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

[fast]

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.

But isn't conceiving an even higher number just what we do after randomly picking a far off number? It's not like there's really an amount so far off we cannot readily conceive of. There's no actual amount for the finding that is equivalent to some amount we call infinity.

 

[untermensche]

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...

Yeah another dodge.

Is infinite time an amount or time that passes or is it an amount of time that never passes?

That is the only pertinent issue.

 

[untermensche]

It is the conception of an ever growing amount.

It is an amount of time that never passes.

But isn't conceiving an even higher number just what we do after randomly picking a far off number? It's not like there's really an amount so far off we cannot readily conceive of. There's no actual amount for the finding that is equivalent to some amount we call infinity.

What we do is define concepts.

And then after defining them we stick with the definition.

If we are honest.

If we are dishonest we define something one second then claim the definition no longer fits the next.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

Once defined we must live with it.

It is impossible for the time before any given moment to be an amount of time that never passes.

 

[bilby]

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.

Infinite time can pass, if an infinite amount of time is available for it to occur.

Your first premise is true if, and ONLY if, the past is FINITE.

You have assumed your conclusion in the wording of your premise. That is a fallacy, and your logic is unsound. As has been demonstrated to you repeatedly.

Nobody else accepts your premise 1; you must prove it without reference to itself, or discard it, or abandon your pretence to be using logic.

 

[bilby]

This is not my conception.

It is THE conception of infinite time.

An amount of time that never passes.

Arrogance is not logic; nor is it an argument.

Literally NOBODY else in this thread accepts your definition.

 

[bilby]

Yay, more assertions...

Yeah another dodge.

Is infinite time an amount or time that passes or is it an amount of time that never passes?

That is the only pertinent issue.

Indeed.

Any answer to that question therefore requires logic, not mere assertion, if you want people to accept it.

IF the past is finite, then infinite time has not passed.

IF the past is infinite, the infinite time has passed.

We are trying to determine which of these is possible (or impossible).

You claim to have a logical argument to reject the latter; but all you have done so far is beg the question and declare that infinite time cannot pass.

Either you are taking the piss, or you are pathetically bad at basic logical thinking.

 

[bilby]

But isn't conceiving an even higher number just what we do after randomly picking a far off number? It's not like there's really an amount so far off we cannot readily conceive of. There's no actual amount for the finding that is equivalent to some amount we call infinity.

What we do is define concepts.

And then after defining them we stick with the definition.

If we are honest.

If we are dishonest we define something one second then claim the definition no longer fits the next.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

Once defined we must live with it.

It is impossible for the time before any given moment to be an amount of time that never passes.

We can stick with your definition, for the duration of a specific formal argument, if you insist. But it fucks up the language beyond all recognition, for no benefit.

By your definition, if the past has no beginning, and it's duration is greater than can be measured using any finite number, we are arbitrarily prohibited from calling it 'infinite time', as a purely linguistic convention.

Definitions are a convenience. They must not be changed WITHIN an argument, but apart from that, they are entirely arbitrary and mutable, and all that matters is that (for clarity) it is wise not to use idiosyncratic or uncommon definitions for common or widely used words.

Words mean what the people using them mean by them. They don't dictate reality, they attempt to describe it. And you are attempting to force everyone to use a stupidly specific and inappropriate definition that causes confusion, rather than clarity.

Fucking stop that. It's annoying, it's childish, and it's so confusing that you have confused yourself by it.

 

[untermensche]

This is not my conception.

It is THE conception of infinite time.

An amount of time that never passes.

Arrogance is not logic; nor is it an argument.

Literally NOBODY else in this thread accepts your definition.

So you are saying infinite time is an amount of time that can pass?

Then you are seriously lost.

Any amount of time that can pass is a FINITE amount of time.

Which is it?

Is infinite time an amount of time that can pass or an amount of time that can never pass?

It can only be one or the other.

But it fucks up the language beyond all recognition, for no benefit.

Wrong again.

The term; time with "no beginning" is what is fucking you up.

You don't understand it is the same amount of time as time without end.

 

[bilby]

Arrogance is not logic; nor is it an argument.

Literally NOBODY else in this thread accepts your definition.

