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

[Kharakov]

Perfectly understandable.

After all, if at some future time ehhh, nothing exists, then the beings that still exist before time ehh, when nothing exists, will be able to view it as "time ehh" up to time ehh, at which point time ehh no longer exists. This assumes that we know when time ehh is coming.

I think that's why I said future time ehh. Although saying petaoodles was pretty awesome.

 

[untermensche]

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.

"Always existed" is just a rephrase of "without beginning". It's the same magical imaginary concept, with no explanation.

You have no explanation. There is no explanation. These are concepts that have no real world evidence or reference.

They are just negations of concepts that make sense. Anything can be negated.

To come into existence makes sense.

To have a beginning makes sense.

To "always exist" makes no sense. It can't be defined in any way. It cannot be demonstrated to be a rational option.

It is not a rational option.

 

[fast]

How else would you characterise something that has always existed?

It's not even a vaguely difficult concept.

"Always existed" is just a rephrase of "without beginning". It's the same magical imaginary concept, with no explanation.

You have no explanation. There is no explanation. These are concepts that have no real world evidence or reference.

They are just negations of concepts that make sense. Anything can be negated.

To come into existence makes sense.

To have a beginning makes sense.

To "always exist" makes no sense. It can't be defined in any way. It cannot be demonstrated to be a rational option.

It is not a rational option.

What about going forward. Do you think space will one day cease to exist? What would be in its place?

 

[untermensche]

What about going forward. Do you think space will one day cease to exist? What would be in its place?

It is not a question of what I think.

These are logical arguments.

It is impossible for infinite time to have passed before any moment in time.

This is an argument.

It is true because by definition infinite time is time that never finishes passing. It can't have passed.

Under no circumstances can it have passed. Even if it was in the past.

As far as the future.

The future has to contend with the fact that something exists.

Is it possible for something to become nothing?

 

[Kharakov]

It is impossible for infinite time to have passed before any moment in time.

Unless time has always been passing.

 

[untermensche]

It is impossible for infinite time to have passed before any moment in time.

Unless time has always been passing.

That's not a rational argument.

There is nothing rational or nothing that can be explained about the idea of "always passing".

It is just something one can say because with language one can add "always" to anything.

If time was ALWAYS passing then today never could happen because infinite time would have to pass first.

But infinite time does not finish. It cannot have passed. It can only keep passing.

It is irrational and a contradiction to say that the time in the past was infinite.

Or to say something "always existed".

You have nothing if all you can do is say some words and nothing about them.

You have to prove the words actually point to something possible.

You have to prove you have a valid position, not merely claim it over and over.

Proof.

 

[Kharakov]

Unless time has always been passing.

That's not a rational argument.

Ha, you slipped up and said something that is true: it's part of a rational statement, it isn't a rational argument by itself.

"It is impossible for infinite time to have 'passed' before any moment in time, unless time has always been 'passing'."

 

[untermensche]

That's not a rational argument.

Ha, you slipped up and said something that is true: it's part of a rational statement, it isn't a rational argument by itself.

"It is impossible for infinite time to have 'passed' before any moment in time, unless time has always been 'passing'.

"Always been passing" is an irrational idea that has no argument or evidence to support it.

You can't explain it in one way.

The idea of "always" makes no sense.

It implies no end to the amount of time in the past.

If there was no end to the amount of time before your birth you would never have been born.

For you to be born requires a finite amount of time to have passed before it happened.

If a finite amount of time passed that means there was a beginning.

 

[bilby]

One last try:

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument.

So:

Time without beginning is infinite. Even if it has an end.

IF time has no beginning, then it is infinite. That in NO WAY precludes it from having an end; Infinite time cannot end IF AND ONLY IF that infinite time HAS A BEGINNING.

Hypothesis: Time has NO beginning.
Deduction: Time is infinite, EVEN if it has an end.
Arbitrary definition: The past - defined as ending NOW.

Not ONE THING in the above in ANY WAY implies that the past has NO END (indeed, we just defined it as having an end at the present) - The ONLY THING that determines whether or not time is infinite in this scenario is whether or not it has a BEGINNING. If it does NOT, then it MUST be infinite, and there are no contradictions entailed by this claim. If it does, then it CANNOT be infinite, and again, there are no contradictions.

