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

[bilby]

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.

No, they agree that time that doesn't end is infinite time. People agree that apples are fruit; they do NOT agree that fruit is apples.

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

They agree that apples are fruit; but somehow when you say that a basket of fruit is a basket of apples, they don't agree anymore.

Clearly someone is confused here - it's either the one guy who things 'apple' is a synonym for 'fruit', or everyone else, who agree that fruit can mean apples, but might mean something else

Very strange behavior.

Indeed.

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?

Apples are not pertinent to a discussion of a basket of oranges. You may find this to be shocking and/or disturbing, but if you disagree, feel free to consult a greengrocer.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Watch me - I'm doing it right now...

 

[untermensche]

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

No, they agree that time that doesn't end is infinite time.

It is an equivalency. And they only agree until it becomes difficult. Suddenly mid argument they claim that "time that doesn't end" doesn't describe infinite time anymore.

People agree that apples are fruit; they do NOT agree that fruit is apples.

There are not different species of time.

If you have something that is equivalent to infinite time it will always be equivalent to infinite time.

It doesn't matter one bit if something else is equivalent to infinite time.

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

Watch me - I'm doing it right now...

I'm watching. Go ahead convince me infinite time occurred before today.

You can only do it if you conveniently abandon your own words.

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

 

[ryan]

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?

I am not talking about infinite size, yet. I just want to know what kind of relationship of time and space you are using. I want to know if you believe in a block universe, presentism or a growing block universe.

At least this way we will have a foundation to work off of.

 

[untermensche]

Now you are talking about infinite size.

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

I am not talking about infinite size, yet. I just want to know what kind of relationship of time and space you are using. I want to know if you believe in a block universe, presentism or a growing block universe.

At least this way we will have a foundation to work off of.

A block or frozen universe is something with size.

If you want to represent an infinite past that would be something with infinite size.

 

[bilby]

No, they agree that time that doesn't end is infinite time.

It is an equivalency.

No, it isn't.

And they only agree until it becomes difficult. Suddenly mid argument they claim that "time that doesn't end" doesn't describe infinite time anymore.

No, they consistently claim that "time that doesn't end" is not the only way to describe 'infinite time'.

People agree that apples are fruit; they do NOT agree that fruit is apples.

There are not different species of time.

No. But there ARE different species of infinity.

If you have something that is equivalent to infinite time it will always be equivalent to infinite time.

Yes; but infinite time will not necessarily be equivalent to it.

If I have something that is equivalent to a basket of fruit, it will always be equivalent to a basket of fruit; and a basket of apples is a basket of fruit. It does NOT follow that a basket of fruit is always a basket of apples.

It doesn't matter one bit if something else is equivalent to infinite time.

Yes, it does. And your inability to grasp this simple fact is not evidence against its truth.

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

Watch me - I'm doing it right now...

I'm watching. Go ahead convince me infinite time occurred before today.

Convince YOU? You have made it very clear that nothing will convince YOU.

You can only do it if you conveniently abandon your own words.

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

Apples are fruit. You cannot claim that oranges are fruit, unless you conveniently abandon your claim about apples...

 

[Kharakov]

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?

There can be an infinite amount of infinite sized chunks of an infinite sized anything.


I just got it. Untermensche is like the kids that think infinity (integers) *infinity (integers) is bigger than infinity (integers)... but they're kids, and he's like what, 30?

 

[untermensche]

It is an equivalency.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

If you say time without end = infinite time you have also said infinite time = time without end.

No, they consistently claim that "time that doesn't end" is not the only way to describe 'infinite time'.

Yes this is your nonsense.

You are claiming that if something else equals infinite time then infinite time doesn't equal time without end anymore.

Suddenly when it becomes inconvenient infinite time stops being equal to time without end.

It is outright dishonesty.

No. But there ARE different species of infinity.

Infinite time is only one species. Not two or three.

Infinite time is not a kind of time. It is a conception of an amount of time.

It can only be one thing. Even if it can be described in more than one way.

Infinite time in the past is the same exact amount of time as infinite time in the future.

It can be described as either time without beginning or time without end.

They describe the same amount of time.

These are your words not mine.

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

 

[ryan]

I am not talking about infinite size, yet. I just want to know what kind of relationship of time and space you are using. I want to know if you believe in a block universe, presentism or a growing block universe.

At least this way we will have a foundation to work off of.

A block or frozen universe is something with size.

If you want to represent an infinite past that would be something with infinite size.

So then what kind of universe do you accept that would not allow an infinite something?

 

[untermensche]

A block or frozen universe is something with size.

If you want to represent an infinite past that would be something with infinite size.

So then what kind of universe do you accept that would not allow an infinite something?

My argument is that assuming anything could be infinite is absurd.

Especially the past.

 

[ryan]

So then what kind of universe do you accept that would not allow an infinite something?

My argument is that assuming anything could be infinite is absurd.

Especially the past.

So then will you accept a block or growing block universe (these are by far the most commonly accepted universes in science?

 

[Kharakov]

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.

They agree that that is one imaginary type of unbounded time that might exist. They don't agree that it is the only type of infinite time, which includes the definitions that I, bilby, beero, the list goes on... basically every exceptionally intelligent, informed person in this discussion has provided for you at one point or another.

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.

Ehh, no. All you need to do is figure out 3 things (I'd be amazed if you do):

What is time without a beginning with an end?
What is time that lacks a beginning and an end?
What is time with a beginning without an end?

