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

[untermensche]

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.

I assure you, any person you see did not travel an infinite number of miles before you saw them.

That is impossible. You cannot travel infinite miles. It is not a destination. It is traveling without ever stopping. Traveling without end.

The same with infinite time. It is time that never stops. Time that never ends.

It cannot have been in the past. That is impossible.

If you experience the present you know the time in the past, the time before the present, was not infinite.

 

[ryan]

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.

I am not sure what we are talking about or how it relates to infinite time.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't think anyone does. Unter doesn't use the term integer like, umm, mathematicians. He doesn't use the term infinite like almost everyone else either.

An unterInteger doesn't include 0. For time to be unterInfinite, it has to have a set beginning, and no ending.

I suppose I wonder what uberInfinite time is now, since infinite time has no beginning, and no end until nothing exists. Would uberInfinite time lack any bounds whatsoever, maybe have multiple free unbound directions?

I mean, we wouldn't call it uberInfinite, just plain old infinite time that has multiple possible paths. But... you know, we should humor unter.


So unterTime has a beginning, can only ever have passed a finite amount, and doesn't stop passing. It's a special type of time that doesn't exist anywhere except in unter's imagination and maybe the imaginations of some people who aren't too good at logic or reasoning (at least about this particular topic- they could be anti-savant geniuses- brilliant at everything, except really stupid about infinity).

 

[Phil Scott]

I can think of one person who said that there could be some sympathy for your view - from one specific perspective that is non-standard with respect to the normal sense of the order of the integers. The fact that you understood that as saying they 'agreed with me' actually says a lot.

To reiterate my point: I can give the standard definition of order in the integers, but that definition bottoms out at the initial integers 0, 1 and -1. These are the starting points of the integers, in as much as all the others are built recursively from them.

I think that's an important observation if you want to emphasise the idea of computation in mathematics, which means emphasising the well-orders. It's not an observation that comes from wanting to emphasise anything about time, and this is where I and untermensche part ways.

I've personally got no opinion on whether or not the past is infinite. I will say that anyone designing a calendar in a world with an infinite past will always start at some arbitrarily chosen time 0 (my preference is 1st January 1970).

 

[untermensche]

I can think of one person who said that there could be some sympathy for your view - from one specific perspective that is non-standard with respect to the normal sense of the order of the integers. The fact that you understood that as saying they 'agreed with me' actually says a lot.

To reiterate my point: I can give the standard definition of order in the integers, but that definition bottoms out at the initial integers 0, 1 and -1. These are the starting points of the integers, in as much as all the others are built recursively from them.

I think that's an important observation if you want to emphasise the idea of computation in mathematics, which means emphasising the well-orders. It's not an observation that comes from wanting to emphasise anything about time, and this is where I and untermensche part ways.

I've personally got no opinion on whether or not the past is infinite. I will say that anyone designing a calendar in a world with an infinite past will always start at some arbitrarily chosen time 0 (my preference is 1st January 1970).

Bottoms out? From where? Where is your starting point?

You have no opinion on the fact that an infinite past would mean that before any given moment infinite moments ALREADY occurred? Can infinite moments have ALREADY occurred?

Is an infinite amount of time an amount of time that can ever finish and be in the past?

Come on, muster the strength for an actual opinion.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I am not sure what we are talking about or how it relates to infinite time.

Exactly. The depiction of the three different sets of the integers has nothing to do with infinite time.

They have nothing to do with time that never ends.

All we know about time that never ends is that it could not be in the past.

 

[Phil Scott]

Bottoms out? From where? Where is your starting point?

In the case of the code I gave, when you ask a question like "is -384 < -403?", your starting points are -384 and -403. You gradually reduce this problem to smaller and smaller integer comparisons, until you eventually bottom out at one of 1, 0 or -1. This is the base of the recursion. The definition of integer comparison begins here.

You have no opinion on the fact that an infinite past would mean that before any given moment infinite moments ALREADY occurred? Can infinite moments have ALREADY occurred?

Is an infinite amount of time an amount of time that can ever finish and be in the past?

There's no formal contradiction as far as the mathematical models go. I've said as much. I'll consider it an open question until I have empirical evidence one way or another.

Come on, muster the strength for an actual opinion.

My favourite thing about being a sceptic is that I can reserve the right to not hold an opinion.

