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

[George S]

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.

Ah, I see. Your faith requires you to reject "eternal" anything.

(1) Is this impossibility of the logical or physical kind?

(2) How do you know that physical eternity is impossible?

 

[untermensche]

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.

Ah, I see. Your faith requires you to reject "eternal" anything.

(1) Is this impossibility of the logical or physical kind?

(2) How do you know that physical eternity is impossible?

It is a violation of the definition.

Infinite time is time that never ends.

Time that never ends cannot be in the past.

 

[Kharakov]

Unter- call your version of infinite "unfinite" to distinguish it from actual infinites. Your claims about infinites aren't remotely accurate.

Infinites are unbounded somewhere- they can have ends and beginnings and be infinite (spread out infinitely in the middle). They just need to be unbounded somewhere.


So even unfinite time, that has no end but a beginning (unlike real time, which has no beginning), can be infinite, if the number of paths that something can take from one second to the next are infinite in number. From one second to the next, an infinite number of possible timelines exist, but when you arrive at a second, only the timeline that was selected has been taken (so you collapse infinite paths into one at every now).


Are you past the untegers? Do you unterstehen that intergers are ... -1, 0, 1 ....?

 

[untermensche]

Unter- call your version of infinite "unfinite" to distinguish it from actual infinites. Your claims about infinites aren't remotely accurate.

Infinites are unbounded somewhere- they can have ends and beginnings and be infinite (spread out infinitely in the middle). They just need to be unbounded somewhere.

Are you saying time without end is bounded?

If infinite time is time that is not bounded then it is time without end.

I fail to see the problem?

That it can be described differently will not make infinite time time that can end.

It is impossible for infinite events to occur before any event.

Something cannot be the event after infinite events.

 

[untermensche]

Do you unterstehen that intergers are ... -1, 0, 1 ....?

The integers are (-1, -2, -3...), (0), (1, 2, 3...)

3 non-overlapping sets.

Verstehen?

 

[Kharakov]

Unter- call your version of infinite "unfinite" to distinguish it from actual infinites. Your claims about infinites aren't remotely accurate.

Infinites are unbounded somewhere- they can have ends and beginnings and be infinite (spread out infinitely in the middle). They just need to be unbounded somewhere.

Are you saying time without end is bounded?

No, but you've repeatedly redefined eternal time as non-existent because you say it has a beginning, which it doesn't (it doesn't have a lower bound).

In other words, you're claiming a lower bound to eternal time, which is pretty much impossible. We've already arrived at the premise of existence being eternal (although you claim it is a paradox, because you claim that it began (that the time of existence has a lower bound), rather than the logical conclusion, which is that it did not begin, but always was).

I fail to see the problem?

You just proved that your statements can be true when interpreted as if you are saying what you believe to be true, although this could indicate lack of knowledge on the part of the interpreter in certain situations.

 

[Kharakov]

Do you unterstehen that intergers are ... -1, 0, 1 ....?

The integers are (-1, -2, -3...), (0), (1, 2, 3...)

3 non-overlapping sets.

Verstehen?

You're talking about the untegers, not the integers. They are different. Untergers are based on a baby's insistence that integers are not what adults define them as.

Which is fine, just acknowledge you're being a baby, and want to be treated as such. However, don't expect adults to understand what you're saying if you speak with incorrect terminology.

I say "how are you" instead of "hello" or "hi", because as a child I saw someone saying that to someone, and interpreted it as "hello". I still do it, even though I am aware that it's based off an incorrect interpretation of greetings as a child.

This doesn't mean that I don't understand, or acknowledge, that I interpret the statement incorrectly... as you well know, but deny in this specific circle of people. If you spoke of infinites to mathematicians like you do to us, they'd think you were a joker. The problem is when they play along, and you are not intelligent enough to pick up on the yoke.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying time without end is bounded?

No, but you've repeatedly redefined eternal time as non-existent because you say it has a beginning, which it doesn't (it doesn't have a lower bound).

No. I am as anyone who is being honest would I am not changing definitions midstream.

There are not different kinds of time.

Kharakov-time and regular-time.

There is just time.

All that differs are amounts of time.

So time without end is the same amount of time as time without beginning. They describe the same amount of time.

So to say time without beginning occurred before some event is to say the same amount of time as time without end occurred before some event.

What some here are doing is simply dishonest.

They discard a valid definition of infinite time (time without end) whenever it suits them and becomes inconvenient.

 

[untermensche]

In short.

The definition of infinite time is time without end.

OR

Time without beginning.

It is not AND. It is OR.

They both are the same amount of time.

Time that never begins is the same amount of time as time that never ends.

It is also the same amount of time as time that never begins or ends.

All these terms can be used interchangeably to express "infinite time".

To say you have to stick with one is nonsense.

That's like saying you have to say that "6" is 4 + 2. You can't say it is 1 + 5.

 

[untermensche]

The integers are (-1, -2, -3...), (0), (1, 2, 3...)

3 non-overlapping sets.

Verstehen?

You're talking about the untegers, not the integers. They are different. Untergers are based on a baby's insistence that integers are not what adults define them as.

