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

[untermensche]

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

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

It is the concept of an ever increasing amount.

It is not a set amount.

 

[George S]

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?

Cardinality is a way to compare two infinities to decide whether there is a 1-1 correspondence. This is not an amount or size.

Ordinals are ... but you were already first to address them, so carry on. ')

 

[untermensche]

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.

But an infinite amount of time does not differ from an infinite amount of time.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Yet it remains the same amount of time.

Therefore the time in 1953 cannot have passed.

It is an amount of time that can pass.

You simply can't see through your dissonance.

Like a cat trying to learn chess.

There are only two kinds of time in terms of amount. Finite or infinite.

Finite amounts of time can pass.

An infinite amount of time cannot.

 

[bilby]

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.

But an infinite amount of time does not differ from an infinite amount of time.

Only in the same way that a finite amount of time does not differ from a finite amount of time. So 1953 does not differ from 2023 in terms of amount (both are one year); But if you wanted to claim they don't differ in terms of whether or not they have finished, you would be an idiot.

 

[George S]

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

It is the concept of an ever increasing amount.

It is not a set amount.

Why yes. Nor is {-1,-2,-3,...} a set amount.

In a universe with infinite time, time zero is surrounded by two infinities (of equal cardinality) extending in opposite directions from time zero.

The problem of an infinite negative time "passing" is solved by the negative time increasing in absolute value and entropy mirroring our universe.

 

[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.

But an infinite amount of time does not differ from an infinite amount of time.

PLEASE, a personal request. Watch the damn YouTube and address Sean's points you disagree with by timestamp.

Until you demonstrate you have done this, I know you are but a troll.

 

[untermensche]

It is the concept of an ever increasing amount.

It is not a set amount.

Why yes. Nor is {-1,-2,-3,...} a set amount.

In a universe with infinite time, time zero is surrounded by two infinities (of equal cardinality) extending in opposite directions from time zero.

The problem of an infinite negative time "passing" is solved by the negative time increasing in absolute value and entropy mirroring our universe.

No such solution is possible.

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

Nothing allows infinite time to pass.

If it is an amount of time that can pass then it is finite.

 

[untermensche]

But an infinite amount of time does not differ from an infinite amount of time.

PLEASE, a personal request. Watch the damn YouTube and address Sean's points you disagree with by timestamp.

Until you demonstrate you have done this, I know you are but a troll.

I've seen it.

He makes a lot of wild unsupported claims and conclusions.

Any philosophical foundation is completely lacking.

And he is not here to address my arguments. You are.

 

[George S]

PLEASE, a personal request. Watch the damn YouTube and address Sean's points you disagree with by timestamp.

Until you demonstrate you have done this, I know you are but a troll.

I've seen it.

He makes a lot of wild unsupported claims and conclusions.

Any philosophical foundation is completely lacking.

And he is not here to address my arguments. You are.

Hot damn! Your idea of "unsupported" surely differs from the common meaning.

In many ways I addressed your arguments and used Sean's video as support.

Please see Dr. Carroll's C.V. -- I daresay his opinion about physics is to be trusted more than yours.

You haven't watched, have you.

___)

Here's the philosophical perspective. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ let me know when you are done reading.

 

[untermensche]

I've seen it.

He makes a lot of wild unsupported claims and conclusions.

Any philosophical foundation is completely lacking.

And he is not here to address my arguments. You are.

Hot damn! Your idea of "unsupported" surely differs from the common meaning.

In many ways I addressed your arguments and used Sean's video as support.

Please see Dr. Carroll's C.V. -- I daresay his opinion about physics is to be trusted more than yours.

You haven't watched, have you.

If you have some rational argument go ahead and make it.

Your appeals to false authority is simply a fallacy.

This is in the philosophy section for a reason.

There is no such thing as "infinite time". You can't show it to me. You have no evidence of it anywhere.

No physicist knows anything about it.

A physicist can certainly talk about theories of time. But they can't rationally talk about an infinite amount of anything that is real.

 

[untermensche]

But an infinite amount of time does not differ from an infinite amount of time.

Only in the same way that a finite amount of time does not differ from a finite amount of time. So 1953 does not differ from 2023 in terms of amount (both are one year); But if you wanted to claim they don't differ in terms of whether or not they have finished, you would be an idiot.

The only issue in your scenario related to my argument is whether you are talking about an amount of time that can finish or an amount of time that cannot.

An amount of time that can finish is finite.

An amount of time that cannot finish is infinite.

Those are the only two possible options.

But infinite time is always an amount of time that can never finish.

Finite amounts of time can vary in duration. Infinitely.

 

[Phil Scott]

Hey, I saw a cardinal!

...or was it an ordinal?

Or maybe just an ordinary cardinal?

Cardinality is a way to compare two infinities to decide whether there is a 1-1 correspondence. This is not an amount or size.

