the change?

You keep asking things like that as if they're just obvious "on their face".

Go ahead and answer your question. Just really answer it though, and don't introduce arbitrary conditions to force your wanted answer (which is where you'll fail but remain forever incapable of seeing it).

How is there a "start" of any object or event without a preceding cause or without a reconfiguration/change?

 

[untermensche]

I agree.

So how is there an event without a start to the event?

How is there a change without a start to the change?

You keep asking things like that as if they're just obvious "on their face".

Go ahead and answer your question. Just really answer it though, and don't introduce arbitrary conditions to force your wanted answer (which is where you'll fail but remain forever incapable of seeing it).

How is there a "start" of any object or event without a preceding cause or without a reconfiguration/change?

These are not my claims.

I am not claiming it is possible for something to have no beginning and exist.

That is absolute nonsense.

I am claiming there must be a start to a progression for there to be progression. There must be a start to a change for there to be a change.

I am not claiming I know how time started. Only that it needed a start to progress to today, to progress anywhere.

 

[abaddon]

I am claiming there must be a start to a progression for there to be progression. There must be a start to a change for there to be a change.

I am not claiming I know how time started. Only that it needed a start to progress to today, to progress anywhere.

I know. I'm asking the converse of what you're asking. Keep the order of words straight. You're asking 'How is there a change without a start?' and I'm asking 'How is there a start without a change?'

You had said the universe is filled with things that began, as another analogy to time. There must be a start to any string of events or changes, you say, because you believe everything has to have started or it cannot catch up to itself in time and "happen".

But I'm looking around at nature and see nothing that began. Not in the sense you're saying that time began (a beginning with nothing preceding it). Thus it looks to me like another failed comparison.

So I'm wondering if you will describe something that "began" or somehow "started". I suspect you will (again) have to select arbitrary points and insist on their absoluteness. But, we'll see when you answer (if you answer).

 

[untermensche]

I am claiming there must be a start to a progression for there to be progression. There must be a start to a change for there to be a change.

I am not claiming I know how time started. Only that it needed a start to progress to today, to progress anywhere.

I know. I'm asking the converse of what you're asking. Keep the order of words straight. You're asking 'How is there a change without a start?' and I'm asking 'How is there a start without a change?'

That is asking "What was the cause of time to start?"

Who knows?

But I'm looking around at nature and see nothing that began.

Everything has a beginning, from particles to your life.

Every journey has a beginning.

To have any kind of progression you need to have a beginning to it.

 

[abaddon]

I know. I'm asking the converse of what you're asking. Keep the order of words straight. You're asking 'How is there a change without a start?' and I'm asking 'How is there a start without a change?'

That is asking "What was the cause of time to start?"

No, I'm asking you to think through your assertions and analogies.

But I'm looking around at nature and see nothing that began.

Everything has a beginning, from particles to your life.

Every journey has a beginning.

To have any kind of progression you need to have a beginning to it.

And there's the arbitrariness that I predicted, there's no objective way to pinpoint the beginning of any of those examples (and possibly no other example drawn from within the universe or time). None of this supports the necessity of a beginning to time.

 

[untermensche]

But I'm looking around at nature and see nothing that began.

Everything has a beginning, from particles to your life.

Every journey has a beginning.

To have any kind of progression you need to have a beginning to it.

And there's the arbitrariness that I predicted, there's no objective way to pinpoint the beginning of any of those examples (and possibly no other example drawn from within the universe or time). None of this supports the necessity of a beginning to time.

You began at conception. The exact instant is hard to pinpoint but within a year your beginning is easy to pinpoint.

Just tell me how anything exists without a beginning.

 

[George S]

Just tell me how anything exists without a beginning.

If there were nothing, no time, no space, no change, nothing would cause anything. There would be no change since there would be no time for anything to change, and no space to change in.

If there ever were this peculiar state, it would continue to be nothing.

However, there exists something. So there never was a state of absolute nothing.

That means there has always been something. Space, time, and change due to Heisenberg. Always has been.

Reality. Being. Always has been. Beginningless.

 

[Juma]

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

You keep repeating that mantra as if that somehow was an acheived position. It isnt.
You have not shown this. You havent realized that you doesnt see the difference betwwen time and events in time.
counting the integers is a process with a start, time isnt.
Measuring time is a process with a start, time isnt.

You are as mistaken as a person that thinks the set of integers cannot be infinite because a distance between to integers is always finite.

 

[Juma]

Just tell me how anything exists without a beginning.

If there were nothing, no time, no space, no change, nothing would cause anything. There would be no change since there would be no time for anything to change, and no space to change in.

If there ever were this peculiar state, it would continue to be nothing.

However, there exists something. So there never was a state of absolute nothing.

That means there has always been something. Space, time, and change due to Heisenberg. Always has been.

Reality. Being. Always has been. Beginningless.

You cant prove that. And it is probably untrue. It is important to realize that this thread is not about time.
It is about how untermensche says things it has no support for. Wether time has a start or not is not a question of logic.
It is totally a question of empirical research.
”Time” is for most here a undefined concept that has very little to do with the real world.
The spacetime of relativity theory shows us that time dimension is very much different from the human concept of time.

 

[Juma]

But I'm looking around at nature and see nothing that began.

Everything has a beginning, from particles to your life.

Every journey has a beginning.

To have any kind of progression you need to have a beginning to it.

And there's the arbitrariness that I predicted, there's no objective way to pinpoint the beginning of any of those examples (and possibly no other example drawn from within the universe or time). None of this supports the necessity of a beginning to time.

You began at conception. The exact instant is hard to pinpoint but within a year your beginning is easy to pinpoint.

Is it? You are the result of a merge of a part of the process you know as your father and the process you know as your mother. There is no point in space time where you begin from nothing. It is more like as two roots of a tree combined and slowly growed into a new trunk. It is a new think because we classifies things.

 

[untermensche]

Just tell me how anything exists without a beginning.

If there were nothing, no time, no space, no change, nothing would cause anything. There would be no change since there would be no time for anything to change, and no space to change in.

If there ever were this peculiar state, it would continue to be nothing.

That is saying there can only be time as we know it or nothing.

There may be more options than that.

 

[untermensche]

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

You keep repeating that mantra as if that somehow was an acheived position. It isnt.

It is an unavoidable conclusion.

The reciting of all the integers is my model for infinite time.

Can the counting of the all the integers be something that has already occurred?

counting the integers is a process with a start, time isnt.

Yes, and it is as easy to count the integers without beginning as it is for there to be time without beginning. This merely shows the absurdity of the claims of "no beginning". Nothing can happen in a universe that has no beginning.

This idea of things existing and progressing that never begin is completely absurd. It is a childish insane notion. A delusional religious notion.

Tell me how it is possible for something to exist that never had a beginning. How can something progress that never begins it's progression?

You are as mistaken as a person that thinks the set of integers cannot be infinite because a distance between to integers is always finite.

I am the person that thinks that no infinity can be expressed. No infinity can exist. No infinity can already be in the past.