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

[untermensche]

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?

This is so bizarre it must somehow have something to do with the problem some have with this.

I am the only one saying:

Infinite years = Infinite years

Years without end = years without end

Which also happens to = years "without beginning"

Years without beginning = years without end.

They can never pass. They can never be in the past.

If somebody claims that infinite years already occurred in the past they are very lost because that is impossible. No matter how much time is available infinite time will never pass.

 

[beero1000]

Infinite years = Infinite years

Years without end = years without end

Which also happens to = years "without beginning"

Years without beginning = years without end.

These are all claims of equality based on the NUMBER of years.

They can never pass. They can never be in the past.

This is a claim based on the ORDER of the years.

Two sets can have the same size and have different order types. You are conflating the two and begging the question by assuming that the past and the future have the same order type. How many times must this be pointed out to you before you acknowledge it?

 

[George S]

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?

This is so bizarre it must somehow have something to do with the problem some have with this.

I am the only one saying:

Infinite years = Infinite years

Logically possible. Not all infinities are the same size.

Years without end = years without end

Another way of saying infinite years = infinite years. If, when counting a set, you cannot run out (without end), it is said to be a countably infinite set.

Which also happens to = years "without beginning"

Okay, I can count from zero and pair year 1 with year -1 and year +2 with year -2, and so on. So (on the assumption that infinite years are in the past) the infinity of years-in-the-past would be the same cardinality (size) as the infinity of years-in-the-future.

Years without beginning = years without end.

Years without beginning has the same cardinality as years without end.

They can never pass. They can never be in the past.

Countable infinities are, indeed, never complete. This incompleteness -- this going on forever without end -- is included in the definition.

If somebody claims that infinite years already occurred in the past they are very lost because that is impossible. No matter how much time is available infinite time will never pass.

Of course not. By definition.

And what is your conclusion? That it is physically impossible for time to be infinite in both directions? Modern physics agrees that the timeline has a start.

We could extend the timeline mentally into negative time. Speculation* abounds as to whether or not this region of the timeline exists in reality. This is because our mathematics breaks down at t=0.

____
* My favorite speculation is that there is a mirror universe expanding from the same t=0 in the negative direction. Expansion as negative time increases mirrors our expansion. The Big Bang conditions could (logical possibility) have banged both ways. The source of Big Bang conditions (for us both) is a mirror universe collapsing to Big Bang conditions never reaching zero size. (It is positive energy in zero volume that breaks our mathematics. Computation gets infinite energy density.) In that mirror matter becomes anti-matter, chirality (handedness) reverses (left becomes right), and negative charge becomes positive charge and vice versa.

 

[untermensche]

This is so bizarre it must somehow have something to do with the problem some have with this.

I am the only one saying:

Infinite years = Infinite years

Logically possible. Not all infinities are the same size.

Not all IMAGINARY infinities are the same.

Infinite time is just one thing. It cannot be more than one thing.

It can be described as time with no beginning or described as time without end.

It is the same thing. Infinite time.

If somebody claims that infinite years already occurred in the past they are very lost because that is impossible. No matter how much time is available infinite time will never pass.

Of course not. By definition.

Yes this is ALL by definition. That is the only way infinity exists. By a human definition. It exists in no other form.

And what is your conclusion? That it is physically impossible for time to be infinite in both directions?

The point is that a paradox exists.

There are logical arguments to show that it is impossible for time to just begin. Something seems unlikely to arise from nothing.

But there are also logical arguments showing it is impossible that the time in the past was infinite. Since infinite time means time without end. Saying the words "without beginning" as if they answer this problem is just blindness. Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end. It can't have passed. Ever. Even if it had no limit on the amount of time available to do it in. Infinite time can never have "passed". This is a truism.

Existence itself is a paradox. Beyond human understanding.

That is the point.

A point some do not like. They imagine humans as omniscient.

 

[untermensche]

These are all claims of equality based on the NUMBER of years.

Based on the conception.

Infinity only exists as a conception. It is the conception of an endless series.

So:

Infinite years = endless years.

Years without beginning = endless years as well. There is no end to the amount of them. Start counting if you don't believe me. Pick a moment to start counting from and then count the years in the past starting from the most recent. When do you think you will finish counting if no beginning exists?

You think by describing endless years in another way they stop becoming endless years.

It's like thinking the quarter stops existing when you close the hand over it.

They can never pass. They can never be in the past.

This is a claim based on the ORDER of the years.

Not at all.

It is based on the impossibility of infinite years ever passing. No matter where you think they exist.

 

[fast]

I grasp the idea that if what is purportedly true is true and that time is infinite then not enough time has sufficiently passed to account for the present we find ourselves in. That was not the object of my focus in my question.