Ordinals are ... but you were already first to address them, so carry on. ')

On the classical formulation, cardinals end up being identified with a subclass of the ordinals, so if the latter are an amount or size, then I'd guess the former are too.

I'm personally happy enough to say that cardinals are a measure of size.

 

[untermensche]

If five minutes is an amount of time then an infinite number of five minute intervals must also be an amount of time.

Finite amounts of time are not a different kind of time from infinite time. They are just a different amount.

Every finite amount you could choose would be a different amount of time than infinite time. It would be a smaller amount.

Not a different kind of time.

There is only one kind of time.

The past was not a different kind of time than the time that will occur in the future.

Same kind of time.

 

[bilby]

Only in the same way that a finite amount of time does not differ from a finite amount of time. So 1953 does not differ from 2023 in terms of amount (both are one year); But if you wanted to claim they don't differ in terms of whether or not they have finished, you would be an idiot.

The only issue in your scenario related to my argument is whether you are talking about an amount of time that can finish or an amount of time that cannot.

An amount of time that can finish is finite.

An amount of time that cannot finish is infinite.

Those are the only two possible options.

But infinite time is always an amount of time that can never finish.

Finite amounts of time can vary in duration. Infinitely.

You are deeply wrong.

Your religious belief that infinite time cannot finish is (as I already mentioned twice, and you have carefully ignored) mathematically equivalent to belief that a taking a finite number and subtracting infinity yields a finite result.

Your beliefs are in contradiction to mathematics and logic. You cannot get around that by using a non-standard definition for a phrase, and insisting upon that definition; Definitions are descriptive, not proscriptive. Reality is never altered by definitions.

 

[untermensche]

Your religious belief that infinite time cannot finish

Can infinite time in the future finish?

 

[bilby]

Your religious belief that infinite time cannot finish

Can infinite time in the future finish?

No.

Can you grasp that the reversal of that question is "Can infinite time in the past start?", and that the answer to that is also "No"?

Or are you really dumb enough to think that "future" is to "past" as "finish" is to "finish"?

Let me guess - no only are you that dumb; you imagine that others are dumb enough to agree with your dumbness.

You honestly thought that your question was the setup for an unanswerable 'gotcha', didn't you?

You still do, even though I just pointed out how broken your logic is in a way most second-graders would grasp, don't you?

You are going to seriously try to come back with 'If infinite time in the future can't end, then nor can infinite time in the past'; and you will genuinely believe that by doing so you are being clever.

In fact, I estimate that your overconfidence is such that there's a 50-50 chance that you will respond just to the first word of this post, without even reading the rest.

Kruger and Dunning would just adore you.

 

[untermensche]

Can infinite time in the future finish?

No.

You have run out of arguments. They were all worthless anyway.

All you can do now is deny the obvious. What a pretzel you have twisted yourself into.

I can't imagine what it must be like to think so irrationally.

Can you grasp that the reversal of that question is "Can infinite time in the past start?"

Logically what is known beyond doubt is the phrase "time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends".

It is impossible that an amount of time that never ends occurred before any moment in time.

It is impossible the past was infinite. It is impossible gods or time "always existed". That is an irrational thing to claim.

In fact, I estimate that your overconfidence is such that there's a 50-50 chance that you will respond just to the first word of this post, without even reading the rest.

Translation: You know you are spewing nonsense but for some reason can't help yourself.

You are in a state you can't even answer the simplest questions honestly.

Questions as simple as: Can infinite time in the future finish?

 

[beero1000]

No.

You have run out of arguments. They were all worthless anyway.

All you can do now is deny the obvious. What a pretzel you have twisted yourself into.

I can't imagine what it must be like to think so irrationally.

Pretty sure you can.

Can you grasp that the reversal of that question is "Can infinite time in the past start?"

Logically what is known beyond doubt is the phrase "time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends".

It is impossible that an amount of time that never ends occurred before any moment in time.

It is impossible the past was infinite. It is impossible gods or time "always existed". That is an irrational thing to claim.

Yet, not in a way that you can use to convince literally anyone.

In fact, I estimate that your overconfidence is such that there's a 50-50 chance that you will respond just to the first word of this post, without even reading the rest.

Translation: You know you are spewing nonsense but for some reason can't help yourself.

You are in a state you can't even answer the simplest questions honestly.

Questions as simple as: Can infinite time in the future finish?

Translation: You didn't answer the way I wanted you to, so that means you're dishonest. Why won't you be like my strawmen and let me win?

 

[untermensche]

Yet, not in a way that you can use to convince literally anyone.

The Sergeant Schultz ploy. "You know nothing." "You see nothing."

Is infinite time in the future an amount of time that finishes or never finishes?

Explain what is meant by a "finite" amount of time.