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

[Kharakov]

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.

Ok, that's only one type of infinite time, and it's not the real type, since real time never began and an infinite amount of it has always "passed".

If it has no beginning it never passes.

Time has no beginning. It always "passes".

But the past HAS passed. Therefore it could not have no beginning.

Dude. Your logic is like a haiku. It makes as much cents as a zen koan interpreted by a 5th century BC nerfherder.


At any point in eternity, there is an infinite past.

 

[fromderinside]

So if I keep halving the distance in time to a target time from my last measurement infinitely it does not mean that the time lapsed is infinite because it can't happen and be infinite?

Hokay. You gotta justify that one.

 

[Kharakov]

Hey unter, is spacetime continuous?

 

[untermensche]

Not at all. I define an infinite amount of time as an amount of time that never passes.

Ok, that's only one type of infinite time, and it's not the real type, since real time never began and an infinite amount of it has always "passed".

There are not different kinds of infinite time. That is absurd.

You assuming "real" time never began doesn't make it possible.

Infinite time can only be passing. It cannot possibly have passed.

Infinite time is an amount of time that never begins and has an end.

It is also an amount of time that never begins and never finishes. Both describe the same amount of time. Infinite time.

To say infinite time passed before some moment is to say that an amount of time that never begins and never ends passed before that moment.

It is impossible.

Time has no beginning. It always "passes".

No that is what we are trying to figure out. We do not assume our conclusion.

Is it possible that time had no beginning?

The answer turns out to be no.

At any point in eternity, there is an infinite past.

Which proves "eternity" is impossible.

 

[untermensche]

So if I keep halving the distance in time to a target time from my last measurement infinitely it does not mean that the time lapsed is infinite because it can't happen and be infinite?

Hokay. You gotta justify that one.

Dividing some finite amount of time infinitely can be done in the imagination.

But it has nothing to do with the impossibility of an infinite amount of time passing before some moment in time.

 

[untermensche]

Hey unter, is spacetime continuous?

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

Will an infinite future ever end?

 

[Kharakov]

Ok, that's only one type of infinite time, and it's not the real type, since real time never began and an infinite amount of it has always "passed".

There are not different kinds of infinite time. That is absurd.

There are various imaginary types of infinite time, like the kinds you claim exist, and the real type which can be understood via logic and observation.

You assuming "real" time never began doesn't make it possible.

Actually, the fact that time is passing now makes it impossible for time ever to not have been passing before this point.

It is also an amount of time that never begins and never finishes. Both describe the same amount of time. Infinite time.

Sure unter, whatever you say. You can have infinite time that never began, but ends. You can have infinite time that begins, and never ends. etc. etc. There are other types as well- multidimensional time with time loops, information transfer between various points in interconnected timelines, etc. However, we'll stick with what we can deduce by observing reality: time never began, therefore an infinite amount of it has passed.

To say infinite time passed before some moment is to say that an amount of time that never begins and never ends passed before that moment.

It is impossible.

No, it's to say that time without beginning passed before that moment- and guess what, it continues passing past that moment as well. Are you using a stupid equivocation again?

Time has no beginning. It always "passes".

No that is what we are trying to figure out.

Who is this we? You've obviously considered infinite time, and haven't figured it out yet, but a lot of people get it pretty quickly.

Existence has no beginning- there was always something, because nothing has no properties that would allow it to become something. You can use a modified Kalam to arrive at the existence of eternal existence (although it doesn't indicate anything about a God).

From something existing, you can easily arrive at evolution continually happening (change happening is the equivalent of time happening), since something that is not changing cannot begin to change (this is a chang).

From this you get time has always passed.

Is it possible that time had no beginning?

Umm, it's impossible that it had a beginning, so yes. Definitely a possibility- it's a slim one though- probability that time has no beginning is only around 100%.

At any point in eternity, there is an infinite past.

Which proves "eternity" is impossible.

Only to people who don't understand what an infinite past is.

Instead of talking about infinite time, let's focus upon your problem area: the infinite past. Everyone? Can we work on unter's problem area, which is comprehending an infinite past?


The past has no beginning. This means that every point in time is preceded by an infinite amount of time.

 

[Kharakov]

Hey unter, is spacetime continuous?

