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

[bilby]

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.

Unless the past has no beginning, in which case infinite events must be in the past no matter what point in time you measure from.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No, it doesn't.

 

[untermensche]

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.

There is no such thing as a series with no beginning.

A series MUST start from a defined element.

Show me some infinite series you think ends and I will try to explain. What you think is the end is the beginning.

 

[bilby]

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.

Therefore no time existed until the construction of the first clock?

You are really, really bad at this 'thinking' thing. Perhaps you should learn how to do it before you try in public?

It's rather like juggling - it's OK to be bad at it while you are learning; but you shouldn't do it for an audience until you are fairly competent - unless your purpose is to amuse rather than to amaze.

Clowns have their place, but anybody can take a custard pie to the face while wearing baggy pants - pratfalls are not an impressive or taxing skill set.

 

[untermensche]

Time passes.

We measure it with our clocks.

Therefore no time existed until the construction of the first clock?

Doesn't follow one bit.

Are you still claiming infinite series have an end?

 

[bilby]

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.

There is no such thing as a series with no beginning.

A series MUST start from a defined element.

Show me some infinite series you think ends and I will try to explain. What you think is the end is the beginning.

The negative integers end at zero.

You needn't bother to repeat your incorrect claim that they begin at zero; because frankly, it doesn't matter either way. The integers have neither beginning nor end. You cannot count them from the beginning; they don't have one.

Obviously you could pick ANY integer (including but not limited to, zero), declare it the 'beginning' and count both ways from that point, but first you must justify doing this butchery - looking at two sets that are arbitrarily dissimilar to the single set under discussion doesn't achieve shit.

 

[bilby]

Therefore no time existed until the construction of the first clock?

Doesn't follow one bit.

Are you still claiming infinite series have an end?

In that post?

No.

Are you fucking dense?

An infinite series can (but need not) have an end. If it has no beginning, it's infinite whether it has an end or not. And if it's minimum element size tends to zero, it can have both a beginning and an end - the set of rational numbers between 1 and 2 has a beginning, and an end, and is infinite.

And it neatly avoids zero, which is clearly another concept you find terrifying and confusing.

 

[Kharakov]

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

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

Has nothing to do with the conversation. So what? Some consider 0 to be both positive and negative, depending on the direction of approach (0 or pi), when speaking of limits. It's important.

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

All have a beginning.

Yeah, but we're talking about infinite sets. If you can't understand that from the context of the conversation, then you're "fucking" hopeless.

For example, if you can't understand that people here aren't talking about a "mathematical series", but rather a sequence of integers when they say "the following series: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0 ,1 .....".... you don't understand the conversation.

If you can't understand that we aren't talking about a sequence of integers when we use a beginningless sequence of integers to illustrate beginningless time's properties, then you don't understand the conversation.

If you can't understand that the language of mathematics provides a framework with which to talk about quantities in a specific way, then you might not have the requisite knowledge to understand the conversation.


Sorry if you don't get it unter, but most people do. I still recall being on the same side of the line as you, having to be spoon fed an idea, for 100s of pages. I sympathize with your ignorance, but that's all it is. Ok, I lied, it took me 2 sentences to figure it out, but... whatever. Some of us are quicker than others. No hard feelings, que little buddy?

 

[Kharakov]

We measure it with our clocks.

Therefore no time existed until the construction of the first clock?

I can't help thinking of Bron's comment about the guy who talked to God through a clock.

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as a series with no beginning.

A series MUST start from a defined element.

Show me some infinite series you think ends and I will try to explain. What you think is the end is the beginning.

The negative integers end at zero.

Is zero a negative integer?

The negative integers are a series that begin with -1 and progress infinitely from it.

That is the only rational way to describe them.

Nothing can progress from an unknown element.

 

[Kharakov]

The negative integers end at zero.

Is zero a negative integer?

The negative integers are a series that begin with -1 and progress infinitely from it.

That is the only rational way to describe them.

Nothing can progress from an unknown element.

If only you understand that a 0 point on a timeline is arbitrarily chosen....

 

[untermensche]

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

Has nothing to do with the conversation. So what?

You seem to be ignoring the END part.

I could also say the series of negative integers never ends.

So to say it ends at any point is to say something irrational.

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

All have a beginning.

Yeah, but we're talking about infinite sets.

We're talking about 2 distinct infinite series.

The positive integers and the negative integers.

Time is linear and unidirectional.

If you want to model it with the negative integers then the only way to rationally do it is to say one hour in the past, or one of any arbitrary passage of time in the past, is negative one, then the previous hour or whatever would be negative two, and so on.

Again this is so obvious I don't know why I have to say it.

A series can only begin from a defined element. And it can only progress to another defined element.

 

[bilby]

The negative integers end at zero.

Is zero a negative integer?

Who cares?

Why not respond to the rest of my post, wherein it is made obvious that this is not important to my point, because arbitrarily dividing the integers into subsets is not justified nor reasonable?

The negative integers are a series that begin with -1 and progress infinitely from it.

That is the only rational way to describe them.

If you say so. Nobody else cares what exact grade of straw you build your straw man arguments with.

Nothing can progress from an unknown element.

Why not?

Reality is not constrained by your lack of intelligence or your lack of imagination. Only you are constrained by these things.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing can progress from an unknown element.

Why not?

It is all about the word "progress".

It always means to progress FROM something.

It makes no sense to progress from nothing.

It's like saying I crawled out of a hole I fell infinitely into.

 

[beero1000]

Why not?

It is all about the word "progress".

It always means to progress FROM something.

It makes no sense to progress from nothing.

It's like saying I crawled out of a hole I fell infinitely into.

Literally the first definition of "progress": Forward or onward movement towards a destination.

 

[bilby]

Why not?

It is all about the word "progress".

It always means to progress FROM something.

It makes no sense to progress from nothing.

It's like saying I crawled out of a hole I fell infinitely into.

It's not like that at all.

You are as bad at analogy as you are at other aspects of reasoned thought.

Watching a bad juggler dropping things is amusing for a while, but if you want to entertain and impress people, you really do need to learn the basics first.

Thinking is hard, and if you never try to learn how to do it, you will always be the fool.

 

[beero1000]

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.

You didn't actually answer the question. Do you know that 0 is an integer?

 

[bilby]

Untermensche, please read this:

The integers have neither beginning nor end. You cannot count them from the beginning; they don't have one.

Obviously you could pick ANY integer (including but not limited to, zero), declare it the 'beginning' and count both ways from that point, but first you must justify doing this butchery - looking at two sets that are arbitrarily dissimilar to the single set under discussion doesn't achieve shit.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You didn't actually answer the question. Do you know that 0 is an integer?

Prove it.

 

[beero1000]

You didn't actually answer the question. Do you know that 0 is an integer?

Prove it.

Prove that you didn't answer the question? Prove that you don't know that 0 is an integer? Prove that 0 is an integer?

It's like you're not even trying...

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche,

The integers have neither beginning nor end. You cannot count them from the beginning; they don't have one.

Obviously you could pick ANY integer (including but not limited to, zero), declare it the 'beginning' and count both ways from that point, but first you must justify doing this butchery - looking at two sets that are arbitrarily dissimilar to the single set under discussion doesn't achieve shit.

There are two series of integers.

The positive integers and the negative integers.

The positive integers begin at 1.

The negative integers begin at -1.

All infinite series have a beginning.

None have an end.

Any series you claim has no beginning is your misinterpretation of it.

You are like a dunce thinking the beginning is the end.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it.

Prove that you didn't answer the question? Prove that you don't know that 0 is an integer? Prove that 0 is an integer?

It's like you're not even trying...

That is not very convincing proof.