So you are saying infinite time is an amount of time that can pass?

If the past is infinite, then yes; not only CAN it have passed, if the past is infinite, then it MUST have, at any specific finite time from the present.

Then you are seriously lost.

No, I am just ignoring your arbitrary and unjustified redefinition of the meaning of the phrase 'infinite time'.

Any amount of time that can pass is a FINITE amount of time.

Prove it. With clear, sound, and unequivocal logical arguments. Or STFU.

Which is it?

Is infinite time an amount of time that can pass or an amount of time that can never pass?

Yes, it's one of those. We don't know which - until we know whether or not time has a beginning.

It can only be one or the other.

But it fucks up the language beyond all recognition, for no benefit.

Wrong again.

The term; time with "no beginning" is what is fucking you up.

You don't understand it is the same amount of time as time without end.

I do understand that; I don't understand why you think that that statement should in any way lead me to your preferred conclusion.

Because you refuse to present a clear, sound, unequivocal and non-circular logical argument why it should.

1953 is the exact same amount of time as 2023. One has passed, the other has not.

The past is infinite. The future is infinite. They could be the exact same amount of time, but one has passed; The other has not.

The only 'problem' here is your dislike of the idea. Reality doesn't care what you like.

 

[bilby]

The ONLY thing that defines whether a given period of time has passed is whether it has a finish that is before (or equal to) the present moment. If so, then it has passed; this remains true regardless of how long a period we are considering.

If it is an infinite period, and it has passed, then that further implies that time has no beginning.

The ONLY thing we need to consider, when determining whether a period of time is in the past, is the time at which it finishes. The start time and/or amount of time are completely irrelevant.

 

[untermensche]

So you are saying infinite time is an amount of time that can pass?

If the past is infinite, then yes; not only CAN it have passed, if the past is infinite, then it MUST have, at any specific finite time from the present.

Basically your argument is:

If we ASSUME the past was infinite then it was infinite.

And nothing else matters.

Even if that means that before any event an amount of time that never ends must pass first.

Any amount of time that can pass is a FINITE amount of time.

Prove it. With clear, sound, and unequivocal logical arguments. Or STFU.

It is a truism.

Which is it?

Is infinite time an amount of time that can pass or an amount of time that can never pass?

Yes, it's one of those. We don't know which - until we know whether or not time has a beginning.

We know based on the definition of infinity. That is how we know everything about infinity.

Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass. That is the definition.

Finite time is an amount of time that could possibly pass.

You don't understand it is the same amount of time as time without end.

I do understand that; I don't understand why you think that that statement should in any way lead me to your preferred conclusion.

You clearly do not understand.

Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

It is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

All it takes is understanding that "time without beginning" is the same amount of time as "time without end".

 

[bilby]

If the past is infinite, then yes; not only CAN it have passed, if the past is infinite, then it MUST have, at any specific finite time from the present.

Basically your argument is:

If we ASSUME the past was infinite then it was infinite.

No, my argument is 'If we assume that the past was infinite, then we do not encounter any contradictions, nor does the assumption lead logically to predictions that are at odds with observed reality'.

So it is logically possible.

We don't know that it is true that the past is infinite; but we also don't know that it is false.

And nothing else matters.

Even if that means that before any event an amount of time that never ends must pass first.

Sure. Why shouldn't it? Only if the past was finite would that be impossible; so we can conclude that 'The past cannot be infinite if it is finite', which is pretty obvious, and tells us nothing about the case where the past is infinite.

Any amount of time that can pass is a FINITE amount of time.

Prove it. With clear, sound, and unequivocal logical arguments. Or STFU.

It is a truism.

It is an unjustified and unwarranted assumption; and it's making you a fool.

Which is it?

Is infinite time an amount of time that can pass or an amount of time that can never pass?

Yes, it's one of those. We don't know which - until we know whether or not time has a beginning.

We know based on the definition of infinity. That is how we know everything about infinity.

Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass. That is the definition.

No.

No, that's really, really NOT the definition.

Finite time is an amount of time that could possibly pass.

In a universe where time has a beginning.

You don't understand it is the same amount of time as time without end.

