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

[fast]

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

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.

Let's just say I have a half way decent idea of what you've been driving at. I don't agree with every objection thrown your way. I just haven't put in the time to explain things such everyone agrees. It's reminiscent of a language barrier. Don't get me wrong. There are times when people disagree because of the content of what's being said, but then again, there are times when disagreement has less to do with what's meant but rather how it was said.

 

[fast]

What is the difference between "physically possible" and "possible"?

All the bullshit you could ever dream up* (whether consistent with reality or not) quite easily fits in the gigantuan bucket we call possible. In that bucket is a tiny tiny, oh so tiny, cup that holds some really sensible things. It's labeled. It says physically possible. Now, if we sprinkle impossibilities over the bucket, some will fall like leaves where some land inside the bucket (but not in the cup) while others drop outside the bucket.

*save contradictions (always gotta add that crap); otherwise logical possibilities would be possible too, and we can't have that.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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.

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

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.

No, I am not trying to claim infinite time does not equal infinite time. You completely missed my point. I am making no claims about time. That's for you and bilby to debate. I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that you made a false claim -- a stupid claim -- about what bilby said. Speak for yourself and let bilby speak for himself. Don't change his words to what you wish he said and then argue against your own words that you put in his mouth. It's rude, it's stupid, and it makes you look like an idiot and a jerk. You aren't trying to make yourself look like an idiot or a jerk, are you?

Bilby evidently thinks that there are different breeds of infinite time. He evidently thinks "infinite time" is a category like "mammal" that has room in it for more than one kind of thing. You disagree with him about that point, as you are perfectly entitled to do. But your opinion that he's wrong does not entitle you to assume he accepts your premises in your reasoning about what he meant by his words. To figure out what another person means by his words you have to rely on his premises, not your own.

If you think his statements imply time without beginning is the same thing as time without end, feel free to make the case for that -- feel free to explain why there can't be more than one breed of infinite time. But, even if you prove that, all you'll have shown is that bilby ought to realize they were both the exact same thing -- you will not have shown bilby said they were both the exact same thing.

It's just like if you somehow proved there's only kind of mammal. That would prove cats and dogs are the same thing, but it would not prove that I said they were the same thing. All I said was that a cat and a dog are both mammals. When you try to paraphrase what I said, you'd need to take into account the fact that I didn't know there was only one kind of mammal. Likewise, in the case of your discussion with bilby, you need to take into account the fact that bilby doesn't know there's only one kind of "infinite time".

Now as it happens, you did try to make the case -- you wrote "Both statements refer to the exact same thing, the same amount of time. Infinite time." But that's a bad argument. "The same amount" does not imply "the same thing". Not only are a dog a mammal and a cat a mammal, but they are both the exact same amount of mammals. A dog is 1 mammal and a cat is 1 mammal. But a dog is not a cat. Being the exact same amount is not enough to be the exact same thing. So if you want to show there's only one kind of infinite time, you'll need a better argument than merely pointing out that there's only one amount of infinite time.

 

[bilby]

dup

It's usually spelled 'derp'.

 

[untermensche]

dup

It's usually spelled 'derp'.

The village idiot has piped in.

Good work Lassie.

 

[untermensche]

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.

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

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.

No, I am not trying to claim infinite time does not equal infinite time. You completely missed my point. I am making no claims about time. That's for you and bilby to debate. I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that you made a false claim -- a stupid claim -- about what bilby said. Speak for yourself and let bilby speak for himself. Don't change his words to what you wish he said and then argue against your own words that you put in his mouth. It's rude, it's stupid, and it makes you look like an idiot and a jerk. You aren't trying to make yourself look like an idiot or a jerk, are you?

Bilby evidently thinks that there are different breeds of infinite time. He evidently thinks "infinite time" is a category like "mammal" that has room in it for more than one kind of thing. You disagree with him about that point, as you are perfectly entitled to do. But your opinion that he's wrong does not entitle you to assume he accepts your premises in your reasoning about what he meant by his words. To figure out what another person means by his words you have to rely on his premises, not your own.

