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

[untermensche]

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.

Once again nothing but a worthless opinion and no substance.

I await that response with actual substance.

 

[untermensche]

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

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

What?

To say the universe "always existed".

Is to say; "The time before any given moment was endless".

It is an "answer" fit for a child.

Nothing rational.

 

[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.

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.

Every single sentence evades what I'm after.

It's like saying I can't see a girl through the wall. Is it because I can't see through the wall or because there is no girl on the other side?

You say that infinity is that which has no set value. Why? Because infinity, although real, and most certainly greater than 300, isn't the kind of thing that has set values OR because infinity, which most certainly isn't real and therefore as something that cannot exist has no set value and henceforth false that it's greater than 300?

If there is a girl and the girl has titties, then although I may never ever get to see through the wall, I'll keep looking in hopes of one day the wall will crumble, but if there is no girl, then that girl I shall never see even should the wall one day crumble.

You say it's value has no limit. Great, but that statement too is as evasively ambiguous as the previous. It's like saying the girl won't talk to me. Why? Is she a moot or is there no girl?

The ambiguity is between
A) there is a value and it has no limit (and)
B) there is no value and thus cannot have a limit

I'm looking for your take on the ontological status of infinity. If it's real (but leaving us without the ability to locate it on the number line), that's one thing, but if it's not real, then there's more to the story than us never being able to locate it; it's truly nonexistent.

Previous words of yours bleed to me -- gushing the pronouncement that infinity is not real, yet the wind in the room blows signs that you treat it as real. Why traverse the number line at all if infinity is not real? You should outright deny that an infinite number of years is greater than 300 years.

 

[untermensche]

You say that infinity is that which has no set value. Why? Because infinity, although real, and most certainly greater than 300, isn't the kind of thing that has set values OR because infinity, which most certainly isn't real and therefore as something that cannot exist has no set value and henceforth false that it's greater than 300?

You cannot say some amount with no set value is real.

Not rationally that is.

 

[bilby]

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

What?

To say the universe "always existed".

Is to say; "The time before any given moment was endless".

If by 'endless' you mean 'infinite', then yes; and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. This merely assumes that the past may have no beginning - which is a possibility about which we have no evidence; an untested (and therefore provisionally acceptable) hypothesis.

If by endless you mean 'without finish', then you are simply wrong - the time before any given moment BY DEFINITION finishes at that given moment.

If you think you can use both definitions simultaneously, then it's hardly surprising that you are incapable of reasoned thought. That you are STILL indulging in this equivocation fallacy after it has been pointed out to you repeatedly, strongly suggests that you will NEVER be capable of reasoned thought.

 

[beero1000]

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.

Once again nothing but a worthless opinion and no substance.

I await that response with actual substance.

Doesn't look like anything to me...

You say that infinity is that which has no set value. Why? Because infinity, although real, and most certainly greater than 300, isn't the kind of thing that has set values OR because infinity, which most certainly isn't real and therefore as something that cannot exist has no set value and henceforth false that it's greater than 300?

You cannot say some amount with no set value is real.

Not rationally that is.

Not real familiar with modern physics, are you?

 

[untermensche]

Once again nothing but a worthless opinion and no substance.

I await that response with actual substance.

Doesn't look like anything to me...

You say that infinity is that which has no set value. Why? Because infinity, although real, and most certainly greater than 300, isn't the kind of thing that has set values OR because infinity, which most certainly isn't real and therefore as something that cannot exist has no set value and henceforth false that it's greater than 300?

You cannot say some amount with no set value is real.

Not rationally that is.

Not real familiar with modern physics, are you?

Once again you pretend to some secret knowledge you do not have.

The comment was about an "amount".

No amount is not an amount.

 

[untermensche]

What?

To say the universe "always existed".

Is to say; "The time before any given moment was endless".

If by 'endless' you mean 'infinite'

It is not by what I mean. It is by definition.

This merely assumes that the past may have no beginning

That's an irrational impossible assumption.

In a past with "no beginning" NOTHING can happen.

Because before any event time without end must occur first. Again, all one must be willing to do is count to understand this. Count the years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning" if you do not believe they are without end.

You are stuck defending an irrational idea.

This impossible childish idea of "no beginning" is not an answer to the paradox. It is not an answer to anything.

It is childish belligerence and an unwillingness to see the absurdity pretending to be an answer.

 

[bilby]

If by 'endless' you mean 'infinite'

It is not by what I mean. It is by definition.

This merely assumes that the past may have no beginning

That's an irrational impossible assumption.

In a past with "no beginning" NOTHING can happen.

