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

[George S]

So anyone who has defined infinite can establish it's possibility if it is consistent with his logically consistent construction. It matters not whether it is consistent with  Classical propositional logic.

[Classical (or "bivalent") truth-functional propositional logic is that branch of truth-functional propositional logic that assumes that there are are only two possible truth-values a statement (whether simple or complex) can have: (1) truth, and (2) falsity, and that every statement is either true or false but not both ​

So to prove untermenche wrong it is necessary to understand both which logical system he uses and whether his claims are consistent within that construction.

So my first question to untermenche: Is, or, is not your logical system is consistent with classical propositional logic, preferably with an example of how this is so.

This is a thread about logical possibilities.

There are no opinions with any special authority here.

Your appeals to some mystical authority are not something that counts as an argument.

Like you wrote this thread is about logical possibilities. It is not about opined possibilities. Ergo, since logical you need to have a framework through which you work your logic. If it is not propositional logic you need to either explain what is you logic or provide an example of it in your argument. if not you are just opining.

FDI

You are allowed to make any argument in any way you choose. It merely has to be valid. You can't say that infinite time has already passed for example. That is a violation of the definition. Infinite time is time that never finishes. It can't have passed. It can't be in the past.

There is NO authority here.

None exist.

You can't talk your way into becoming one.

(bold added)

Is the following brief argument valid?

All gods are mortal.
Zeus is a god.
___
Zeus is mortal.

 

[untermensche]

Is the following brief argument valid?

All gods are mortal.
Zeus is a god.
___
Zeus is mortal.

This begs the question: What is a valid premise?

Absolute nonsense?

I say, prove all gods are mortal and THEN you have the start of a valid argument.

All dogs are mammals

Fido is a dog.

Therefore: Fido is a mammal.

Valid premises are assumed to not merely be unsupported speculations.

 

[fromderinside]

Like you wrote this thread is about logical possibilities. It is not about opined possibilities. Ergo, since logical you need to have a framework through which you work your logic. If it is not propositional logic you need to either explain what is you logic or provide an example of it in your argument. if not you are just opining.

FDI

You are allowed to make any argument in any way you choose. It merely has to be valid. You can't say that infinite time has already passed for example. That is a violation of the definition. Infinite time is time that never finishes. It can't have passed. It can't be in the past.

May I help?

You write: Saying infinite time has already passed
Is false :That is a violation of the definition.
Is false because: Infinite time is time that never finishes.
therefore : infinite time can't have passed.
because: infinite time can't be in the past.

First. you definition of infinite time is ongoing, always present.

If so then infinite time can only be so if it is here right now.

A test.
John claimed infinite time yesterday
Yesterday has passed
infinite time can't be passed
so either this is yesterday or you didn't hear John's claim

 

[untermensche]

If there is an "ever present" that means before any given moment infinite moments already somehow occurred.

The very idea of "ever present" is an irrational idea.

 

[fromderinside]

No one wrote anything about 'ever present'. Besides, infinity relates to a measure such as size, volume, number. It is not reference to being present or existing in time.

That was the very notion I was communicating in my exercise above. Yes, time can be referenced by number. However infinity need not embody the number, merely be an attribute of it, like beyond measure or need to measure.

 

[untermensche]

I don't understand at all what you're trying to say.

Finite amounts of time are not infinite.

Something can easily be too big to count and still be finite.

 

[ryan]

If there is an "ever present" that means before any given moment infinite moments already somehow occurred.

How long does it take for a "moment" to pass?

 

[fromderinside]

De Nile is a river in which untermenche wades.

One needs meaning to use a word. It's necessary for the term 'word' to be used. An infinity which is possible is such a word, one that is not is not. Clearly anything beyond the need to count or beyond measure needs a place holder which is supplied by the word infinity. So infinity refers to anything beyond the need to measure, self evident, or beyond the ability of those who observe it to measure.

Stars in heaven are an example. Back in the day, the number of stars were beyond the capability of men to count. Then, with the advent of 20th century observation devices and enumerating devices, it became possible to estimate the number of stars, not count them, but estimate their number. Had not infinity been there as a marker it might be argued that man may have given up an impossible task, But lo, with the challenge of infinity it can be argued man was motivated to know what he saw.

