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

[untermensche]

That's a lie. Show me how.

Multiple people have. It doesn't make a difference. You refuse to acknowledge the truth.

That is another lie. The only thing anybody has done here is CLAIM it is possible for an infinite amount of time to pass. They look at a number line and somehow think it is possible that you can transverse infinite numbers. They confuse the end of an infinite line for it's beginning.

It is impossible to count infinite numbers. It is impossible to travel infinite miles. It is impossible to have infinite time in the past. No infinity can be realized.

One of these things is not like the others.

It's impossible to count infinite numbers; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite numbers (for example, the natural numbers are infinite).

You don't "have them" anywhere. It is impossible to have them. They are not something that can be had.

You do not "have" infinite integers by writing "..." You do not "have" anything except three dots.

In this world the only things you can have are finite.

It's impossible to travel infinite miles; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite miles (for example, the number of miles due East of any point on the Earth's surface, other than the poles).

You don't "have" anything by imagining something. Hey look I "have" an eternal god.

And you cannot even imagine infinite miles. You cannot "have" it.

It's impossible to experience infinite time; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite time (for example, the amount of time in the future if there is no end to time).

Infinite time is the future cannot be "had" by anyone.

You confuse conceptualizing and imagining with "having".

Having is not doing.

If I "have" a shirt I possess it. I "have" the whole thing.

If the past is infinite, then the past was always infinite, and infinite time has always passed.

The only thing is. It is impossible.

It is impossible to "have" infinite time anywhere. It is impossible for infinite time to pass. That is the definition. Time that never passes.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche offers us the opportunity to explore the appearance that there's a compatibility issue with an infinite past and us being in the here and now. By his assertion, we couldn't be in the present if an infinite numbers of years must have already passed us by since an infinite number of years ago has no beginning of time. Since we are alive in the here and now, then on his account, an infinite number of years past is an impossibility.

No appearance. There is an absolute conflict with the idea of infinite time and the idea that infinite time could ever end, ever pass, ever be done with.

It's like thinking you could have a pile of infinite bricks with a fixed size.

The size of the past at any given moment is fixed.

It could not be infinite in size.

 

[bilby]

That's a lie. Show me how.

Multiple people have. It doesn't make a difference. You refuse to acknowledge the truth.

That is another lie. The only thing anybody has done here is CLAIM it is possible for an infinite amount of time to pass. They look at a number line and somehow think it is possible that you can transverse infinite numbers. They confuse the end of an infinite line for it's beginning.

It is impossible to count infinite numbers. It is impossible to travel infinite miles. It is impossible to have infinite time in the past. No infinity can be realized.

One of these things is not like the others.

It's impossible to count infinite numbers; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite numbers (for example, the natural numbers are infinite).

You don't "have them" anywhere. It is impossible to have them. They are not something that can be had.

You do not "have" infinite integers by writing "..." You do not "have" anything except three dots.

In this world the only things you can have are finite.

It's impossible to travel infinite miles; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite miles (for example, the number of miles due East of any point on the Earth's surface, other than the poles).

You don't "have" anything by imagining something. Hey look I "have" an eternal god.

And you cannot even imagine infinite miles. You cannot "have" it.

It's impossible to experience infinite time; but it's perfectly possible to have infinite time (for example, the amount of time in the future if there is no end to time).

Infinite time is the future cannot be "had" by anyone.

You confuse conceptualizing and imagining with "having".

Having is not doing.

If I "have" a shirt I possess it. I "have" the whole thing.

If the past is infinite, then the past was always infinite, and infinite time has always passed.

The only thing is. It is impossible.

So you keep asserting, without giving any reason why we should agree.

It is impossible to "have" infinite time anywhere. It is impossible for infinite time to pass. That is the definition. Time that never passes.

No, it's not.

It's your definition, but it's not the definition.

I am happy to accept your claim that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite; all you have to do is to present a clear, sound, logical argument that shows this claim to be true.

That you have totally failed to do so, and have instead relied on bald assertion, various logical fallacies, and tedious reiteration of the same old refuted nonsense for over 1,700 posts, is really making me think that you cannot actually do it. You believe that the past cannot be infinite; and you believe that logic exists to support your claim; but you are mistaken.

So, not for the first time, I am asking you to put up your logical argument, or shut up.

 

[untermensche]

I am happy to accept your claim that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite; all you have to do is to present a clear, sound, logical argument that shows this claim to be true.

