untermensche
Contributor
I thought this was about the entirety of time "without beginning"?
Because time "without beginning" is equal to time "without end".
Those that deny this are lost. Seriously lost.
-
Features
What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?
- Thread starter untermensche
- Start date
I thought this was about the entirety of time "without beginning"?
Because time "without beginning" is equal to time "without end".
Those that deny this are lost. Seriously lost.
untermensche
Contributor
No he said they were both the exact same thing. He said they were both "infinite time"
Which is exactly the same thing as saying they both EQUAL infinite time.
Not all mammals are the same thing. But time is time. There are not different breeds of time.
And infinite time = infinite time.
To say time without beginning is to say time without end.
Both statements refer to the exact same thing, the same amount of time. Infinite time.
You are trying to claim infinite time does not equal infinite time.
The cause of your troubles.
untermensche
Contributor
This is not about "beginnings and ends".
You are so lost I don't know why I deal with you.
This is about "NO beginning" and "NO end".
Two equally imaginary states. Neither exist. They are just made up.
Time with no beginning is the same exact amount of time as time with no end. They are equivalent concepts in terms of the amount of time described. They can logically be used interchangeably.
To not see this is the cause of your problems.
untermensche
Contributor
How much time passed before your birth?
An infinite amount of time? Time without end? Or if you wish, time without beginning? No difference.
Or a finite amount of time? Time with a beginning and end.
An infinite amount of time? Time without end? Or if you wish, time without beginning? No difference.
Or a finite amount of time? Time with a beginning and end.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Actually we don't know whether one's conscious has a beginning or and end since it's likely consciousness is carried in some set of conditions that may have been there but inactive as far back as life which may have originated before the big bang. We don't know whether the big bang was time's origin either.
However if one accepts big bang as a beginning preceding man's consciousness then time can be infinite relative to human consciousness. And if one accepts that sleep turns off consciousness we can also say that since consciousness existed before it was turned off that at present moment time is infinite relative to the current consciousness one is experiencing.
I really think that consciousness should be defined relative to one's experience making most things infinite relative to one's current consciousness.
However if one accepts big bang as a beginning preceding man's consciousness then time can be infinite relative to human consciousness. And if one accepts that sleep turns off consciousness we can also say that since consciousness existed before it was turned off that at present moment time is infinite relative to the current consciousness one is experiencing.
I really think that consciousness should be defined relative to one's experience making most things infinite relative to one's current consciousness.
beero1000
Veteran Member
Today = 24 hours of time
Tomorrow = 24 hours of time
Therefore today = tomorrow.
I honestly couldn't make this stuff up. It's caricature.
Tomorrow = 24 hours of time
Therefore today = tomorrow.
I honestly couldn't make this stuff up. It's caricature.
fast
Contributor
Lol
The time difference between now and 24 hours ago is not just equivalent but identical to the time difference between now and 24 hours from now. This, of course, doesn't mean the past events are identical or even equivalent to future events (excluding Presidential tweets--that's still under investigation).
It's like comparing the absolute value of -24 with the absolute value of 24
untermensche
Contributor
What is funny is watching children talk about "no beginning" as if it is something that could ever be real.
How much time occurred in that day with "no beginning"?
How much time occurred in that year with "no beginning"?
Please be specific.
untermensche
Contributor
Really?
How would you know it if you saw something with "no beginning"?
How would you demonstrate it had "no beginning"?
Explain how something with "no beginning" could exist.
untermensche
Contributor
Do you think events without end occurred before you were born?
If they were without beginning they were also without end.
Same number of events.
untermensche
Contributor
dup
beero1000
Veteran Member
Kids these days, amirite?
untermensche
Contributor
Do you claim time "without beginning", whatever that could mean, is a different amount of time than time without end?
Do you think it is a different amount of time as time with "no beginning" or no end?
Show your work.
beero1000
Veteran Member
If you don't know what a term means, how are you making such assertive claims about its properties?
I'm just here to play with my toys and make fun of intransigent dummies on the internet. vroom vroom!
untermensche
Contributor
You're only playing with yourself.
beero1000
Veteran Member
You could get into trouble talking to a child that way.
untermensche
Contributor
There are poor fools on the internet who think infinite time is different depending on how you describe it.
