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

[bilby]

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

Negative infinity.

The same exact amount as positive infinity.

Correct.

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.

That contradicts your correct answer, above.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never ends.

If you pick any point in time, T, as the end of a period of time; and you then subtract infinity from it, you have defined an infinite period of time, that has an end.

So you are wrong; And you just demonstrated that you know that you are wrong. You just don't appear to understand that you know that you are wrong.

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

You don't seem to know what YOU think; So working out what I think is really too advanced for you to attempt at this stage.

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

You don't understand very much at all; least of all what I do or do not understand.

 

[bilby]

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.

AMOUNT tells us NOTHING about ENDINGS

The amount does not change.

I know. I don't care; and you have no reason whatsoever to care.

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

I am changing nothing; I am just not so in awe of the word 'infinity' as to lose all reason.

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

An amount of time might or might not end; An infinite amount of time might or might not end. Nothing about 'amount' says anything about endings. Endings might tell us about amount, but NOT the other way around.

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

Nor does it tell us jack-shit about whether or not there is an ending.

 

[untermensche]

Negative infinity.

The same exact amount as positive infinity.

Correct.

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.

That contradicts your correct answer, above.

A negative infinity of time is an amount of time that never ends too.

No contradiction.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never ends.

If you pick any point in time, T, as the end of a period of time; and you then subtract infinity from it, you have defined an infinite period of time, that has an end.

If we assume the past was infinite no matter what, we will conclude the past was infinite. Even if it is impossible it was infinite.

Your subtracting infinity scenario is merely assuming the past was infinite. It is not evidence or an argument showing it was.

But if we assume the past was infinite and look at the amount of time that must pass before any event can occur we will see it is an amount of time that can never end.

- - - Updated - - -

AMOUNT tells us NOTHING about ENDINGS

Can an infinite amount of time in the future end?

Do finite amounts of time end?

 

[bilby]

Correct.

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.

That contradicts your correct answer, above.

A negative infinity of time is an amount of time that never ends too.

No contradiction.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never ends.

If you pick any point in time, T, as the end of a period of time; and you then subtract infinity from it, you have defined an infinite period of time, that has an end.

If we assume the past was infinite no matter what, we will conclude the past was infinite. Even if it is impossible it was infinite.

Your subtracting infinity scenario is merely assuming the past was infinite. It is not evidence or an argument showing it was.

It is showing that there is no contradiction entailed by the assumption that it is. It shows that it is not impossible, as you claim; Of course it doesn't prove anything else, because the assumption might be incorrect.

But if we assume the past was infinite and look at the amount of time that must pass before any event can occur we will see it is an amount of time that can never end.

Only if we think that by subtracting infinity from a finite number, X, we have shown that X was infinite. Which is insane.

- - - Updated - - -

AMOUNT tells us NOTHING about ENDINGS

Can an infinite amount of time in the future end?

No. Because you defined a beginning. Amount plus beginning is enough to define an ending. Amount on its own is NOT.

You do know that by saying 'in the future' you defined a period with a beginning (at now), right?

Do finite amounts of time end?

Yes; because 'finite' implies a beginning and an end. The amount is irrelevant; finite time is time with a beginning and an end regardless of amount.

Amount tells us nothing about ending.

20,000 years is an amount. Has it ended?

 

[untermensche]

Your subtracting infinity scenario is merely assuming the past was infinite. It is not evidence or an argument showing it was.

It is showing that there is no contradiction entailed by the assumption that it is.

There is a huge contradiction.

You saying it is possible because you think the beginning to a number line is the end does not get around it. No infinity has been realized because it can be conceptualized with a line.

The amount of time included in time without beginning can easily be determined by counting it.

The last year in the past is year 1. The year before that is year 2. And so on.....

The amount of years in time without beginning is without end. That is time without end.

Can an infinite amount of time in the future end?

No. Because you defined a beginning. Amount plus beginning is enough to define an ending. Amount on its own is NOT.

