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

[fast]

Necessary truths need no argument, but contingent truths do. If you speak what you believe is true, and if what you speak happens to be true but is merely a contingent truth, the truth doesn't consequently become a necessary truth. We don't speak of contingent truths as being true by definition.

 

[untermensche]

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.

So is that 5 minutes?

50 minutes?

50 google minutes?

Which is the finite amount of time without a beginning and end?

We are talking about time. Not imaginary points with no dimension.

 

[untermensche]

It is strange that people can understand that infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends.

But when you talk about infinite time in the past they somehow now think it is an amount of time that can end?

Very strange kind of dissonance.

 

[bilby]

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.

An amount of time is the difference between the time at the end, and the time at the beginning.

If the period lacks either a beginning OR an end OR both, then it is infinite.

If we accept your 'definition', that infinite time is time that has no end, then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

What do you get if you subtract infinity from a finite number? (Hint: if you add infinity to a finite number, the result is infinity; and the reverse of addition is subtraction).

If time has no beginning, then the past is infinite in duration; has a defined end; and (you insist) may not be called 'infinite time' - so what will you have us call it?

 

[untermensche]

An amount of time is the difference between the time at the end, and the time at the beginning.

That is a finite amount of time.

If the period lacks either a beginning OR an end OR both, then it is infinite.

Yes. Those all describe the same amount of time.

If we accept your 'definition', that infinite time is time that has no end, then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

My definition is that infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

And it is impossible for an amount of time that can never pass to have occurred before some moment in time.

 

[bilby]

It is strange that people can understand that infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends.

But when you talk about infinite time in the past they somehow now think it is an amount of time that can end?

Very strange kind of dissonance.

It's interesting that only one person cannot understand that when you take the inverse of the idea "infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends", the result is "infinite time in the past is an amount of time that never BEGINS".

It's almost as though there's just one moron in this thread who doesn't know the difference between 'future' and 'past'.

The future is the time that BEGINS now; The past is the time that ENDS now.

When we are interested in the amount of time in the future, we have now as our beginning, and must consider the end - a finite future is one that has an end, while an infinite future doesn't have one at all.

When we are interested in the amount of time in the past, we have now as our ending, and must consider the beginning - a finite past is one that has a beginning, while an infinite past doesn't have one at all.

 

[untermensche]

It is strange that people can understand that infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends.

But when you talk about infinite time in the past they somehow now think it is an amount of time that can end?

Very strange kind of dissonance.

It's interesting that only one person cannot understand that when you take the inverse of the idea "infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends", the result is "infinite time in the past is an amount of time that never BEGINS".

The dissonance is that you think you have somehow described an amount of time that can pass by describing "infinite time" differently.

 

[bilby]

That is a finite amount of time.

Only if the beginning and end are a finite distance apart.

If the period lacks either a beginning OR an end OR both, then it is infinite.

Yes. Those all describe the same amount of time.

If we accept your 'definition', that infinite time is time that has no end, then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

My definition is that infinite time is an amount of time that can never pass.

And it is impossible for an amount of time that can never pass to have occurred before some moment in time.

I understand that. My question remains: If we accept your 'definition', then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

Definitions tell us what words mean; they don't restrain reality.

You have framed a definition that rules out the description I would use to describe a past with no beginning; so what will we call that instead?

Time with no beginning cannot be finite;

The past ends at now;

So what do you want to call the hypothetical amount of time with no beginning, that ends now?

And why should anyone else comply with your confusing and pointless definitional prohibition against calling it what it is: Infinite time? Just because it has passed, that doesn't mean it's finite.

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting that only one person cannot understand that when you take the inverse of the idea "infinite time in the future is an amount of time that never ends", the result is "infinite time in the past is an amount of time that never BEGINS".

The dissonance is that you think you have somehow described an amount of time that can pass by describing "infinite time" differently.

The past IS time that has passed.

If it has no beginning, then it is also infinite.

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head?

 

[bilby]

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.

No, it is far from clear that that's impossible.

Proof.

Yes, that's what you need before you can declare it it be impossible.

Not just incredulity; Proof.

 

[untermensche]

Only if the beginning and end are a finite distance apart.

If you have a beginning to some period of time and then an end to it you have an finite amount of time. Always. No exceptions.

