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

[untermensche]

Time is that which allows events to happen.

So infinite time implies infinite events.

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

Think of a point that gets stretched from a single dimension to 2 dimensions. If it's continuous, any infinitesimal points that suddenly appear in this new 2d string will never move past any measurable distance. There will be infinite time (or space whatever you want to label it ) behind them and infinite time in front of them (unless they are in front in the "pilot position") even though the stretch begins 2d instantaneously.

How about actually considering what I said?

It doesn't matter how you want to define it infinite time includes infinite events.

And infinite events cannot be in the past.

 

[ryan]

For good reason!

Of course, 0 being an integer is not really a point of contention, no matter how much untermensche protests.

You're so infatuatiated with me you don't seem to be able to read a word I write.

I said zero is not part of the POSITIVE integers. It is not a part of that set. It is not the first or last positive integer.

The integers in general are ordered by value. They don't begin and don't end. Time is ordered in a similar fashion. We can call this day 6 or -10.

 

[untermensche]

You're so infatuatiated with me you don't seem to be able to read a word I write.

I said zero is not part of the POSITIVE integers. It is not a part of that set. It is not the first or last positive integer.

The integers in general are ordered by value. They don't begin and don't end. Time is ordered in a similar fashion. We can call this day 6 or -10.

If something has an "order" that implies a beginning. A specific beginning to the ordering.

 

[ryan]

Think of a point that gets stretched from a single dimension to 2 dimensions. If it's continuous, any infinitesimal points that suddenly appear in this new 2d string will never move past any measurable distance. There will be infinite time (or space whatever you want to label it ) behind them and infinite time in front of them (unless they are in front in the "pilot position") even though the stretch begins 2d instantaneously.

How about actually considering what I said?

It doesn't matter how you want to define it infinite time includes infinite events.

And infinite events cannot be in the past.

Then what exactly do you mean by "pass"? What marker is passing what marker and at what rate?

 

[untermensche]

How about actually considering what I said?

It doesn't matter how you want to define it infinite time includes infinite events.

And infinite events cannot be in the past.

Then what exactly do you mean by "pass"? What marker is passing what marker and at what rate?

Time passes.

We measure it with our clocks.

 

[ryan]

The integers in general are ordered by value. They don't begin and don't end. Time is ordered in a similar fashion. We can call this day 6 or -10.

If something has an "order" that implies a beginning. A specific beginning to the ordering.

... -4 < -3 < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 ...

Where is the beginning here?

 

[Kharakov]

The integers are two separate series. The positive integers and the negatives. In both series the lowest integer is the START of the series. You cannot have a series without a start to it.

Unless you have a series without a start. Then you just say something like "...., -1000, -999,-998...", arbitrarily picking a location in the series to indicate the property of the series.

Where you pick a location to demonstrate properties of the series doesn't really matter. ...5,6,7... is the same as ....-7, -6, -5....

Of course, if you have a well defined origin (you're measuring from a zero point that you define, like defining AD/BC on the western calendar), then ...5,6,7... = 12 + [... -7, -6, -5...].

Nothing can start at "...".

Exactly. It's not a starting point, it implies that the series doesn't have a start. You're getting it!

The series you presented most definitely had a beginning. It began at -1000 and grew larger from there.

Sorry little buddy, but that's not correct. The series has no beginning, which is why I put the lead in "..." before the "-1000". That's common mathematical nomenclature for a series without a beginning.

 

[ryan]

Then what exactly do you mean by "pass"? What marker is passing what marker and at what rate?

Time passes.

We measure it with our clocks.

What does time pass? Seriously, I don't know what you mean by pass.

 

[Kharakov]

He doesn't know.

 

[ryan]

He doesn't know.

And I don't really have an answer for either. I just want to know what UM is using to make this claim. All I want is something like "if the nature of time is ..., then ...".

 

[Kharakov]

He doesn't know.

And I don't really have an answer for either. I just want to know what UM is using to make this claim. All I want is something like "if the nature of time is ..., then ...".

lol. bueno suerte, mi amigo.

 

[beero1000]

For good reason!

Of course, 0 being an integer is not really a point of contention, no matter how much untermensche protests.

You're so infatuatiated with me you don't seem to be able to read a word I write.

I said zero is not part of the POSITIVE integers. It is not a part of that set. It is not the first or last positive integer.

Let's go on a journey to the recent past and see what happened, shall we?

You posted this:

Anything can be done by definition. You can say 0 is an integer by definition even though zero has features unlike any other integer.