It can't end because it is an amount of time that never ends. It would be without an end even if it had no beginning. Defining a beginning changes nothing about the amount. Just like defining an end to time without beginning does not change the amount. It would be the same amount with no end.

Do finite amounts of time end?

Yes; because 'finite' implies a beginning and an end.

Yes. Finite amounts have both a beginning and and end.

Infinite amounts of time either have no beginning, or have no end, or have neither.

These all describe the exact same amount of time.

An amount of time that never ends.

 

[untermensche]

There is no difference in the amount of time in "time with no beginning and an end" or "time with no beginning and no end".

These both describe the exact same amount of time.

 

[bilby]

It is showing that there is no contradiction entailed by the assumption that it is.

There is a huge contradiction.

You saying it is possible because you think the beginning to a number line is the end does not get around it.

I don't think that the beginning of a number line is anything other than its beginning.

No infinity has been realized because it can be conceptualized with a line.

I don't feel the need to conceptualize infinity with a line; If you don't find that helpful, then you too are under no obligation to visualize it in this way. All you need to do is to be logical and consistent. You are currently being neither.

The amount of time included in time without beginning can easily be determined by counting it.

The last year in the past is year 1. The year before that is year 2. And so on.....

The amount of years in time without beginning is without end. That is time without end.

OK. If you say so. I suppose you are now going to pretend that you didn't use the word 'end' in two distinctly different ways. But you did, whether or not you realize it.

That's why it's important to avoid equivocal language.

Can an infinite amount of time in the future end?

No. Because you defined a beginning. Amount plus beginning is enough to define an ending. Amount on its own is NOT.

It can't end because it is an amount of time that never ends.

No, it never ends because it both has a beginning, and is infinite.

It would be without an end even if it had no beginning.

Wrong. It was defined as having a beginning when you called it 'the future'.

Defining a beginning changes nothing about the amount.

Unless you also define an end, yes.

Just like defining an end to time without beginning does not change the amount. It would be the same amount with no end.

Yes. Yes it would. It would be infinite time. With a defined end. And no beginning.

Do finite amounts of time end?

Yes; because 'finite' implies a beginning and an end.

Yes. Finite amounts have both a beginning and and end.

Infinite amounts of time either have no beginning, or have no end, or have neither.

These all describe the exact same amount of time.

Yes.

An amount of time that never ends.

Or an amount that never begins. Or an amount the neither begins, nor ends.

 

[bilby]

There is no difference in the amount of time in "time with no beginning and an end" or "time with no beginning and no end".

These both describe the exact same amount of time.

That is true.

It does absolutely NOTHING to support your position in any way; but it is true, nevertheless.

Well done! I am afraid I don't have any gold stars to hand out.

 

[untermensche]

The amount of time included in time without beginning can easily be determined by counting it.

The last year in the past is year 1. The year before that is year 2. And so on.....

The amount of years in time without beginning is without end. That is time without end.

OK. If you say so.

So we are done.

You agree the amount of time in time without beginning is an amount of time without end.

But that is impossible. It is impossible that an amount of time without end could have passed before any moment in time.

I suppose you are now going to pretend that you didn't use the word 'end' in two distinctly different ways.

I use it to describe amounts of time.

Infinite amounts of time have no end. Even if they are allegedly in the past.

Finite amounts of time do.

It can't end because it is an amount of time that never ends.

No, it never ends because it both has a beginning, and is infinite.

Infinite time describes an amount of time that never ends.

It also describes an amount of time that never begins.

Both are the same amount of time. These are merely different ways to describe the exact same amount of time.

Or an amount that never begins. Or an amount the neither begins, nor ends.

Exactly. An amount of time that doesn't begin and ends is the exact same amount of time as time that never begins and never ends.

Saying the past ends makes no difference. It is still an amount of time that never ends.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no difference in the amount of time in "time with no beginning and an end" or "time with no beginning and no end".

These both describe the exact same amount of time.

That is true.