Why not?

Because before any event time without end must occur first.

Not if time without beginning has occurred first.

Again, all one must be willing to do is count to understand this.

You can't count an infinite set

Count the years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning" if you do not believe they are without end.

I believe that they are (quite possibly) infinite. Clearly they are not without a finish - they finish at the outbreak of WWII.

You are stuck defending an irrational idea.

No, you are stuck in an equivocation fallacy that you won't even consider abandoning. It would cost you NOTHING to use EITHER 'Without finish' OR 'Infinite' in place of 'Without end' - except your ability to pursue this insanity.

This impossible childish idea of "no beginning" is not an answer to the paradox. It is not an answer to anything.

There is no paradox here. Just your misunderstanding, which derives from a very obvious and frequently noted logical fallacy - you use the phrase 'without end' to mean two different things at once. You could easily avoid being accused of this by simply using 'Infinite' OR 'Without finish' instead; But then you would be forced to actually think about your position, which you have clearly resolved never to do.

It is childish belligerence and an unwillingness to see the absurdity pretending to be an answer.

Yes, it is. But getting you to stop it seems to be practically impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Again, all one must be willing to do is count to understand this.

You can't count an infinite set

A thinking person can understand you can count but the counting will never end. There is no end to the number of years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning". In other words years without end must occur before WWII can take place in a universe with no beginning.

Count the years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning" if you do not believe they are without end.

I believe that they are (quite possibly) infinite. Clearly they are not without a finish - they finish at the outbreak of WWII.

Only a finite amount of years could end at the outbreak of WWII.

Infinite years cannot end anywhere.

If infinite years must pass before WWII takes place then WWII can never take place. You think you are getting around this by merely granting some magical quality to the infinity described by "no beginning". It is still an infinity. Describing it differently doesn't allow it to "pass". It can never "pass". Under no circumstances.

You are describing an absurd universe where it is impossible for anything to happen.

No event can ever take place if time that never finishes (same amount of time as time that "never begins") must finish first.

 

[fast]

An infinite number of years cannot simultaneously be both a lot of years and no years at all.

 

[untermensche]

A very bad and erroneous idea:

Infinite time could pass if it just had infinite time to do it in.

This idea quite simply is a joke. It really is just a blatant violation of the definition of infinity.

Removing any limit will not allow infinite time to pass.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can infinite time pass.

This is by definition. Infinite time is time that never passes. It is always passing. It has no limit. Giving it no limit, giving it infinite time to work with, doesn't change anything.

 

[untermensche]

An infinite number of years cannot simultaneously be both a lot of years and no years at all.

It is years without end.

No matter what number of years you give "years without end" will be longer.

A concept only. Nothing real.

 

[fast]

An infinite number of years cannot simultaneously be both a lot of years and no years at all.

It is years without end.

No matter what number of years you give "years without end" will be longer.

A concept only. Nothing real.

If there is no such thing as an infinite number of years, then there is neither an infinite number of years with or without an end.

 

[bilby]

You can't count an infinite set

A thinking person can understand you can count but the counting will never end. There is no end to the an infinite number of years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning". In other words years without end an infinite number of years must occur before WWII can take place in a universe with no beginning.

Count the years before WWII in a universe with "no beginning" if you do not believe they are without end.

I believe that they are (quite possibly) infinite. Clearly they are not without a finish - they finish at the outbreak of WWII.

Only a finite amount of years could end at the outbreak of WWII.

Why? That's clearly nonsense - an infinite number of years ends at the outbreak of WWII, if we are considering the years before WWII in a universe that has no beginning.

Infinite years cannot end anywhere.

Sure they can, as long as there was never a beginning.

If infinite years must pass before WWII takes place then WWII can never take place.

Unless the past is infinite.

You think you are getting around this by merely granting some magical quality to the infinity described by "no beginning". It is still an infinity. Describing it differently doesn't allow it to "pass". It can never "pass". Under no circumstances.

Other than in a universe with no beginning, where it MUST have passed at ANY point in time.

You are describing an absurd universe where it is impossible for anything to happen.

No, I am not; You are, but you can only manage it by continuing with your equivocation fallacy; so nobody has to care. You need a sound argument before anyone but you will feel compelled to agree with it.

No event can ever take place if time that never finishes (same amount of time as time that "never begins") must finish first.

Just as no integer can ever be counted to, as there are always an infinite number of smaller integers. Well done, you just proved that counting is impossible. Fortunately for us all, your proof depends on a fallacy. Unfortunately for us all, you are continuing to ignore this despite its having been pointed out to you many times. Perhaps your problem is that you believe that the number of times it has been pointed out cannot exist?

