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

[fast]

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.

I'm a little shaky with this, so bare with me.

If P is true, then P is true. (That is a trivial truism)
One might argue with you, but they won't get very far. That it sheds no additional light on anything is irrelevant. The statement is still true. For example, if "snow is white" is true, then "snow is white" is true. It's true even when snow is not white. For instance, if snow is black, then the statement (if "snow is white" is true, then "snow is white" is true) is still true.

If P must be true, then P must be true (that too is a trivial truism). Again, one might argue, but the truth condition is pretty rock solid. For example, "bachelors are unmarried males." That's a statement that is true by definition and therefore must be true and is thus a necessary truth.

Notice the difference between the first and second bolded items. It was all about "is" in the first and all about "must" in the second. The problem arises when they get mixed together. Consider the following:

If P is the case, then P must be the case
Versus
If P must be the case, then P is the case

The first is absolutely false!
The second is certainly true!

If we are talking about necessary truths, we aren't merely (merely, I say) talking about a statement that is true. Yes, we are talking about a statement that is true, but more importantly, we're talking about a statement that MUST be true.

Of course, you bring up an example with math in it. I'm not exactly sure how that works. It might very well be a necessary truth that begs for an argument to back it up. I don't know.

In untermensche' case, I'm suspecting that he will latch onto a contingent truth and treat it as a necessary truth.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is a human devised concept. It has no real existence.

But it is a defined concept. And if one doesn't discard the definition when it becomes inconvenient certain unavoidable consequences flow from it.

 

[fast]

Is English your first language?

 

[George S]

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.

If the state of nothingness ever obtained, it was unstable. With nothing happening there would have been no way to distinguish one moment from the next. Zero time and any finite time were indistinguishable. Then after zero time something happened. Change happened. Moments could be distinguished from each other.

Or something has always existed.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes it is a human devised concept. It is a logically possible realization or characterization of a physically unattainable terminus or lack of one. We know numbers have no end but we can't demonstrate that truth. We know things can be divided beyond out ability to do or see so. We know there is probably a beginning/end to the universe but we can't reach it to make a determination. It is physically impossible to attain these things but it is logically possible to consider them to be either attainable or beyond attainment based on realizable computations. It really doesn't matter whether it exists since we can't know that, but it is logically possible to consider it which we do with great effect and gain in understanding.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing logically possible about it.

It falls apart into hopeless irrationality when you try to apply it to anything real.

 

[bilby]

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.

Says who? You? Why should I believe this absurd claim?

Provide a clearly worded, sound, logical argument for this, or stop saying it.

This is your whole misunderstanding.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

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.

No, infinite time must pass. It finishes passing at every moment in such a system.

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.

Prove it.

That is the definition of "infinite time".

You cannot just toss it away when it becomes inconvenient.

That is YOUR definition, that nobody else uses, because it's fucking stupid.

The definition of infinite time is "Time that is infinite". There are a number of ways in which something could be infinite; 'Not ending' is one (but far from the only one) of these.

There's no value to your 'definition'; Your non-standard and incomplete definition is not an argument. And tossing away inconvenient definitions is how language works; Of course we can toss away your stupid and incomplete definition and replace it with one that's actually useful.

IF we were to use your definition, then time without beginning cannot be called "infinite time" (because you demand that we don't call it that); But it remains time; and it remains non-finite in duration. So why the FUCK do you demand that we don't call it "Infinite time"? Do you really think that your pathetic and erroneous linguistic argument has an effect on reality? Time with an end, but no beginning is infinite; and it's time. Call it what you want, but it's still infinite time by any sane definition.

 

[bilby]

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

No, we cannot. Unless you can demonstrate that it has a beginning that was a finite time ago; Or you can provide a clear, sound, logical argument why it would entail a contradiction.

This is beyond rational dispute.

It is becoming increasingly clear that you don't understand what 'rational' even means.

As far as time having a beginning.

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

So how the FUCK can you conclude "Ultimately we can say for certain the time in the past was not infinite"? Because YOU chose to DEFINE it as such? Are you sure you haven't suffered a recent concussion?

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".

There is no fucking paradox. Time could simply be infinite, and never have started.

You don't get to sum up the consequences of your great victory in debate, when not one person other than yourself has been persuaded by the drivel you think passes for argument, you arrogant fuck.

