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

[bilby]

There are not different kinds of fruit.

Yes there are.

There are also different kinds of infinite time.

Time without beginning, but with an end;
Time without an end, but with a beginning;
Time with neither beginning nor end.

You can see that apples are not the only kind of fruit; Why can't you see that time without end is not the only kind of infinite time?

 

[untermensche]

Yes there are.

There are also different kinds of infinite time.

Time without beginning, but with an end;
Time without an end, but with a beginning;
Time with neither beginning nor end.

You can see that apples are not the only kind of fruit; Why can't you see that time without end is not the only kind of infinite time?

Those are not different kinds.

They are just different ways to describe the same thing. Infinite time.

How is infinite time described as time without beginning a different kind of infinite time from infinite time described as time without end?

Is a black and white zebra a different kind of zebra from a white and black zebra?

 

[bilby]

There are also different kinds of infinite time.

Time without beginning, but with an end;
Time without an end, but with a beginning;
Time with neither beginning nor end.

You can see that apples are not the only kind of fruit; Why can't you see that time without end is not the only kind of infinite time?

Those are not different kinds.

They are just different ways to describe the same thing. Infinite time.

How is infinite time described as time without beginning a different kind of infinite time from infinite time described as time without end?

Only if beginning and end are different things.

If you manage to prove that they are the same, then we will never hear the beginning of it.

Is a black and white zebra a different kind of zebra from a white and black zebra?

Are zebra stripes directional?

 

[untermensche]

How is infinite time described as time without beginning a different kind of infinite time from infinite time described as time without end?

Only if beginning and end are different things.

There is only one kind of time. There can only be different amounts, not different kinds.

And this is about "no beginning" and "no end". How you seem to forget that can only be explained by dementia.

This is about how much time those concepts describe.

It turns out they both describe the same amount of time.

They both describe the same exact thing. Not different kinds of things.

Are zebra stripes directional?

Yes.

 

[Juma]

Here's how. If the past is infinite, then if you give me a moment in the past I will be able to find a prior moment.

If all those moments must pass before you can reach the present then you will never reach it.

So the complete thought is that if there is a present then infinite time could not have occurred before it.

Time without end could not have occurred before it.

But ”all those moments have to pass before you reach the current moment” is false.
Standing by your bed doesnt mean you necessarily have passed all points from the moon (or whereever).
You are already at you bed.

Ponder this: that you are at a specific point says nothing about wether space is limitless.

The same is true of time: that you exist now says nothing about wether time is limitless.

Take any prior date and you will realize that it will be a finite time from that date until now.

 

[untermensche]

If all those moments must pass before you can reach the present then you will never reach it.

So the complete thought is that if there is a present then infinite time could not have occurred before it.

Time without end could not have occurred before it.

But ”all those moments have to pass before you reach the current moment” is false.

Sure they do.

Standing by your bed doesnt mean you necessarily have passed all points from the moon (or whereever).

That is not analogous.

What would be analogous would be to say you have just traveled infinite miles to get here.

Ponder this: that you are at a specific point says nothing about wether space is limitless.

Not true.

That one is at a specific moment in time proves there were not infinite moments before it.

That one is in a specific place is proof one did not have to travel infinite miles to get there.

 

[Kharakov]

There are not different kinds of fruit.

Yes there are.

No, all types of fruit have a specific definition. They are all fruit.


You still don't get that something can be infinite in more than one way. A 6 dimensional object can displace a finite volume, while having an infinite interior volume.

Considering that you don't know that spacetime is limited to 3+1 dimensions (although I don't doubt you'll make claims about stuff you don't know at this point), you can't claim anything about higher dimensional objects being non existent.

Ohh crap. You don't understand higher dimensional constructs, do you?

 

[ryan]

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.

You have got to be kidding. I say the integers, and you are just going to assume that I am taking about a subset of integers???

 

[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.

You have got to be kidding. I say the integers, and you are just going to assume that I am taking about a subset of integers???

The integers are made up of three sets. Each set is a different type.

The negative integers are not the same thing as the positive integers.

And zero is neither positive nor negative. It does not somehow connect the two other sets.

Zero is nothing.

It is not analogous to the present moment which is something.

 

[ryan]

You have got to be kidding. I say the integers, and you are just going to assume that I am taking about a subset of integers???

The integers are made up of three sets. Each set is a different type.

The negative integers are not the same thing as the positive integers.

And zero is neither positive nor negative. It does not somehow connect the two other sets.

Zero is nothing.

It is not analogous to the present moment which is something.

Is there a set containing all of the integers?

 

[untermensche]

The integers are made up of three sets. Each set is a different type.

The negative integers are not the same thing as the positive integers.

And zero is neither positive nor negative. It does not somehow connect the two other sets.

Zero is nothing.

It is not analogous to the present moment which is something.

Is there a set containing all of the integers?

You can make a set of the positive integers and every other letter of the alphabet.

But when you depict an infinite series of the integers you can't start at zero.

It is not part of the series of the negative integers or positive. It is neither negative or positive.

And my most salient point is you cannot use zero to depict the present. The present is something, not nothing.

 

[ryan]

Is there a set containing all of the integers?

You can make a set of the positive integers and every other letter of the alphabet.

But when you depict an infinite series of the integers you can't start at zero.

It is not part of the series of the negative integers or positive. It is neither negative or positive.

And my most salient point is you cannot use zero to depict the present. The present is something, not nothing.

The 0 is just a place holder for the purposes of organizing events and recording them. In this case, it has nothing to do with magnitude or quantity of what you are listing.

