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

[untermensche]

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.

So when I tell you the argument is confined to amounts of time only for the 50th time you will understand?

The argument has nothing to do with quality or the difference between the past and the present and the future.

To try to bring those things in when the argument is not based on them is irrational.

The argument is based only on amounts of time and different ways to describe the same amount of time.

To say "the same amount of time as time without beginning" is no different in terms of amount of time from saying "time without beginning".

To say "the same amount of time as time without end" is no different in terms if the amount of time from saying "time without end".

Confine your arguments to talk about amounts of time.

That is all that is being discussed.

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

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

I embrace the equivalence.

Some pretend the equivalence doesn't exist.

They think infinite time in the past somehow is a different amount of time as time without end.

 

[Kharakov]

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

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

However, if time has a beginning (which is impossible), a finite amount of time will always have passed, even if that time will never stop passing.
This is completely different when compared to time without beginning, in which an infinite amount of time has passed at any point in time.


I think I figured you out: you only say the truth about things that don't actually exist, built around concepts of things that actually exist. Why do you avoid mentioning reality?

 

[bilby]

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".

What is impossible about the fourth statement?

I can see that you don't like it; But reality doesn't care what you like.

None of your statements are problematic for a beginningless and infinite past; Not one of them renders time without beginning impossible.

P1) 'Time without beginning' is infinite - this is functionally equivalent to your statement 1

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

P3) 'Time without end' is infinite - this is functionally equivalent to your statement 2

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) - this is functionally equivalent to your statement 3, and to your statement 4, which is a re-wording of the same thing.

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


As far as I understand it, your 'argument' consists of four statements, two of which are premises upon which we all agree, and the remaining two of which are different ways of saying the same thing, and are a valid and sound conclusion from the two premises; but which importantly, in no way address the possibility or otherwise of an infinite past, which can be shown to be possible by reference to two further premises:

P2) 'Time without beginning' remains infinite when we define it to end at a specified time T
and
P4) 'Time without end' cannot end at any specified time T

Do you dispute P2 or P4?

How do you reason from your four statements to your conclusion (which you did not explicitly state, but which I presume is 'The past cannot be infinite' or something similar)?

 

[untermensche]

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

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

However, if time has a beginning (which is impossible), a finite amount of time will always have passed, even if that time will never stop passing.

This has nothing to do with anything.

It just furthers my claim that real infinities are irrational. They break down into irrationality whenever you try to invoke them.

This is completely different when compared to time without beginning, in which an infinite amount of time has passed at any point in time.

Yes, and that doesn't bother you.

There is no point of time in such a system where infinite time did not have to pass to reach it.

- - - Updated - - -

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".

What is impossible about the fourth statement?

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur before any event.

The time before any event has ended.

 

[Kharakov]

However, if time has a beginning (which is impossible), a finite amount of time will always have passed, even if that time will never stop passing.

This has nothing to do with anything.

So why do you continually bring up imaginary time with a beginning, which is the only kind of time in which a finite amount of time could have passed?

This is completely different when compared to time without beginning, in which an infinite amount of time has passed at any point in time.

Yes, and that doesn't bother you.

There is no point of time in such a system where infinite time did not have to pass to reach it.

So? It's reality. This simply means that the evolution and change of existence never started- it was always occurring- it could stop, but that's not the point.

Do you take the static block universe position that ryan mentioned?

 

[untermensche]

There is no point of time in such a system where infinite time did not have to pass to reach it.

So? It's reality.

No. it is an irrational impossible opinion.

Infinite time never passes.

If it has to pass before some event the event will never take place.

 

[bilby]

However, if time has a beginning (which is impossible), a finite amount of time will always have passed, even if that time will never stop passing.

This has nothing to do with anything.

It just furthers my claim that real infinities are irrational. They break down into irrationality whenever you try to invoke them.

This is completely different when compared to time without beginning, in which an infinite amount of time has passed at any point in time.

Yes, and that doesn't bother you.

There is no point of time in such a system where infinite time did not have to pass to reach it.

- - - Updated - - -

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".

What is impossible about the fourth statement?

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur before any event.

Sure it can.

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

The time before any event has ended.

Yes, it has. For any specified time T, the time before T ends at T.

I just need you to show a clear, sound and logical argument why this is a problem for an infinite past.

Why don't you do that?

 

[untermensche]

The same amount of time as time without end cannot occur before any event.

Sure it can.

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

This doesn't mean a thing.

It is still the same amount of time as time that can never end.

It is always the same amount of time as time that can never end.

It never comes close to an amount of time that can end.

The time before any event has ended.

Yes, it has.

That's right.

Connect the dots.

 

[Kharakov]

So? It's reality.

No. it is an irrational impossible opinion Infinite time never passes. If it has to pass before some event the event will never take place.

At no point has existence not been eternal. It didn't start. It wasn't always exactly the same.... but it never started, it always was. You can look to the past and see eternity, and eternal things (grayness of gray, pinkness of pink, sweetness of sweet).

You don't waste eternity counting time. It doesn't really matter that eternity has passed, and that it looks like it will continue to pass. If someone wants to lie about the past forever, nobody is going to stop them.... but it's really quite embarrassing for them.

 

[untermensche]

At no point has existence not been eternal.

At no time did god not exist.

It didn't start.

God didn't start.

It wasn't always exactly the same.... but it never started, it always was.

God was always the same. He never started. He always was.

You can look to the past and see eternity

If you say so. I can't see that far.

and eternal things (grayness of gray, pinkness of pink, sweetness of sweet).

Things that didn't exist until there were brains.

All I can say is AMEN!

 

[bilby]

Sure it can.

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

This doesn't mean a thing.

Sure it does.

It is still the same amount of time as time that can never end.

Yes. But that doesn't mean it IS time that can never end. 100 apples are the same amount as 100 oranges, but that doesn't mean that 100 apples ARE 100 oranges.

It is always the same amount of time as time that can never end.

Yes. And that is not a problem of any kind, outside your incredulous and poorly structured mind.

It never comes close to an amount of time that can end.

And nobody (except you) needs to care - unless and until you present a clearly worded, sound, logical argument for why this would lead to the conclusion that time without beginning is impossible, contradictory, or at odds with experimental observation.

The time before any event has ended.

Yes, it has.

That's right.

Connect the dots.

You haven't provided the dots. I keep asking for them, but you refuse to provide any. I am beginning to suspect that they don't exist.

I provided some of my own dots earlier, but you keep ignoring them:

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).

 

[untermensche]

It is still the same amount of time as time that can never end.

Yes. But that doesn't mean it IS time that can never end. 100 apples are the same amount as 100 oranges, but that doesn't mean that 100 apples ARE 100 oranges.

Not apples and oranges. Not close. This is two identical amounts of the same exact thing (time)

The same amount of time as time that never ends IS time that never ends.

This is not debatable.

And it is impossible for the same amount of time as time that never ends, in other words, time that never ends, to come before any event.

The time before any event has ended.

 

[George S]

I am going to attempt a mind-read of untermensche.

Proposition: Time without a beginning is not a logical possibility.

Proof:
(1) If there were time-without-beginning it would be infinite.
(2) Infinite time cannot ever pass entirely. It would take eternity to do so.
(3) The infinite time before the present cannot have ever passed completely.
(4) There is a now, a zero point which ends past time.
___
(3) and (4) are contradictory
An assumption must be wrong, namely the existence of time without a beginning.
QED

And a mind-read of others.

Time without beginning is a logical possibility.

Proof:
(1) If there were time-without-beginning its beginning can never be reached.
(2) If there were time-without-end its end can never be reached.
(3) If anything at all were eternal the timeline could be.
___
There is nothing logically contradictory about these propositions.
Therefore time without a beginning is logically possible.

General relativity uses spacetime. Time is not independent of space but is an integral part of space itself. There must be a natural frequency for time to be meaningful. That natural frequency is c. Space comes with time built in. Time comes with space. c is the speed limit of causality. If time were eternal, space would be beginningless as well.

 

[untermensche]

I am going to attempt a mind-read of untermensche.

Proposition: Time without a beginning is not a logical possibility.

Proof:
(1) If there were time-without-beginning it would be infinite.
(2) Infinite time cannot ever pass entirely. It would take eternity to do so.
(3) The infinite time before the present cannot have ever passed completely.
(4) There is a now, a zero point which ends past time.
___
(3) and (4) are contradictory
An assumption must be wrong, namely the existence of time without a beginning.
QED

It can be shortened.

(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) The time before any given moment could not have been infinite.

Proof:
(1) If there were time-without-beginning its beginning can never be reached.
(2) If there were time-without-end its end can never be reached.
(3) If anything at all were eternal the timeline could be.

#1 is a ambiguous assumption.

We could not reach the beginning of time that had a beginning.

We cannot go back in time.

If there were time-without-beginning that would mean before any moment time without beginning passed.

But time without beginning is just like time without end in one aspect. It is an amount of time that never passes.

The very assumption of time-without-beginning is an irrational assumption.

Nothing logical can be made from it.

 

[Juma]

It can be shortened.

(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) The time before any given moment could not have been infinite.

Proof:
(1) If there were time-without-beginning its beginning can never be reached.
(2) If there were time-without-end its end can never be reached.
(3) If anything at all were eternal the timeline could be.

#1 is a ambiguous assumption.

We could not reach the beginning of time that had a beginning.

We cannot go back in time.

If there were time-without-beginning that would mean before any moment time without beginning passed.

But time without beginning is just like time without end. It is an amount of time that never passes.

The very assumption of time-without-beginning is an irrational assumption.

Nothing logical can be made from it.

The time INTERVAL that began 1 hour ago passed now, an hour later.
The time INTERVAL that began 2 hours ago passed now, 2 hours later.
Time that INTERVAL that began for 100000 hours ago passed now, an 100000 hour later.
Is there a limit for when the time INTERVAL couldnt have started earlier?

The big bang occurred approx 15 000 000 000 of years ago. Why not 16 000 000 000?
Is there a limit for when thebig bang could have occurred?

What difference does it make if the time is 1s, 1000s or 100 000 000 000 old? None!

 

[untermensche]

It can be shortened.

(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.
(2) The time before any given moment could not have been infinite.



#1 is a ambiguous assumption.

We could not reach the beginning of time that had a beginning.

We cannot go back in time.

If there were time-without-beginning that would mean before any moment time without beginning passed.

But time without beginning is just like time without end. It is an amount of time that never passes.

The very assumption of time-without-beginning is an irrational assumption.

Nothing logical can be made from it.

The time INTERVAL that began 1 hour ago passed now, an hour later.
The time INTERVAL that began 2 hours ago passed now, 2 hours later.
Time that INTERVAL that began for 100000 hours ago passed now, an 100000 hour later.
Is there a limit for when the time INTERVAL couldnt have started earlier?

If we say the interval is finite it can pass.

If we say it is infinite it cannot.

Only finite amounts of time can pass.

 

[Kharakov]

The time INTERVAL that began 1 hour ago passed now, an hour later.
The time INTERVAL that began 2 hours ago passed now, 2 hours later.
Time that INTERVAL that began for 100000 hours ago passed now, an 100000 hour later.
Is there a limit for when the time INTERVAL couldnt have started earlier?

If we say the interval is finite it can pass.

If we say it is infinite it cannot.

Only finite amounts of time can pass.

Unless there are time loops that sprout an infinite amount of the same branch over and over again, that exist as part of the fundamental structure of reality.

Unless (as the real case is) stuff was always changing, forever, the very nature of what exists is that it changes and evolves, so it never wasn't changing/evolving. Time always was. Time is eternal, and no matter where you go in existence, it extends infinitely (although if you zoom in to a certain level of detail, it's very repetitrepetitrepetit I've got to stop that for now, have work to do).

Unless there are hyperreal time relations: you can travel at infinite velocity, for an infinite distance, and relative to other beings moving in that realm of speed, you are perceived as traveling between 0 and 300k kps.

 

[untermensche]

If we say the interval is finite it can pass.

If we say it is infinite it cannot.

Only finite amounts of time can pass.

Unless there are time loops that sprout an infinite amount of the same branch over and over again, that exist as part of the fundamental structure of reality.

Infinite trips through a "branch" of time is still time that never ends.

You haven't changed anything.

Unless (as the real case is) stuff was always changing

Impossible.

It is impossible there were infinite changes before some observed change.

Infinite changes are changes that never end as well.

 

[beero1000]

Here I was, thinking we had actually gotten somewhere yesterday, but apparently not.

 

[Kharakov]

Here I was, thinking we had actually gotten somewhere yesterday, but apparently not.

Someone once said "You're like a fucking rock."

Then someone else said "Don't say that to him, I don't want it going to his head."