You want to prove that the past cannot be infinite, then fucking prove it.

Presenting incomplete definitions and insisting that they be used does not change reality (other than possibly persuading some people who were previously undecided that you are a credulous jerk with no grasp of logic whatsoever). You cannot avoid the burden of proof for your claim; An infinite past remains possible until and unless someone proves that it is not - so put up a proof or STFU.

 

[untermensche]

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

Says who? You? Why should I believe this absurd claim?

Oh my. It is like Sisyphus.

Says the definition of infinite time.

If an amount of time has a beginning and then an end it is finite.

If it begins but has no end and never finishes passing but goes on and on it is infinite.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

It is also the same exact amount of time as time that never begins. Time that never begins is an amount of time that never passes too.

Says the definition.

There is no fucking paradox. Time could simply be infinite, and never have started.

Impossible.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

It is impossible that time that never passes occurred before any moment in time.

 

[bilby]

Says who? You? Why should I believe this absurd claim?

Oh my. It is like Sisyphus.

Says the definition of infinite time.

If an amount of time has a beginning and then an end it is finite.

If it begins but has no end and never finishes passing but goes on and on it is infinite.

Yes.

And if it never begins, then it is infinite no matter where you choose to call the 'end'. If you pick 'now' as the 'end' then you have defined 'the past'; which, as it has no beginning, is infinite.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

No. No it fucking is NOT. Infinite time is an amount of time that is not finite. It may or may not 'pass'. The determinant of whether time has 'passed' is whether it's end is before 'now'. It's magnitude is of zero relevance.

It is also the same exact amount of time as time that never begins.

YES.

Time that never begins is an amount of time that never passes too.

NO!!!

How can you justify this nonsensical claim??

And don't you fucking DARE pretend that a definition is a justification.

Says the definition.

NO.

There is no fucking paradox. Time could simply be infinite, and never have started.

Impossible.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

No, it is NOT.

It is impossible that time that never passes occurred before any moment in time.

Yes, it would be, because time that hasn't passed is called the future.

 

[bilby]

Let's see what untermenshe's definition of 'infinite time' leads us to using logic, shall we:

P1) 'Infinite time' means 'time that never passes'

P2) 'Next year' is always a description of a period of time in the future.

P3) 'Next year' is a period of time that never passes.

C1) From P1 and P3, Next year is infinite time.

It would seem that either next year will be infinite, OR untermenshe's definition is a pile of steaming horse shit.

I know which of these possibilities I feel most inclined to believe.

 

[untermensche]

Oh my. It is like Sisyphus.

Says the definition of infinite time.

If an amount of time has a beginning and then an end it is finite.

If it begins but has no end and never finishes passing but goes on and on it is infinite.

Yes.

And if it never begins, then it is infinite no matter where you choose to call the 'end'. If you pick 'now' as the 'end' then you have defined 'the past'; which, as it has no beginning, is infinite.

Yes that is whole question.

Is it possible time had no beginning?

We do not assume it is possible. We look at the consequences and see if it is possible.

And looking at the consequences is incredibly easy.

But only if you can comprehend that time that does not begin is the same exact amount of time as time that never ends.

If you really understand that then the rest is easy.

Because if you say the time in the past was infinite you are saying an amount of time that never passes has passed at any moment in time.

This is impossible. Therefore it is impossible time had no beginning.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes.

No. No it fucking is NOT. Infinite time is an amount of time that is not finite.

A finite amount of time is an amount of time that could possibly pass.

All finite amounts of time have a beginning and then an end.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that could never pass.

If you say it is an amount of time that can pass then you are saying that infinite time in the future is an amount of time that can pass.

Is it?

It may or may not 'pass'.

An infinite amount of time is an amount of time that can never pass. It is an amount of something. Nothing more.

The amount does not change simply because you describe the same amount in a different way.

The determinant of whether time has 'passed' is whether it's end is before 'now'.

True. Time that ends is time that has passed.

But just because the time ends that is not evidence it was infinite.

It is impossible it was infinite since it is impossible that an amount of time that never passes could have passed before any given moment.

It's magnitude is of zero relevance.

The argument is entirely focused on one thing. The amount of time described by the term "infinite time".

To say the magnitude is not important is to not understand the argument.