If you think his statements imply time without beginning is the same thing as time without end, feel free to make the case for that -- feel free to explain why there can't be more than one breed of infinite time. But, even if you prove that, all you'll have shown is that bilby ought to realize they were both the exact same thing -- you will not have shown bilby said they were both the exact same thing.

It's just like if you somehow proved there's only kind of mammal. That would prove cats and dogs are the same thing, but it would not prove that I said they were the same thing. All I said was that a cat and a dog are both mammals. When you try to paraphrase what I said, you'd need to take into account the fact that I didn't know there was only one kind of mammal. Likewise, in the case of your discussion with bilby, you need to take into account the fact that bilby doesn't know there's only one kind of "infinite time".

Now as it happens, you did try to make the case -- you wrote "Both statements refer to the exact same thing, the same amount of time. Infinite time." But that's a bad argument. "The same amount" does not imply "the same thing". Not only are a dog a mammal and a cat a mammal, but they are both the exact same amount of mammals. A dog is 1 mammal and a cat is 1 mammal. But a dog is not a cat. Being the exact same amount is not enough to be the exact same thing. So if you want to show there's only one kind of infinite time, you'll need a better argument than merely pointing out that there's only one amount of infinite time.

I don't know what to make of this bag of tears.

Go talk to somebody else if you want to talk about mammals.

There is no difference in terms of the AMOUNT of time between time that never ends and time that never begins.

Both refer to the same amount of time.

In terms of the amount of time they are equivalent.

So in terms of the amount of time there is no difference between saying time with no beginning occurred before his birth or time with no end. In fact you also could say time with no beginning AND no end occurred before his birth. That is also equivalent.

If one claims something ALWAYS existed they are making the absurd claim that time without end occurred before they were born.

It is not a rational statement or a rational option.

 

[untermensche]

What is the difference between "physically possible" and "possible"?

All the bullshit you could ever dream up* (whether consistent with reality or not) quite easily fits in the gigantuan bucket we call possible. In that bucket is a tiny tiny, oh so tiny, cup that holds some really sensible things. It's labeled. It says physically possible. Now, if we sprinkle impossibilities over the bucket, some will fall like leaves where some land inside the bucket (but not in the cup) while others drop outside the bucket.

*save contradictions (always gotta add that crap); otherwise logical possibilities would be possible too, and we can't have that.

Just dreaming something up only makes dreaming it up possible.

 

[fast]

All the bullshit you could ever dream up* (whether consistent with reality or not) quite easily fits in the gigantuan bucket we call possible. In that bucket is a tiny tiny, oh so tiny, cup that holds some really sensible things. It's labeled. It says physically possible. Now, if we sprinkle impossibilities over the bucket, some will fall like leaves where some land inside the bucket (but not in the cup) while others drop outside the bucket.

*save contradictions (always gotta add that crap); otherwise logical possibilities would be possible too, and we can't have that.

Just dreaming something up only makes dreaming it up possible.

You just narrowed the use of "possible." Your view of what it means to say of something that it's possible is perfectly aligned such that it excludes the physically impossible. Not sure why you inquired of the difference if you're gonna use them such there is no difference.

 

[beero1000]

I don't know what to make of this bag of tears.

Go talk to somebody else if you want to talk about mammals.

There is no difference in terms of the AMOUNT of time between time that never ends and time that never begins.

Both refer to the same amount of time.

In terms of the amount of time they are equivalent.

So in terms of the amount of time there is no difference between saying time with no beginning occurred before his birth or time with no end. In fact you also could say time with no beginning AND no end occurred before his birth. That is also equivalent.

If one claims something ALWAYS existed they are making the absurd claim that time without end occurred before they were born.

It is not a rational statement or a rational option.

There is no difference in terms of the AMOUNT of time that occurred yesterday and the amount of time that occurs tomorrow.

