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

[beero1000]

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.

For someone claiming their position is such a self-evident truth, you sure have a lot of trouble convincing anyone besides yourself. Insisting that your 'arguments' are actually logically valid is more like continuing to state that "No prisoner has ever escaped from Stalag 13" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Maybe if we redefine "prisoner" and "escape" it would work...

 

[untermensche]

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.

For someone claiming their position is such a self-evident truth, you sure have a lot of trouble convincing anyone besides yourself. Insisting that your 'arguments' are actually logically valid is more like continuing to state that "No prisoner has ever escaped from Stalag 13" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Maybe if we redefine "prisoner" and "escape" it would work...

Anybody can refuse to engage and anybody can claim nothing is clear.

It is dishonest and transparent.

You too have run out of arguments, you never had any really, and have nothing left but a childish refusal to engage.

If you have no clue whether infinite time in the future is an amount of time that finishes or doesn't finish you have business here.

If you refuse to define anything or make any arguments or respond to any arguments you are of no use.

Have a pleasant sleep.

 

[fast]

If I say something is true, and if what I say is true, then what I say may or may not be true by definition. It may be true but not true by definition. If I say something is the case and it's true by definition, then I'm using the "is" of identity, but if what I say is true but true for some other reason, then I'm using the "is" of predication.

For example, if the definition of "bachelor" is "unmarried male", then I've used the "is" of identity, but if I say a bachelor is male, then although what I said is true, it's not by definition, even though it's incorporated in the definition, so such a use of "is" is the "is" of predication.

What I have not eliminated is whether the claim that what is purportedly a definition is in fact a definition and thus isn't an underlying "is" of predication.

 

[untermensche]

Suddenly people have refused to define anything. Their absurdity is right before them but they simply will not look at it.

What is infinite time into the future? Is it anything?

Is it something that cannot be explained using any concepts? A paradox itself? An absurdity?

There are only two options. No matter which "is" you use.

From today forward time can either go for a while and then end or it can continue without ever ending.

Which one would be called "infinite time"?

 

[George S]

Suddenly people have refused to define anything. Their absurdity is right before them but they simply will not look at it.

What is infinite time into the future? Is it anything?

Is it something that cannot be explained using any concepts? A paradox itself? An absurdity?

There are only two options. No matter which "is" you use.

From today forward time can either go for a while and then end or it can continue without ever ending.

Which one would be called "infinite time"?

Let us use now as the zero of a timeline. [-time, 0, + time] <-- now = 0

The 5th grade version of infinity is a procedure, count, or motion that never ends.

Your claim (correct me if I'm wrong) is that an infinite number of years cannot have passed before now because an infinite number of years can never completely pass.

This rules out time that does not begin. {-time} has a smallest member.

Do you agree that this is your argument?

 

[fast]

If what you say is true, and if it's a necessary truth, then you don't need an argument, and saying that you're begging the question is faulty, but if what you say is true, and if it's a contingent truth, then you do need an argument. If you present a contingent truth as a necessary truth when it's not a necessary truth and you provide no argument, then you are begging the question.

We don't define things. We define words. Collectively, that is, not individually.

 

[fromderinside]

There is nothing logically possible about it.

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

Explain why the following formulation works.

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing logically possible about it.

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

Explain why the following formulation works.

What do you want to know about it?

It is a way infinity is dealt with in mathematics.

You need other concepts like "limits" so you don't really have to deal with infinite elements.

But this is a discussion of infinite time.

Not an infinite number of imaginary entities.

There is no way to just deal with it by adding other concepts. You can't perform calculations on it.

 

[untermensche]

Let us use now as the zero of a timeline. [-time, 0, + time] <-- now = 0

The 5th grade version of infinity is a procedure, count, or motion that never ends.

Your claim (correct me if I'm wrong) is that an infinite number of years cannot have passed before now because an infinite number of years can never completely pass.

This rules out time that does not begin. {-time} has a smallest member.

Do you agree that this is your argument?

The argument has nothing to do with an imaginary number line.

It is only about one thing.

It is about the amount of time described by the term "infinite time".

And the logical consequence of defining "infinite time" as time that never passes.

Is time in the future that never passes "infinite time"?

Or is that a 5th grade understanding?

 

[bilby]

No.

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

You asked a yes or no question. The answer is "No". It's not an argument; and as far as I can tell, it's the answer you were expecting.