I thought to myself "That's weird, it kinda sounds like you don't think 0 should be an integer". It might have just been weird phrasing though, so fine, let it slide. But then you posted this:

The integers are two separate series. The positive integers and the negatives. In both series the lowest integer is the START of the series. You cannot have a series without a start to it.

You missed zero in the integers again! So I responded:

This is your second post here where you imply that you don't think 0 is an integer. Weird.

Your responses were these strawmen implying that I said 0 is a positive integer.

Not strange at all to those capable of thinking.

Zero is not positive.

How one could think it is a positive integer is the strange thing.

I know. Very troubling when people are so lost they think zero is positive.

Nothing positive about it. It can only be considered part of the positive integers by definition. It is not a positive anything.

It devolved from there, so let's start over: Do you know that 0 is an integer?

 

[beero1000]

If something has an "order" that implies a beginning. A specific beginning to the ordering.

... -4 < -3 < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 ...

Where is the beginning here?

This. He keeps making these obviously false claims that are only plausible if you beg the question or redefine standard terminology.

 

[untermensche]

If something has an "order" that implies a beginning. A specific beginning to the ordering.

... -4 < -3 < -2 < -1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 ...

Where is the beginning here?

This has only been gone over about 50 times.

The series of the positive integers begins at 1.

The series of the negative integers begins at -1. It is the same exact series as the positive integers with a negative sign in front of the number.

But none of this has any application here.

None of this applies to time or infinite time.

 

[untermensche]

It devolved from there, so let's start over: Do you know that 0 is an integer?

You claimed the negative integers END at zero. I can't imagine saying anything so ignorant.

You can't escape your stupidity with this.

Zero is not a positive or negative integer.

It is not a part of either of those series.

If somebody in some empty room thinks nothingness is an integer I won't try to convince them that nothingness is not anything. I won't try to convince them a placeholder is anything.

 

[untermensche]

The integers are two separate series. The positive integers and the negatives. In both series the lowest integer is the START of the series. You cannot have a series without a start to it.

Unless you have a series without a start. Then you just say something like "...., -1000, -999,-998...", arbitrarily picking a location in the series to indicate the property of the series.

Where you pick a location to demonstrate properties of the series doesn't really matter. ...5,6,7... is the same as ....-7, -6, -5....

Of course, if you have a well defined origin (you're measuring from a zero point that you define, like defining AD/BC on the western calendar), then ...5,6,7... = 12 + [... -7, -6, -5...].

Nothing can start at "...".

Exactly. It's not a starting point, it implies that the series doesn't have a start. You're getting it!

The series you presented most definitely had a beginning. It began at -1000 and grew larger from there.

Sorry little buddy, but that's not correct. The series has no beginning, which is why I put the lead in "..." before the "-1000". That's common mathematical nomenclature for a series without a beginning.

The first known element is -1000.

You cannot begin a series with nothing. You cannot begin it with the unknown or the undefined.

It has to begin with something defined.

You can only extend a series FROM a known TOWARDS infinity.

It is irrational to say you have moved FROM infinity.

- - - Updated - - -

Time passes.

We measure it with our clocks.

What does time pass? Seriously, I don't know what you mean by pass.

What does it mean that some period of time has passed?

Are you really asking that?

 

[Kharakov]

Lol. What if we design a series of questions, that by avoiding the questions, untermensche answers the question we want them answer?

 

[untermensche]

Lol. What if we design a series of questions, that by avoiding the questions, untermensche answers the question we want them answer?

How about asking an intelligent question?

That would be a nice change.

I have explained that the negative integers do not END at zero.

No infinite series has an end. That is the fucking definition.

All have a beginning.

 

[bilby]

As for untermensche's confusion, that's some off the board stuff which I'm not interested in trying to sort out.

What needs sorting out are the claims that a series can somehow begin at infinity and move towards some fixed point.

If you agree with that one then nothing you could possibly say could have any worth.

Nobody has made any such claim.

A series with no beginning is infinite.

It doesn't begin at infinity; it doesn't begin at all. By definition.

You can argue all day against things nobody is claiming, without ever making the slightest mention of, much less refutation of, the claims being made.

 

[Kharakov]

He doesn't know.

And I don't really have an answer for either. I just want to know what UM is using to make this claim. All I want is something like "if the nature of time is ..., then ...".

I'd think the obvious: he's not saying anything specific by the statement "time passes", rather, it's a semi coherent thought that encompasses any number of possible meanings, most of which are probably incorrect considering the source and their predilection for attempting to be incorrect about everything.