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

[bilby]

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.

Hang on, it was 'time without end' a minute ago. And is it without limit; or without boundary; or both? Are you seriously suggesting that the definition keeps changing, or that it need not be precise?

It is time that never finishes.

That's yet ANOTHER definition. Make your mind up!

It is not an amount it is an endless procession. An imaginary concept.

But go ahead let me in on your special definition.

Unlike you, I don't have a special definition; I just use the same one that the mathematicians use.

'Infinite' in casual English means 'immeasurably large'. Mathematically, a set is infinite when it cannot be put in bijection with a finite ordinal, namely a set of the form {0, 1, 2, ..., n−1} for any natural number n. An infinite set is one that is literally "not finite", in the sense of bijection.

This definition includes, but is not limited to, sets with no 'end'. Your assumption (or assertion) that "infinite time" is by definition "time without end" is false; "time without end" is necessarily infinite; But infinite time is NOT necessarily without end.

 

[untermensche]

It's not my definition.

It is THE definition.

Infinite time is time without limit or boundary.

Hang on, it was 'time without end' a minute ago. And is it without limit; or without boundary; or both? Are you seriously suggesting that the definition keeps changing, or that it need not be precise?

To say time with no end is to say time with no limit. Time is only one thing. No difference in the least.

It is also time that never finishes. All the same thing.

Are you claiming it is impossible to say the same exact thing in more than one way?

This definition includes, but is not limited to, sets with no 'end'.

There is no other definition.

There may be other ways to say the same thing.

 

[bilby]

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.

THAT'S your criterion???

You seriously base your assessment of the truth value of somebody's claims on whether they sound like they have a strong foundation in the philosophy?

Talk about a circular epistemology:

Person A agrees with me
Therefore Person A sounds like they have a strong foundation in the philosophy
Therefore Person A is correct
Therefore I am correct.



John 11:35

 

[bilby]

Hang on, it was 'time without end' a minute ago. And is it without limit; or without boundary; or both? Are you seriously suggesting that the definition keeps changing, or that it need not be precise?

To say time with no end is to say time with no limit. Time is only one thing. No difference in the least.

It is also time that never finishes. All the same thing.

Are you claiming it is impossible to say the same exact thing in more than one way?

No, I am noting that your various ways of saying what you claim to be the same thing are not, in fact, the same at all - and that the difference is important and obvious (to all but you, apparently).

This definition includes, but is not limited to, sets with no 'end'.

There is no other definition.

There may be other ways to say the same thing.

Wow. You really are beyond hope.

 

[untermensche]

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.

THAT'S your criterion???

You seriously base your assessment of the truth value of somebody's claims on whether they sound like they have a strong foundation in the philosophy?

Talk about a circular epistemology:

Person A agrees with me
Therefore Person A sounds like they have a strong foundation in the philosophy
Therefore Person A is correct
Therefore I am correct.

It was the truth.

Your hysterical handwaving over it is noted.

 

[untermensche]

To say time with no end is to say time with no limit. Time is only one thing. No difference in the least.

It is also time that never finishes. All the same thing.

Are you claiming it is impossible to say the same exact thing in more than one way?

No, I am noting that your various ways of saying what you claim to be the same thing are not, in fact, the same at all - and that the difference is important and obvious (to all but you, apparently).

There is clearly no difference.

That is why you can point out none.

This definition includes, but is not limited to, sets with no 'end'.

There is no other definition.

There may be other ways to say the same thing.

Wow. You really are beyond hope.

Wow you have no answer to anything.

Infinite time is time that never ends. It never ends because it has no boundary. It has no limit.

And time that never ends is time that never finishes. Same exact concept.

You are extremely lost and now are reduced to claiming it is impossible to say the same thing in different ways.

 

[bilby]

Are you claiming it is impossible to say the same exact thing in more than one way?

The English language is very woolly, and is replete with synonyms and near synonyms. Formal accuracy in English is very difficult to achieve, which is one of the benefits of using mathematics instead.

You appear to have fallen into a linguistic trap, from which your massively inflated ego is preventing you escaping.

Quite why you imagine your image to be less diminished by clownish demonstrations of increasingly bizarre ignorance, than it would be by a simple admission of error, I do not know; But it's really quite entertaining, in a rather ghoulish way.

"See the amazing Pretzel Man, as he ties himself in ever tighter logical knots to avoid admitting that he made the minor error of using an informal definition that wasn't actually applicable to his claim!"

"Marvel as he attempts to extract himself from a hole by digging it deeper!"

"Wonder why he can't see that 'without beginning' and 'without end' are potentially VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS!!"

"Roll up! Roll up! All the fun of the fair!"

 

[beero1000]

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.

I'm sure you believe that. Could you point out who that was?

 

[bilby]

No, I am noting that your various ways of saying what you claim to be the same thing are not, in fact, the same at all - and that the difference is important and obvious (to all but you, apparently).

There is clearly no difference.

That is why you can point out none.

This definition includes, but is not limited to, sets with no 'end'.

There is no other definition.

There may be other ways to say the same thing.

Wow. You really are beyond hope.

Wow you have no answer to anything.