 

[untermensche]

Let's see what untermenshe's definition of 'infinite time' leads us to using logic, shall we:

P1) 'Infinite time' means 'time that never passes'

P2) 'Next year' is always a description of a period of time in the future.

My argument is only focused on amount.

Next year is an amount of time that can pass.

How many times must you be told that the argument only deals with the concept of "amount" of time described by the term "infinite time"?

You have not once even addressed the logic of the argument.

You are blind to it.

A kind of dissonance.

 

[bilby]

Let's see what untermenshe's definition of 'infinite time' leads us to using logic, shall we:

P1) 'Infinite time' means 'time that never passes'

P2) 'Next year' is always a description of a period of time in the future.

My argument is only focused on amount.

Next year is an amount of time that can pass.

How many times must you be told that the argument only deals with the concept of "amount" of time described by the term "infinite time"?

None would be a good number, given that it is utter bollocks.

You have not once even addressed the logic of the argument.

Well, that's not true at all.

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?

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?

You are blind to it.

A kind of dissonance.

You have never even mentioned, much less attempted to address, my arguments (re-posted above) showing that your obsession with 'amount of time' is utter crap.

Someone here is blind, but it's not me.

 

[untermensche]

You have never even mentioned, much less attempted to address, my arguments (re-posted above) showing that your obsession with 'amount of time' is utter crap.

Someone here is blind, but it's not me.

If an argument is entirely focused on the idea of "amount" of time described by the concept "infinite time" then saying that is not an obsession.

Ignoring it is a kind of dissonance.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes. A finite amount of time is an amount of time that can possibly pass.

It is impossible for an amount of time that never passes to have passed before any moment in time.

You won't find any other concept except the concept of the "amount" of time described by the concepts "infinite time" and "finite time" in that argument.

To not address "amount" is to not address the argument.

 

[George S]

So I thought I'd watch a YouTube of Sean Carroll discussing his book From Eternity to Here. https://youtu.be/UFFpLTa8bKU

The past and future differ greatly in fundamental character. This is because time has an arrow. An arrow defined by increasing entropy.

Just as a constantly expanding universe implies a time when it was zero size, a constantly increasing entropy implies that there was a time with zero entropy.

We start physics just after the zero time (to avoid divide by zero), and we start physics with a very low but non-zero entropy at that time.

Dr. Carroll takes a guess, and admittedly a guess, as to what may have happened "before" time zero and entropy zero.

He imagines totally empty space with time.* He points out that empty space has energy. And that that energy level fluctuates (QM).

If, perchance, very, very, very improbably ("After all we have an infinite time") a small portion buds off. It is predicted to have local Big Bang, low entropy conditions. (https://youtu.be/UFFpLTa8bKU?t=35m23s)

____
* This thought-experiment spacetime is infinite in all 4 dimensions. It is the multiverse, the bulk.

A prominent physicist is quite happy postulating infinite time for this bulk.

Dear untermensche,

What do you know about the physics of the infinite that Dr. Carroll does not?

 

[bilby]

You have never even mentioned, much less attempted to address, my arguments (re-posted above) showing that your obsession with 'amount of time' is utter crap.

Someone here is blind, but it's not me.

If an argument is entirely focused on the idea of "amount" of time described by the concept "infinite time" then saying that is not an obsession.

Ignoring it is a kind of dissonance.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never passes. A finite amount of time is an amount of time that can possibly pass.

It is impossible for an amount of time that never passes to have passed before any moment in time.

You won't find any other concept except the concept of the "amount" of time described by the concepts "infinite time" and "finite time" in that argument.

To not address "amount" is to not address the argument.

You have no room to talk about 'not addressing the argument'

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?

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).

 

[George S]

To not address "amount" is to not address the argument.

Infinite quantities do not have amounts. {1,2,3,...} does not define an amount.

 

[George S]

Sean Carroll also says approximately this:

Now let us wonder about the origin of this proto-universe. When we go back into negative time we find the arrow of time going in the negative direction with entropy increasing in that direction.

 

[WAB]

To not address "amount" is to not address the argument.

Infinite quantities do not have amounts. {1,2,3,...} does not define an amount.

Hey, I saw a cardinal!

...or was it an ordinal?

Or maybe just an ordinary cardinal?