They think if you say "no beginning" to describe infinite time it is a different amount of time than if you say "no end" to describe it.
They even think it is a different amount of time than if you say "no beginning" and "no end".
Very strange when one does not even understand infinite time ALWAYS equals infinite time.
It does not matter one bit how you describe it.
They are all imaginary and all the same exact thing.
If infinite time occurred before you were born that is exactly like saying: Time without beginning AND without end occurred before you were born.
They think if you say "no beginning" to describe infinite time it is a different amount of time than if you say "no end" to describe it.
They even think it is a different amount of time than if you say "no beginning" and "no end".
Very strange when one does not even understand infinite time ALWAYS equals infinite time.
It does not matter one bit how you describe it.
They are all imaginary and all the same exact thing.
If infinite time occurred before you were born that is exactly like saying: Time without beginning AND without end occurred before you were born.
fast
Contributor
I want to say something about the ambiguity of words. There's a second level and even third level confusion that extends beyond the common mayhem that results because of it. It might be deserving of its own thread, but because I just want to vent and I use "logical possibility" to illustrate the third level, I'll just say it here. It's not like I have an intent to argue--just wanna explain the craziness.
First, just a quick example. If I say you can use your debit card at the ATM by the bank, context makes it quite discernible which meaning of the word, "bank" I'm using, so even though the word is ambiguous, context disambiguates the speech act making it clear which meaning of the word I'm using. A secondary thought I have, stemming from the fact dictionaries utilize both numbers and letters in their definitions, it might be the case that what appears to be the same word isn't always what we might naively consider it to be, but that's a strangeness not intended to bring to bear as I explain what it is I see.
Now that I've waded into the cold waters by giving a semi-explanation of the word ambiguity, let me turn to my second example which will serve as the thrust behind what I want to express here. The word, "criminal." I'm not talking about a person but the act. If context makes it clear that I'm using the term to describe an act in regard to its legal standing, then it's possible one might confuse the meaning of "criminal" as some people confuse "wrong" (in the legally impermissible sense ) with "wrong" (in the not worthy of praise moral sense). A simple explanation of which meaning I'm using should elimate the problem of ambiguity, but there's a second level problem that seldom goes addressed.
If you know darn well that a particular act is legal (and thus not criminal), you just might decide to make the claim that committing such an act is criminal. Yes, that's a play on the ambiguity of the word that could easily be pointed out, but there's something else going on that delves much deeper that I see only with ambiguous words. If you say it's criminal, I shouldn't disagree because the proposition expressed hinges on your use of the term you're using, but when I say it's not criminal (but not as a denial of what you say but as an assertion in my own right) and you say I'm mistaken because there's another meaning of the term, then Houston, we have a problem! When I use context and make it clear which meaning I'm using, I'm not wrong.
I'm almost there. Now, if I don't make it clear which meaning I'm using and say that an act is not criminal, any diasagreement that comes out of ignorance shouldn't be coupled with whatever meaning you decide to think I could have meant. This can be seen clearly (and avoided) when words are substituted with other words or symbols.
Let criminal in the legal sense be criminal1
Let criminal in the moral sense be criminal2
The problem with those choices actually brings rise to the third level confusion. Some ambiguous words have relationships that other ambiguous words don't. It's not like there's an overarching criminality with two subsets. The relation between physically possible and logically possible (despite one implying the other but not inversely) still falls under an overarching umbrella of possibility. Such is not the case with criminality.
Back to level 2. Let criminal1 be saucyelle and let criminal2 be criminaloral. If I say that an act is saucyelle, the word not only disallows ambiguity, but it prevents the notion that a different conclusion can be reached had there been ambiguity--there's no 'use whatever you want' mentality.
"Logical possibility" is more problematic because of the relationship. I'm going to use letters:
PP (Physically possible)
LP (Logically possible)
P (Possible)
PP implies LP whereas LP does not imply PP
Case study 1: An event that is logically possible but physically impossible. What I'm going to do is pretend there is no 3rd layer problem. I doubt I explained myself well enough anyway, so that shouldn't be hard, but I will treat it as a level 2 problem. Untermensche refuses to entertain the case study, for in his mind, it's irrational to consider something that's impossible as possible. To him, it's a complete contradiction with no basis in reality. From his perspective, we're speaking from both sides of our mouths with one thing coming out one side and the opposite coming out the other. Well, I guess that's what happens when the depths of ambiguity rears its ugly head. Hell, if I couldn't compartmentalize the two, I might have been taken back myself. If someone said event X is possible, but incidentally, X is impossible as well, I'd of been like, "argumentum crack smoke 'em?"
