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

[untermensche]

They both weigh the same amount and take up the same amount of space and are composed of the same number of individual elements.

This imaginary thing "infinity".

Try reading infinity as beyond need or ability of observer to calculate...

That is an entirely different concept than infinity. What you are describing is some of the reasoning that allows us to use infinity in calculus. Use it with imaginary entities, not anything real.

Infinity is a concept involving an endless series. If we were to apply it to reality it would mean an endless amount.

Infinity is not a concept of a series or amount we can't count.

That is some other concept entirely.

Of course that exists.

 

[fromderinside]

Endless series? Different than a maths? Hoboy........

 

[beero1000]

Must be easy winning arguments when you get to decide everyone's positions.

Anyway, I was just thinking - if only there was some field of human knowledge that specialized in answering questions about infinities. Then they might be able to do things like distinguish between the cardinality and order type of sets. Wouldn't that be amazing? And while we're fantasizing, wouldn't it be cool if there was a credentialed expert in the field here who could point out who was right and who was wrong?

Sucks that those are just the daydreams of children...

 

[untermensche]

More than you can count can easily be a finite amount.

You are claiming infinite and finite are the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Must be easy winning arguments when you get to decide everyone's positions.

Anyway, I was just thinking - if only there was some field of human knowledge that specialized in answering questions about infinities. Then they might be able to do things like distinguish between the cardinality and order type of sets. Wouldn't that be amazing? And while we're fantasizing, wouldn't it be cool if there was a credentialed expert in the field here who could point out who was right and who was wrong?

Sucks that those are just the daydreams of children...

There is no field that can say ONE WORD about real infinities.

No such thing exists.

Yes, humans can go on and on about their imaginary creations.

 

[beero1000]

There is no field that can say ONE WORD about real infinities.

No such thing exists.

There is no field that can say ONE WORD about real infinities.

No such thing exists.

​

There is no field that can say ONE WORD about real infinities.

No such thing exists.

I suppose it's also really easy to win arguments when you get to decide whose logic applies to the problem.

 

[untermensche]

That is not an argument of any kind.

Once again you prove you have NO IDEAS.

Give me an example of a real infinity and prove it is infinite.

 

[bilby]

Let us count the number of years in the past from a given moment, in a universe with "no beginning".

The most recent year in the past would be year number 1.

The year before that would be year number 2.

And so on ......

What is clear is that in a universe with "no beginning" the number of years before any given moment are without end number.

Let's not use the word 'end'; it has too many different meanings to you, and you seem disinclined to pick one and stick with it. Certainly, the number of years before any given moment are infinite; without number. They also (by your own definition) finish at a given moment.

There is no contradiction here; IF the past is infinite, then there are an infinite number of past moments - and yet there is still a choice of an infinite number of given moments which can arbitrarily be described as the end of the time that led up to that moment.

Your only objection to this seems to be that it doesn't feel 'right' to you - it makes you uncomfortable. But that's not reality's problem.

 

[untermensche]

Let us count the number of years in the past from a given moment, in a universe with "no beginning".

The most recent year in the past would be year number 1.

The year before that would be year number 2.

And so on ......

What is clear is that in a universe with "no beginning" the number of years before any given moment are without end number.

Let's not use the word 'end'; it has too many different meanings to you, and you seem disinclined to pick one and stick with it. Certainly, the number of years before any given moment are infinite; without number. They also (by your own definition) finish at a given moment.

There is no contradiction here; IF the past is infinite, then there are an infinite number of past moments - and yet there is still a choice of an infinite number of given moments which can arbitrarily be described as the end of the time that led up to that moment.

Your only objection to this seems to be that it doesn't feel 'right' to you - it makes you uncomfortable. But that's not reality's problem.

I have tried to explain it to you but you are unable to learn. In terms of the number of years there is no difference in saying years with no end or saying years with "no beginning". There in not one bit of difference in the number of years.

A count of the years in the past can begin anywhere.

But it has to begin somewhere.

So to count the number of years in the past you can start at any arbitrary moment and begin.

As I said, the first year prior to that arbitrary but necessary moment would be year # 1.

The year before that would be year # 2.

And so on...... forever. In a universe with "no beginning".

In a universe with no beginning the number of years prior to any given moment are without end.

To get to any moment in such a universe requires years without end passing first.

