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

[untermensche]

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 1 day plus 5 days has different properties from 4 days plus 2 days?

What would these different properties be?

What the hell are you talking about?

They are both nothing more or less than 6 days.

 

[beero1000]

The expressions 1 + 5 and 4 + 2 have some different properties even though they both sum to the same value.

So 1 day plus 5 days has different properties from 4 days plus 2 days?

What would these different properties be?

What the hell are you talking about?

They are both nothing more or less than 6 days.

We have $6 to split between us - are you seriously claiming that we should consider the splits $1 + $5, $2 + $4, and $3 + $3 as equivalent?

Honestly, you should think a little before posting.

 

[bilby]

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.

OK, I will add 'Coherent' to the list of words you don't grasp the meanings of.

How many times do I have to make it?

You only have to make your argument once; And when you do, it must be in the form of a sound and clearly presented logical argument.

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

No, I am not. And I never have. You are drawing incorrect inferences due to your own equivocation error. That's why you need to present a claer and sound logical argument instead of these pointless and rather pathetic analogies.

This has nothing to do with the difference between the past and the future. An infinite future can only be something hypothetical. It cannot be proven or appreciated.

The same is true of an infinite past. But you claim to be able to disprove it. So go ahead - present your clearly worded, valid and sound logical argument for your claim, and prove that the hypothesis of an infinite past contains a contradiction.

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

No, it's not about that at all. An infinite past is infinite. And it is in the past. And that's perfectly fine, unless and until someone presents a sound and clearly written argument showing that the hypothesis that the past is infinite entails a contradiction, or predicts an experimental outcome that differs from that which we observe. Feel free to start presenting such an argument, if you can.

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

I make no claims regarding the number 6, and a discussion of the number 6, or of basic arithmetic, gets us no closer to a sound and clearly presented argument showing that the hypothesized infinite duration of the past is either logically impossible, or at odds with reliable and repeatable experimental evidence.

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]

So 1 day plus 5 days has different properties from 4 days plus 2 days?

What would these different properties be?

What the hell are you talking about?

They are both nothing more or less than 6 days.

We have $6 to split between us - are you seriously claiming that we should consider the splits $1 + $5, $2 + $4, and $3 + $3 as equivalent?

Honestly, you should think a little before posting.

If you say you are going to give me $6 what difference does it make how you give it to me?

 

[untermensche]

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

No, it's not about that at all. An infinite past is infinite. And it is in the past.

Quite an argument.

This is about how how much time is described by time with no beginning.

Is it a different amount of time as time without end?

Or the same amount of time?

Which is it?

 

[beero1000]

We have $6 to split between us - are you seriously claiming that we should consider the splits $1 + $5, $2 + $4, and $3 + $3 as equivalent?

Honestly, you should think a little before posting.

If you say you are going to give me $6 what difference does it make how you give it to me?

If I give you $6 in pennies is that EXACTLY THE SAME as giving you a $5 bill and a $1 bill?

Stop trying for a gotcha post and THINK, ffs.

 

[untermensche]

If you say you are going to give me $6 what difference does it make how you give it to me?

If I give you $6 in pennies is that EXACTLY THE SAME as giving you a $5 bill and a $1 bill?

Stop trying for a gotcha post and THINK, ffs.

It is the exact same amount of money.

The same exact amount of time is described by time without beginning and time without end.

THINK. Stop with the posts that are off topic.

 

[beero1000]

If I give you $6 in pennies is that EXACTLY THE SAME as giving you a $5 bill and a $1 bill?

Stop trying for a gotcha post and THINK, ffs.

It is the exact same amount of money.

The same exact of amount of time is described by time without beginning and time without end.

THINK. Stop with the posts that are off topic.

They are the exact same amount of money but all sorts of other properties are different. The mass, the metal content, the number of objects, etc. Just because they are the same amount of money doesn't mean everything about them is identical. Take a minute. Actually think about it.

 

[untermensche]

It is the exact same amount of money.

The same exact of amount of time is described by time without beginning and time without end.

THINK. Stop with the posts that are off topic.

They are the exact same amount of money but all sorts of other properties are different. The mass, the metal content, the number of objects, etc. Just because they are the same amount of money doesn't mean everything about them is identical. Take a minute. Actually think about it.