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

Will an infinite future ever end?

Can you come up with a coherent explanation on what those questions have to do with my question?

 

[untermensche]

There are not different kinds of infinite time. That is absurd.

There are various imaginary types of infinite time, like the kinds you claim exist, and the real type which can be understood via logic and observation.

No.

There are various ways to describe infinite time. They all describe the same thing.

There is not "real" time and "fake" time and "sorta phony" time.

What is hard for people to comprehend is when you say time "without beginning" you have described an amount of time that never ends. You have described an amount of time that never ends passing before every single moment. It is an irrational assumption that falls apart immediately.

Actually, the fact that time is passing now makes it impossible for time ever to not have been passing before this point.

You are claiming an amount of time that never ends, infinite time, has passed already.

You are making no sense.

No that is what we are trying to figure out.

Who is this we?

The "we" is the people who are asking if infinite time in the past is possible and not merely assuming it is.

If we actually ask instead of merely assume we see a very different picture.

When we actually ask if it is possible we clearly see it is not.

It is impossible an amount of time that never passes (time with no beginning) has passed.

Existence has no beginning

Impossible. It is impossible an amount of time that never passes has already passed.

You have no connection to anything that makes sense.

 

[untermensche]

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

Will an infinite future ever end?

Can you come up with a coherent explanation on what those questions have to do with my question?

Right after you show the relevance of the question.

It does not matter how you describe space or time.

Since spacetime is what allows "events", change, we can make the argument using events and not time or space.

It is impossible that infinite events occurred before any event.

A real world event is an ambiguous term but it is not something imaginary. It happened. It can't be chopped up infinitely as if it is imaginary.

 

[fromderinside]

Hold up there Pokey. Planck calculated minimum time.

In physics, the Planck time ( t _P) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. Planck unit is the time required for light to travel in a vacuum a distance of 1 Planck length, which is approximately 5.39 × 10 ⁻⁴⁴ s.

But since that is well beyond our ability to observe precisely it leaves room for many points within that place re human observation. So, it can be chopped up infinitely as if imaginary as you deny. The best we can do as treat it like a limit. similar uncertainty exists is specifying where one object touches another which we approach by putting measurable bounds around our point estimates in voxels.

Voxel (in computer-based modeling or graphic simulation) each of an array of elements of volume that constitute a notional three-dimensional space, especially each of an array of discrete elements into which a representation of a three-dimensional object is divided.

Minimally that would be a plank length cube or tetrahedron.

 

[Kharakov]

There are various imaginary types of infinite time, like the kinds you claim exist, and the real type which can be understood via logic and observation.

No. There are various ways to describe infinite time. They all describe the same thing.

Not if they describe it incorrectly, like you do. If you describe infinite time as you do, you aren't describing infinite time- you're describing an incorrect formulation of infinite time.

What is hard for people to comprehend is when you say time "without beginning" you have described an amount of time that never ends.

That is one possibility. The other is that time without beginning can have an end (or multiple ends). It can have an end and still be infinite- it didn't begin. Time always passed, up until the point at which no change occurred.

Actually, the fact that time is passing now makes it impossible for time ever to not have been passing before this point.

You are claiming an amount of time that never ends, infinite time, has passed already.

No, it's still passing. It just never started passing, it was always passing. So what? What about something always existing don't you understand? Can you specify what you don't understand about the concept of "always existing"?

The "we" is the people who are asking if infinite time in the past is possible and not merely assuming it is. If we actually ask instead of merely assume we see a very different picture.

If you ask, and don't apply logic, you aren't going to get anywhere.

Why don't you understand eternity?

 

[untermensche]

Hold up there Pokey. Planck calculated minimum time.

Therefore time cannot be divided infinitely.

 

[untermensche]

No. There are various ways to describe infinite time. They all describe the same thing.

Not if they describe it incorrectly, like you do.

You can model infinite time several ways, but no matter how you model infinite time it is always an amount of time that can never pass.

It is always the same amount of time.

What is hard for people to comprehend is when you say time "without beginning" you have described an amount of time that never ends.

That is one possibility. The other is that time without beginning can have an end (or multiple ends).

It is not a possibility. It is an amount of time. The amount of time in infinite time. We describe amounts positively, as some positive amount.