You've had many. You have ignored them all. Like you ignored all my comments to your nonsense above.

An infinite pile of bricks does not have a fixed size. It 's size is infinite.

The past is over at every present moment. It's size, it's duration, is fixed. It cannot grow. No more time can be added to the past at any given moment.

If it's size, it's duration, is fixed, then it is finite.

 

[fast]

I am happy to accept your claim that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite; all you have to do is to present a clear, sound, logical argument that shows this claim to be true.

You've had many. You have ignored them all. Like you ignored all my comments to your nonsense above.

An infinite pile of bricks does not have a fixed size. It 's size is infinite.

The past is over at every present moment. It's size, it's duration, is fixed. It cannot grow. No more time can be added to the past at any given moment.

If it's size, it's duration, is fixed, then it is finite.

When you say that "it's size is infinite," do you believe what you're saying, or is it a kind of "throw it out there" line as if to sarcastically say, "remember?"

 

[untermensche]

You've had many. You have ignored them all. Like you ignored all my comments to your nonsense above.

An infinite pile of bricks does not have a fixed size. It 's size is infinite.

The past is over at every present moment. It's size, it's duration, is fixed. It cannot grow. No more time can be added to the past at any given moment.

If it's size, it's duration, is fixed, then it is finite.

When you say that "it's size is infinite," do you believe what you're saying, or is it a kind of "throw it out there" line as if to sarcastically say, "remember?"

Is it true?

What is sarcastic about It?

Infinite bricks of course is not an amount. It is the idea of an ever increasing number of bricks.

Is that something that could have a fixed size or is it the idea of increasing size forever?

 

[Kharakov]

I am happy to accept your claim that it is logically impossible for the past to be infinite; all you have to do is to present a clear, sound, logical argument that shows this claim to be true.

You've had many. You have ignored them all. Like you ignored all my comments to your nonsense above.

You've never made a logical argument for the non-existence of an infinite duration past. I'm sure we'd love to see one from you...


Time always passed. Change always occurred. Something always existed. <-- 3 things we can arrive at through logic. The idea is for you to figure out how to arrive at these fundamental ideas (deductions from observations).


If you were always walking, how far have you walked?

 

[Kharakov]

When you say that "it's size is infinite," do you believe what you're saying, or is it a kind of "throw it out there" line as if to sarcastically say, "remember?"

Infinite bricks of course is not an amount. It is the idea of an ever increasing number of bricks.

Infinite bricks would always be infinite bricks- it means an undefined amount, not an ever increasing amount.

 

[untermensche]

Infinite bricks of course is not an amount. It is the idea of an ever increasing number of bricks.

Infinite bricks would always be infinite bricks- it means an undefined amount, not an ever increasing amount.

You have your own special definition of infinite bricks.

It is an ever increasing number of bricks. The size of the "pile" would be ever increasing too.

The size is DEFITELY not fixed or static.

Like the amount of time in the past at any moment.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinite bricks would always be infinite bricks- it means an undefined amount, not an ever increasing amount.

You have your own special definition of infinite bricks.

I pretty much use the definition that's in the dictionary when I use English words. That seem strange to you?

The reason we've been renaming various words "unterThis" and "unterThat" is because you use words in ways that nobody else uses them. So the thing is, instead of the whole English speaking world changing the way it speaks to reflect your unique vocabulary, why don't your dumb ass speak English boy?

 

[untermensche]

One thing that is certain is that at any moment in time ALL of the time in the past has run out. It has ALL finished.

At a given moment the past can be conceptualized as an amount of time that does not increase. It is static.

If it does not increase and is static it is finite.

 

[untermensche]

You have your own special definition of infinite bricks.

I pretty much use the definition that's in the dictionary when I use English words. That seem strange to you?

The reason we've been renaming various words "unterThis" and "unterThat" is because you use words in ways that nobody else uses them. So the thing is, instead of the whole English speaking world changing the way it speaks to reflect your unique vocabulary, why don't your dumb ass speak English boy?

You clearly have nothing left of any relevance. You never really made one true point.

Too bad you want through all this and did not seem to learn anything.

At any moment in time the past is static and unchanging.

Definitely not infinite.

 

[Kharakov]

I pretty much use the definition that's in the dictionary when I use English words. That seem strange to you?

The reason we've been renaming various words "unterThis" and "unterThat" is because you use words in ways that nobody else uses them. So the thing is, instead of the whole English speaking world changing the way it speaks to reflect your unique vocabulary, why don't your dumb ass speak English boy?