Yes but my argument is based on amount.

Based only on amount.

It does not have to talk about anything else because when you talk about amount the whole concept of "infinite time in the past" falls apart.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

 

[beero1000]

They are the exact same amount of money but all sorts of other properties are different. The mass, the metal content, the number of objects, etc. Just because they are the same amount of money doesn't mean everything about them is identical. Take a minute. Actually think about it.

Yes but my argument is based on amount.

Based only on amount.

It does not have to talk about anything else because when you talk about amount the whole concept of "infinite time in the past" falls apart.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

Your argument is about the property 'has a beginning'.

If things that represent the same amount can have different properties, why can't two periods of the same amount of time be different when it comes to the property 'has a beginning'?

 

[Kharakov]

The same exact amount of time is described by time without beginning and time without end.

You've been arguing about time until a specific point in time, but you don't know the amount of time before now in:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

Time with a beginning, without an end. How much time has passed at a specific point in time, measured in seconds from the beginning?

 

[untermensche]

The same exact amount of time is described by time without beginning and time without end.

You've been arguing about time until a specific point in time, but you don't know the amount of time before now in:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

Time with a beginning, without an end. How much time has passed at a specific point in time, measured in seconds from the beginning?

We know for certain that time without end could not have occurred in the past. A clear contradiction.

And we also know for certain that time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

What more do we need to know to know for certain infinite time could not have occurred in the past?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but my argument is based on amount.

Based only on amount.

It does not have to talk about anything else because when you talk about amount the whole concept of "infinite time in the past" falls apart.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

Your argument is about the property 'has a beginning'.

If things that represent the same amount can have different properties, why can't two periods of the same amount of time be different when it comes to the property 'has a beginning'?

No it only about amount.

About the amount described by "no beginning" and the amount described by "no end".

Nothing else but the amount.

No discussion of the nature.

Which is not needed to make the demonstration.

 

[beero1000]

Yes but my argument is based on amount.

Based only on amount.

It does not have to talk about anything else because when you talk about amount the whole concept of "infinite time in the past" falls apart.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

Your argument is about the property 'has a beginning'.

If things that represent the same amount can have different properties, why can't two periods of the same amount of time be different when it comes to the property 'has a beginning'?

No it only about amount.

About the amount described by "no beginning" and the amount described by "no end".

Nothing else but the amount.

No discussion of the nature.

Which is not needed to make the demonstration.

It is necessarily vital to actually make the demonstration. You are using the claim that they are the same amount of time to say that they have the same properties re beginning and ending.

Amounts aren't enough to completely classify the properties of something. Otherwise, a bucket of coins and a wad of bills would be the same exact thing.

 

[Kharakov]

What more do we need to know to know for certain infinite time could not have occurred in the past?

I'm ready for you to answer the following questions honestly and fully, if you think you can, give it a shot:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

Time with a beginning, without an end. How much time has passed at a specific point in time, measured in seconds from the beginning?

 

[untermensche]

It is necessarily vital to actually make the demonstration. You are using the claim that they are the same amount of time to say that they have the same properties re beginning and ending.

I am saying they have the same property of amount. Nothing more.

An infinite amount of time is time without end.

An infinite amount of time is time without beginning.

Time without end is the same amount of time as time without beginning.

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

Amounts aren't enough to completely classify the properties of something.

Nobody is claiming to completely classify time.

I am saying one amount of one thing = the same amount of the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

What more do we need to know to know for certain infinite time could not have occurred in the past?

I'm ready for you to answer the following questions honestly and fully, if you think you can, give it a shot:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

The same amount of time as time without end.

Time with a beginning, without an end. How much time has passed at a specific point in time, measured in seconds from the beginning?

Some finite amount of time.

 

[bilby]

No, it's not about that at all. An infinite past is infinite. And it is in the past.

Quite an argument.

I would have thought that it was self-evident; But you don't seem to be able to grasp it at all, so it bears repeating.

Feel free to point out the error or fallacy entailed by this description, if you can find one.

This is about how how much time is described by time with no beginning.

Why? You have yet to present any clear logical argument that shows how the knowledge that time with no beginning is infinite leads to the conclusion that 'time without beginning' and/or 'infinite time' cannot be an accurate description of the past.

