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

[fast]

Just because a phrase exists that doesn't mean the phrase is about something that exists.

Possibilities are things that could happen. Logic has nothing to do with it.

All that matters are physical realities. They are what say if something is possible or not possible.

Not any amount of human words.

What you're saying is that there is no referent to the term, "logical possibility," but you base that on your misunderstanding that the meaning of the complex term is directly correspondent to meshing the meaning of the two terms. You can do that with simple terms like, "big dog" or "yellow brick," but it's a mistake to do so with complex terms, and I've explained why.

So, here's another shot at it. Logical possibilities are non-contradictories. That seems about right.

P1: My dog weighs 7,000 pounds.
That is a false statement. The statement is not true. Now, is that contradictory? What I'm asking is, is the statement "my dog weighs 7000 pounds" contradictory?

If it is, the trivial truism is that yes, it's contradictory, but if the statement is not contradictory, the statement stands good as being non-contradictory.

Do you follow where I'm going with this? The statement is a logical possibility despite having no basis in reality because the statement, false as it is, has no contradiction. The lack of a real world possibility captures your attention, but why can't I get your attention when I speak of the term, "logical possibility" as serving merely as a label. I could go one step further along the ever-increasing expanding scope of potentialities and reserve the term, "biblical possibilities" which include both logical possibilities and logical impossibilities. Then, even logical impossibilities are possible. What you can't seem to latch onto is the widening stimulative meaning and thus adjustible scope of the term, "possibility."

That's why I ask that either you drop your immovable conception of "possibility" or focus on how I conveyed the meaning as a non-contradictory statement.

 

[untermensche]

You claim some line is ending at zero.

Where is it moving from? From what point is it moving from?

It's not moving from somewhere. It's a timeline, representing time. It has not beginning, because it represents time (which has no beginning).

If it "ends" that means something was moving.

Your absurd claim is that an infinite line can end.

If it ends where is it moving from?

To move towards an end requires moving from somewhere.

You cannot move from nowhere.

You cannot move towards something without a first movement towards it.

There is no beginning to time

Impossible.

Impossible for time in the past to be infinite.

It is a violation of the definition of infinite.

Infinite time is time that never stops at any time.

 

[untermensche]

Just because a phrase exists that doesn't mean the phrase is about something that exists.

Possibilities are things that could happen. Logic has nothing to do with it.

All that matters are physical realities. They are what say if something is possible or not possible.

Not any amount of human words.

What you're saying is that there is no referent to the term, "logical possibility".

There is no logical referent.

Logical possibilities are non-contradictories.

No that is physical possibilities.

They are possibilities that do not contradict with what is physically possible.

 

[ryan]

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.

Except for when you think outside of the dimension of time. Time may have begun all at once even though beings inside it would think that there is some kind of strict order, which to them there is a strict order, but not for higher dimensions.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not moving from somewhere. It's a timeline, representing time. It has no beginning, because it represents time (which has no beginning).

If it "ends" that means something was moving. Your absurd claim is that an infinite line can end.

That's not my claim. I just said that time has no beginning. You can't travel back from this point to some specific point in the past that is the beginning of time and measure a finite distance because there is no beginning of time.

To move towards an end requires moving from somewhere.

Towards an end? Forget your made up "ends" of time. To move in a direction requires movement in a direction. That's all.

You cannot move towards something without a first movement towards it.

Forget towards something. You can always move in a direction, even if you didn't start to move in that direction at a specific time.

There is no beginning to time

Impossible. Impossible for time in the past to be infinite.

Whoops.

 

[Kharakov]

My claim is things that may be finite if one could measure them are considered infinite since there can be no poof to the contrary since they are beyond the ability of one to count or they may extend on infinitely. Beyond counting satisfies the requirement for a thing to be called infinite.

You cannot claim because of the possibility that something might finite if it were counted requires a counter capable to so performing.

I don't think that matters, I think we can easily infer the existence of the infinite via logic. However, the existence of truly discrete finite might be something that we cannot prove exists (although 1 apple definitely exists, we can't really claim it exists as a finite object, as just defining something to be a finite object is not the same as it being a finite object).

So I think we really need to consider the possibility that finite objects do not exist, even if discrete boundary conditions (gradient direction changes) do.

 

[George S]

It's not moving from somewhere. It's a timeline, representing time. It has not beginning, because it represents time (which has no beginning).

If it "ends" that means something was moving.

If your sidewalk ends it means that it was moving?

Your absurd claim is that an infinite line can end.