Both refer to the same amount of time.

In terms of the amount of time they are equivalent.

So in terms of the amount of time there is no difference between saying yesterday occurs before today or tomorrow occurs before today. In fact you also could say yesterday AND tomorrow occurred before today. That is also equivalent.

 

[George S]

What is the difference between "physically possible" and "possible"?

Physically possible: When all supernatural, magic, Divine Providence, lucky charms, blessings, and gods are eliminated, what is left is "physically possible."
Logically Possible but not physically possible: An example is a creator god. A creator god has full explanatory power.

It is a logical possibility that the universe had a beginning. It is a logical possibility that the universe had no beginning.
It is logically possible that time goes both ways (under CPT transformation). There could be a mirror universe "before" time zero contracting to a minimum size and then expanding. To the denizens of that mirror universe, where time runs the other way, they see a universe contracting to the same time zero.
It is logically possible that there are baby universes whose time is separate from ours. They may be black holes. Our universe could be a black hole in a containing universe with its own time.

The scientific method is used to eliminate the logically possible that is not physically possible.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, I am not trying to claim infinite time does not equal infinite time. You completely missed my point. I am making no claims about time. That's for you and bilby to debate. I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that you made a false claim -- a stupid claim -- about what bilby said. Speak for yourself and let bilby speak for himself. Don't change his words to what you wish he said and then argue against your own words that you put in his mouth. It's rude, it's stupid, and it makes you look like an idiot and a jerk. You aren't trying to make yourself look like an idiot or a jerk, are you?

Bilby evidently thinks that there are different breeds of infinite time. He evidently thinks "infinite time" is a category like "mammal" that has room in it for more than one kind of thing. You disagree with him about that point, as you are perfectly entitled to do. But your opinion that he's wrong does not entitle you to assume he accepts your premises in your reasoning about what he meant by his words. To figure out what another person means by his words you have to rely on his premises, not your own.

If you think his statements imply time without beginning is the same thing as time without end, feel free to make the case for that -- feel free to explain why there can't be more than one breed of infinite time. But, even if you prove that, all you'll have shown is that bilby ought to realize they were both the exact same thing -- you will not have shown bilby said they were both the exact same thing.

It's just like if you somehow proved there's only kind of mammal. That would prove cats and dogs are the same thing, but it would not prove that I said they were the same thing. All I said was that a cat and a dog are both mammals. When you try to paraphrase what I said, you'd need to take into account the fact that I didn't know there was only one kind of mammal. Likewise, in the case of your discussion with bilby, you need to take into account the fact that bilby doesn't know there's only one kind of "infinite time".

Now as it happens, you did try to make the case -- you wrote "Both statements refer to the exact same thing, the same amount of time. Infinite time." But that's a bad argument. "The same amount" does not imply "the same thing". Not only are a dog a mammal and a cat a mammal, but they are both the exact same amount of mammals. A dog is 1 mammal and a cat is 1 mammal. But a dog is not a cat. Being the exact same amount is not enough to be the exact same thing. So if you want to show there's only one kind of infinite time, you'll need a better argument than merely pointing out that there's only one amount of infinite time.

I don't know what to make of this bag of tears.

Then face the fact that you aren't infallible, open your mind to the possibility that you might have made a mistake, and read it again.

Go talk to somebody else if you want to talk about mammals.

I want to talk about the fact that "=" is not the same thing as "is", and you assumed they were the same thing, and that mistake led you to put words in bilby's mouth. If there is some topic other than mammals that you would find more comfortable to think about and that would help you wrap your mind around the difference between inclusion and equality, feel free to use that topic in place of mammals. Here, I'll get you started:

bilby is a TFT poster.
untermensche is a TFT poster.

Do you believe this implies you and bilby are the same person? Here's another example:

Donald Trump is an irrational person.
untermensche is an irrational person.

Conclusion left as an exercise for the reader.

