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

[untermensche]

So now you're saying I can't say one number is greater than another unless I create TWO 'series' of numbers? Extraordinary. How do I use these two series to depict some "greater than" relation?

You can say anything.

But if you want to depict the situation as a series, to model it to be similar to time, which is a linear series, you need two series to do it. It can't rationally be done with one.

As I said in such a situation you actually have an infinite series in the direction of the element defined in the "greater than" relationship.

You also have an infinite series going away from the element in the "greater than" relationship.

But what you seem to ignore is the only way you have an infinite series is if you stipulate a point has no dimension. You must remove the situation from the real world first.

Since any element contained within the set is an equal number of elements from the "first" or the "last" element it does not matter one bit which element you choose to begin the two infinite series.

Still unclear on what you think a 'series' actually is...

A series is a defined progression of elements. Not some random presentation of elements.

The alphabet is a series since the order is defined.

Any kind of elements can make up a series. It does not just have to be numbers.

Whose definition? What definition? I haven't seen one yet.

That is the definition of an infinite series.

A defined series must have a first element. So all have one.

An infinite series is a series with no last element.

You cannot rationally define an infinite series any other way.

Although there are other ways to say the same thing. Humans are always able to use more words than they need.

There is nothing rational in saying "no beginning". That phrase makes no sense in terms of a series of elements.

 

[fromderinside]

Infinite time is not an amount of time.

It is by definition time that never finishes.

It cannot finish. No matter how much time it has it will not finish.

It is not something that can be in the past.

The past finishes now

Which is proof it could not have been infinite.

Infinite time never finishes.

I don't accept your definition of infinite as never finishing. One doesn't tend to use impossible conditions to bound logical arguments. A more reasonable approach would be beyond the ability of an observer (defined, say man) to being counted, weighed, measured, as it does in most situations where the construct is employed. Never ending is just the same. Who or what is going to be around to prove it never ended. The condition itself is unattainable, resulting in the definition infinite is infinite. Useless.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite point. Doesn't and can't exist (unless one plays fast and loose with what a point is).

Anything else in continuous existence is infinite. Even a yardstick is infinitely long, if you don't measure it with arbitrary, infinitely long segments (inches) that have been interpreted as finite segments by comparison to other infinitely long segments. Too confusing for you to interpret?

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time is not an amount of time.

It is by definition time that never finishes.

It cannot finish. No matter how much time it has it will not finish.

It is not something that can be in the past.



Which is proof it could not have been infinite.

Infinite time never finishes.

I don't accept your definition of infinite as never finishing. One doesn't tend to use impossible conditions to bound logical arguments. A more reasonable approach would be beyond the ability of an observer (defined, say man) to being counted, weighed, measured, as it does in most situations where the construct is employed. Never ending is just the same. Who or what is going to be around to prove it never ended. The condition itself is unattainable, resulting in the definition infinite is infinite. Useless.

You keep wanting to claim the finite is the infinite.

You really are agreeing with me.

There is no such thing in reality as the infinite.

It is a physical impossibility.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite point. Doesn't and can't exist (unless one plays fast and loose with what a point is).

Anything else in continuous existence is infinite. Even a yardstick is infinitely long, if you don't measure it with arbitrary, infinitely long segments (inches) that have been interpreted as finite segments by comparison to other infinitely long segments. Too confusing for you to interpret?

Even if you have an infinite amount of time available infinite time cannot pass within it.

Infinite time cannot be in the past.

 

[Kharakov]

My coffee cup cannot be in the past either, since the past is passed.

Has nothing to do with whether infinite change (even change loops) has occurred and has always been occurring.


Do you want to take this back to the old thread's topic of change always occurring, since you don't understand maths?

Although I really think you should take some maths courses, and learn from beero while you have the opportunity. Damn.. you're fricken lucky that beero is willing to tutor you. Take advantage while you can.

 

[untermensche]

My coffee cup cannot be in the past either, since the past is passed.

True.

The coffee cup before you is not the one before you this morning.

Has nothing to do with whether infinite change (even change loops) has occurred and has always been occurring.