IF time has a beginning, then the past cannot be infinite. IF time has no beginning, then the past must be infinite. Regardless of any of this, the past MUST and always DOES have an END, and there is not one thing about the idea of an infinite past that renders that impossible, contradictory, paradoxical or even difficult.

Yes, if time has no beginning, then infinite time would need to have passed before the present. That's fine, though, as long as the past isn't finite - which BY DEFINITION it is not if it is infinite.

If a finite amount of time passed, then there was a beginning.

If an infinite amount of time passed, then there was no beginning.

You cannot determine which is the case by reference to the existence of a current moment that marks the END of the past; The END tells you exactly (if you will excuse my french) FUCK TOUT about the beginning.

If there was no end to the amount of time before your birth you would never have been born, UNLESS the past is infinite. For you to be born requires an infinite amount of time to have passed before it happened; and if time has no beginning, then by definition, an infinite amount of time HAS passed before any given event happened. Why you imagine that this is impossible I do not know - you have no basis for deciding that infinite time has not already passed, except that you don't like it because it makes your head hurt to think about it.

Reality doesn't care what you like; and your preferences are not a guide to reality. Not even if you have a really, really strong opinion on the matter.

 

[untermensche]

One last try:

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument.

Are you saying infinite time does not equal infinite time?

I heard you say the magic words "no beginning" the first time you said them.

You have not explained them one bit since.

You have done nothing but repeat them many times.

"No beginning" is not a real concept. It cannot be defined.

It is not a rational option.

 

[untermensche]

Time without end = Time "without beginning"

These can be used interchangeably by those who understand one thing:

Infinite time = Infinite time

To say time without beginning occurred before he was born is to say time without end occurred before he was born.

No difference at all between the two statements.

You can't restrict infinite time to just time "without beginning". Whatever that could possibly mean in the real world.

Infinite time also means time without end.

They both mean the exact same thing in terms of the amount of time.

 

[bilby]

One last try:

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument.

Are you saying infinite time does not equal infinite time?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Time without beginning, but with an end, is infinite time.
Time with a beginning, but without an end, is infinite time.
Time without beginning or end is infinite time.
Time with both a beginning and an end is finite time.

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument. None of the above changes that one iota.

 

[bilby]

Time without end = Time "without beginning"

These can be used interchangeably by those who understand one thing:

Infinite time = Infinite time

To say time without beginning occurred before he was born is to say time without end occurred before he was born.

No difference at all between the two statements.

You can't restrict infinite time to just time "without beginning". Whatever that could possibly mean in the real world.

Infinite time also means time without end.

They both mean the exact same thing in terms of the amount of time.

There are an infinite number of positive integers.
There are an infinite number of negative integers.
There are an infinite number of integers.

The positive integers start at zero. The negative integers end at zero. The set of integers has neither beginning nor end. All are infinite; But they are not the same thing.

You cannot count forwards from zero and reach the end of the positive integers; You cannot count backwards from zero and reach the beginning of the negative integers. This does not mean that it is impossible to count; There is nothing to stop me from starting at -100 and counting forwards; even though an infinite number of integers exist that are smaller than -100, it takes no counting whatsoever to get to -100, and the infinity of prior integers in no way limits my ability to start at that point.

If the past is infinite, that in no way limits the possibility of an event occurring at any given time.

 

[untermensche]

If the past is infinite, that in no way limits the possibility of an event occurring at any given time.

It sure does.

If time without end (the same thing as your imaginary time "without beginning") is said to occur before some event then the event will never take place.

The positive integers start at zero. The negative integers end at zero.

The negative integers start at zero as well.

But the negative integers are just something that exist in theory.

They do not exist anywhere in fact.

That is impossible.

Just like infinite time in the past is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying infinite time does not equal infinite time?

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Time without beginning, but with an end, is infinite time.
Time with a beginning, but without an end, is infinite time.
Time without beginning or end is infinite time.
Time with both a beginning and an end is finite time.