Present your reasoning. Why is this 'about' how much time is described by 'time with no beginning'? We all agree that the answer is 'infinite time'. So fucking what?

Present a clearly worded, sound, logical argument that shows that an infinite past entails a paradox, or predicts an experimental result that is at odds with the evidence, or fuck off.

Is it a different amount of time as time without end?

Or the same amount of time?

Which is it?

Both are infinite.

But before you repeat your inane equivocation, no, that doesn't mean that the former does not end. (It also doesn't necessarily mean they are the same size, although in this case they do happen to be, if we use the casual definition that size in the context of infinity is synonymous with cardinality; It's irrelevant to the question of whether or not an infinite past entails a paradox, or is in any other way demonstrably impossible).

Your failure to grasp that it is possible for infinite time to have ended, as long as it did not have a beginning, because it has had infinite time in which to do so, is not an argument against its possibility. It's purely a statement of your ignorance.

Now, I have answered (again) your inane 'gotcha' question that doesn't actually 'get' anything. So it's your turn.

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

 

[Kharakov]

What more do we need to know to know for certain infinite time could not have occurred in the past?

I'm ready for you to answer the following questions honestly and fully, if you think you can, give it a shot:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

The same amount of time as time without end.

Trace this out: there is no beginning. Time has always been passing. You pick a point in the time stream, before which there is no beginning, instead it extends infinitely into the past, because it does not have a beginning.

How much time has passed in eternity?

How much time has passed since you were honest about not understanding time?

Time with a beginning, without an end. How much time has passed at a specific point in time, measured in seconds from the beginning?

Some finite amount of time.

It is amazing that you got this right.

 

[untermensche]

What more do we need to know to know for certain infinite time could not have occurred in the past?

I'm ready for you to answer the following questions honestly and fully, if you think you can, give it a shot:

Time without beginning, with an end. How much time has passed before any specific point in time (there isn't a beginning point)?

The same amount of time as time without end.

Trace this out: there is no beginning. Time has always been passing. You pick a point in the time stream, before which there is no beginning, instead it extends infinitely into the past, because it does not have a beginning.

How much time has passed in eternity?

I answered. You just don't like the implications of the answer.

The answer is the same amount of time as time without end.

 

[bilby]

They are the exact same amount of money but all sorts of other properties are different. The mass, the metal content, the number of objects, etc. Just because they are the same amount of money doesn't mean everything about them is identical. Take a minute. Actually think about it.

Yes but my argument is based on amount.

What fucking argument? You haven't presented an argument, just a mess of equivocation fallacies, circular reasoning and non-sequiturs, supported by mathematical errors, unwarranted and unjustified arithmetic manipulations, quote-mining and pretense that your opponents are agreeing with you, when they explicitly indicate that they do not.

Based only on amount.

It does not have to talk about anything else because when you talk about amount the whole concept of "infinite time in the past" falls apart.

Then demonstrate how it falls apart, and you win the argument.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

Yes.

Now all you need to do is to present us with some reason to think that this is not possible. Other than your preconceptions and incredulity.

1) Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

2) Time without beginning is also an infinite amount of time.

3) Time without beginning occurred before the present.

4) The time before the present is called the past.

5) Time without beginning occurred in the past.

6) The past is infinite.

7) Time without end will occur in the future.

8) The future is infinite.



Not one statement here is in contradiction with any other statement; If you believe that any are, then feel free to use sound and clearly presented logic to demonstrate the contradiction.

No hand-waving. No equivocation. No appeals to incredulity. No non-sequiturs. Clearly written, unequivocal and sound logic.

IF you have a worthwhile argument, this should be easy for you to do, so do it, and silence all of your critics in this thread once and for all.

 

[untermensche]

This is about how how much time is described by time with no beginning.

Why?

Because my argument is based only on the amount of time described.

It is not an argument where quality matters.

Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end.

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

The argument is confined to an examination of amount.

Your talk of the difference in kind is not part of the argument and nowhere does it claim the past is the same thing as the future.

The claims of the argument are:

Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

These are the only claims.

If these can be proven false then the argument can be proven false.

Talking about how the past is different from the future misses the point entirely.