Now, let's back up and punt and drag criminality into this. Remember, I'm erasing the level three understanding, so "Possibility" (P) will be on par with "criminality." I'll just use my judgement for parallel purposes and let both the moral sense of "criminal" and "logical possibility" be the heavy weights on one side of the see saw and let the legal sense of "criminal" and "physical possibility" be the light weights on the other side.
When will this start to make sense? Shortly. Recall my original assumption. There is something problematic just underneath the surface that extends the complications of ambiguity beyond what we typically think of. We can't just explain the ambiguous nature of a word, for like I eluded to earlier, when people hear a word, they feel like they can automatically pick any meaning they feel like. Yes, they can, but it won't necessarily stand good as a relevant point when addressing the proposition expressed by the original speaker.
What we can do is disambiguate "possibility." We think we're doing it when we speak of PP as being different from LP (and on the third level of abstraction from hell, we are), but the same daggonit word P shows up in both, allowing for the same darn effect that gives rise to the very issue I'm trying to lasso.
An event is pottyable if we can imagine it to happen, but it's only pearlable if it can actually happen. Both are umbrellable. I made up those three words. But then again, I also made up and saucyelle and criminaloral. The point was one in the same, to elimate the second level problem generated from the ambiguity.
We can now argue until our hearts are content. If i can get you to agree with me that event X is saucyelle without having to contend with criminaloralism, who gives a shit that event X is criminal in the particular sense that had absolutely no bearing on the conversation? One can't even do a sneak attack without looking like an idiot whereas before, the switch can be subtle and disturbing when the second level confusion gets disguised in.
Logical possibilities include physical impossibilities; that we know, but it's cumbersome to also explain that possibilities include impossibilities when the switch between the common link is misunderstood. So, back to "An event is pottyable if we can imagine it to happen, but it's only pearlable if it can actually happen. Both are umbrellable." I don't see Untermensche maintaining a parallel perspective when the source of the problem vanishes. The only sense of "possible" he has in mind is vehamently constrained to not include nonsense like impossibilities that are possible, yet is there any reason for him to deny that pottyables that don't include pearlables can be included in the group of umbrellables? I think not. No more would I expect a denial of that than would I expect that he could not see that a group of both dumb shit and good shit could easily fall in the group of total shit.
First, just a quick example. If I say you can use your debit card at the ATM by the bank, context makes it quite discernible which meaning of the word, "bank" I'm using, so even though the word is ambiguous, context disambiguates the speech act making it clear which meaning of the word I'm using. A secondary thought I have, stemming from the fact dictionaries utilize both numbers and letters in their definitions, it might be the case that what appears to be the same word isn't always what we might naively consider it to be, but that's a strangeness not intended to bring to bear as I explain what it is I see.
Now that I've waded into the cold waters by giving a semi-explanation of the word ambiguity, let me turn to my second example which will serve as the thrust behind what I want to express here. The word, "criminal." I'm not talking about a person but the act. If context makes it clear that I'm using the term to describe an act in regard to its legal standing, then it's possible one might confuse the meaning of "criminal" as some people confuse "wrong" (in the legally impermissible sense ) with "wrong" (in the not worthy of praise moral sense). A simple explanation of which meaning I'm using should elimate the problem of ambiguity, but there's a second level problem that seldom goes addressed.
If you know darn well that a particular act is legal (and thus not criminal), you just might decide to make the claim that committing such an act is criminal. Yes, that's a play on the ambiguity of the word that could easily be pointed out, but there's something else going on that delves much deeper that I see only with ambiguous words. If you say it's criminal, I shouldn't disagree because the proposition expressed hinges on your use of the term you're using, but when I say it's not criminal (but not as a denial of what you say but as an assertion in my own right) and you say I'm mistaken because there's another meaning of the term, then Houston, we have a problem! When I use context and make it clear which meaning I'm using, I'm not wrong.