 

[untermensche]

You have no opinion on the fact that an infinite past would mean that before any given moment infinite moments ALREADY occurred? Can infinite moments have ALREADY occurred?

Is an infinite amount of time an amount of time that can ever finish and be in the past?

There's no formal contradiction as far as the mathematical models go. I've said as much. I'll consider it an open question until I have empirical evidence one way or another.

No this actually takes untethered thinking.

It is not a mathematics problem. Mathematics is not where we find explanations of time or infinite time.

It involves some of the things done in mathematics.

But first there must be a definition of infinite time.

Is there any reason to think time that never ends is an incomplete conception? Would being able to conceive it in other ways make this an incomplete conception?

Not infinity, infinite time.

My favourite thing about being a sceptic is that I can reserve the right to not hold an opinion.

Skepticism is a fountainhead of opinion.

Are you claiming I am not a skeptic? That is where I begin. Rabid skepticism.

I do not believe for an instant that the concept "no beginning" makes any rational sense.

It is no less a cop out than saying "god did it".

 

[untermensche]

In the case of the code I gave, when you ask a question like "is -384 < -403?", your starting points are -384 and -403.

How do you get to -384 without defining -1 first?

Where does it come from?

 

[Phil Scott]

In the case of the code I gave, when you ask a question like "is -384 < -403?", your starting points are -384 and -403.

How do you get to -384 without defining -1 first?

You don't. -1 is also the base of the inductive definition. -384 is generated recursively starting at -1. I thought I'd made this point clearly already.

 

[untermensche]

How do you get to -384 without defining -1 first?

You don't. -1 is also the base of the inductive definition. -384 is generated recursively starting at -1. I thought I'd made this point clearly already.

So we already know -1 is the first negative integer. The first thing defined.

What are we trying to figure out with all this other stuff?

 

[Phil Scott]

You don't. -1 is also the base of the inductive definition. -384 is generated recursively starting at -1. I thought I'd made this point clearly already.

So we already know -1 is the first negative integer. The first thing defined.

What are we trying to figure out with all this other stuff?

My post above was talking about the definition of "less than", which, as I gave, inputs numbers that have been previously constructed recursively from -1, 0 or 1. It uses this very fact in the computation, running in the other direction by peeling away the layers of recursion until it gets back to those initial integers.

On the ordering given by this "less than" computation, there is no minimum or maximum integer. Absence of minima and maxima is not an anomalous situation in mathematics. Moreover, the question "how many integers are there less than 0" has no integral answer.

 

[Phil Scott]

No this actually takes untethered thinking.

It is not a mathematics problem. Mathematics is not where we find explanations of time or infinite time.

Since Newton, mathematics is where we find formalisations of physics, in which time is a fundamental dimension. There are trivial formalisations in which time has no minimum value. That's enough for me.

Are you claiming I am not a skeptic?

I am. I will further claim that you have been rabidly dogmatic in this thread by insisting on the impossibility of something for which you have not been able to muster anything close to a disproof.

 

[beero1000]

I can think of one person who said that there could be some sympathy for your view - from one specific perspective that is non-standard with respect to the normal sense of the order of the integers. The fact that you understood that as saying they 'agreed with me' actually says a lot.

To reiterate my point: I can give the standard definition of order in the integers, but that definition bottoms out at the initial integers 0, 1 and -1. These are the starting points of the integers, in as much as all the others are built recursively from them.

I think that's an important observation if you want to emphasise the idea of computation in mathematics, which means emphasising the well-orders. It's not an observation that comes from wanting to emphasise anything about time, and this is where I and untermensche part ways.

Absolutely, and that's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. With untermensche though, it's probably advisable to use a word other than 'start' or 'beginning' to describe that property. Maybe 'base' or 'foundation'? (ETA: it seems you've already started using 'base', which works for me!)

I've personally got no opinion on whether or not the past is infinite. I will say that anyone designing a calendar in a world with an infinite past will always start at some arbitrarily chosen time 0 (my preference is 1st January 1970).

That is the rational position, and is all anyone here is advocating against untermensche's claims of impossibility.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anyone does. Unter doesn't use the term integer like, umm, mathematicians. He doesn't use the term infinite like almost everyone else either.

An unterInteger doesn't include 0. For time to be unterInfinite, it has to have a set beginning, and no ending.

