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

[untermensche]

3) Time has no beginning, but has an end. This implies that time is infinite.

Not possible.

You can't demonstrate in any way that "no beginning" is something possible.

It is only something one can say. One can negate anything in language.

It is not something that can be defined or rationally claimed to be possible.

Who told you "no beginning" is possible?

Prove it is something possible.

Hint: Since this is a paradox demonstrating time could not be finite is not evidence it is infinite.

 

[fast]

3) Time has no beginning, but has an end. This implies that time is infinite.

Not possible.

You can't demonstrate in any way that "no beginning" is something possible.

It is only something one can say. One can negate anything in language.

It is not something that can be defined or rationally claimed to be possible.

Who told you "no beginning" is possible?

Prove it is something possible.

If there was no beginning, then maybe you're right about us not being able to get to now. Since we are to now, there was a beginning. Time, therefore, started at a point where there was no 'before it.'

 

[bilby]

3) Time has no beginning, but has an end. This implies that time is infinite.

Not possible.

You can't demonstrate in any way that "no beginning" is something possible.

I can't prove a negative; All YOU need to do is to prove that time did have a beginning, and then (and ONLY then) will anyone take your assertion "Not possible" seriously. Until then, you are just declaring it by fiat - I might as well simply say "you are wrong", and be done with it - but that would no more be an argument than your pathetic response here is an argument.

It is only something one can say. One can negate anything in language.

It is not something that can be defined or rationally claimed to be possible.

Who told you "no beginning" is possible?

Anything that isn't demonstrated to be impossible is possible. Where is your demonstration that 'no beginning' is impossible? If you have one, why are you wasting your time with this arm-waving nonsense?

Prove it is something possible.

Hint: Since this is a paradox demonstrating time could not be finite is not evidence it is infinite.

Hint: You are just as incompetent at identifying paradoxes as you are at comprehending infinities.

 

[untermensche]

Not possible.

You can't demonstrate in any way that "no beginning" is something possible.

It is only something one can say. One can negate anything in language.

It is not something that can be defined or rationally claimed to be possible.

Who told you "no beginning" is possible?

Prove it is something possible.

If there was no beginning, then maybe you're right about us not being able to get to now. Since we are to now, there was a beginning. Time, therefore, started at a point where there was no 'before it.'

It is impossible to understand that which can't be understood.

It is impossible to make sense out of "always there" and impossible to make sense out of "something coming from nothing".

The fact that something exists cannot be understood.

- - - Updated - - -

Not possible.

You can't demonstrate in any way that "no beginning" is something possible.

I can't prove a negative...

You are claiming it is a logical possibility.

It isn't.

And you can't prove it is.

Anything that isn't demonstrated to be impossible is possible.

You have turned reason on it's head.

That which can't be shown to be possible is rationally assumed to be impossible.

 

[bilby]

If there was no beginning, then maybe you're right about us not being able to get to now. Since we are to now, there was a beginning. Time, therefore, started at a point where there was no 'before it.'

It is impossible to understand that which can't be understood.

It is impossible to make sense out of "always there" and impossible to make sense out of "something coming from nothing".

The fact that something exists cannot be understood.

'always there' seems pretty damn straightforward to me. If YOU can't make sense of it, then perhaps the problem isn't with the concept at all...

 

[untermensche]

It is impossible to understand that which can't be understood.

It is impossible to make sense out of "always there" and impossible to make sense out of "something coming from nothing".

The fact that something exists cannot be understood.

'always there' seems pretty damn straightforward to me. If YOU can't make sense of it, then perhaps the problem isn't with the concept at all...

Nothing straightforward about it. That is why you can only say it and can't say anything else about it. It is a concept devoid of any real world context.

"Always there" implies time without end.

If something was always there then that means time without end has already passed at some given moment.

But this is impossible. Time without end is time that NEVER finishes passing. It can never have already passed.

The only amount of time that could have rationally passed before any given moment is a finite amount of time.

Time with a beginning and an end in other words.

 

[beero1000]

Realistically, what's the point? Here and here are posts of mine from more than 3 years ago pointing out why you're begging the question in this exact argument. It's one of the many, many times that I've pointed out your mistakes. Other's have tried too. It never works, so I've moved on to just accepting your inadequacies. My only consolation is that you've made the tiny amount of progress to 'it's a paradox'. Maybe in 3 more years you might understand a little bit more...

So you have no argument you can even put forth. Just claims about wondrous arguments in the past in some other context.

As I thought.

Come back when you have ONE argument and not a bunch of whining.

Lol, I bet you didn't even click the links. Not that it would have mattered, you just ignore any arguments against your proclamations of obvious truth^TM.

 

[untermensche]

You claims about your incredible arguments that are TOO GOOD to proclaim have been noted.

 

[bilby]

'always there' seems pretty damn straightforward to me. If YOU can't make sense of it, then perhaps the problem isn't with the concept at all...

Nothing straightforward about it. That is why you can only say it and can't say anything else about it. It is a concept devoid of any real world context.

"Always there" implies time without end.

