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

[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?

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

How about the specific answer, since you've been claiming "time without end began a finite time ago":

If something is eternal (it never didn't exist, like time), how long has it existed?

 

[beero1000]

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.

I noticed you modified your argument. Where's the contradiction now?

 

[untermensche]

3) Time without beginning occurred before the present.

The thing you need to prove you assume.

A bare assumption that the past is infinite is not any kind of argument.

Nor could it be part of a logical proof.

It is no better than claiming the answer is an eternal god.

 

[bilby]

Why?

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

Then present the argument. I don't see one.

It is not an argument where quality matters.

Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

Yes.

Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

Yes.

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

Possibly, yes.

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.

Possibly, yes.

The argument is confined to an examination of amount.

That's interesting; Would you care to present the argument? All I see is a list of true (or possibly true) statements.

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.

I am not really interested in what your argument does not claim; I just want you to present what it does claim, in a clear, sound, logical format. Why don't you do that?

The claims of the argument are:

Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

Yes.

Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

Yes.

These are the only claims.

OK. How do you get from these two premises to your conclusion that the past cannot be infinite? It would appear to follow from your first premise that time could be infinite, and indeed must be if we agree that time does not have a beginning.

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

Well, if you can present your argument, then perhaps we will see whether there are any other ways in which it is false - and if not, then you win!

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

If you say so. We can't tell, because you haven't presented a clearly worded and sound logical argument that links your two premises:

P1) Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

P2) Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

and your conclusion

C) The past cannot be infinite.

Please present your argument. You have declared that only P1 and P2 are required as premises, but if you need some others, then feel free to introduce them - if (like your existing premises) we agree that they are true, then you can use them, and if we do not, then you can present your argument(s) from agreed axioms that show your new premises to be true, and if those are sound, you can use those premises too.

All you need to do if the two premises you declared are sufficient for your argument (or after we incorporate into the argument any further premises on which it depends) is:

Provide sound logic that links the premises to the conclusion.

Please proceed.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I noticed you modified your argument. Where's the contradiction now?

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

 

[beero1000]

I noticed you modified your argument. Where's the contradiction now?

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Possibly, yes.

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

Any amount of time that is before any event has ended.

 

[bilby]

I noticed you modified your argument. Where's the contradiction now?

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yes, it can. Why would you think it can't?

 

[beero1000]

Possibly, yes.

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

But we've clarified your position. You are no longer saying that 'time without end occurs before some event', you are saying 'the same amount of time as time without end occur before some event'. That same amount of time is perfectly free to have an end. If you think that isn't possible, you need to actually produce an argument.

 

[Kharakov]

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

He's going to say something like "Time began a finite time ago, even though it won't end."

 

[untermensche]

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yes, it can. Why would you think it can't?

The amount of time BEFORE any event has ended.

It cannot be the same amount of time as time that never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

But we've clarified your position. You are no longer saying that 'time without end occurs before some event', you are saying 'the same amount of time as time without end occur before some event'. That same amount of time is perfectly free to have an end. If you think that isn't possible, you need to actually produce an argument.

The "same amount of time as time without end" is time without end.

You are inventing distinctions that don't exist.

 

[beero1000]

Yes, it can. Why would you think it can't?

The amount of time BEFORE any event has ended.

It cannot be the same amount of time as time that never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

But we've clarified your position. You are no longer saying that 'time without end occurs before some event', you are saying 'the same amount of time as time without end occur before some event'. That same amount of time is perfectly free to have an end. If you think that isn't possible, you need to actually produce an argument.

The "same amount of time as time without end" is time without end.

You are inventing distinctions that don't exist.

You need to prove that, not just assert it. Otherwise, you're just begging the question. Why couldn't it be time without beginning?

 

[bilby]

Possibly, yes.

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

Why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

Any amount of time that is before any event has ended.

Yes, but you are not talking about time without end; You are discussing the same amount of time as time without end. Which we agree is the amount of time in time without beginning. So if time without beginning exists, then the amount of time that has passed is infinite, and that amount of time has ended. It is also the same amount of time as time without end, but that does not imply that it is time without end, just that it is the same size. Two periods of equal duration are not the same period; nor need they share a start or a finish.

This sort of confusion is why it's necessary for you to present your argument as a clear, sound set of logical steps. You have made the mistake of assuming without reason that 'The amount of time in time without end' is always the same thing as 'time without end' - but that is false.