I suppose I wonder what uberInfinite time is now, since infinite time has no beginning, and no end until nothing exists. Would uberInfinite time lack any bounds whatsoever, maybe have multiple free unbound directions?

I mean, we wouldn't call it uberInfinite, just plain old infinite time that has multiple possible paths. But... you know, we should humor unter.


So unterTime has a beginning, can only ever have passed a finite amount, and doesn't stop passing. It's a special type of time that doesn't exist anywhere except in unter's imagination and maybe the imaginations of some people who aren't too good at logic or reasoning (at least about this particular topic- they could be anti-savant geniuses- brilliant at everything, except really stupid about infinity).

Can we please, please, please start calling them untergers?

 

[untermensche]

Since Newton, mathematics is where we find formalisations of physics, in which time is a fundamental dimension. There are trivial formalisations in which time has no minimum value. That's enough for me.

Nothing trivial about it in the real world or in trying to gain a real world understanding of "infinite time".

To dismiss it with the wave of the hand is possible but not anything warranted.

What started with Newton was actually trying to explain phenomena ended since the cause of gravity could not be understood and explanation was replaced with trying to construct accurate models of observed data in which predictions could be made.

Are you claiming I am not a skeptic?

I am.

When you stray from your home your opinions are very poor. Outside your ivory tower you have very little to say.

You have no argument to dispute anything I have said. Not one.

If you want to claim time without end is not "infinite time" I would love to see the proof.

 

[untermensche]

That is the rational position, and is all anyone here is advocating against untermensche's claims of impossibility.

Yes my huge claims.

1. It is impossible for infinite time to end.

2. The concept "no beginning" makes as much sense as "eternal god". Not an explanation or anything rational. A faith.

But we know what happens when you question people's faiths.

 

[Phil Scott]

What started with Newton was actually trying to explain phenomena ended since the cause of gravity could not be understood and explanation was replaced with trying to construct accurate models of observed data in which predictions could be made.

And given the successes since, I'm not turning my nose up at this approach to physics. It's more than enough for me. And on this approach, infinite time is a possibility since it's a natural mathematical model, and it hasn't been ruled out empirically.

When you stray from your home your opinions are very poor. Outside your ivory tower you have very little to say.

It is a point of pride that I have very little to say outside my narrow areas of expertise. I enjoy the quiet.

 

[beero1000]

Are you claiming I am not a skeptic?

I am.

When you stray from your home your opinions are very poor. Outside your ivory tower you have very little to say.

You have no argument to dispute anything I have said. Not one.

If you want to claim time without end is not "infinite time" I would love to see the proof.

That was a quick 180.

That is the rational position, and is all anyone here is advocating against untermensche's claims of impossibility.

Yes my huge claims.

1. It is impossible for infinite time to end.

2. The concept "no beginning" makes as much sense as "eternal god". Not an explanation or anything rational. A faith.

But we know what happens when you question people's faiths.

I know, right!?

 

[untermensche]

And given the successes since, I'm not turning my nose up at this approach to physics. It's more than enough for me. And on this approach, infinite time is a possibility since it's a natural mathematical model, and it hasn't been ruled out empirically.

Success in understanding had something to do with building these huge colliders.

And I am not talking about infinite time being something that since time exists it could not extend out infinitely into the future.

I cannot prove that is impossible.

Only that infinite time could not have already happened.

No equation will help us understand that.

Defining infinite time and sticking with the definition will.

It really is not hard at all.

When you stray from your home your opinions are very poor. Outside your ivory tower you have very little to say.

It is a point of pride that I have very little to say outside my narrow areas of expertise. I enjoy the quiet.

You offer your opinions of me freely. You cast innuendo on my opinions.

To do that and run away is what I label cowardice.

 

[untermensche]

I am.

When you stray from your home your opinions are very poor. Outside your ivory tower you have very little to say.

You have no argument to dispute anything I have said. Not one.

If you want to claim time without end is not "infinite time" I would love to see the proof.

That was a quick 180.

From what?

I did not ask for nor need anything from him or her.

Yes my huge claims.

1. It is impossible for infinite time to end.

2. The concept "no beginning" makes as much sense as "eternal god". Not an explanation or anything rational. A faith.

But we know what happens when you question people's faiths.

I know, right!?

What is that dodge #689?

You're working to infinity.

Do you think you may reach it?