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

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

No, time without end that has a beginning (which is what you refer to), one of the many possible types of infinite time, is not pertinent to discussions about real, everlasting, time without beginning.

 

[untermensche]

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

They agree that that is one imaginary type of unbounded time that might exist.

Unbounded time is an amount of time.

There are no types. Just descriptions of the amount.

All the descriptions describe the same exact amount.

What is time without a beginning with an end?
What is time that lacks a beginning and an end?
What is time with a beginning without an end?

All describe the exact same amount of time.

Just different ways of describing "unbounded"

Any of them can describe infinite time.

And if you claim something is infinite time you can use any of them to describe that time. Because infinite time has no types. It is an amount of something.

If you claim infinite time occurred before some event you have said an amount of time equal to time without end has occurred before some event.

It is impossible to be living in the day AFTER infinite days have occurred.

Even if Hollywood says different.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand how you expect to talk about time without at least having an agreed upon explanation of its nature.

 

[untermensche]

I don't understand how you expect to talk about time without at least having an agreed upon explanation of its nature.

If it is dynamic it is events. Infinite time is infinite events.

If it is static it is size. Infinite time is infinite size.

What else is there besides dynamic and static?

 

[ryan]

I don't understand how you expect to talk about time without at least having an agreed upon explanation of its nature.

If it is dynamic it is events. Infinite time is infinite events.

If it is static it is size. Infinite time is infinite size.

What else is there besides dynamic and static?

Okay, so my question is do you accept either or just one of these possibilities.

 

[untermensche]

If it is dynamic it is events. Infinite time is infinite events.

If it is static it is size. Infinite time is infinite size.

What else is there besides dynamic and static?

Okay, so my question is do you accept either or just one of these possibilities.

I don't think either are possible.

You cannot have infinite events and then another event.

You cannot have infinite size and then increase in size.

A real infinity could only be an ongoing process. Working towards infinity.

It could not be something that has already occurred.

And this is just by definition.

Infinite events are events that never end. Infinite size is endless size.

 

[bilby]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

If you say time without end = infinite time you have also said infinite time = time without end.

But that's NOT what you said. You said: "People agree that infinite time is time that doesn't end". People agree that apples are fruit; They do not agree that apples = fruit, or that fruit = apples.

You are (once again) equivocating on the meaning of the word 'is' which can (but need not) mean 'equals' in English.

No, they consistently claim that "time that doesn't end" is not the only way to describe 'infinite time'.

Yes this is your nonsense.

No, it is a simple fact. Your dislike of it doesn't render it nonsensical.

You are claiming that if something else equals infinite time then infinite time doesn't equal time without end anymore.

YOU are the ONLY person using 'equals'; You are doing so in a way that is completely unjustified.

Suddenly when it becomes inconvenient infinite time stops being equal to time without end.

It is outright dishonesty.

Suddenly when it becomes convenient, 'is' starts being synonymous with 'equals'.

It is outright dishonesty.

No. But there ARE different species of infinity.

Infinite time is only one species. Not two or three.

No. You are simply wrong here. Infinite time can be any of:

Time without a start
Time without a finish
Time with neither a start nor a finish

You can claim that "Fruit is only one species. Not two or three". But if you do, people will think you are a fucking moron.

Infinite time is not a kind of time. It is a conception of an amount of time.

Fruit is not a kind of fruit. It is a conception of a collection of fruit.

It can only be one thing. Even if it can be described in more than one way.

It can only be one sort of fruit. Even if it can be described in more than one way.

Infinite time in the past is the same exact amount of time as infinite time in the future.

Fruit that are oranges are the exact same fruit as fruit that are apples.

It can be described as either time without beginning or time without end.

It can be described as either oranges, or apples.

They describe the same amount of time.

They describe the same amount of fruit.

These are your words not mine.

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

These are also my words: "but infinite time is not necessarily time that doesn't end".

If I say 'apples are fruit', then the fact that I am correct in making this statement in no way implies that I believe or imagine that 'all fruit is apples'. And no amount of repetition of my claim on your part will change that.

 

[untermensche]

Suddenly when it becomes inconvenient infinite time stops being equal to time without end.

It is outright dishonesty.

Suddenly when it becomes convenient, 'is' starts being synonymous with 'equals'.

It is outright dishonesty.

His age is 4.

The number of stars I see is seven.

It seems "is" can easily be synonymous with "equals".

Again we are talking about the only way time can differ. By amount.

It cannot differ by kind.

"Fruit is only one species. Not two or three".

No it is more than one.

But there are not kinds of time. Only amounts.

You have no argument.

 

[ryan]

Okay, so my question is do you accept either or just one of these possibilities.

I don't think either are possible.

You cannot have infinite events and then another event.

You cannot have infinite size and then increase in size.

A real infinity could only be an ongoing process. Working towards infinity.

It could not be something that has already occurred.

And this is just by definition.

Infinite events are events that never end. Infinite size is endless size.

I am asking if you believe in either a block universe, a growing block universe, both, neither?

 

[Kharakov]

What is time without a beginning with an end?
What is time that lacks a beginning and an end?
What is time with a beginning without an end?

All describe the exact same amount of time.

Wrong. Answer each question specifically. How about everyone in the thread answer those 3 questions.... they aren't difficult questions.