I'm almost there. Now, if I don't make it clear which meaning I'm using and say that an act is not criminal, any diasagreement that comes out of ignorance shouldn't be coupled with whatever meaning you decide to think I could have meant. This can be seen clearly (and avoided) when words are substituted with other words or symbols.
Let criminal in the legal sense be criminal1
Let criminal in the moral sense be criminal2
The problem with those choices actually brings rise to the third level confusion. Some ambiguous words have relationships that other ambiguous words don't. It's not like there's an overarching criminality with two subsets. The relation between physically possible and logically possible (despite one implying the other but not inversely) still falls under an overarching umbrella of possibility. Such is not the case with criminality.
Back to level 2. Let criminal1 be saucyelle and let criminal2 be criminaloral. If I say that an act is saucyelle, the word not only disallows ambiguity, but it prevents the notion that a different conclusion can be reached had there been ambiguity--there's no 'use whatever you want' mentality.
"Logical possibility" is more problematic because of the relationship. I'm going to use letters:
PP (Physically possible)
LP (Logically possible)
P (Possible)
PP implies LP whereas LP does not imply PP
Case study 1: An event that is logically possible but physically impossible. What I'm going to do is pretend there is no 3rd layer problem. I doubt I explained myself well enough anyway, so that shouldn't be hard, but I will treat it as a level 2 problem. Untermensche refuses to entertain the case study, for in his mind, it's irrational to consider something that's impossible as possible. To him, it's a complete contradiction with no basis in reality. From his perspective, we're speaking from both sides of our mouths with one thing coming out one side and the opposite coming out the other. Well, I guess that's what happens when the depths of ambiguity rears its ugly head. Hell, if I couldn't compartmentalize the two, I might have been taken back myself. If someone said event X is possible, but incidentally, X is impossible as well, I'd of been like, "argumentum crack smoke 'em?"
Now, let's back up and punt and drag criminality into this. Remember, I'm erasing the level three understanding, so "Possibility" (P) will be on par with "criminality." I'll just use my judgement for parallel purposes and let both the moral sense of "criminal" and "logical possibility" be the heavy weights on one side of the see saw and let the legal sense of "criminal" and "physical possibility" be the light weights on the other side.
When will this start to make sense? Shortly. Recall my original assumption. There is something problematic just underneath the surface that extends the complications of ambiguity beyond what we typically think of. We can't just explain the ambiguous nature of a word, for like I eluded to earlier, when people hear a word, they feel like they can automatically pick any meaning they feel like. Yes, they can, but it won't necessarily stand good as a relevant point when addressing the proposition expressed by the original speaker.
What we can do is disambiguate "possibility." We think we're doing it when we speak of PP as being different from LP (and on the third level of abstraction from hell, we are), but the same daggonit word P shows up in both, allowing for the same darn effect that gives rise to the very issue I'm trying to lasso.
An event is pottyable if we can imagine it to happen, but it's only pearlable if it can actually happen. Both are umbrellable. I made up those three words. But then again, I also made up and saucyelle and criminaloral. The point was one in the same, to elimate the second level problem generated from the ambiguity.
We can now argue until our hearts are content. If i can get you to agree with me that event X is saucyelle without having to contend with criminaloralism, who gives a shit that event X is criminal in the particular sense that had absolutely no bearing on the conversation? One can't even do a sneak attack without looking like an idiot whereas before, the switch can be subtle and disturbing when the second level confusion gets disguised in.
Logical possibilities include physical impossibilities; that we know, but it's cumbersome to also explain that possibilities include impossibilities when the switch between the common link is misunderstood. So, back to "An event is pottyable if we can imagine it to happen, but it's only pearlable if it can actually happen. Both are umbrellable." I don't see Untermensche maintaining a parallel perspective when the source of the problem vanishes. The only sense of "possible" he has in mind is vehamently constrained to not include nonsense like impossibilities that are possible, yet is there any reason for him to deny that pottyables that don't include pearlables can be included in the group of umbrellables? I think not. No more would I expect a denial of that than would I expect that he could not see that a group of both dumb shit and good shit could easily fall in the group of total shit.
Last edited:
untermensche
Contributor
What is the difference between "physically possible" and "possible"?