You say that infinity doesn't exist. Well, you say that on the one hand but say it exists as a concept, but I'll let that go. The point is you deny that it's real. So, it's not like we can count really far in hopes of finding it or even get close. It's not like you're saying it's so far out we'll never find it; it's like you're saying it's not out there and so we'll never find it.

So, there's no point in counting as if we are approaching it. We won't find infinity following the number line any more than we'll find a unicorn. Your contention isn't that it's unfathomly far away but rather that it's imaginary and doesn't exist in the real world.

Now, most people think infinity is greater than 1. So, what if we ask, which is higher 1, 15, 300, or infinity? In that case, people are going to say infinity. You, however, deny that it even exists, so it doesn't stand to reason you would think infinity is higher than 1, let alone higher than 300.

 

[bilby]

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?

This is so bizarre it must somehow have something to do with the problem some have with this.

I am the only one saying:

Infinite years = Infinite years

Years without end = years without end

Which also happens to = years "without beginning"

Years without beginning = years without end.

They can never pass. They can never be in the past.

If somebody claims that infinite years already occurred in the past they are very lost because that is impossible. No matter how much time is available infinite time will never pass.

If infinite time is available, it not only will, but it must.

 

[untermensche]

If infinite time is available, it not only will, but it must.

This is the glaring and amusing error in your "thinking".

No.

Not even with unlimited time will infinite time ever finish passing. It can never have "passed".

It is by definition time that never finishes passing.

There is no container that infinite items can "fit" in. Not even a container of infinite size.

At no time will infinite items be "contained".

Under no circumstances can infinite time have already "passed".

Even if there is no limit to the amount of time available.

 

[untermensche]

I grasp the idea that if what is purportedly true is true and that time is infinite then not enough time has sufficiently passed to account for the present we find ourselves in. That was not the object of my focus in my question.

You say that infinity doesn't exist. Well, you say that on the one hand but say it exists as a concept, but I'll let that go. The point is you deny that it's real. So, it's not like we can count really far in hopes of finding it or even get close. It's not like you're saying it's so far out we'll never find it; it's like you're saying it's not out there and so we'll never find it.

So, there's no point in counting as if we are approaching it. We won't find infinity following the number line any more than we'll find a unicorn. Your contention isn't that it's unfathomly far away but rather that it's imaginary and doesn't exist in the real world.

Now, most people think infinity is greater than 1. So, what if we ask, which is higher 1, 15, 300, or infinity? In that case, people are going to say infinity. You, however, deny that it even exists, so it doesn't stand to reason you would think infinity is higher than 1, let alone higher than 300.

1 and 15 and 300 have set values.

Infinity is that which has no set value. It's value has no limit. It's value cannot be determined.

It can never be said to have achieved it's final value.

Infinite time can never finish passing.

In a universe with no beginning nothing could ever happen because before any event infinite time would have to pass first. Something impossible would have to happen first.

 

[bilby]

If infinite time is available, it not only will, but it must.

This is the glaring and amusing error in your "thinking".

No.

Not even with unlimited time will infinite time ever finish passing. It can never have "passed".

It is by definition time that never finishes passing.

There is no container that infinite items can "fit" in. Not even a container of infinite size.

At no time will infinite items be "contained".

Under no circumstances can infinite time have already "passed".

Even if there is no limit to the amount of time available.

If the future is infinite, then it will fit in the time between now and the end of time (which never happens).

If the past is infinite, then it fits in the time between the beginning of time (which never happened) and now.

Infinities my not necessarily all be the same size, but a given infinity is the same size as itself. The set of all natural numbers is the same size as the set of all natural numbers. It remains the same size, whatever order and direction you count it in.

 

[untermensche]

Bottom line: A universe described as having "no beginning" is an irrational universe that could never exist. Nothing could ever happen in such a universe.

Nothing can happen if before any event infinite time must pass first.

To claim it is some answer to the paradox of existence is simply an ignorant lie.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the glaring and amusing error in your "thinking".

No.

Not even with unlimited time will infinite time ever finish passing. It can never have "passed".

It is by definition time that never finishes passing.

There is no container that infinite items can "fit" in. Not even a container of infinite size.

At no time will infinite items be "contained".

Under no circumstances can infinite time have already "passed".

Even if there is no limit to the amount of time available.

If the future is infinite, then it will fit in the time between now and the end of time (which never happens).

No it won't.

Infinite time will "fit" into nothing. There is nothing it will "fit" in.

No limit is not not a something. It is a nothing.

 

[bilby]

Infinite time can never finish passing.

Yes it can, but it takes an infinite time to do so, so to achieve that, it must not have a beginning.