I understand that. My question remains: If we accept your 'definition', then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

We don't call it anything except "infinite time".

We look at the amount of time described by it and can see it is an amount of time that can never pass.

 

[untermensche]

The dissonance is that you think you have somehow described an amount of time that can pass by describing "infinite time" differently.

The past IS time that has passed.

Yes and the question is: Is it possible that it was infinite? We are asking, not assuming.

If it has no beginning, then it is also infinite.

Yes. And if it was infinite it was an amount of time that never passes.

But the past could not be an amount of time that never passes. It has passed at the present.

Therefore it could not have been infinite.

Have you suffered a recent blow to the head?

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

No matter when you claim it occurs.

 

[bilby]

If you have a beginning to some period of time and then an end to it you have an finite amount of time. Always. No exceptions.

I understand that. My question remains: If we accept your 'definition', then what will we call the amount of time with an end, but no beginning?

We don't call it anything except "infinite time".

We look at the amount of time described by it and can see it is an amount of time that can never pass.

OK; so if it is time with an end, but no beginning, it is infinite time; and if the end is 'now' it is in the past; so why are you insisting that it can never pass? Time with an end finishes passing at its end. So your assertion that it is an amount of time that can never pass is false. It not only can pass; if it has an end, it MUST pass. And if it has no beginning, it MUST be infinite.

So what the fuck is your problem here?

 

[untermensche]

We don't call it anything except "infinite time".

We look at the amount of time described by it and can see it is an amount of time that can never pass.

OK; so if it is time with an end, but no beginning, it is infinite time;

Definitely. IF.

and if the end is 'now' it is in the past;

Yes therefore it could not have been infinite because it has passed.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

 

[bilby]

OK; so if it is time with an end, but no beginning, it is infinite time;

Definitely. IF.

and if the end is 'now' it is in the past;

Yes therefore it could not have been infinite because it has passed.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

Not when it is an amount of time that never begins.

If time never begins, then infinite time is ALWAYS the amount of time that has passed.

Infinite time never passes IF and ONLY IF it started a finite time ago.

 

[WAB]

So, that said, no, it isn't logically possible that Jesus was the son of god or that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods, because the words "god" and "miracle" have no clear meaning.

Wow.

 

[fast]

So, that said, no, it isn't logically possible that Jesus was the son of god or that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods, because the words "god" and "miracle" have no clear meaning.

Wow.

That it's not clear is merely purportedly to be the case (and not in anyway a brute fact), and even if clarity is lacking, it's not a necessary condition of anything important anyhow. It essentially equates to adult name calling--nothing to be taken seriously.

 

[untermensche]

Definitely. IF.

and if the end is 'now' it is in the past;

Yes therefore it could not have been infinite because it has passed.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

Not when it is an amount of time that never begins.

An amount of time that never begins is an amount of time that never passes.

This is your whole misunderstanding.

If time never begins, then infinite time is ALWAYS the amount of time that has passed

Yes. So that before any event can occur in such an irrational system time that never finishes passing must pass.

Infinite time never passes IF and ONLY IF it started a finite time ago.

This is your entire misunderstanding. The reason you have danced and evaded for post after post.

An infinite amount of time NEVER PASSES. Only finite amounts of time end. Infinite amounts of time never end.

That is the definition of "infinite time".

You cannot just toss it away when it becomes inconvenient.

 

[untermensche]

Ultimately we can say for certain the time in the past was not infinite.

This is beyond rational dispute.

As far as time having a beginning.

That is harder to dispute, but ultimately no understanding can be gained.

If time began then it began by some unknown method.

And it began from some "place" where time does not exist.

An imaginary place that has no evidence to support it.

But this still does not prove it is impossible for time to have a beginning.

It just means it is impossible for us to understand anything about it.

The paradox we find ourselves in.

Existence itself does not make sense. Camus called it "the absurd".

 

[Juma]

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.

Back off yourself.
It was obvious from the context that it was used in a statstical sense.
”Frequency” is one of the most misused word in quasi-science ever.
It should be everyones responsible to keep the duscusdion clean from badly defined trms.

 

[Phil Scott]

Necessary truths need no argument

Is that so? I might want to include a lot of mathematical theorems among the necessary truths, and I certainly think that, say, "all evens greater than 2 are the sum of two primes" needs an argument.