No, it doesn't. It implies time without end OR time without beginning, OR time without either end or beginning.

If you discard two thirds of the possibilities, then clearly you are going to need to justify doing that, if you want to be taken seriously.

If something was always there then that means time without end has already passed at some given moment.

No, it doesn't. It means that time without beginning has already passed at some given moment.

But this is impossible. Time without end is time that NEVER finishes passing. It can never have already passed.

Nobody cares whether your strawman is or is not possible. We are not discussing time without end; we are discussing time (possibly without beginning), that finishes passing NOW. You surely cannot seriously be claiming that time that finishes NOW cannot ever finish. That would be fucking stupid. By definition, time that finishes NOW finishes NOW. We know NOTHING about whether or not it started by studying its finish. And we never can know anything about whether it started by studying its finish. Your inability to spot the difference between a beginning and an end has no bearing on the issue - it's a psychological problem for you alone to resolve.

The only amount of time that could have rationally passed before any given moment is a finite amount of time.

Says you - based on demonstrably fallacious logic.

Nothing that you have said in any way requires anyone to accept this unsupported assertion.

 

[Kharakov]

Hint: Since this is a paradox demonstrating time could not be finite is not evidence it is infinite.

rofl.....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Maybe I should break out the text diagrams again, like in the last thread.


<------------------beginningless and endless time---------------->
whatever..... no end, no beginning. Any moment in time is preceded by an infinite past....

<-------------------beginningless time, the time stops here.
An infinite amount of time passed before time stopped.

endless time starts here ------------------and goes on forever---->
A finite amount of time has passed at any point in time, because time has a beginning (starting point). This possibility is eliminated because something exists, and nothing cannot precede something that exists, because nothing cannot change into something or it is not nothing.

Excellent post as to presentational layout design (sounds puffed up enough for you?).


Yet, I will disagree with your claim that the last option is not possible because you say, "nothing cannot precede something that exists". K., that's the wrong way to think about it.

I can see how saying that "there's nothing before the beginning of time" can easily be misconstrued. To say "there is nothing there" is not saying that there is something that just happens to have the quality of being nothing. Rather, it means that there isn't anything. So, the earliest something that must have existed, assuming there was a beginning in time, wasn't preceded by anything at all, not even a moment in time where there would have been nothing.

Equally, the first something, be it a thing or just the first moment in time, wouldn't have had to come from anything else, be it something having somehow the quality of nothing. The first something or the first moment in time would just need to exist. Why would it need to come from something else? It would be absurd to discuss how the first something to exist must have come about on the basis of the laws of nature since the laws of nature by hypothesis didn't exist before the first something, since there was nothing at all before the first something, not even a moment in time where laws of nature could have been in existence, and therefore no laws of nature either.

Still, a good post, even though not effective at all. But it's interesting that so many posters should feel so aggrieved that UM can't seem to understand such basic ideas expressed so explicitly and clearly. It must say something about human nature but I know not what.

Maybe it says that feeling powerless in the face of sheer stupidity is really a bad feeling.

Or is it just we want to affirm that our ideas can be expressed in a way that would be undeniably coherent?

But the reality is that one can always deny anything if one wants to.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Which sense of time are we discussing? Not sure it matters, but just curious.

There's a sense of time, apparently, where time just doesn't metaphorically stand still but quite literally stops when objects cease to move. To see this requires a stepping away, so imagine a large (substantially large clock) where within it, all parts cease moving; also, all objects within it freeze such that even the molecules in life forms stops all movement at even the cellular level. To those of us outside the clock, we can measure the passage of time that elapsed inside the clock even though everything in the clock will be just as it was and so too is that the case with everyone inside the clock, as they report that time stopped.

Of course, or to me it's an of course, there is no possible way for those in the clock to measure the elapsed time, but it's my contention that the passage of moments need not be possible to measure in order for there to be a passage of time. The inability to answer the how in no way alters the what. Unanswered epistemic questions doesn't imply ontology or some such.

Any rate, time1 vs time2 is my question. Time1 like normal people or time2 like science says? Time1 is time is persistent whereas time2 is persistent only when objects are in motion allowing for scientific measurement.

No, it doesn't matter. It's a discussion in the abstract, therefore irrespective of the nature of time, i.e. irrespective of why time is as it is.

Still, our intuitive sense of time may have an adverse effect on how we think about it and limit our ability to think in the abstract about time.

Also, whatever the scientific view of time, it would be absurd to exclude logical possibilities on the basis of the assumed properties of whatever exists now. Logical possibilities cannot be made impossible by our empirical knowledge of the universe.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Nothing straightforward about it. That is why you can only say it and can't say anything else about it. It is a concept devoid of any real world context.

"Always there" implies time without end.

No, it doesn't. It implies time without end OR time without beginning, OR time without either end or beginning.

You can't just say the magic words "without beginning" and get away with it.

"Without beginning" is not a rational option.

It is not something that can be defined or something that makes sense.

They are words without meaning. Merely a negation of a concept that makes sense "to have a beginning".

PROVE "without beginning" is a reasonable option.

I've seen your empty claims it is and dismiss them with the wave of my hand.