Infinite time is time that never ends. It never ends because it has no boundary. It has no limit.

And time that never ends is time that never finishes. Same exact concept.

You are extremely lost and now are reduced to claiming it is impossible to say the same thing in different ways.

I am lost, in the same way that, if you were wondering in a desert, you would declare that the people in the city are hopelessly lost, because you have no idea where they are.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I'm sure you believe that. Could you point out who that was?

I think you fully know who I mean.

 

[untermensche]

I am lost, in the same way that, if you were wondering in a desert, you would declare that the people in the city are hopelessly lost, because you have no idea where they are.

Are you claiming infinite time is not time without end?

Is it not time that never finishes?

It seems all you can now do is claim that infinite time is not anything.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm sure you believe that. Could you point out who that was?

I think you fully know who I mean.

So much for a popcorn emoji.

 

[untermensche]

I think you fully know who I mean.

So much for a popcorn emoji.

You are stuck in the past.

Right now we are waiting for the big brain trust to come up with a definition for infinite time.

They don't like any that exist.

 

[Kharakov]

If I bite you, would my fillings get shocked (assume a slightly acidic mouth.. I'll eat a tomato first)?

 

[bilby]

I am lost, in the same way that, if you were wondering in a desert, you would declare that the people in the city are hopelessly lost, because you have no idea where they are.

Are you claiming infinite time is not time without end?

Is it not time that never finishes?

It seems all you can now do is claim that infinite time is not anything.

I am not claiming anything.

I am telling you that time without end is, necessarily, infinite; But that that does not imply that infinite time must necessarily be time without end.

I have given you the definition of infinity used by mathematicians; It doesn't use the word 'end' anywhere.

Infinite time is time that is not finite.

It might have no end; or no beginning; or neither an end nor a beginning. In any of these cases, it would be infinite time.

As you really should be aware by now, if you were to pay attention instead of playing silly word games.

 

[bilby]

So much for a popcorn emoji.

You are stuck in the past.

Right now we are waiting for the big brain trust to come up with a definition for infinite time.

They don't like any that exist.

I have no idea what you are waiting for. The definition of infinite has been provided to you; Infinite time is time that is infinite.

If you are waiting for your chosen definition to be complete and correct, then you have an infinite wait ahead of you.

 

[untermensche]

I have given you the definition of infinity used by mathematicians; It doesn't use the word 'end' anywhere.

Mathematicians only talk of infinity.

They do not talk of infinite time.

Mathematics is not the study of time.

Infinite time is time that is not finite.

Time that is not finite is time with no end. It is time that never finishes. It is time that goes on and on.

It cannot be in the past.

It might have no end; or no beginning; or neither an end nor a beginning. In any of these cases, it would be infinite time.

It is only one thing. Infinite time.

How it is described makes no difference.

It is always time without end. Time that never ends.

Even if you wish to describe it differently.

And casually saying something might exist but might have no beginning is very funny.

It is an irrational speculation.

To not begin is to never exist.

 

[bilby]

Mathematicians only talk of infinity.

They do not talk of infinite time.

Mathematics is not the study of time.

Infinite time is time that is not finite.

Time that is not finite is time with no end. It is time that never finishes. It is time that goes on and on.

It cannot be in the past.

Why.

The fuck.

Not?

Your mere assertion is inadequate.

I don't believe you.

So prove it.

 

[untermensche]

Mathematicians only talk of infinity.

They do not talk of infinite time.

Mathematics is not the study of time.



Time that is not finite is time with no end. It is time that never finishes. It is time that goes on and on.

It cannot be in the past.

Why.

The fuck.

Not?

Your mere assertion is inadequate.

I don't believe you.

So prove it.

Prove that the definition of infinite time is time that never ends?

What would constitute proof for you?

It is a human conception.

 

[bilby]

Why.

The fuck.

Not?

Your mere assertion is inadequate.

I don't believe you.

So prove it.

Prove that the definition of infinite time is time that never ends?

What would constitute proof for you?

It is a human conception.

No, prove that the past is finite.

You cannot prove that the definition of infinite time is 'time that never ends', because that is NOT the definition. It's A definition, and it is demonstrably incomplete.

You assert that the past cannot be infinite.

To prove this, all you need to do is to present a valid argument, using only premises that are true.

In fact, you can even just present a 'soft' proof - a valid argument that uses only premises that we both agree are true; It is possible for such an argument to be unsound, but only if we are both mistaken in our assessment of the truth of one or more premises, and if we are mistaken in that way, we would never know.

What you cannot do (if you want anyone else to agree with you) is to use premises that are false (or premises that others believe to be false, unless you first prove those premises to be true); or to present an invalid argument.

To date, this thread has had over 1370 posts, during which time you have completely failed to present any such argument, instead repeating the same tired old fallacies - question begging, equivocation, and non-sequiturs being amongst the more common of these.

If you don't know how to formulate and/or present a valid and sound argument, or you choose not to do so for any reasons of your own, then you cannot reasonably expect anyone to accept your claim.

Stop equivocating; Stop using premises that others hold to be false (without first demonstrating via sound logic that they are true); Stop beating about the bush; And make your case.