One might saw that since man has not yet actually counted the number that, to man, the number remains infinite. We also developed good tools for estimating that are reliable and accurate when verified upon actual counting. Through application of these tools to the task man now needs not actually count them - still an impossible task to certify given the immensity of the universe and man's limitations in it - and we use our estimates to give us a number which we can then use in our models to explore alternatives to the mechanics of the universe.

Infintesimal serves a similar purpose, our inability to directly observe quarks and leptons is fixed by nature, yet we have our ability to work with them in spite of this shortcoming.

Oh, and since our knowledge of the universe will never be complete the notion of infinity with respect to anything about it remains logically possible.

 

[Kharakov]

If infinite time must pass before some moment that moment will never take place. Infinite time never passes. It is impossible for it to be in the past. Impossible for it to have already occurred.

What you describe is a situation where nothing can ever take place, no event can ever occur because before anything can happen infinite time must pass first.

Except in the case that you have an eternal system that has always been oscillating/changing/evolving, like the one that exists. In that case, at any moment in time, an infinite amount of time has preceded it.


Like beero1000 says, you either refuse to acknowledge or understand something that most 10 year old children understand. It's really hard to tell if it's a failure of intellect or character, but either way.... yeah, probably keep arguing with you as long as I have nothing better to do.

 

[untermensche]

If there is an "ever present" that means before any given moment infinite moments already somehow occurred.

How long does it take for a "moment" to pass?

Doesn't matter.

Any arbitrary period of time will do.

Before any arbitrary period of time infinite time could not have occurred.

Infinite time by definition cannot have "occurred".

Ever.

Under no circumstances. Even if it has no limits placed upon it.

 

[untermensche]

If infinite time must pass before some moment that moment will never take place. Infinite time never passes. It is impossible for it to be in the past. Impossible for it to have already occurred.

What you describe is a situation where nothing can ever take place, no event can ever occur because before anything can happen infinite time must pass first.

Except in the case that you have an eternal system that has always been oscillating/changing/evolving, like the one that exists. In that case, at any moment in time, an infinite amount of time has preceded it.


Like beero1000 says, you either refuse to acknowledge or understand something that most 10 year old children understand. It's really hard to tell if it's a failure of intellect or character, but either way.... yeah, probably keep arguing with you as long as I have nothing better to do.

There is no such thing as an "eternal system".

The idea of an "eternal system" is irrational and definitely not true.

You cannot say that infinite oscillations occurred before some observed oscillation.

Infinite oscillations cannot occur before anything.

They are oscillations that never stop.

Ever.

Even if they have infinite time.

 

[untermensche]

De Nile is a river in which untermenche wades.

One needs meaning to use a word. It's necessary for the term 'word' to be used. An infinity which is possible is such a word, one that is not is not. Clearly anything beyond the need to count or beyond measure needs a place holder which is supplied by the word infinity. So infinity refers to anything beyond the need to measure, self evident, or beyond the ability of those who observe it to measure.

Stars in heaven are an example. Back in the day, the number of stars were beyond the capability of men to count. Then, with the advent of 20th century observation devices and enumerating devices, it became possible to estimate the number of stars, not count them, but estimate their number. Had not infinity been there as a marker it might be argued that man may have given up an impossible task, But lo, with the challenge of infinity it can be argued man was motivated to know what he saw.

One might saw that since man has not yet actually counted the number that, to man, the number remains infinite. We also developed good tools for estimating that are reliable and accurate when verified upon actual counting. Through application of these tools to the task man now needs not actually count them - still an impossible task to certify given the immensity of the universe and man's limitations in it - and we use our estimates to give us a number which we can then use in our models to explore alternatives to the mechanics of the universe.

Infintesimal serves a similar purpose, our inability to directly observe quarks and leptons is fixed by nature, yet we have our ability to work with them in spite of this shortcoming.

Oh, and since our knowledge of the universe will never be complete the notion of infinity with respect to anything about it remains logically possible.

You are claiming that things that are finite are actually infinite.

It is absolute nonsense.

Talk about denial.

 

[fast]

Is the following brief argument valid?

All gods are mortal.
Zeus is a god.
___
Zeus is mortal.

This begs the question: What is a valid premise?

Absolute nonsense?

I say, prove all gods are mortal and THEN you have the start of a valid argument.

All dogs are mammals

Fido is a dog.

