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

[bilby]

These are your words not mine.

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

Quote mining is a dishonesty I thought was reserved to creationists, but clearly I was wrong.

These are your words:

I am ... simply dishonest ...

 

[untermensche]

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.

Time without beginning but with an end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without beginning or end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without end but with a beginning is infinite time. It = infinite time.

These are merely three ways to describe the exact same amount of time. A boundless amount of time.

All the same conception said differently.

- - - Updated - - -

These are your words not mine.

Quote mining is a dishonesty I thought was reserved to creationists, but clearly I was wrong.

These are your words:

I am ... simply dishonest ...

Are you running away from it?

You said it not very long ago.

How long can I trust what you say?

 

[bilby]

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

I don't think either are possible.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

You cannot have infinite events and then another event.

Yes, you can.

You cannot have infinite size and then increase in size.

Yes, you can.

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

It could not be something that has already occurred.

Why not? You still haven't provided a coherent argument for this claim.

And this is just by definition.

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

Or beginningless.

 

[untermensche]

And this is just by definition.

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

Or beginningless.

Yes, OR.

Either description can be used.

One is a lot easier to understand.

One you deny suddenly with no rhyme or reason.

You cannot have infinite events and then another event.

Yes, you can.

If you can have another event you really didn't have infinite events. That's events without any limit.

 

[bilby]

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".

Yes, it can easily be. But what you need to demonstrate is that is always must be - which is untrue, so you cannot demonstrate it.

This piece of fruit is an apple.

This basket of apples is fruit.

It seems that if 'is' is always synonymous with equals, then fruit = apples, and so oranges cannot be fruit.

When your argument has a structure that allows absurdities to be proven using the exact same structure, then your argument is invalid and must be discarded.

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

It cannot differ by kind.

First it's quote mining, now we are discussing 'kinds'. Are you SURE you are not a creationist? You seem to be using their logic...

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

No it is more than one.

But there are not kinds of time. Only amounts.

So 'the past' differs from 'the future' only in their amounts? You are fucking kidding, right? You honestly want to claim that 'the past' is indistinguishable from 'the future', unless (and only to the degree that) they differ in AMOUNT?

You have no argument.

 

[bilby]

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

Time without beginning but with an end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without beginning or end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without end but with a beginning is infinite time. It = infinite time.

These are merely three ways to describe the exact same amount of time. A boundless amount of time.

All the same conception said differently.

- - - Updated - - -

These are your words not mine.

Quote mining is a dishonesty I thought was reserved to creationists, but clearly I was wrong.

These are your words:

I am ... simply dishonest ...

Are you running away from it?

You said it not very long ago.

How long can I trust what you say?

No. I am not running away from it; It remains true, in its original context.

Can I trust your own words when you say:

I am ... simply dishonest ...

Are you now running away from your admission of dishonesty? You said those words not long ago. How long can I trust what you say?

Or would it be dishonest for me to hold you to the apparent claim in an out-of-context quote-mined phrase?

Do you seriously think that anyone (other than perhaps yourself) thinks that when I said "...time that doesn't end is infinite time..." I was agreeing with your absurd assertion that infinite time is time without end?

Apples are fruit. That in no way implies that fruit are apples, and that therefore oranges are not fruit.

Quote-mining is not just dishonest; It is pathetically dishonest. It relies on the assumption of an audience who are ignorant of the context from which the quote was ripped; And it serves only to fool that audience. Do you imagine that any such audience exists here? Do you think that you are impressing anyone other than yourself with your pathetic lies about your opponent's positions?

 

[fromderinside]

You are absolutely right.

Next time send it on twitter as one single tweet!!!

Brought to you by - Why Bother

 

[untermensche]

His age is 4.

The number of stars I see is seven.

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

Yes, it can easily be. But what you need to demonstrate is that is always must be - which is untrue, so you cannot demonstrate it.

Your reasoning here is as bad as it is everywhere. I do not have to prove it is always the case. Only that it is the case.

There are not kinds of time. There are not breeds of time. There are not species of time.

The only way time differs is by amount.

Infinite amount is a conception of a boundless amount. An amount that has no final value.

Infinite time is a boundless amount of time. An amount of time that has no final value.

Since we are talking only about amounts of the same thing (time) we can use an = sign.

So time without end is the same amount of time as infinite time so we can say they are equivalent.

We can logically say:

Time without end = Infinite time.

Infinite time = Time without end.

We could also express an infinite amount of time differently.

We could say time without beginning = Infinite time.

Infinite time = Time without beginning.

You have provided no argument beyond discomfort in doing this.

But there are not kinds of time. Only amounts.

So 'the past' differs from 'the future' only in their amounts?

Try to keep up.

This is a conversation about the amount of time in an infinite past compared to an infinite future.

No difference.

- - - Updated - - -

How long can I trust what you say?

No. I am not running away from it; It remains true, in its original context.

It is a true fact.

No more is needed.

What more do you want? What context is missing?