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

How is saying that Infinite time in the future cannot finish 'denying the obvious'?

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

Your lack of imagination has long since ceased to impress anyone but yourself.

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".

Yes.

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

You missed a step. when we add it back in, it is very clear why you are wrong. Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end - infinity - But "time without beginning" is not the same thing as "time without end", so when you use them interchangeably, you make an arse of yourself.

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

"Time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends". But it does not describe "time that never ends"

"The year 1953" describes the exact same amount of time as "the year 2023". But it does not describe "the year 2023"

How do we know that 1953 has ended, but 2023 has not? Looking at the amount of time doesn't give any clues - they are the same amount of time.

How do we know that the past has ended, but the future has not? Looking at the amount of time doesn't give any clues - they are the same amount of time.

The way to tell whether a given period of time has ended is to look at the end of the period - if it is earlier than 'now' then that period of time has ended. If it is earlier than a given time T, then it will have ended by time T. The amount of time - its duration - is not information we need when determining when a period of time will end. If a period of time (eg 'the future', or 'all of time') has NO end, then it is infinite.

The way to tell whether a given period of time has begun is to look at the start of the period - if it is earlier than 'now' then that period of time has begun. If it is earlier than a given time T, then it will have begun by time T. The amount of time - its duration - is not information we need when determining when a period of time began. If a period of time (eg 'the past', or 'all of time') has NO beginning, then it is infinite.

You cannot tell whether or not a period of time has ended by reference only to the amount of time. I am thinking of a 20,000 year period. Has it ended?

It is impossible the past was infinite.

Just not in any way that you can show.

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

Gods don't enter into it; before you can claim that they always existed, you need to define what they are, and show that they exist at all.

But time? I am happy to accept that time exists, so unless you are claiming that it doesn't, there is nothing irrational about the idea that it always existed. It's practically a tautology - there cannot be a time at which time did not exist.

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 just as bad at guessing what I mean as you are at logic. I suggest you stick to responding to what I write, rather than what you think I might be thinking.

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?

You asked a yes or no question. I gave my answer. The answer is "No".

 

[bilby]

If your logic requires that you consider:

"time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends"​

to imply:

"time without beginning" must therefore never end​

Then you need to justify making that inference. Failure to do so makes this a non-sequitur fallacy; And fallacious logic can prove things that are untrue:

1953 describes the exact same amount of time as "time that ends on December 31, 1953"

1953 describes an amount of time equal to one year

2023 describes an amount of time equal to one year

1953 describes the exact same amount of time as 2023

Therefore 2023 ends on December 31, 1953​

 

[untermensche]

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

Yes.

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

You missed a step. when we add it back in, it is very clear why you are wrong. Time without beginning is the same amount of time as time without end - infinity - But "time without beginning" is not the same thing as "time without end", so when you use them interchangeably, you make an arse of yourself.

This is a step that is not needed. That you somehow think it is needed yet give no reason for needing it is evidence of that. You simply insist it is needed without any reason given why it is needed.

I do not need to say that a year in the past is the same amount of time as a year in the future BUT it is not the same thing. Saying it is not the same thing is clearly understood and meaningless. All that matters is whether or not it is the same amount of time.

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

Definitely!

And time that never begins is the exact same amount of time as an amount of time that never ends.

"Time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends". But it does not describe "time that never ends"

Right. It only describes the same amount.

An amount of time that never ends.

"The year 1953" describes the exact same amount of time as "the year 2023". But it does not describe "the year 2023"

True. But they are both the same amount of time. An amount that can end.

How do we know that 1953 has ended, but 2023 has not? Looking at the amount of time doesn't give any clues - they are the same amount of time.

They are both an amount of time that can end.

We clearly know that.

How do we know that the past has ended, but the future has not? Looking at the amount of time doesn't give any clues - they are the same amount of time.

Here you are just ASSUMING the past is infinite.

The way to tell whether a given period of time has ended is to look at the end of the period - if it is earlier than 'now' then that period of time has ended. If it is earlier than a given time T, then it will have ended by time T. The amount of time - its duration - is not information we need when determining when a period of time will end. If a period of time (eg 'the future', or 'all of time') has NO end, then it is infinite.

All finite periods of time have an end. Infinite periods of time never end.