Impossible for infinite events to have occurred.

Infinite events are events that never stop occurring.

Do you want to take this back to the old thread's topic of change always occurring, since you don't understand maths?

I have welcomed the real experts in mathematical theory.

I have the greatest respect for the work of the people who devised our mathematics. The modern world rests on it.

But this is only tangentially related to mathematics.

Infinity exists only within some defined mathematical scheme.

It has no real world application and it becomes a contradiction to try to apply it to real things.

And that is my only point.

I am not trying to break ground in the mathematical understanding of anything.

 

[Kharakov]

We are always at the "end" of infinity, with the infinite past preceding us. It's not like our end is static- it is unbound. Our lives have limited lengths, but other than that... eternity goes on. It's only a problem if you're crazy.

 

[Phil Scott]

It's everyone else driving on the wrong side of the road!

 

[ryan]

You said that if something has an order, then it has a beginning. But there is no beginning to the integers.

He's clearly wrong, even though he'll never admit it; twisting himself into pretzels trying to split them into the positive and negative integers (and forgetting zero!) so that he can have his 'beginning'.

Yeah I am done with UM for that reason. UM has to be at least willing to admit when wrong just to show sincerity and so that the discussion can proceed.

 

[bilby]

Infinite time is not an amount of time.

Given infinite time, infinite time can (indeed, must) pass. Whether or not you want to call infinite time an 'amount' is of no importance whatsoever.

It is by definition time that never finishes.

By YOUR idiosyncratic and incomplete definition. Nobody else here agrees with your definition, which neither complies with common usage, nor adequately explains the various examples provided of infinities that do 'finish'.

It cannot finish. No matter how much time it has it will not finish.

That is simply incorrect. If the past is infinite, then it finishes whenever we say it does (and by definition, the past finishes at the present).

It is not something that can be in the past.

The past is, by definition, in the past. And, if it is infinite, then infinite time is in the past. You have yet to give any sound reasoning why the past cannot be infinite.

The past finishes now

Which is proof it could not have been infinite.

No, it really isn't.

Infinite time never finishes.

Says you. But as you are demonstrably wrong, why should we care?

 

[bilby]

My coffee cup cannot be in the past either, since the past is passed.

Has nothing to do with whether infinite change (even change loops) has occurred and has always been occurring.


Do you want to take this back to the old thread's topic of change always occurring, since you don't understand maths?

Although I really think you should take some maths courses, and learn from beero while you have the opportunity. Damn.. you're fricken lucky that beero is willing to tutor you. Take advantage while you can.

In the corner of my backyard is a patch of dirt that is in the shelter of a big tree. The dirt has become hydrophobic, and no matter how much you spray it with the hose, the water just runs away, leaving bone dry dust.

Even if you try to completely saturate the area, by blocking the runoff, you can't get it wet; The water will sit on the surface until it evaporates, and while, after making a truly mammoth effort, you can make it look as though the ground is wet, if you scratch the surface you find that the moisture penetrates less than 1mm - No mater what you do, it just will not sink in.

 

[bilby]

It's everyone else driving on the wrong side of the road!

I have driven in four different countries*, each with its own road rules, and I have always driven on the left. Therefore driving on the left is correct in every country, by definition, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. You can't drive on the right, because it's logically impossible. The left is the correct side to drive on by definition.
















*The United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand

 

[untermensche]

Given infinite time, infinite time can (indeed, must) pass. Whether or not you want to call infinite time an 'amount' is of no importance whatsoever.

You called it an amount. You are all over the place and have no argument. You merely deny the definition.

You are wrong.

Infinite time cannot pass. It can never pass.

That is the definition. It is time without limit or end. An endless series of time.

Infinite time never finishes.

Says you. But as you are demonstrably wrong, why should we care?

It is the definition.

You're argument is just a huge strawman if you run away from the definition.

Infinite time cannot be in the past. Time without end cannot end anywhere.

 

[untermensche]

He's clearly wrong, even though he'll never admit it; twisting himself into pretzels trying to split them into the positive and negative integers (and forgetting zero!) so that he can have his 'beginning'.