Therefore: Fido is a mammal.

Valid premises are assumed to not merely be unsupported speculations.

You are doing the same thing to premises as you are doing to possibility. Saying that a possibility is logical makes about as much sense as saying that a premise is valid.

"Logical possibility" is a complex term, and "valid argument" is a complex term, so you can't rightly do to them what we can to things like a simple two worded term like "big dog." The term, "big dog" isn't a complex term, so saying "the dog is big" is equivalent to referencing a dog as a big dog.

"That's a yellow pound cake" is equivalent to "that pound cake is yellow." Notice the absurdity of doing that with "pound cake." If you ask what kind of cake I want and I say I want a pound cake, then I'm not saying that I want any cake that is a pound.

We say of some deductive arguments that they are valid, but that has to do with form (the form and only the form) and so has nothing to do with what you might happen to mean by "valid" when you say "valid premise." The sense in which the term is used in the complex term "valid argument" is technical in nature.

You seem to have difficulty with multi-worded terms. What would you do if you rented a red box movie that came in a clear case and asked to return the red box movie? Deny that you rented one?

 

[ryan]

How long does it take for a "moment" to pass?

Doesn't matter.

Any arbitrary period of time will do.

Before any arbitrary period of time infinite time could not have occurred.

Infinite time by definition cannot have "occurred".

Ever.

Under no circumstances. Even if it has no limits placed upon it.

What if time is a dimension? If it is, try to think of time geometrically. What if time is infinitely dense and "inflated" perpendicularly (like perpendicularly to the direction that the consciousness traverses it or just perpendicular to itself) due to quantum fluctuations, then in this case infinite time could have occurred instantaneously. As far as I know, there nothing in cosmology that would say that this couldn't happen.

 

[bilby]

Doesn't matter.

Any arbitrary period of time will do.

Before any arbitrary period of time infinite time could not have occurred.

Infinite time by definition cannot have "occurred".

Ever.

Under no circumstances. Even if it has no limits placed upon it.

What if time is a dimension? If it is, try to think of time geometrically. What if time is infinitely dense and "inflated" perpendicularly (like perpendicularly to the direction that the consciousness traverses it or just perpendicular to itself) due to quantum fluctuations, then in this case infinite time could have occurred instantaneously. As far as I know, there nothing in cosmology that would say that this couldn't happen.

Indeed; Or time could form a closed loop, and be finite but unbounded. It is perfectly possible for something to be finite, but to have neither beginning nor end.

 

[Kharakov]

It's also possible for a finite time loop to have been repeating for eternity. Which means... untermensche?

 

[beero1000]

Or time could be the arc length of certain curves on a semi-Riemannian manifold.

 

[Kharakov]

It took forever to draw that circle through the poles of the Riemann sphere. Ok, it didn't but it would take some of us forever....

 

[untermensche]

You are doing the same thing to premises as you are doing to possibility. Saying that a possibility is logical makes about as much sense as saying that a premise is valid.

I have said that I don't think the term "logical" applies to possibility.

There are only physical possibilities. No such thing as a logical possibility.

But a valid premise is only required for a valid argument.

If one wishes to engage in empty mental masturbation then they don't need valid premises.

"Logical possibility" is a complex term..

There is no such thing.

There are only physical possibilities or impossibilities.

We can use logic to demonstrate how something might be physically impossible. Like: It is impossible for infinite time to ever finish (by definition) so therefore it is physically impossible infinite time could have occurred in the past.

But there is no such thing as a logical possibility.

The only thing logic can be used for is to determine if some physical possibility makes sense.

 

[untermensche]

Doesn't matter.

Any arbitrary period of time will do.

Before any arbitrary period of time infinite time could not have occurred.

Infinite time by definition cannot have "occurred".

Ever.

Under no circumstances. Even if it has no limits placed upon it.

What if time is a dimension? If it is, try to think of time geometrically. What if time is infinitely dense and "inflated" perpendicularly (like perpendicularly to the direction that the consciousness traverses it or just perpendicular to itself) due to quantum fluctuations, then in this case infinite time could have occurred instantaneously. As far as I know, there nothing in cosmology that would say that this couldn't happen.

Time is that which allows events to happen.

So infinite time implies infinite events.

And infinite events could not have already "occurred". By definition.