If the time ends you know there was not infinite time before it.

You cannot tell whether or not a period of time has ended by reference only to the amount of time. I am thinking of a 20,000 year period. Has it ended?

You can say for certain it is a period of time that can end.

Finite periods of time can end. Infinite periods of time cannot.

 

[untermensche]

If your logic requires that you consider:

"time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends"​

to imply:

"time without beginning" must therefore never end​

It is an amount of time that can NEVER end.

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

And saying it is not the same exact time in reference to some observer is understood and meaningless.

 

[bilby]

If your logic requires that you consider:

"time without beginning" describes the exact same amount of time as "time that never ends"​

to imply:

"time without beginning" must therefore never end​

It is an amount of time that can NEVER end.

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

And saying it is not the same exact time in reference to some observer is understood and meaningless.

Then you need to justify making that inference. Failure to do so makes this a non-sequitur fallacy; And fallacious logic can prove things that are untrue.

 

[bilby]

All finite periods of time have an end. Infinite periods of time never end.

If the time ends you know there was not infinite time before it.

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, and has a defined end.

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.

The second part of your claim "All finite periods of time have an end. Infinite periods of time never end" is false; it is mathematically equivalent to the claim that "if we take a finite number, and subtract infinity from it, the answer must be a finite number".

You are simply wrong. You are as obviously and arithmetically wrong as if you claimed that five minus two equals ten.

 

[untermensche]

It is an amount of time that can NEVER end.

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

And saying it is not the same exact time in reference to some observer is understood and meaningless.

Then you need to justify making that inference. Failure to do so makes this a non-sequitur fallacy; And fallacious logic can prove things that are untrue.

Infinite time in an amount of time that never ends.

Infinite time is also an amount of time that never begins.

If the past never began then it was an amount of time that never ends.

All you have to do is try to count it to understand.

Start with the past year as year number 1 and the year before as year 2 and so on.

If there is no beginning then it is clear the number of years in your count will be without end.

 

[untermensche]

Two immortal men met.

One said he just walked infinite miles.

The other said he just walked a finite number of miles.

Who is the liar?

 

[bilby]

Then you need to justify making that inference. Failure to do so makes this a non-sequitur fallacy; And fallacious logic can prove things that are untrue.

Infinite time in an amount of time that never ends.

That's one possibility. But it's incomplete. An amount of time that never ends is infinite; But infinite time might or might not end.

Infinite time is also an amount of time that never begins.

That's another possibility. But it's incomplete. An amount of time that never begins is infinite; But infinite time might or might not have a beginning.

If the past never began then it was an amount of time that never ends.

That's not true.

If the past never began then it is infinite (whether it ends or not); An amount of time that never ends is also infinite (whether it begins or not). But it is incorrect to infer that two infinite amounts of time must have the same endpoint; or that any given infinite amount of time must not have an endpoint at all.

If time is unbounded at both ends, then every point in time is at both the beginning and the end of an infinite amount of time.

We know that the past ends. We know that if it never began, it was infinite. We don't know whether or not it began; and we cannot derive that knowledge from either of these known facts. If we subtract the duration of the past from the time now, the result is the beginning of time. If the duration is infinite, then the beginning is an infinite time in the past. Which is equivalent to not having a beginning.

For infinite time in the past to have a beginning, we would have to subtract infinity from now, and get a finite result.

Infinite time in the past has an end, because if it doesn't, it's not in the past.

Any finite number, minus infinity, always yields an infinite result.

 

[untermensche]

What do you get if you subtract infinity from a finite number?

Negative infinity.

The same exact amount as positive infinity.

If time has no beginning, then the past is infinite in duration, and has a defined end.

If there is an end then the time before it could not have been infinite.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never ends.

You think drawing a line with an arrow at the end is the same thing as completing an infinity.

You don't understand the difference between conceptualizing infinite time and actually completing it.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite time in an amount of time that never ends.

That's one possibility. But it's incomplete.

It's not one possibility. It is one way to describe the amount.

Infinite time has only one amount, not two.

An amount of time that never ends is infinite; But infinite time might or might not end.

It is an amount that can never end.

The amount does not change.

Your magic changing amounts of time expressed by "infinite time" is absurd.

Infinite time is ALWAYS an amount of time that never ends.

The amount of time described by infinite time does not change when you describe infinite time differently.