Unless you can show the clearly written and sound logic that demonstrates that 'The amount of time in time without end' is always and necessarily 'time without end'. I would suggest that this is not the case because:

P1) 'Time without beginning' is infinite

P2) 'Time without beginning' remains infinite when we define it to end at a specified time T

P3) 'Time without end' is infinite

P4) 'Time without end' cannot end at any specified time T

P5) 'Time without end' remains infinite when we define it to begin at a specified time T

C1) 'Time without beginning' that ends at time T is of the same duration (infinite) as time without end (from P2 and P3)

C2) 'Time without beginning' that ends at time T is not 'time without end' (from P2 and P4).

However please do present your clearly worded and sound reasoning that shows this to be incorrect.

 

[untermensche]

You need to prove that, not just assert it. Otherwise, you're just begging the question. Why couldn't it be time without beginning?

That is like being asked to prove: "The same amount of hours in hours without end" is hours without end.

Your perplexion is absurd.

They are just two ways of expressing the same amount.

Once again you have the same fallacy.

You claim that equivalencies are not equivalencies.

How are they not the same amount of hours?

- - - Updated - - -

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

Why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

Any amount of time that is before any event has ended.

Yes, but you are not talking about time without end; You are discussing the same amount of time as time without end.

Explain the difference.

In terms of amount.

 

[bilby]

That is like being asked to prove: "The same amount of hours in hours without end" is hours without end.

Your perplexion is absurd.

They are just two ways of expressing the same amount.

Once again you have the same fallacy.

You claim that equivalencies are not equivalencies.

How are they not the same amount of hours?

- - - Updated - - -

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

Why not?

- - - Updated - - -

Can the same amount of time as time without end occur BEFORE some event?

Yup.

What do the words "without end" mean to you?

Any amount of time that is before any event has ended.

Yes, but you are not talking about time without end; You are discussing the same amount of time as time without end.

Explain the difference.

In terms of amount.

There is no difference in terms of amount; but that does not make them the same thing. 100 apples are no different from 100 oranges in terms of amount; But they remain different things.

As I explained, and you ignored:

Unless you can show the clearly written and sound logic that demonstrates that 'The amount of time in time without end' is always and necessarily 'time without end'. I would suggest that this is not the case because:

P1) 'Time without beginning' is infinite

P2) 'Time without beginning' remains infinite when we define it to end at a specified time T

P3) 'Time without end' is infinite

P4) 'Time without end' cannot end at any specified time T

P5) 'Time without end' remains infinite when we define it to begin at a specified time T

C1) 'Time without beginning' that ends at time T is of the same duration (infinite) as time without end (from P2 and P3)

C2) 'Time without beginning' that ends at time T is not 'time without end' (from P2 and P4).

However please do present your clearly worded and sound reasoning that shows this to be incorrect.

 

[beero1000]

You need to prove that, not just assert it. Otherwise, you're just begging the question. Why couldn't it be time without beginning?

That is like being asked to prove: "The same amount of hours in hours without end" is hours without end.

Your perplexion is absurd.

They are just two ways of expressing the same amount.

Once again you have the same fallacy.

You claim that equivalencies are not equivalencies.

How are they not the same amount of hours?

FFS, we've been over this. They are the same amount, but they are not THE SAME, no more than getting hit in the head with $1000 in coins is the same as getting hit in the head with $1000 in $100 bills.

There's even this:

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

Yet, later on you reject that possibility outright. Begging the question.

 

[Kharakov]

Clearly he has problems parsing or stating the difference between the varieties of imaginary infinite time and real infinite time.

Real infinite time: at any moment in time, an infinite amount of time has passed, because time did not start to pass, time is eternal. You can never measure the past, no matter how advanced you become technologically (although perhaps you could find loop points where time enters the same exact state every 10!!!10!!!10!!!10 years or so, or repeating branch points in time).

Imaginary infinite time without end, with a beginning. At any moment in time, a finite amount of time has passed. You could theoretically measure the past given sufficient technology.

 

[ryan]

Possibly, yes.

No. Impossible.

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur BEFORE anything.

Answer a simple but crucial question. Are you talking about time that doesn't "grow" (block universe), or are you talking about time that "grows" (growing block universe). Or do both not allow for infinite time?

 

[untermensche]

Explain the difference.

In terms of amount.

There is no difference in terms of amount; but that does not make them the same thing. 100 apples are no different from 100 oranges in terms of amount; But they remain different things.

Again. This is only about amounts of time. It is only about the amount of one thing.

The argument is confined to an examination of amounts of time.

1. Time without beginning is an infinite amount of time.

2. Time without end is an infinite amount of time.

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

4. 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.

You will find nothing but statements about the amount of time.

But of course the 4th statement is an impossibility meaning you cannot rationally say "time without beginning".

 

[beero1000]

lmao at 'But of course [restates claim], therefore [claim]'. Question begging machine.