In a universe with no beginning [snipped invalid inference] before any event infinite time would have to pass first.

Yes.

Something impossible would have to happen first.

Really? What is impossible about infinite time passing if it has infinite time in which to do so?

Sure, it would be impossible for infinite time to have passed, IF there was a beginning to time. But if there is NO beginning to time, then at ANY point in time, infinite time has passed.

We KNOW that there are points in time - we are at one now. We don't know whether time has a beginning, or an end, or both, or neither. And looking at what we DO know CANNOT answer that question - despite your ignorant insistence that it can, which is based on the stupid idea that infinite time cannot pass when it has infinite time in which to do so.

Obviously it could. We cannot tell whether or not it did.

 

[untermensche]

Really? What is impossible about infinite time passing if it has infinite time in which to do so?

Saying it has infinite time is just saying it has no limits.

Infinite time is time that never finishes. That is by definition. It does not change.

It can never be described as having "passed". Under no circumstances. That is a direct contradiction of the definition.

It is irrational to do so.

Saying there are no limits doesn't change anything.

 

[bilby]

Bottom line: A universe described as having "no beginning" is an irrational universe that could never exist. Nothing could ever happen in such a universe.

Nothing can happen if before any event infinite time must pass first.

To claim it is some answer to the paradox of existence is simply an ignorant lie.

- - - Updated - - -

If the future is infinite, then it will fit in the time between now and the end of time (which never happens).

No it won't.

Infinite time will "fit" into nothing. There is nothing it will "fit" in.

No limit is not not a something. It is a nothing.

So now you are saying that the future cannot be infinite? That time MUST have an end? I would dearly like to see you support that claim. Although perhaps you should just add it to the list of your claims still in need of support.

 

[bilby]

Infinite time is time that never finishes. That is by definition.

So now you are saying that time that never begins is NOT infinite? Or are you (once again) making up definitions that are not, in fact, shared by anyone else?

Infinite time is EITHER time that never finishes; OR time that never starts; OR time with neither a start nor a finish.

Pretending that only one of those three terms is a complete definition is just intellectual dishonesty.

 

[beero1000]

So now you are saying that the future cannot be infinite? That time MUST have an end? I would dearly like to see you support that claim. Although perhaps you should just add it to the list of your claims still in need of support.

He has a precalculus level of understanding of 'infinity' at best. I don't think he could give a formal definition or argument for any of his claims but nevertheless, he believes them with absolute certainty.

 

[untermensche]

So now you are saying that the future cannot be infinite? That time MUST have an end? I would dearly like to see you support that claim. Although perhaps you should just add it to the list of your claims still in need of support.

There is no way to prove the future is with or without end.

Existence is a paradox.

Not something understood at all.

Saying "it always existed" is an "answer" for a child.

Which is irrational and impossible.

 

[untermensche]

So now you are saying that the future cannot be infinite? That time MUST have an end? I would dearly like to see you support that claim. Although perhaps you should just add it to the list of your claims still in need of support.

He has a precalculus level of understanding of 'infinity' at best. I don't think he could give a formal definition or argument for any of his claims but nevertheless, he believes them with absolute certainty.

You desperately want to move this from the real world to the imaginary world of imaginary entities.

Infinite time is only one thing, not many.

It is endless time. No matter how you describe it.

This is not a mathematics problem.

This is a rational problem of ideas.

You need living ideas to play. Not simply some dead knowledge of imaginary entities.

 

[beero1000]

He has a precalculus level of understanding of 'infinity' at best. I don't think he could give a formal definition or argument for any of his claims but nevertheless, he believes them with absolute certainty.

You desperately want to move this from the real world to the imaginary world of imaginary entities.

Infinite time is only one thing, not many.

It is endless time. No matter how you describe it.

This is not a mathematics problem.

This is a rational problem of ideas.

You need living ideas to play. Not simply some dead knowledge of imaginary entities.

I take it back. Not even at a precalculus level. You don't even know what mathematics IS. You can't just declare disqualification of logical argument because you insist it's 'imaginary', especially if the whole point is figuring out if it actually is necessarily imaginary in the first place. Sloppy, sloppy thinking.

 

[bilby]

So now you are saying that the future cannot be infinite? That time MUST have an end? I would dearly like to see you support that claim. Although perhaps you should just add it to the list of your claims still in need of support.

There is no way to prove the future is with or without end.

Indeed. The same is also true of the past.

Existence is a paradox.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

Not something understood at all.

Speak for yourself.

Saying "it always existed" is an "answer" for a child.

Or, indeed, for anyone who chooses not to discard untested hypotheses.

Which is irrational and impossible.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.