It does absolutely NOTHING to support your position in any way; but it is true, nevertheless.

Well done! I am afraid I don't have any gold stars to hand out.

It proves your nonsense about the past ending is a very bad argument.

An infinite past ending or not ending is the same amount of time.

 

[bilby]

OK. If you say so.

So we are done.

You agree the amount of time in time without beginning is an amount of time without end.

But that is impossible. It is impossible that an amount of time without end could have passed before any moment in time.

I suppose you are now going to pretend that you didn't use the word 'end' in two distinctly different ways.

I use it to describe amounts of time.

And to describe the direction of time. You don't seem to be aware that you did so, but you did.

Infinite amounts of time have no end. Even if they are allegedly in the past.

That's both stupid and wrong. Time in the past ends at now by definition. Infinite time in the past ends now (or sooner). Finite time in the past ends now (or sooner). That's what 'past' means.

Finite amounts of time do.

It can't end because it is an amount of time that never ends.

No, it never ends because it both has a beginning, and is infinite.

Infinite time describes an amount of time that never ends.

It also describes an amount of time that never begins.

Both are the same amount of time. These are merely different ways to describe the exact same amount of time.

Yes, and in the latter case, an amount of time that ENDS.

Or an amount that never begins. Or an amount the neither begins, nor ends.

Exactly. An amount of time that doesn't begin and ends is the exact same amount of time as time that never begins and never ends.

Saying the past ends makes no difference. It is still an amount of time that never ends.

Surely you must be able to see that "and ends" is NOT the same as "never ends"?

When you contradict yourself, that's a strong hint that you are making no sense.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no difference in the amount of time in "time with no beginning and an end" or "time with no beginning and no end".

These both describe the exact same amount of time.

That is true.

It does absolutely NOTHING to support your position in any way; but it is true, nevertheless.

Well done! I am afraid I don't have any gold stars to hand out.

It proves your nonsense about the past ending is a very bad argument.

No, it really doesn't.

An infinite past ending or not ending is the same amount of time.

An infinite past not ending is IMPOSSIBLE. If it hasn't ended, it's not the past.

But there is nothing wrong with an infinite past not beginning.

 

[Juma]

Untermensche: what do you mean by ”pass” in ”infinite time cannot pass”?

 

[ryan]

Untermensche: what do you mean by ”pass” in ”infinite time cannot pass”?

I am interested in this question, and I have been thinking about starting a thread just for it.

What do you think it means if anything? I am starting to have definite thoughts about it.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche: what do you mean by ”pass” in ”infinite time cannot pass”?

What does it mean that the last hour just passed?

What does it mean that a year just passed?

It means an amount of time ended.

It proves the time was not infinite.

 

[untermensche]

I use it to describe amounts of time.

And to describe the direction of time. You don't seem to be aware that you did so, but you did.

Time only has one direction. It passes only in one direction.

But an infinite amount of time can never pass in any direction.

Infinite amounts of time never pass. They never end.

Infinite amounts of time have no end. Even if they are allegedly in the past.

That's both stupid and wrong. Time in the past ends at now by definition. Infinite time in the past ends now (or sooner)....

No it is impossible infinite time ended anywhere.

It is an amount of time that never passes. Never ends.

You are merely assuming the past was infinite. Not demonstrating it in any way.

What you can't see is, the fact that it ended at the present is proof it was not infinite. Infinite time never passes. It never has an end.

Surely you must be able to see that "and ends" is NOT the same as "never ends"?

Using red lettering does not help.

It is the exact same amount of time.

Time that never begins and has an end is the same exact amount of time as time that never begins and never ends.

To say that infinite time occurred before any moment is to say an amount of time that never begins or ends occurred before that moment.

Impossible.

 

[fast]

Nm

 

[Kharakov]

Nm

lol. Remember, untermensche defines anything eternal as having a beginning.

unterEternal: Started at some point, has existed for a finite amount of time.

Eternal: always existed, therefore has been around for an infinite amount of time. I can name one eternal thing off the top of my head. Time.