- - - Updated - - -

A very bad and erroneous idea:

Infinite time could pass if it just had infinite time to do it in.

This idea quite simply is a joke. It really is just a blatant violation of the definition of infinity.

Removing any limit will not allow infinite time to pass.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can infinite time pass.

This is by definition. Infinite time is time that never passes. It is always passing. It has no limit. Giving it no limit, giving it infinite time to work with, doesn't change anything.

Wow. You really are dumb.

 

[untermensche]

It is years without end.

No matter what number of years you give "years without end" will be longer.

A concept only. Nothing real.

If there is no such thing as an infinite number of years, then there is neither an infinite number of years with or without an end.

There is the concept.

That is all.

There is nothing else.

But since there is a concept you can discuss that.

 

[untermensche]

A very bad and erroneous idea:

Infinite time could pass if it just had infinite time to do it in.

This idea quite simply is a joke. It really is just a blatant violation of the definition of infinity.

Removing any limit will not allow infinite time to pass.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can infinite time pass.

This is by definition. Infinite time is time that never passes. It is always passing. It has no limit. Giving it no limit, giving it infinite time to work with, doesn't change anything.

Wow. You really are dumb.

I'll give you all the time you want.

I'll give you unlimited time.

Show me how infinite time can finish passing.

How does it happen?

It's an absurd erroneous claim. Show me how it can happen.

Don't just lie again and say it is possible. Prove it.

 

[bilby]

Wow. You really are dumb.

I'll give you all the time you want.

I'll give you unlimited time.

Show me how infinite time can finish passing.

How does it happen?

It's an absurd erroneous claim. Show me how it can happen.

Don't just lie again and say it is possible. Prove it.

It's really simple. If time has no beginning, then any point in time you pick marks the end of an infinite period of time. If that hypothesis is correct, it not only can happen; it MUST.

I don't know whether time has or does not have a beginning; and nor do you. That's not a lie; it's bloody obvious. I don't know because there is no evidence either way; and you don't know because basically you don't seem to know anything - you just have opinions that you refuse to examine, that you mistake for knowledge.

Shit, you clearly don't even know what a lie is.

Nor do you appear to know that you just contravened the terms of use of this board.

But I have long since stopped expecting you to know anything about anything, so it's not even disappointing anymore.

 

[untermensche]

I'll give you all the time you want.

I'll give you unlimited time.

Show me how infinite time can finish passing.

How does it happen?

It's an absurd erroneous claim. Show me how it can happen.

Don't just lie again and say it is possible. Prove it.

It's really simple. If time has no beginning, then any point in time you pick marks the end of an infinite period of time. If that hypothesis is correct, it not only can happen; it MUST.

There is no such thing as an end to an infinite period of time. It is by definition time that never ends. Even if it has infinite time it will not end. Ever. Under no circumstances can it end.

Even if we resort to imaginary lines there are only two choices for an infinite line.

You could have a line that goes off into infinity in both directions. It has no beginning or end anywhere. There is no logic that says any point on such a line is the "beginning" or the "end". All points are the same distance from the beginning and the end. You can arbitrarily call one point "zero" but that in no way makes that point the beginning or the end of the line. It is no closer to the beginning or the end of the line than any other point.

The other choice is a line with a beginning and no end.

There is no such thing as a line with no beginning and an end. No such thing exists.

 

[George S]

Wow. You really are dumb.

I'll give you all the time you want.

I'll give you unlimited time.

Show me how infinite time can finish passing.

How does it happen?

It's an absurd erroneous claim. Show me how it can happen.

Don't just lie again and say it is possible. Prove it.

"Infinite time" is not at all like 300 years of time.

Infinity is not a number you can count up to. It is not a number.

Infinity is a process. A process with no finish. Processes are not numbers.

Here is an algorithm which which would run forever if it could. "Repeatedly subtract zero from three until the result is zero."

The adjective "infinite" means never-ending.

The noun "infinity" is a human contrivance. A mathematician's tool. A complicated one at that. I taught an introduction to the nature of infinity as a professor of computer science. It was a 3-credit course and took a semester to teach.*

Physicists have a problem with their math sometimes. The math may predict a process produces infinite energy in finite time. Hear of the ultraviolet catastrophe?

Be careful with the use of "imaginary" with a physicist or mathematician. There is the imaginary unit i which has the definition that i*i = -1. Infinity is not an imaginary number. This i occurs in the Schrodinger equations which describe the nature of reality.
______
* Available at fine universities around the world.