You define "adult" as that which cannot think.

Do you have an adult comment?

Are those not the integers?

Which one is missing?

 

[beero1000]

Dogs are pets and fish are pets, so therefore I need to put a leash on my goldfish and take it for a walk. Gotcha.

 

[untermensche]

Dogs are pets and fish are pets, so therefore I need to put a leash on my goldfish and take it for a walk. Gotcha.

Time is time.

Time is time.

Time is time.

The only thing that can differ is the amount.

Time with no end is the same amount as time with no start.

Saying that the time with no start has a finish does not make it have less time than time with a start and no finish.

 

[Juma]

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.

Its telling that after thousands of posts you have shown absolutely nothing...
Most people would have realized that there position maybe is a little weak by now....

 

[Kharakov]

No, but you've repeatedly redefined eternal time as non-existent because you say it has a beginning, which it doesn't (it doesn't have a lower bound).

No. I am as anyone who is being honest would I am not changing definitions midstream.

Ok, but you do know that everyone else uses the term infinite differently than you do. When you're writing English, "sin" means something entirely different than when you're writing in Spanish.

You are only talking about one specific variant of the infinite, which means that what you are saying is not correct. We know your claims. They aren't based on valid reasoning. Maybe you have valid reasons for making the claims (like I said, to perpetuate conversation, sometimes it's good to have a foil), but if you seriously don't understand that your claims are completely baseless, you've got intellectual problems.

If you were the king of some land, you could define infinite as "whatever I damn well please", but you aren't, and language is a consensus construct, not a untermensche construct.

Kharakov-time and regular-time.

If only you were that lucky....

So time without end is the same amount of time as time without beginning. They describe the same amount of time.

They don't necessarily. Time without end that started yesterday has only been around for a day. Time without beginning, as of today, yesterday, or a 100 trillion years ago is preceded by an infinite amount of time. Any point in a "time without beginning or end" is preceded by an infinite amount of time.

They discard a valid definition of infinite time (time without end) whenever it suits them and becomes inconvenient.

No, time without end isn't pertinent to the topic. However, you don't notice us talking to someone else... as you're the only one spouting craziness.


It's like when we get a creationist around here... or a "free will" guy like ughaibu. lol....

 

[untermensche]

No. I am as anyone who is being honest would I am not changing definitions midstream.

Ok, but you do know that everyone else uses the term infinite differently than you do.

People agree that infinite time is time that doesn't end.

But somehow when you say the past is infinite infinite time doesn't mean time that doesn't end anymore.

Very strange behavior.

So time without end is the same amount of time as time without beginning. They describe the same amount of time.

They don't necessarily.

They do absolutely. Here is your problem.

Time without end that started yesterday has only been around for a day.

Time without end is not one day. It is time without end. An imaginary concept.

Time without beginning, as of today, yesterday, or a 100 trillion years ago is preceded by an infinite amount of time.

You can't have the day after infinite days.

Infinite time cannot be in the past.

Any point in a "time without beginning or end" is preceded by an infinite amount of time.

If you are at a given moment in time it is impossible that infinite time came before it. Infinite time is time that never ends.

No, time without end isn't pertinent to the topic.

WOW!!!

Infinite time is not pertinent to your discussions of infinite time.

If only I had known that sooner?

 

[bilby]

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).

That's only true of people who are sufficiently mathematically aware as to understand the concept of zero.

The most commonly used calendar in the world starts at 1AD, which is the supposed year of the birth of Jesus Nazarene, Messiah and son of God, and is preceded by the year 1BC, because the Christian church was founded by people who thought they knew everything about reality, but hadn't yet grasped the usefulness of the concept of zero in mathematics.

Of course, nobody today would be so incredibly conceited. Surely?

 

[bilby]

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.

No, you wouldn't. You just dismissed it in advance as 'poor opinion' and 'no argument' - and you haven't even seen it yet.

Your posting history suggests very little likelihood that you would change your position on the basis of anything anyone else might say; And your premature dismissal of a proof not yet seen backs that up.

You, sir, are a dogmatist.

 

[untermensche]

Its telling that after thousands of posts you have shown absolutely nothing...
Most people would have realized that there position maybe is a little weak by now....

This is a tiny crowd. The three or so people who oppose me have no valid arguments. They think saying the magic words "no beginning" is a valid argument.

All it takes is for people to not abandon definitions midstream when it suits them.

So if infinite time is defined as time that never ends and somebody claims the past is infinite they are saying that the past is the same amount of time as time that never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you wouldn't. You just dismissed it in advance as 'poor opinion' and 'no argument' - and you haven't even seen it yet.

Your posting history suggests very little likelihood that you would change your position on the basis of anything anyone else might say; And your premature dismissal of a proof not yet seen backs that up.

You, sir, are a dogmatist.

You have nothing but bad opinions.

No arguments.

Tell me how it is possible to live in the day after infinite days.

 

[ryan]

Untermensche, what do you think of a block universe where the universe did not begin or end but just exists?

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche, what do you think of a block universe where the universe did not begin or end but just exists?

Now you are talking about infinite size.

Can there be a chunk of time AFTER a chunk that is infinite in size?