There are, in math, technical terms.
Line segment -- The shortest distance between two points.
Line -- a line segment extended to infinity in both directions.
Ray -- a line segment extended to infinity in one direction.

The ray that begins at t=0 and extends in the negative direction to infinity is what we are discussing (..., -3, -2, -1, 0).

If it ends where is it moving from?

It extends from infinity. Which means that every point in time has a prior point.

To move towards an end requires moving from somewhere.

Yes, but time does not move.

You cannot move from nowhere.

Coming into existence as a consciousness is coming to be from nowhere.

You cannot move towards something without a first movement towards it.

There is no beginning to time

Impossible.

Impossible for time in the past to be infinite.

It is a violation of the definition of infinite.

Infinite time is time that never stops at any time.

1) There seems to have been a beginning to time. So time would be a "ray" (0,1,2,3,...). {an oversimplification for those who would be confused by spacetime.}
2) Physics works just as well backwards in time (as long as charge and parity are changed as well) as forwards.
_____
So time as (...,3,2,1.0) would be a logical possibility.

In both cases the beginning is t=0 NOT the "..."; you cannot count backwards from infinity. (infinity - 1) is still infinity. You cannot count upwards from negative infinity either.

 

[beero1000]

Like beero1000 told you in the past, unless specified otherwise (saying something like the number line progresses in the pi direction), number lines are thought of as progressing towards the positive direction. So if you have:

You should stop listening to that moron.

You cannot move from the undefined to the defined.

You claim some line is ending at zero.

Where is it moving from? From what point is it moving from?

Please be specific.

Saying it moves from every point is undefined gibberish.

I see you begging the question... again.

I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

 

[Kharakov]

I think it's all the lead in the water.

 

[untermensche]

If it "ends" that means something was moving.

If your sidewalk ends it means that it was moving?

Is the sidewalk an abstract depiction of an abstract series?

The ray that begins at t=0 and extends in the negative direction to infinity is what we are discussing (..., -3, -2, -1, 0).

Yes an abstract series. The negative integers.

That BEGIN at -1 and progressively become smaller.

It extends from infinity.

You can only extend TO infinity. It is irrational to claim you have come from infinity and are moving towards something else.

Coming into existence as a consciousness is coming to be from nowhere.

It is coming from your parents.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yet, I will disagree with your claim that the last option is not possible because you say, "nothing cannot precede something that exists".

Ok, but you're being nonsensical. Nothing means the complete absence of everything. Nothing causes nothing (it has no properties that would allow it to cause something). Nothing does nothing (it does not act). Nothing doesn't change (it has no qualities to change).

If nothing exists at some future time a, at any point past time a, nothing will also exist, as there isn't anything, even a quantum mechanical physical framework, to cause something to pop into existence.

I would have thought that a moment in time in something. You can't have a moment in time when there is nothing because the moment itself is something.

And then all bets are off. There is no arguing. Again, saying "there is nothing" is improper. We should say instead that there isn't something. Even this is dodgy since it suggests that we're talking about a particular moment in time, which is wrong since we're talking about there being no anything and therefore no moment in time.

And then, there is also no physical laws and therefore nothing that could possibly restrict what could possibly be or happen. And therefore everything is possible. And then maybe we're just one of those possibilities. Just one of them and all we know is this one possibility so we become somewhat narrow-minded thinking there's just this one possibility. But no. All bets are off.

Or maybe not. It's all theoretical this.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You should stop listening to that moron.

You cannot move from the undefined to the defined.

You claim some line is ending at zero.

Where is it moving from? From what point is it moving from?

Please be specific.

Saying it moves from every point is undefined gibberish.

I see you begging the question... again.

I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

It is incredibly irrational to claim you have moved FROM infinity.

It is only possible to extend out TOWARDS infinity.

No matter how you describe a real infinity it can never be something realized. It cannot end. It can only go on and on forever.

It is irrational to say the past WAS infinite.

No real infinity can be in the past.

But this is only half of the paradox of existence. Saying this does not make a finite universe possible.

A finite and an infinite past are both equally impossible.

We are apes stuck in something we do not comprehend. Something we cannot comprehend.

 

[bilby]

I see you begging the question... again.

I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

It is incredibly irrational to claim you have moved FROM infinity.

It is only possible to extend out TOWARDS infinity.

So start moving towards infinity, and then turn around and go the other way.

Or are you saying that turning around is physically impossible?