"There are other definitions too?"

How does that make it an incomplete definition?

You said, not me:

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

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

 

[bilby]

Try to keep up.

This is a conversation about the amount of time in an infinite past compared to an infinite future.

No difference.

So if there is no difference, why did you need to use the words 'past' and 'future'?

Clearly the past and the future are different things. They are different kinds of time. And the difference is that the past has a defined finish (at 'now') whereas the future has a defined start (at 'now'). That (and not their magnitude, which is variable by context) is what defines the difference between these two kinds of time.

 

[fromderinside]

Your reasoning here is as bad as it is everywhere.

I do not have to prove it is always the case. Only that it is the case.

There are not kinds of time. There are not breeds of time. There are not species of time.

The only way time differs is by amount.

Infinite amount is a conception of a boundless amount. An amount that has no final value.

Infinite time is a boundless amount of time. An amount of time that has no final value.

Since we are talking only about amounts of the same thing (time) we can use an = sign.

So time without end is the same amount of time as infinite time so we can say they are equivalent.

We can logically say:

Time without end = Infinite time.

Infinite time = Time without end.

We could also express an infinite amount of time differently.

We could say time without beginning = Infinite time.

Infinite time = Time without beginning.

You have provided no argument beyond discomfort in doing this.

Try to keep up.

This is a conversation about the amount of time in an infinite past compared to an infinite future.

No difference.

It is a true fact.

No more is needed.

What more do you want? What context is missing?

"There are other definitions too?"

How does that make it an incomplete definition?

You said, not me:

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

OK put your logic out there for us. I think untermenche is a bot.

Hey. If your logic stands it stands.

Yes I'm not being fair. But this word salad has no real point even if I put in that to which he was commenting.

Can you please construct a rational argument rather than a litany of what seem to be insulting comments?

 

[bilby]

You said, not me:

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

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

Unless, of course, one of us is claiming that this is a complete definition, and the other is saying that it is a partial definition.

This is supposed to be a discussion about logic; I suggest you try using some, instead of falling back on dishonest tricks such as quote-mining, that only impress upon people the fact that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

 

[untermensche]

You said, not me:

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

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

Unless, of course, one of us is claiming that this is a complete definition, and the other is saying that it is a partial definition.

This is supposed to be a discussion about logic; I suggest you try using some, instead of falling back on dishonest tricks such as quote-mining, that only impress upon people the fact that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

It is the complete definition.

It completely defines the amount, "infinite time".

How much time do you think needs to be added to make it "infinite time"?

You are like the one that says: 6 = 4 + 2 OR 6 = 1 + 5

Then you tell me you have 6 apples.

And I say: "Oh you have 1 + 5 apples."

And you say: "No I don't. I have 4 + 2 apples."

You have infinite time.

"No I don't I have time that never begins."

 

[beero1000]

You said, not me:

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

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

Unless, of course, one of us is claiming that this is a complete definition, and the other is saying that it is a partial definition.

This is supposed to be a discussion about logic; I suggest you try using some, instead of falling back on dishonest tricks such as quote-mining, that only impress upon people the fact that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

It is the complete definition.

It completely defines the amount, "infinite time".

How much time do you think needs to be added to make it "infinite time"?

You are like the one that says: 6 = 4 + 2 OR 6 = 1 + 5

Then you tell me you have 6 apples.

And I say: "Oh you have 1 + 5 apples."

And you say: "No I don't. I have 4 + 2 apples."

You have infinite time.

"No I don't I have time that never begins."

More like:

Everyone: 6 is the sum of two even integers.

Untermensche: That's ridiculous nonsense, 6 is 1 + 5 and those are both odd numbers, not even.

Everyone: But you don't have to write 6 as 1 + 5, you could write it as 4 + 2.

Untermensche: Stop being dishonest, 1 + 5 is a complete definition for 6, there is no other way that makes sense. Therefore it is impossible for 6 to be the sum of two even numbers.

...

 

[bilby]

You said, not me:

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

And you were absolutely right. That is one way to look at it.

Nothing to argue about.

Unless, of course, one of us is claiming that this is a complete definition, and the other is saying that it is a partial definition.

This is supposed to be a discussion about logic; I suggest you try using some, instead of falling back on dishonest tricks such as quote-mining, that only impress upon people the fact that you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

It is the complete definition.

It completely defines the amount, "infinite time".

No, it really doesn't.

How much time do you think needs to be added to make it "infinite time"?

You are like the one that says: 6 = 4 + 2 OR 6 = 1 + 5

Then you tell me you have 6 apples.

And I say: "Oh you have 1 + 5 apples."

And you say: "No I don't. I have 4 + 2 apples."

You have infinite time.

"No I don't I have time that never begins."

I have infinite time. I have time that never begins. I do NOT have time that never ends. I have the past.

You have infinite time. You have time that never ends. You do NOT have time that never begins. You have the future.

He has infinite time. He has time that never begins or ends. He has all of time.