Either you prove "without beginning" makes sense and is a rational option or you have NOTHING.

 

[untermensche]

Hint: Since this is a paradox demonstrating time could not be finite is not evidence it is infinite.

rofl.....

I do have a nice laugh at the children squirming to prove their imaginary friend "no beginning" is something we should consider.

 

[Kharakov]

<------------------beginningless and endless time---------------->
whatever..... no end, no beginning. Any moment in time is preceded by an infinite past....

<-------------------beginningless time, the time stops here.
An infinite amount of time passed before time stopped.

endless time starts here ------------------and goes on forever---->
A finite amount of time has passed at any point in time, because time has a beginning (starting point). This possibility is eliminated because something exists, and nothing cannot precede something that exists, because nothing cannot change into something or it is not nothing.

Yet, I will disagree with your claim that the last option is not possible because you say, "nothing cannot precede something that exists".

Ok, but you're being nonsensical. Nothing means the complete absence of everything. Nothing causes nothing (it has no properties that would allow it to cause something). Nothing does nothing (it does not act). Nothing doesn't change (it has no qualities to change).

If nothing exists at some future time a, at any point past time a, nothing will also exist, as there isn't anything, even a quantum mechanical physical framework, to cause something to pop into existence.

So, the earliest something that must have existed, assuming there was a beginning in time, wasn't preceded by anything at all, not even a moment in time where there would have been nothing.

No beginning to existence, so there isn't an earliest moment. There are plenty of beginnings within existence, from the perspective of conscious observers within existence, but they always emerge out of something existing.

It would be absurd to discuss how the first something to exist must have come about on the basis of the laws of nature since the laws of nature by hypothesis didn't exist before the first something, since there was nothing at all before the first something, not even a moment in time where laws of nature could have been in existence, and therefore no laws of nature either.

You're assuming a "before the first something, when nothing existed"... this is a nothing that somehow had the property of changing into something, so it wasn't nothing because it had the property of being able to change into something.

But it's interesting that so many posters should feel so aggrieved that UM can't seem to understand such basic ideas expressed so explicitly and clearly. It must say something about human nature but I know not what.

Maybe it says that feeling powerless in the face of sheer stupidity is really a bad feeling.

I'm just hoping someone writes UM an upgrade sometime soon. If they're just a neural net, you'd think they would improve (they're wrongness) over time, although maybe their is a maximum amount of wrongness one can achieve, even with the help of AI. Just joking!!! Don't upgrade UM, the world is fucked up enough as it is without having a super wrong AI loose on the intertubes.

Or is it just we want to affirm that our ideas can be expressed in a way that would be undeniably coherent?

We let preachers preach lies on street corners, so I suppose UM isn't exactly a threat to coherence.

I suppose arguing with UM is more for sport than anything. And really, I don't have time for it, but I have nothing lucrative, profitable, or enjoyable to do, so I do it instead of curling up in a ball on a couch.

 

[Kharakov]

rofl.....

I do have a nice laugh at the children squirming to prove their imaginary friend "no beginning" is something we should consider.

You're a we?

 

[bilby]

No, it doesn't. It implies time without end OR time without beginning, OR time without either end or beginning.

You can't just say the magic words "without beginning" and get away with it.

"Without beginning" is not a rational option.

It is not something that can be defined or something that makes sense.

They are words without meaning. Merely a negation of a concept that makes sense "to have a beginning".

PROVE "without beginning" is a reasonable option.

I've seen your empty claims it is and dismiss them with the wave of my hand.

Either you prove "without beginning" makes sense and is a rational option or you have NOTHING.

How else would you characterise something that has always existed?

It's not even a vaguely difficult concept.

 

[bilby]

Yet, I will disagree with your claim that the last option is not possible because you say, "nothing cannot precede something that exists".

Ok, but you're being nonsensical. Nothing means the complete absence of everything. Nothing causes nothing (it has no properties that would allow it to cause something). Nothing does nothing (it does not act). Nothing doesn't change (it has no qualities to change).

If nothing exists at some future time a, at any point past time a, nothing will also exist, as there isn't anything, even a quantum mechanical physical framework, to cause something to pop into existence.

It's impossible for nothing to exist at time a - if a is a time, then time exists at that time.

If nothing exists, there is no time on which to hang a label.

You might as well discuss point x, which is on the Earth's surface, some distance north of the North Pole.

If there are no footprints in the snow at point x, then what does that tell us about the possibility of footprints north of x? The question is meaningless. Just as your example discussing time a is meaningless.

 

[Kharakov]

After, not @.

If we know that time a is the last time anything will exist evar, we can make predictions about what occurs after time a. Oodles of predictions.

Oodles upon oodles. Petaoodles of predictions.

 

[bilby]

After, not @.

If we know that time a is the last time anything will exist evar, we can make predictions about what occurs after time a. Oodles of predictions.

Oodles upon oodles. Petaoodles of predictions.

Sorry, my mistake; I thought when you said "at some future time a", that you meant at some future time a, and not after some future time a.

Easy mistake to make though. I will try to be more careful in future.