 

[bilby]

Let's not use the word 'end'; it has too many different meanings to you, and you seem disinclined to pick one and stick with it. Certainly, the number of years before any given moment are infinite; without number. They also (by your own definition) finish at a given moment.

There is no contradiction here; IF the past is infinite, then there are an infinite number of past moments - and yet there is still a choice of an infinite number of given moments which can arbitrarily be described as the end of the time that led up to that moment.

Your only objection to this seems to be that it doesn't feel 'right' to you - it makes you uncomfortable. But that's not reality's problem.

I have tried to explain it to you but you are unable to learn thinking about it without prejudice, rather than enthusiastically joining me in my error. In terms of the number of years there is no difference in saying infinite years with no end or saying years with "no beginning". There in not one bit of difference in the number of years.

A count of the years in the past can begin anywhere.

But it has to begin somewhere.

So to count the number of years in the past you can start at any arbitrary moment and begin.

As I said, the first year prior to that arbitrary but necessary moment would be year # 1.

The year before that would be year # 2.

And so on...... forever. In a universe with "no beginning".

In a universe with no beginning the number of years prior to any given moment are infinite without end.

To get to any moment in such a universe requires an infinite number of years without end to have passed first.

Apart from your incorrect use of tense in the last sentence, and after I tidy up your 'end's, which need to be a lot more specific than you seem prepared to make them, (my corrections in bold), you are right.

Clearly YOU think there's a problem of some kind with this. But there isn't. It all seems perfectly reasonable and plausible to me.

If you find it uncomfortable, then that's your prerogative - but reality is under no obligation to be comfortable for you.

 

[untermensche]

In a universe with no beginning the number of years prior to any given moment are infinite without end.

To get to any moment in such a universe requires an infinite number of years without end to have passed first.

Apart from your incorrect use of tense in the last sentence, and after I tidy up your 'end's, which need to be a lot more specific than you seem prepared to make them, (my corrections in bold), you are right.

Clearly YOU think there's a problem of some kind with this. But there isn't. It all seems perfectly reasonable and plausible to me.

If you find it uncomfortable, then that's your prerogative - but reality is under no obligation to be comfortable for you.

Infinite years and years without end are the same exact number of years. They are two ways of saying the same amount of years.

So crossing out "without end" and inserting "infinite" changes nothing.

You have not changed what I wrote at all. You have merely said the same thing in another way.

Which means you must agree.

Only a fool could think that time with no beginning happened before they were born.

Because it is exactly like thinking time without end happened before they were born.

Same exact amount of time. This imaginary amount of time called infinity.

 

[fast]

A: 1 year
B: infinite number of years

C: A < B
D: A > B

Most people would hold that C is true.
Untermensche holds that D is true

What should we hold as true?

 

[bilby]

Apart from your incorrect use of tense in the last sentence, and after I tidy up your 'end's, which need to be a lot more specific than you seem prepared to make them, (my corrections in bold), you are right.

Clearly YOU think there's a problem of some kind with this. But there isn't. It all seems perfectly reasonable and plausible to me.

If you find it uncomfortable, then that's your prerogative - but reality is under no obligation to be comfortable for you.

Infinite years and years without end are the same exact number of years. They are two ways of saying the same amount of years.

OK.

So crossing out "without end" and inserting "infinite" changes nothing.

No, but it eliminates the risk of errors caused by equivocation on the various possible meanings of the word 'end'. So it is preferable, as it prevents any possible confusion.

You have not changed what I wrote at all. You have merely said the same thing in another way.

Yes, I know. That's why I said "Apart from your incorrect use of tense in the last sentence, and after I tidy up your 'end's, which need to be a lot more specific than you seem prepared to make them, (my corrections in bold), you are right."

Which means you must agree.

Agree with what? That if time has no beginning, then the past is infinite? I never disagreed with that.

Only a fool could think that time with no beginning happened before they were born.

Really? I certainly don't agree with that; and would love for you to explain why thinking that time without beginning happened before I was born is in any way foolish. All the evidence we have shows it to be a very reasonable possibility.

Because it is exactly like thinking time without end happened before they were born.

Sure. Why not? (assuming that by 'without end' you mean 'infinite'. If by 'without end' you mean 'never finishing', then clearly it's untrue, as by definition the time before my birth finishes with my birth).

Same exact amount of time. This imaginary amount of time called infinity.