You clearly have nothing left of any relevance. You never really made one true point.

How far would someone have walked if they had been walking 1 mph forever?

At any moment in time the past is static and unchanging.

There are some BS theories in which the universe, at each moment in time, is preceded by multiple pasts that exist because the moment in time could have come from any of the "history paths". In other words, every juncture created by the path we are on creates new branch paths behind this point in time.

Sort of like the growing block universe scenario. I tend to think that this type of thinking comes from our neural structure, rather than a reflection in nature itself. Spacetime is pretty much evolving in one direction, but the victor writes history if the victor is an idiot with a pen.

Definitely not infinite.

That is definitely incorrect. Change has been occurring forever (it didn't start to occur, it always occurred- it couldn't start to occur, because this would have been a change that was occurring (beginning to start to occur)).

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that is certain is that at any moment in time ALL of the time in the past has run out. It has ALL finished.

At a given moment the past can be conceptualized as an amount of time that does not increase. It is static.

If it does not increase and is static it is finite.

No, there can be a static infinite amount. It just means the amount is not bounded towards the past (in the case of time). No big mystery, except to morons, people who did too many drugs, and the extremely uneducated.

 

[untermensche]

At any given moment all the change in the past is over. The time in the past is completely finished. The past at any moment is completely static and unchanging.

Finite.

 

[fast]

When you say that "it's size is infinite," do you believe what you're saying, or is it a kind of "throw it out there" line as if to sarcastically say, "remember?"

Is it true?

What is sarcastic about It?

Infinite bricks of course is not an amount. It is the idea of an ever increasing number of bricks.

Is that something that could have a fixed size or is it the idea of increasing size forever?

You're killin' me!

Maybe I just need to pay extra careful attention because it sure sounds like you're saying that an infinite number of bricks is less than one brick (or zero, to be exact) since it's not (apparently) a brick at all and thus certainly not an amount of bricks. Yet, on the other hand, you speak of an ever increasing size, which tells me that an infinite number of bricks would be more than than zero bricks (and more than one brick).

Upon more careful reading, maybe the switch you're pulling is with the word, "idea." 10 bricks is not the same as the idea of 10 bricks.An infinite number of bricks is not the same as the idea as an infinite number of bricks, but it's that very thing you deny.

So, apparently, you believe an infinite number of bricks isn't a number of bricks at all, not even an ever increasing number of bricks; you believe an infinite number of bricks is an idea.

 

[ryan]

One thing that is certain is that at any moment in time ALL of the time in the past has run out. It has ALL finished.

At a given moment the past can be conceptualized as an amount of time that does not increase. It is static.

If it does not increase and is static it is finite.

Why can't there be a static string that doesn't increase with an end in one direction and no end in the other direction?

 

[untermensche]

That is quite a rant.

Too bad there is no coherent point to be found.

(This is for two posts up)

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that is certain is that at any moment in time ALL of the time in the past has run out. It has ALL finished.

At a given moment the past can be conceptualized as an amount of time that does not increase. It is static.

If it does not increase and is static it is finite.

Why can't there be a static string that doesn't increase with an end in one direction and no end in the other direction?

What does static mean?

 

[Kharakov]

At any given moment all the change in the past is over. The time in the past is completely finished. The past at any moment is completely static and unchanging.

And unbound by a beginning:

Finite.

Infinite. It didn't start. Change was always occurring.

 

[Kharakov]

One thing that is certain is that at any moment in time ALL of the time in the past has run out. It has ALL finished.

At a given moment the past can be conceptualized as an amount of time that does not increase. It is static.

If it does not increase and is static it is finite.

Why can't there be a static string that doesn't increase with an end in one direction and no end in the other direction?

Because unter doesn't understand the difference between without beginning and without end. Watch them claim they are the same thing.

Since unter doesn't understand the difference between the 2 concepts, how do we talk to them about the 2 different concepts?

For any of us, without beginning is easy to grasp, but since unter has so much vested interest in it being the exact same thing as without end, how do we save face for unter, while teaching them the truth (about perpetuation of conversation by being wrong)?

 

[untermensche]

One thing is clear, at any moment the past cannot change. It cannot grow. It cannot increase in size.

It is completely static and unchanging. Unchangeable.

Finite.

- - - Updated - - -

And unbound by a beginning:

Finite.

Infinite. It didn't start. Change was always occurring.

At any given moment all the change in the past is over.

It is finished. It is finite.