Yeah I am done with UM for that reason. UM has to be at least willing to admit when wrong just to show sincerity and so that the discussion can proceed.

You are wrong.

The positive integers have a first integer.

The negative integers have a first integer.

The non-positive non-negative integer is a set to itself.

I am waiting for the first person to admit they are wrong about this.

 

[bilby]

You called it an amount.

OMFG!!! The sky is falling!!

oh, wait

I am explicitly saying that "Whether or not you want to call infinite time an 'amount' is of no importance whatsoever.". It's almost as if it doesn't matter a whit whether or not I called it an amount.

You are all over the place and have no argument.

I am right here; and my argument is merely that you don't know what you claim to know - that is, you don't know or have any way to determine whether or not the past is infinite.

You merely deny the definition.

I deny your right to change the definition to suit yourself. You are just making shit up; That is not a path to truth.

You are wrong.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Forgive me if I don't take your clearly uneducated and ill informed word for it.

Infinite time cannot pass. It can never pass.

So you keep asserting without evidence. Give me a reason - any reason, as long as it is sound - not to dismiss your bald assertion.

That is the definition. It is time without limit or end. An endless series of time.

That is NOT the definition. It is YOUR very idiosyncratic and incomplete definition, that you are using as a foundation for a collection of logically fallacious 'arguments' that not one other person here has shown any inclination to accept. You need to either come up with some sound arguments, or accept that you are wrong.

Infinite time never finishes.

Says you. But as you are demonstrably wrong, why should we care?

It is the definition.

No, it really isn't.

You're argument is just a huge strawman if you run away from the definition.

Right back at you.

Infinite time cannot be in the past.

It can if the past is infinite.

Time without end cannot end anywhere.

That is self-evidently true, but not relevant, as it does not describe the same situation.

It is perfectly possible for an infinite past to have an end. "Time without end" is not synonymous with, nor interchangeable with, nor the definition of "Infinite time" - and no amount of bitching and whining about it will change that fact one iota.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I am done with UM for that reason. UM has to be at least willing to admit when wrong just to show sincerity and so that the discussion can proceed.

You are wrong.

The positive integers have a first integer.

The negative integers have a first integer.

The non-positive non-negative integer is a set to itself.

I am waiting for the first person to admit they are wrong about this.

You need to look in the mirror; That's the only place you will find someone who is able to truthfully make any such admission.

 

[untermensche]

That is the definition. It is time without limit or end. An endless series of time.

That is NOT the definition. It is YOUR very idiosyncratic and incomplete definition, that you are using as a foundation for a collection of logically fallacious 'arguments' that not one other person here has shown any inclination to accept. You need to either come up with some sound arguments, or accept that you are wrong.

It's not my definition.

It is THE definition.

Infinite time is time without limit or boundary.

It is time that never finishes. It is not an amount it is an endless procession. An imaginary concept.

But go ahead let me in on your special definition.

 

[Kharakov]

You can have lots of different infinites with boundaries. They just can't be completely enclosed (proper term?).

 

[beero1000]

Yeah I am done with UM for that reason. UM has to be at least willing to admit when wrong just to show sincerity and so that the discussion can proceed.

You are wrong.

The positive integers have a first integer.

The negative integers have a first integer.

The non-positive non-negative integer is a set to itself.

I am waiting for the first person to admit they are wrong about this.

Lol. We all are.

 

[untermensche]

You are wrong.

The positive integers have a first integer.

The negative integers have a first integer.

The non-positive non-negative integer is a set to itself.

I am waiting for the first person to admit they are wrong about this.

Lol. We all are.

Not all of you.

Actually the person who came in here that sounded like they had the strongest foundation in the philosophy agreed with me.

- - - Updated - - -

You can have lots of different infinites with boundaries. They just can't be completely enclosed (proper term?).

You can only have a bounded infinity with imaginary elements.

A point with no dimension.

And all you do is PRETEND they are there. No actual infinity is anywhere.

As I said, if an atom takes up any space an infinite amount of them would not be able to fit in infinite universes.