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument. None of the above changes that one iota.

You say it yourself right above.

You say they are both the same thing.

Let me help you.

Time without beginning, but with an end = infinite time

Time with a beginning, but without an end = infinite time

Therefore

Time without beginning, but with an end = Time with a beginning, but without an end

So to say "time without beginning" is the same thing as saying "time without end".

The glaring flaw in your reasoning is that you don't understand this.

Even after explicitly saying it.

 

[bilby]

It sure does.

If time without end (the same thing as your imaginary time "without beginning") is said to occur before some event then the event will never take place.

If time without end is the same thing as time without beginning, then the end of your life is the same as the beginning of your life.

Either decapitation is indistinguishable from being born, or you are wrong.

Time without end is NOT the same thing as time without beginning, and your false belief that it is, is the root of your error.

Quite why you can't tell the difference between decapitation and birth I do not know. I am pretty sure I don't want to know.

 

[untermensche]

It sure does.

If time without end (the same thing as your imaginary time "without beginning") is said to occur before some event then the event will never take place.

If time without end is the same thing as time without beginning, then the end of your life is the same as the beginning of your life.

That's about the worst piece of "reasoning" I've ever seen.

Doesn't follow. Doesn't come a mile from following. As bad as it gets.

Time "without beginning" = Time without end

Infinite time = Infinite time

 

[Kharakov]

Take a 12 hour period of time. If you're 4 hours into it, how many hours until it ends? How long ago did the period of time start?

Take an endless period of time that started 4 hours ago. How long ago did the period of time start?

Take a beginningless period of time that never started, it just always exists. How long ago did this period of time start?

 

[bilby]

If time without end is the same thing as time without beginning, then the end of your life is the same as the beginning of your life.

That's about the worst piece of "reasoning" I've ever seen.

Then I can only conclude that you eschew proofreading.

Doesn't follow. Doesn't come a mile from following. As bad as it gets.

Just not in any way you can articulate.

Time "without beginning" = Time without end

What utter tripe. Beginnings and ends are obviously different things.

Infinite time = Infinite time

Not all infinities are the same. The negative integers are infinite, as are the integers. But the former excludes the infinite set of positive integers, and the latter does not.

As you should know, but are evidently too busy asserting how foolish everyone else is to learn.

 

[Bomb#20]

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

Time without beginning, but with an end, is infinite time.
Time with a beginning, but without an end, is infinite time.
Time without beginning or end is infinite time.
Time with both a beginning and an end is finite time.

'Beginning' and 'End' are NOT the same thing; you can't just switch from one to the other, mid-argument. None of the above changes that one iota.

You say it yourself right above.

You say they are both the same thing.

No, bilby doesn't say they are both the same thing. Don't put words in his mouth.

Let me help you.

Time without beginning, but with an end = infinite time

Time with a beginning, but without an end = infinite time

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "=". He said "is". "Is" and "=" don't mean the same thing. When you swap out one word from his sentence and put in a different word, you're putting words in his mouth. Don't do that.

Consider this:

A dog is a mammal.
A cat is a mammal.​

Both of those are true.

Now consider this:

A dog = a mammal.
A cat = a mammal.
Therefore
A dog = a cat.​

That's valid reasoning -- two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other -- but it's an unsound argument because the premises are false. But if "is" meant the same thing as "=" then the premises would be true, which means the conclusion would be true. But the conclusion is clearly false -- a dog does not equal a cat. Therefore "is" cannot possibly mean the same thing as "=".

Therefore

Time without beginning, but with an end = Time with a beginning, but without an end

So to say "time without beginning" is the same thing as saying "time without end".

The glaring flaw in your reasoning is that you don't understand this.

Even after explicitly saying it.

The glaring flaw in your reasoning is that bilby did not say what you claim he said, and your attempt to paraphrase him failed, because you assumed "is" means the same thing as "=". It doesn't. If you want to prove there's a flaw in somebody's reasoning, you have to point out a flaw in what he said, not a flaw in what you changed his words to. So don't put words in people's mouths.