 

[untermensche]

Nm

lol. Remember, untermensche defines anything eternal as having a beginning.

Not at all.

I define an infinite amount of time as an amount of time that never passes.

If it has no beginning it never passes.

But the past HAS passed.

Therefore it could not have no beginning.

 

[bilby]

Untermensche: what do you mean by ”pass” in ”infinite time cannot pass”?

What does it mean that the last hour just passed?

What does it mean that a year just passed?

It means an amount of time ended.

And if that amount of time was infinite, it also means that it started an infinite time ago - that is, it never had a beginning.

It proves the time was not infinite.

No, it doesn't.

 

[bilby]

And to describe the direction of time. You don't seem to be aware that you did so, but you did.

Time only has one direction. It passes only in one direction.

But an infinite amount of time can never pass in any direction.

Why not? The beginning of an amount of time in the past is at now minus the amount of time. Any finite number minus infinity is infinity; if time started an infinite time ago, then the past is infinite. This is simple arithmetic. Your only objection to it is that you don't like it - but reality is under no obligation to consider your feelings.

Infinite amounts of time never pass. They never end.

Prove it.

Infinite amounts of time have no end. Even if they are allegedly in the past.

That's both stupid and wrong. Time in the past ends at now by definition. Infinite time in the past ends now (or sooner)....

No it is impossible infinite time ended anywhere.

It is an amount of time that never passes. Never ends.

No, it isn't. You don't change reality by changing your definitions; you are just WRONG.

You are merely assuming the past was infinite. Not demonstrating it in any way.

What you can't see is, the fact that it ended at the present is proof it was not infinite. Infinite time never passes. It never has an end.

ONLY if you want to claim that a finite number minus infinity has a finite result. Which you shouldn't want to claim, because it would be stupid and wrong.

Surely you must be able to see that "and ends" is NOT the same as "never ends"?

Using red lettering does not help.

It is the exact same amount of time.

Can you see that "and ends" is NOT the same as "never ends"?

You are contradicting yourself, which is rarely a sign of clear logical thinking. Red lettering probably doesn't help, if you seriously can't see the contradiction in what you are saying.

Time that never begins and has an end is the same exact amount of time as time that never begins and never ends.

I think red lettering helps. You are correct here; but your conclusion that time that has an end cannot end is fucking insane.

To say that infinite time occurred before any moment is to say an amount of time that never begins or ends occurred before that moment.

Impossible.

No, it really isn't. At least, not in any way you have even begun to demonstrate.

 

[bilby]

lol. Remember, untermensche defines anything eternal as having a beginning.

Not at all.

I define an infinite amount of time as an amount of time that never passes.

You are free to do so; But you should be aware that:

a) This doesn't affect reality in any way; and

b) It's pointless and confusing.

All you have done is to declare that if there is a period of time that has passed, and that was infinite in duration, you will not allow it to be called 'an infinite amount of time'. There is no benefit to this new and exclusionary definition for the phrase 'an infinite amount of time', so I would anticipate that nobody else is going to adopt your definition; But as long as you use it consistently, there's nothing to stop you from behaving in a way that makes it more difficult for you to converse with speakers of English. You can define the phrase 'A cat with stripes' to mean 'a dog' if you like. But it will still be pointless and confusing.

Everyone else defines the phrase 'an infinite amount of time' as 'an amount of time that is infinite', just so you are aware. You should bear that in mind, so that you don't get any more confused.

'Infinite' can be defined in a number of ways; None of which include 'never passes' without further qualification. 'Infinite' and 'never passes' are not synonymous in English, no matter how much you might want them to be.

If it has no beginning it never passes.

That's simply untrue. But if you think it is true, you are welcome to try to change my mind - all you need to do is to present a clear, sound and logical argument in support of this claim.

But the past HAS passed.

That, at least, we can agree on.

Therefore it could not have no beginning.

That's still a non-sequitur, no matter how many times you repeat it.