 

[untermensche]

You can make a set of the positive integers and every other letter of the alphabet.

But when you depict an infinite series of the integers you can't start at zero.

It is not part of the series of the negative integers or positive. It is neither negative or positive.

And my most salient point is you cannot use zero to depict the present. The present is something, not nothing.

The 0 is just a place holder for the purposes of organizing events and recording them. In this case, it has nothing to do with magnitude or quantity of what you are listing.

It is not an analogous placeholder.

The analogy of time to a number line with a zero in it is a bad one.

Zero is the non-existent. The nothing.

It can't be found in the real world anymore than infinity.

Ultimately if infinite time must pass before some present event can take place the event can never take place.

If you have to travel an infinite number of miles to get somewhere you will never get there.

 

[ryan]

The 0 is just a place holder for the purposes of organizing events and recording them. In this case, it has nothing to do with magnitude or quantity of what you are listing.

It is not an analogous placeholder.

It's an arbitrary point of reference. If we used 0:00 am and 0:00 pm instead of 12:00 am and 12:00 pm respectively, it makes no difference because they are just sybolic placeholders.

The analogy of time to a number line with a zero in it is a bad one.

Zero is the non-existent. The nothing.

It can't be found in the real world anymore than infinity.

9:00 uses 0 minutes and 0 seconds. And even then, it doesn't have to. Hours could start at the 15th minute. 9:15 could go to 9:75 and nothing would change. They are just ordered placeholders including 0 out of convenience for calculation.

Ultimately if infinite time must pass before some present event can take place the event can never take place.

If you have to travel infinite miles to get somewhere you will never get there.

There are ways around this. But I will focus in on assuming no loops or wormholes and no emerging dimensions from quantum fluctuations, which are negative assumptions that go against theories from this universe, but anyways.

With that said, I know what you are saying, and the logic seems good at first. But I was thinking that if something has always been moving, then it had forever to get to infinity. Never never comes for any finite amount of time. This would essentially mean that if there has always been change, then there could have always been something moving.

So even with a "oneway" 4d universe, I am not convinced by the never argument anymore.

 

[Juma]

But ”all those moments have to pass before you reach the current moment” is false.

Sure they do.

Standing by your bed doesnt mean you necessarily have passed all points from the moon (or whereever).

That is not analogous.

What would be analogous would be to say you have just traveled infinite miles to get here.

Ponder this: that you are at a specific point says nothing about wether space is limitless.

Not true.

That one is at a specific moment in time proves there were not infinite moments before it.

That one is in a specific place is proof one did not have to travel infinite miles to get there.

Since you have only travelled from your birth you havent proved anything.
The universe may have always travelled in time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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

I believe that all infinite regions can be completely enclosed. In fact, infinite regions can be completely enclosed each by an infinity of other regions. You just need to find regions that are larger. It's easy. You just add a > 0 to the limit for all coordinates. For example, 1 / (x - 5) can be enclosed by (1 / (x - 5)) + 1 or by (1 / (x - 5)) + 500.

Or, I misunderstood what you're saying.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Yes there are.

There are also different kinds of infinite time.

Time without beginning, but with an end;
Time without an end, but with a beginning;
Time with neither beginning nor end.

You can see that apples are not the only kind of fruit; Why can't you see that time without end is not the only kind of infinite time?

Consider time as originating at all "points at infinity" on a Riemann sphere

There are multiple timelines that lead to now (0 point on sphere)

Since they come from the point at infinity, the 0 point on the sphere can move further away from positive infinity without the sphere changing, or further away from negative infinity without the sphere changing (except the sphere rotates). Time is static as a whole, yet now is fluid and undetermined by anything, other than rotation of the Riemann sphere.

Depending on where you are on the Riemann sphere, time moves faster or slower (assume the rotation is from -real infinite to positive real infinity, there would be 0 time change on the imaginary axis, time would change fastest on the real line around the sphere, and would move at various rates on other parts of the sphere).

I better take this elsewhere (not that elsewhere!)... and I better create an animation.

 

[Kharakov]

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

I believe that all infinite regions can be completely enclosed. In fact, infinite regions can be completely enclosed each by an infinity of other regions. You just need to find regions that are larger. It's easy. You just add a > 0 to the limit for all coordinates. For example, 1 / (x - 5) can be enclosed by (1 / (x - 5)) + 1 or by (1 / (x - 5)) + 500.

Or, I misunderstood what you're saying.
EB

I was thinking about having bounds on stuff, like x is not below 0 on a line, but extends infinitely in the positive direction, or x extends from -infinity to 0.

Actually, more specifically, like x,y,z,w,t >= 0; so reality is "boxed in" on one end, and open on others.

 

[Kharakov]

You can make a set of the positive integers and every other letter of the alphabet.

But when you depict an infinite series of the integers you can't start at zero.

It is not part of the series of the negative integers or positive. It is neither negative or positive.

And my most salient point is you cannot use zero to depict the present. The present is something, not nothing.

lol.

To be clear, 0 is an integer. 0 is useful to depict the present in certain scenarios, not in others.

 

[untermensche]

It is not an analogous placeholder.

It's an arbitrary point of reference. If we used 0:00 am and 0:00 pm instead of 12:00 am and 12:00 pm respectively, it makes no difference because they are just sybolic placeholders.

Not if it is part of the integers which are abstract representations of value.

There it is not a placeholder.

It is itself.

Nothing. Something of no value.

Ultimately the only way to depict the integers rationally is to have two infinite series and a third set of one element.

An infinite series cannot begin from an unknown or a non-existent point.