There is no difference in terms of the AMOUNT of time between time that never ends and time that never begins.

Both refer to the same amount of time.

In terms of the amount of time they are equivalent.

So in terms of the amount of time there is no difference between saying time with no beginning occurred before his birth or time with no end. In fact you also could say time with no beginning AND no end occurred before his birth. That is also equivalent.

That is your opinion. That is not bilby's opinion.

If one claims something ALWAYS existed they are making the absurd claim that time without end occurred before they were born.

That's an irrational inference for you to draw. If one claims something always existed he is making the claim that time without beginning occurred before he was born. A beginning is not the same thing as an end. You don't get to just go willy-nilly substituting one thing for another in other people's claims. When you infer they are making absurd claims, but you had to modify their words in order to get the absurdity, that's you being absurd, not them.

Your reasoning on this point has the form:

He says X.
I believe X implies Y.
-----------------------
Therefore, he says Y.

That's not correct reasoning. He says X. Don't put words in people's mouths.

 

[untermensche]

Just dreaming something up only makes dreaming it up possible.

You just narrowed the use of "possible." Your view of what it means to say of something that it's possible is perfectly aligned such that it excludes the physically impossible. Not sure why you inquired of the difference if you're gonna use them such there is no difference.

I have narrowed nothing.

Some expand words to the point they lose all meaning.

If something is possible that means it could possibly happen.

Claims about what could possibly happen require evidence, not dreams.

 

[untermensche]

So in terms of the amount of time there is no difference between saying yesterday occurs before today or tomorrow occurs before today. In fact you also could say yesterday AND tomorrow occurred before today. That is also equivalent.

That is not in terms of AMOUNT.

You are talking about ORDER.

And are too dull to comprehend that fact.

Nobody is claiming the future came before the past.

The claim is merely that infinite days in the past is the same number of days as infinite days in the future.

If somebody claims infinite days occurred before they were born they need an education.

 

[untermensche]

...I want to talk about the fact that "=" is not the same thing as "is"...

In ALL cases?

My phone bill is $75.

Does that mean it does not equal $75?

If one claims something ALWAYS existed they are making the absurd claim that time without end occurred before they were born.

That's an irrational inference for you to draw. If one claims something always existed he is making the claim that time without beginning occurred before he was born.

Days without beginning are the EXACT SAME NUMBER of days as days without end.

They are the same exact number of days as days without beginning AND without end.

Infinite days ALWAYS EQUALS infinite days. It does not matter one bit how you describe them.

 

[bilby]

If you think that your phone bill is $75, then you should try buying $75 worth of groceries with it.

 

[beero1000]

If you think that your phone bill is $75, then you should try buying $75 worth of groceries with it.

I just cannot accept that there exists a person who is this oblivious to reason. Then again, the guy talks about beginnings and endings, past and future, events occurring before and after, then thinks he isn't talking about order, and apparently I'm the dull one.

 

[untermensche]

If you think that your phone bill is $75, then you should try buying $75 worth of groceries with it.

Are you saying it does not equal $75?

How much does it equal?

Or are you making the wild claim that it doesn't equal anything?

Infinite days = days without beginning.

Infinite days = days without end.

Infinite days = days without beginning and without end.

These are all the SAME EXACT THING!!!! They are all "infinite days".

Only a fool thinks it matters how you describe them.

 

[fromderinside]

An infinity is put into a basket and fills it. Another infinity is put into a basket twice as large as the first basket and fill it. Clearly the two infinities are not equal.

You'll find that infinities are not equal. Some are larger than others. One proof is found in  Cantor's diagonal argument

 

[untermensche]

An infinity is put into a basket and fills it. Another infinity is put into a basket twice as large as the first basket and fill it. Clearly the two infinities are not equal.

An infinity of what fits into a basket?

An infinite number of grains of sand would completely fill infinite universes.

That's a big basket.

 

[beero1000]

Someone call Hilbert, he's gonna need to cancel his hotel reservation.