I do understand that; I don't understand why you think that that statement should in any way lead me to your preferred conclusion.

You clearly do not understand.

Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

Only if the past is finite. If the past is infinite, then infinite time has ALWAYS passed.

It is impossible for the time in the past to be infinite.

All it takes is understanding that "time without beginning" is the same amount of time as "time without end".

Amount is irrelevant.

The time in 1953 is the same amount of time as the time in 2023.

The time in 2023 has not passed.

Therefore the time in 1953 cannot have passed.

That's the EXACT logical structure you are employing here. Can you see any problems with its conclusion?

 

[Kharakov]

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

Not once have you proven this to be the case. You always (punintentionally stated) misrepresent what it means for time not to have begun. It means that stuff has been occurring forever- that you cannot detect a furthest back point in time because there is none. We can detect the furthest point towards the future....

 

[Kharakov]

If we ASSUME the past was infinite then it was infinite.

We don't assume, we know. There always was something that existed. How do we know? Nothing (the complete lack of everything, even something that can cause things to exist), can't pre-exist something because something requires either it's own existence or something that causes it to exist in order to exist.

Something exists. If you take it in the context of what was said.... Therefore something has always existed.

 

[fast]

If I say my cat is a feline, which "is" is that? Is of predication?

 

[untermensche]

Basically your argument is:

If we ASSUME the past was infinite then it was infinite.

No, my argument is 'If we assume that the past was infinite, then we do not encounter any contradictions, nor does the assumption lead logically to predictions that are at odds with observed reality'.

We run right into a massive contradiction.

IF we do not dismiss valid definitions the second they become inconvenient.

If we somehow pretend an infinite amount of time is an amount of time that can pass we can do anything.

Unfortunately infinite time in the future is an amount of time that can never pass AND infinite time in the past is an amount of time that can never pass.

Infinite time is the same exact amount of time no matter when it allegedly occurs.

Any amount of time that can pass is a FINITE amount of time.

It is a truism.

It is an unjustified and unwarranted assumption; and it's making you a fool.

A finite amount of time is an amount of time with a beginning and an end.

Any amount of time with a beginning and end clearly can pass.

That you can't see it is telling.

Infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

Only if the past is finite.

Infinite time is the same amount of time no matter what else is said.

The amount of time cannot change when it becomes inconvenient.

Infinite time is ALWAYS an amount of time that can never pass.

It is impossible that before any moment time that can never pass occurred before it.

Amount is irrelevant.

The argument is based ENTIRELY on the AMOUNT of time in "infinite time".

Everything besides the amount of time described by the term "infinite time" is irrelevant.

If you want to criticize the argument you have to confine your arguments to some examination of the "amount" of time in infinite time.

 

[untermensche]

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

Not once have you proven this to be the case. You always (punintentionally stated) misrepresent what it means for time not to have begun. It means that stuff has been occurring forever- that you cannot detect a furthest back point in time because there is none. We can detect the furthest point towards the future....

If stuff has been here "forever" that means before any event time had been passing "forever".

So you're saying that an amount of time that takes forever to pass took place before some event.

Clearly that is impossible.

Proof.

 

[beero1000]

A finite amount of time is an amount of time with a beginning and an end.

I suppose that an application of De Morgan's law would be too much to hope for.

 

[untermensche]

If we ASSUME the past was infinite then it was infinite.

We don't assume, we know. There always was something that existed. How do we know? Nothing (the complete lack of everything, even something that can cause things to exist), can't pre-exist something because something requires either it's own existence or something that causes it to exist in order to exist.

Something exists. If you take it in the context of what was said.... Therefore something has always existed.

It is nothing but a bad assumption.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

It is impossible that an amount of time that never passes took place before any event.

All we can say rationally is that if the universe is finite it started in some unknown way.

- - - Updated - - -

A finite amount of time is an amount of time with a beginning and an end.

I suppose that an application of De Morgan's law would be too much to hope for.

Show me a finite amount of time without a beginning and end.

 

[beero1000]

A finite amount of time is an amount of time with a beginning and an end.

I suppose that an application of De Morgan's law would be too much to hope for.

Show me a finite amount of time without a beginning and end.