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

If you say an amount of time with no beginning just passed you have said an amount of time that never ends has passed.

You have also said an amount of time that never begins or never ends has passed. Same amount of time.

You are claiming an amount of time that never ends, infinite time, has passed already.

No, it's still passing. It just never started passing, it was always passing. So what?

It is impossible.

To be "always passing" means that before every moment in time an amount of time that never begins or ends has passed.

Impossible.

 

[bilby]

What is hard for people to comprehend is when you say time "without beginning" you have described an amount of time that never ends.

This is particularly hard to comprehend due to it's status as utter drivel.

- - - Updated - - -

Hold up there Pokey. Planck calculated minimum time.

Therefore time cannot be divided infinitely.

No; Therefore time cannot be observed at an arbitrarily small scale. Whether it can be divided infinitely is therefore impossible to determine experimentally.

 

[bilby]

To be "always passing" means that before every moment in time an amount of time that never begins or ends has passed.

Impossible.

FTFY.

Your unjustified and incorrect assertion that infinite time never ends is causing you to reach stupid and unsupported conclusions.

You need to stop doing that.

Something that never begins may or may not end. By determining that something never begins, we determine exactly NOTHING about whether or not it ends, or where that end is (if it has one).

This is true for all entities, including (but certainly not limited to) time; If you want to treat time differently from everything else in this regard, then you need a very strong justification for doing so - and repeating the falsehood "infinite time means time without end" ad nauseam does not come even close to qualifying as a justification, strong or otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

What is hard for people to comprehend is when you say time "without beginning" you have described an amount of time that never ends.

This is particularly hard to comprehend due to it's status as utter drivel.

Go ahead and count it. Start with last year as year # 1.

The year before would be year #2.

The year before would be year # 3.

If there is no beginning. The amount of years is without end.

That you see it as drivel is your problem.

- - - Updated - - -

To be "always passing" means that before every moment in time an amount of time that never begins or ends has passed.

FTFY.

You didn't change it at all.

It is still the same amount of time.

That you don't understand you have made no change to the amount of time is your problem.

 

[bilby]

This is particularly hard to comprehend due to it's status as utter drivel.

Go ahead and count it. Start with last year as year # 1.

The year before would be year #2.

The year before would be year # 3.

If there is no beginning.

Indeed.

The amount of years is without end.

No, it is without beginning. If you count backwards, then as it's without beginning, you will never finish counting; but time doesn't run backwards.

You want to go ahead and count it. It's the past; so start at last year as year #1. Time moves forwards; so year #2 is this year - and that's where the past ENDS. Therefore the past HAS AN END.

Now, if there is no beginning, the past is also INFINITE. If you count backwards, you NEVER reach the BEGINNING.

It is an INFINITE time, which ENDS now.

 

[bilby]

This is particularly hard to comprehend due to it's status as utter drivel.

Go ahead and count it. Start with last year as year # 1.

The year before would be year #2.

The year before would be year # 3.

If there is no beginning. The amount of years is without end.

That you see it as drivel is your problem.

- - - Updated - - -

To be "always passing" means that before every moment in time an amount of time that never begins or ends has passed.

FTFY.

You didn't change it at all.

It is still the same amount of time.

That you don't understand you have made no change to the amount of time is your problem.

That you don't understand that the AMOUNT tells us NOTHING about whether it ENDS is your problem.

I understand that you IMAGINE that an infinite amount cannot end; But that is UNTRUE, and is the root of your error here.

 

[beero1000]

Hold up there Pokey. Planck calculated minimum time.

But since that is well beyond our ability to observe precisely it leaves room for many points within that place re human observation. So, it can be chopped up infinitely as if imaginary as you deny. The best we can do as treat it like a limit. similar uncertainty exists is specifying where one object touches another which we approach by putting measurable bounds around our point estimates in voxels.

Voxel (in computer-based modeling or graphic simulation) each of an array of elements of volume that constitute a notional three-dimensional space, especially each of an array of discrete elements into which a representation of a three-dimensional object is divided.

Minimally that would be a plank length cube or tetrahedron.

Planck time is not the minimum time interval, it is the minimum measurable time interval. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explicitly require continuous space and time.