Yes. That's the amount of time in the past, if the past doesn't have a beginning. So what?

Clearly YOU think there's a problem of some kind with this. But there isn't. It all seems perfectly reasonable and plausible to me.

If you find it uncomfortable, then that's your prerogative - but reality is under no obligation to be comfortable for you.

 

[untermensche]

Same exact amount of time. This imaginary amount of time called infinity.

Yes. That's the amount of time in the past, if the past doesn't have a beginning. So what?

The problem is minor.

It just means that before any moment infinite time has to pass first.

 

[bilby]

Yes. That's the amount of time in the past, if the past doesn't have a beginning. So what?

The problem is minor.

It just means that before any moment infinite time has to pass first.

Again, so what?

If the past has no beginning, then before any moment, infinite time has to pass, and infinite time has existed for it to do so. What's the problem?

 

[untermensche]

The problem is minor.

It just means that before any moment infinite time has to pass first.

Again, so what?

If the past has no beginning, then before any moment, infinite time has to pass, and infinite time has existed for it to do so. What's the problem?

Infinite time CANNOT pass.

Ever.

Infinite time is by definition time that never stops passing.

Which is the exact same amount of time as time that "never begins" which also equals infinite time.

They are just two ways of describing the exact same amount of time.

Nothing irrational in saying time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

So if time without beginning happened before your birth that is exactly like saying time without end happened before your birth.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't take much to understand this.

All it takes is a willingness to count.

Assume the years in the past are "without beginning" and start counting them beginning with the previous year as YEAR # 1.

Then the year before that is YEAR # 2.

Keep counting.

Unless you are very dull you should understand that your counting will never end.

The number of years in the past in a universe "without beginning" are without end.

For a person to be born in such a universe years without end must pass first.

 

[bilby]

Again, so what?

If the past has no beginning, then before any moment, infinite time has to pass, and infinite time has existed for it to do so. What's the problem?

Infinite time CANNOT pass.

Of course it fucking can. It just needs an infinite amount of time in which to do so - which, if time has no beginning, it has got by definition.

Again with your crazy equivocation on the word 'end'.

Here's a hint. Use words that cannot mean more than one thing. Use ONLY those words. Then see whether your objection still exists.

"Time without end" can mean "Time that has yet to finish" OR "Time that is infinite in duration"; But these definitions are NOT THE SAME THING.

There's nothing irrational in saying "Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time that is infinite in duration". But saying "Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time that has yet to finish" is utter nonsense.

Try writing out your entire argument, without once using the word 'end'. Use words and phrases that are specific, clear, well defined and have only ONE possible meaning.

Can you manage that?

Didn't think so.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time CANNOT pass.

Of course it fucking can. It just needs an infinite amount of time in which to do so - which, if time has no beginning, it has got by definition.

No it cannot.

No matter how much time it has it will never have passed.

It is irrational under all cases to say that infinite time has passed.

Again with your crazy equivocation on the word 'end'.

I'm not using one word.

I am using whole concepts.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

This has nothing to do with the word "end". It is about equivalent amounts of time.

An equivalence you don't seem able to comprehend.

 

[Juma]

Of course it fucking can. It just needs an infinite amount of time in which to do so - which, if time has no beginning, it has got by definition.

No it cannot.

No matter how much time it has it will never have passed.

It is irrational under all cases to say that infinite time has passed.

Again with your crazy equivocation on the word 'end'.

I'm not using one word.

I am using whole concepts.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

This has nothing to do with the word "end". It is about equivalent amounts of time.

An equivalence you don't seem able to comprehend.

Is this an art project? Are you trying to be an infinite jerk? The amount of ”no it cannot and i dont care to have any rational explanation for saying so” statements seem to be unlimted. I wonder to which end?

 

[untermensche]

No it cannot.

No matter how much time it has it will never have passed.

It is irrational under all cases to say that infinite time has passed.

Again with your crazy equivocation on the word 'end'.

I'm not using one word.

I am using whole concepts.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

This has nothing to do with the word "end". It is about equivalent amounts of time.

An equivalence you don't seem able to comprehend.

Is this an art project? Are you trying to be an infinite jerk? The amount of ”no it cannot and i dont care to have any rational explanation for saying so” statements seem to be unlimted. I wonder to which end?

Infinite time will never pass. Under no circumstances could it be in the past.

If you think this is not true make a point.