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

[Kharakov]

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:

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.

The past is infinite- it has no lower bound. It might be finished (except in the case of time travel), but it doesn't have a lower bound.

 

[untermensche]

At any moment the time in the past is completely finished.

It is not growing or increasing or enlarging. It is ALL gone.

It is a finite and unchanging.

 

[ryan]

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?

Seriously? Why would you use a word that you don't know the meaning to? It means that the string is not changing.

 

[untermensche]

What does static mean?

Seriously? Why would you use a word that you don't know the meaning to? It means that the string is not changing.

Then what exactly is the problem?

If it is static it is finite.

 

[Kharakov]

No.

 

[ryan]

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)?

To be honest, I am not sure about this. Aren't beginnings and endings arbitrarily assigned?

 

[untermensche]

Do you comprehend that at any moment in time the past is unchageable?

 

[ryan]

Seriously? Why would you use a word that you don't know the meaning to? It means that the string is not changing.

Then what exactly is the problem?

If it is static it is finite.

Scientists discover a string ironically ending in your backyard. They follow it up and up and up ... but they give up trying to reach the end. Why does this static string have to end? And what does static have to do with it anyways?

 

[George S]

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)?

It is simple to see they are of the same cardinality. