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

[untermensche]

Moving through time is a common phrase.

My argument does not depend on the definition of time.

It works for both a static and dynamic system.

All that is required is people define "infinite time" and stick with it.

You can't say infinite time is time with no end one minute and then say it isn't the next.

So imagine a growing block universe. Let's say the universe grows at a rate of 1 cubic meter per second. So this is quite slow since the entire universe is only adding 1 cubic meter every second.

But what if the universe just started growing faster and faster? Let's say it jumped to 2 m^3 per second, or put in a different way 1 m^3 per 30 seconds. But then it kept accelerating to 1 m^3 per 20 seconds and then 1 m^3 per 10 seconds and then finally it does 1 m^3 per 0 seconds.

If it were to hit this rate, then the universe could be infinitely large.

My argument is about the impossibility of infinite time in the past.

As far as something growing towards infinity that is possible. You can grow towards infinite size.

But you cannot be infinite in size. That is not a description of a final size.

 

[bilby]

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.

Only if the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket ARE the apples in my basket.

This is not debatable.

Not if you refuse to debate it. But it's not made true by your refusal to recognise your fundamental error.

Quantity is not identity.

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.

Just as it's impossible for the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket, in other words, the apples in my basket, to be anywhere but in my basket.

Therefore, by your logic, if I have 10 apples in my basket, it is impossible for you to have 10 apples in your basket; because 10 apples are the apples in my basket.

The time before any event has ended.

Yes. And if it never began, the that time was infinite.

If you want to show otherwise, then give a clear, sound, logical argument.

Not some moronic conflation of quantity with identity.

The year 1953 is the identical amount of the exact same thing (time) as the year 2023.

1953 has ended.

By your logic, we must conclude that 2023 has ended.

2023 has not ended; therefore your logic is unsound.

 

[bilby]

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


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.

Mind reading is impossible; c is not a frequency (frequencies have the dimension T^-1; c is a speed, with the dimension L.T^-1).

You might think you are helping; but you are not helping. There's enough confused gobbledegook in this thread already; let's not make things worse by guessing.

 

[ryan]

So imagine a growing block universe. Let's say the universe grows at a rate of 1 cubic meter per second. So this is quite slow since the entire universe is only adding 1 cubic meter every second.

But what if the universe just started growing faster and faster? Let's say it jumped to 2 m^3 per second, or put in a different way 1 m^3 per 30 seconds. But then it kept accelerating to 1 m^3 per 20 seconds and then 1 m^3 per 10 seconds and then finally it does 1 m^3 per 0 seconds.

If it were to hit this rate, then the universe could be infinitely large.

My argument is about the impossibility of infinite time in the past.

As far as something growing towards infinity that is possible. You can grow towards infinite size.

But you cannot be infinite in size. That is not a description of a final size.

So then just invert the ratio. Suppose 1 second "grows" onto the universe per cubic meter (which I think is actually a growing universe unlike the last example). We can see that a much faster rate of 1 second per 0 m^3 allows an infinite length of time to grow.

So the people there will have an infinite past.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Only if the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket ARE the apples in my basket.

This is only about ONE FEATURE of infinite time, the amount.

It is not about anything else. Talking about anything else besides the amount of something is drifting off topic.

"The same amount of time as time that never ends" is an amount.

It is the same exact amount as "time that never ends".

They are ways of describing the same exact amount.

This is not debatable.

Not if you refuse to debate it.

No it is not debatable. It is just saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

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.

Just as it's impossible for the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket, in other words, the apples in my basket, to be anywhere but in my basket.

It is possible for the same amount of apples as are in the basket to be in many many places.

Again this is ONLY about the amount of time in infinite time.

You have not made one valid comment.

Comments about anything except amount display a serious lack of understanding.

 

[ryan]

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


And a mind-read of others.


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.

Mind reading is impossible; c is not a frequency (frequencies have the dimension T^-1; c is a speed, with the dimension L.T^-1).

You might think you are helping; but you are not helping. There's enough confused gobbledegook in this thread already; let's not make things worse by guessing.

Geee, take it easy bilby. Don't discourage new perspectives or else we may become a righteous collection of incestuous egos.

And, you can use frequency as anything over time. It could be meters if you want.

 

[Juma]

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.

And that is always INTERVALS of time.
A time with no beginning does NOT require the existence infinite INTRVALS of time.

This is what you doesnt understand:
Even if time itself had no beginning, the timespan from any event up to now would be finite.

 

[Juma]

Mind reading is impossible; c is not a frequency (frequencies have the dimension T^-1; c is a speed, with the dimension L.T^-1).

You might think you are helping; but you are not helping. There's enough confused gobbledegook in this thread already; let's not make things worse by guessing.

Geee, take it easy bilby. Don't discourage new perspectives or else we may become a righteous collection of incestuous egos.

And, you can use frequency as anything over time. It could be meters if you want.

With no context ”frequency” just means the measure of how frequent something is.
This is how it is used in statistics.
In physics it us a measure of a cyclic function and means ”number of periods per time unit”.
It can never be m/s.

 

[ryan]

Geee, take it easy bilby. Don't discourage new perspectives or else we may become a righteous collection of incestuous egos.

And, you can use frequency as anything over time. It could be meters if you want.

With no context ”frequency” just means the measure of how frequent something is.

Exactly

This is how it is used in statistics.
In physics it us a measure of a cyclic function and means ”number of periods per time unit”.
It can never be m/s.

He didn't say that he was using a formal definition. Let it go Juma.

 

[bilby]

Only if the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket ARE the apples in my basket.

This is only about ONE FEATURE of infinite time, the amount.

It is not about anything else. Talking about anything else besides the amount of something is drifting off topic.

"The same amount of time as time that never ends" is an amount.

It is the same exact amount as "time that never ends".

They are ways of describing the same exact amount.

This is not debatable.

Not if you refuse to debate it.

No it is not debatable. It is just saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

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.

Just as it's impossible for the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket, in other words, the apples in my basket, to be anywhere but in my basket.

It is possible for the same amount of apples as are in the basket to be in many many places.

Again this is ONLY about the amount of time in infinite time.

You have not made one valid comment.

Comments about anything except amount display a serious lack of understanding.

You don't get to outlaw comments that might show you to be wrong.

Your argument can be used to prove something that we know to be false. It is therefore unsound.

You need to change it until it becomes sound; or discard it.

Declaring that it is the only form of argument allowed is cowardly, stupid and wrong.

If you want anyone to agree with you (including, if you are honest and intelligent, yourself), then you need to present a clearly worded, sound argument, and you need to address any objections to it in an honest and open fashion.

Your latest argument (as I pointed out, and you ignored) that amount of time is the only important consideration, if true, leads to the conclusion that the year 2023 has finished. This strongly suggests that your argument is total fucking nonsense.

You need to try harder.

You need to present a complete, clearly worded and unambiguous, sound, logical argument; or you need to accept that you have got nothing.

If you can't or won't do that, then nobody (including you) can justify accepting your position.

 

[untermensche]

This is only about ONE FEATURE of infinite time, the amount.

It is not about anything else. Talking about anything else besides the amount of something is drifting off topic.

"The same amount of time as time that never ends" is an amount.

It is the same exact amount as "time that never ends".

They are ways of describing the same exact amount.

This is not debatable.

Not if you refuse to debate it.

No it is not debatable. It is just saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

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.

Just as it's impossible for the same amount of apples as the apples in my basket, in other words, the apples in my basket, to be anywhere but in my basket.

It is possible for the same amount of apples as are in the basket to be in many many places.

Again this is ONLY about the amount of time in infinite time.

You have not made one valid comment.

Comments about anything except amount display a serious lack of understanding.

You don't get to outlaw comments that might show you to be wrong.

A comment actually has to address the argument.

My argument is based entirely on an examination of the concept of the amount of time contained within the concept of "infinite time".

So a rational comment cannot talk about the nature of the past vs the future. That merely shows you don't understand the argument.

It is only a two line argument. An expression defining the amount of time contained within the concept "infinite time". And the clear consequence of the definition.

Nothing discussed except the amount of time contained in infinite time.

(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

(2) Therefore the time before any given moment could not have been infinite.

 

[beero1000]

(1) Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

 

[untermensche]

Defining terms is pretty far from begging questions. You simply do not want anybody to actually define "infinite time" so you can pretend it is not an amount of time that never passes.

 

[fast]

Is infinite time an amount of time?

 

[beero1000]

Defining terms is pretty far from begging questions. You simply do not want anybody to actually define "infinite time" so you can pretend it is not an amount of time that never passes.

Your definition is incomplete in a way that implicitly assumes the conclusion of your argument, as many different people here have already pointed out to you. If no one accepts your definition as matching the actual concept then you need to support using your definition for the concept - if you don't, you are question begging.

How about this definition: Infinite time is an amount of time that is longer than any finite amount of time. Do you agree with this definition?

Can your argument use this definition and correctly reach the same conclusion? If this definition is equivalent to yours then you should be able to do so, without assuming a beginning to time. If not, your definition is different from mine, and you need to explain why anyone should accept your definition over mine.

 

[untermensche]

This is not my conception.

It is THE conception of infinite time.

An amount of time that never passes.

 

[untermensche]

Is infinite time an amount of time?

It is the conception of an ever growing amount.

It is an amount of time that never passes.

 

[beero1000]

This is not my conception.

It is THE conception of infinite time.

An amount of time that never passes.

That's an assertion I've already said I don't agree with. Asserting it at me again WITH CAPS won't change anything. Why should I use your restrictive definition instead of a more general one?

 

[untermensche]

This is not my conception.

It is THE conception of infinite time.

An amount of time that never passes.

That's an assertion I've already said I don't agree with. Asserting it at me again WITH CAPS won't change anything. Why should I use your restrictive definition instead of a more general one?

There is nothing restrictive about it.

It describes the amount of time in infinite time totally.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

 

[beero1000]

That's an assertion I've already said I don't agree with. Asserting it at me again WITH CAPS won't change anything. Why should I use your restrictive definition instead of a more general one?

There is nothing restrictive about it.

It describes the amount of time in infinite time totally.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

Yay, more assertions...