Time that never ends is infinite. Time that never begins is also infinite, but they are not the same. Infinities need not be the same size. You can add and subtract finite numbers from infinity, and it remains infinite.

Two infinite sets can be added together to form a single infinite set - for example PAST + FUTURE = ALL TIME, where all three terms can be infinite in duration; PAST by definition finishes at now, and FUTURE by definition starts at now, and in the case where ALL TIME neither starts nor ends, all three terms are infinite.

"You have time that never ends" you keep saying. But I am talking of the past. I have time that ends at now. It is infinite, because it never begins. But it very definitely ends. It ends at now. That's the definition of 'past'.

'Past' means time that ends now. 'Future' means time that starts now.

You cannot disprove this by quote-mining; Nor can you disprove this by pretending I agree with you (when it is very clear that I do not).

The only possible way you could disprove this would be through the use of sound formal logic; But you seem either disinclined or incapable of making the attempt. Which strongly suggests that you haven't actually thought your position through logically. If you had, you would have found that it cannot be expressed using sound logic - in order to express your position logically, you must employ one or more fallacies, or use one or more unproven premises which themselves cannot be proven by the use of sound logic.

All your bluster, quote-mining, equivocation, and appeals to 'common sense' and what you consider 'obvious' are completely irrelevant; You can feel free to use your own definitions for things, but if you do, you MUST use them completely consistently and without equivocation - a task that may well be beyond someone who thinks that 'is' has to always mean 'equals'.

I would strongly recommend that you use unequivocal words like 'finish' rather than risk being accused of equivocation when using 'end', for example; If your are genuinely attempting to produce a sound argument, then doing so cannot be harmful to your position, but failing to do so is highly suspicious - as that suspicion is easily avoided by selecting unequivocal words at all times, there is no reason to do so unless equivocation is your intent.

Put up, or shut up.

Sound logic, clearly presented, or GTFO.

 

[Kharakov]

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

Time without beginning but with an end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without beginning or end is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Time without end but with a beginning is infinite time. It = infinite time.

Still wrong, since we've been talking about how much time has passed before specific points in time this whole thread. Nice dodge, but can everyone answer the implied question:

How much time has passed if you pick an arbitrary, specific location in time in each scenario?

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche: Stop being dishonest, 1 + 5 is a complete definition for 6, there is no other way that makes sense. Therefore it is impossible for 6 to be the sum of two even numbers.

Is 1 + 5 not the complete definition of 6?

What else would be needed to define 6?

And I am the one claiming that more than one definition of "infinite time" makes sense.

Some are claiming you need a special definition when infinite time is in the past that doesn't work when infinite time is in the future.

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

There is no AFTER to infinite days.

 

[untermensche]

You are like the one that says: 6 = 4 + 2 OR 6 = 1 + 5

Then you tell me you have 6 apples.

And I say: "Oh you have 1 + 5 apples."

And you say: "No I don't. I have 4 + 2 apples."

You have infinite time.

"No I don't I have time that never begins."

I have infinite time. I have time that never begins. I do NOT have time that never ends. I have the past.

You have the same amount of time as time that never ends. You have 6 but claim you don't have 1 + 5.

 

[bilby]

I have infinite time. I have time that never begins. I do NOT have time that never ends. I have the past.

You have the same amount of time as time that never ends. You have 6 but claim you don't have 1 + 5.

I don't care about your stupid attempts at analogy.

Express your argument using sound and clear logic, if you can.

Sound logic, clearly presented, or GTFO.

 

[untermensche]

You have the same amount of time as time that never ends. You have 6 but claim you don't have 1 + 5.

I don't care about your stupid attempts at analogy.

Express your argument using sound and clear logic, if you can.

Sound logic, clearly presented, or GTFO.

You just completely dodged a coherent point. That is why no progress is being made.

How many times do I have to make it?

You are claiming infinite time in the past is a different amount of time then infinite time in the future.

This has nothing to do with the difference between the past and the future.

This is only about the amount of time in an infinite past compared to the amount of time in an infinite future.

You are claiming that 6 only equals 4 + 2. It doesn't = 1 + 5.

 

[beero1000]

Untermensche: Stop being dishonest, 1 + 5 is a complete definition for 6, there is no other way that makes sense. Therefore it is impossible for 6 to be the sum of two even numbers.

Is 1 + 5 not the complete definition of 6?

What else would be needed to define 6?

And I am the one claiming that more than one definition of "infinite time" makes sense.

Some are claiming you need a special definition when infinite time is in the past that doesn't work when infinite time is in the future.

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

There is no AFTER to infinite days.

The expressions 1 + 5 and 4 + 2 have some different properties even though they both sum to the same value. So using 6 = 1 + 5 to argue that 6 can't be written as a sum of even numbers doesn't work, unless there is another reason that 6 = 1 + 5 precludes 6 = 4 + 2 as well.

Honestly, it is beyond me how you still don't get this.