Even my sister managed to successfully turn around on her third driving test. It's not impossible (even if you are not allowed to mount the footpath), despite her prior claims to the contrary.

 

[untermensche]

It is incredibly irrational to claim you have moved FROM infinity.

It is only possible to extend out TOWARDS infinity.

So start moving towards infinity, and then turn around and go the other way.

Or are you saying that turning around is physically impossible?

Even my sister managed to successfully turn around on her third driving test. It's not impossible (even if you are not allowed to mount the footpath), despite her prior claims to the contrary.

You have described moving a finite distance.

Yes. Possible.

 

[bilby]

So start moving towards infinity, and then turn around and go the other way.

Or are you saying that turning around is physically impossible?

Even my sister managed to successfully turn around on her third driving test. It's not impossible (even if you are not allowed to mount the footpath), despite her prior claims to the contrary.

You have described moving a finite distance.

Yes. Possible.

So you accept that if you move towards infinity, then turn around, you are now moving away from infinity?

So moving away from infinity is not impossible. You just can't start a finite movement at infinity.

So what's the problem?

Everything is moving away from the infinite past.

If the past is infinite, then time does not have a start. Anything that has always existed has no start. And everything that has a start, started a finite time ago.

Simples.

 

[George S]

If your sidewalk ends it means that it was moving?

Is the sidewalk an abstract depiction of an abstract series?

The ray that begins at t=0 and extends in the negative direction to infinity is what we are discussing (..., -3, -2, -1, 0).

Yes an abstract series. The negative integers.

That BEGIN at -1 and progressively become smaller.

It extends from infinity.

You can only extend TO infinity. It is irrational to claim you have come from infinity and are moving towards something else.

Coming into existence as a consciousness is coming to be from nowhere.

It is coming from your parents.

Your consciousness is coming from your parents?
Is the sperm or egg conscious? Or no consciousness there.
Is the zygote conscious? Or no consciousness there.
Somewhere during the next 9 months there was a moment when the embryo became consciousness.
If consciousness is not from your parents. The genes that lead to a conscious brain during development is what is inherited,

 

[bilby]

Is the sidewalk an abstract depiction of an abstract series?

The ray that begins at t=0 and extends in the negative direction to infinity is what we are discussing (..., -3, -2, -1, 0).

Yes an abstract series. The negative integers.

That BEGIN at -1 and progressively become smaller.

It extends from infinity.

You can only extend TO infinity. It is irrational to claim you have come from infinity and are moving towards something else.

Coming into existence as a consciousness is coming to be from nowhere.

It is coming from your parents.

Your consciousness is coming from your parents?
Is the sperm or egg conscious? Or no consciousness there.
Is the zygote conscious? Or no consciousness there.
Somewhere during the next 9 months there was a moment when the embryo became consciousness.
If consciousness is not from your parents. The genes that lead to a conscious brain during development is what is inherited,

This thread is for discussing how untermensche has no clue about logic or infinity.

There's already a separate thread for discussing the fact that he is utterly clueless about the nature of consciousness.

 

[untermensche]

This thread is for discussing how untermensche has no clue about logic or infinity.

This has become a thread where several people can't separate infinity used in an imaginary context from trying to apply it to reality.

But it has become as stupid as people claiming the negative integers end at zero.

 

[untermensche]

Your consciousness is coming from your parents?

That is it's beginning, yes. Of course.

We do not begin from nothing.

 

[beero1000]

I see you begging the question... again.

I guess it's true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

It is incredibly irrational to claim you have moved FROM infinity.

It is only possible to extend out TOWARDS infinity.

No matter how you describe a real infinity it can never be something realized. It cannot end. It can only go on and on forever.

It is irrational to say the past WAS infinite.

No real infinity can be in the past.

But this is only half of the paradox of existence. Saying this does not make a finite universe possible.

A finite and an infinite past are both equally impossible.

We are apes stuck in something we do not comprehend. Something we cannot comprehend.

Thank you for knocking down that scary strawman. No doubt he was about to embark on a onslaught of murder and pillage. You're still begging the question though.

This thread is for discussing how untermensche has no clue about logic or infinity.

This has become a thread where several people can't separate infinity used in an imaginary context from trying to apply it to reality.

But it has become as stupid as people claiming the negative integers end at zero.

Oh my. You're talking about math now, so I can smack down your ignorance without your ridiculous 'but it's imaginary' defense.

The negative integers under the standard order are the prototypical example of a set with order type ω*. They have a last element but no first element, so yes, the negative integers end at zero [sic].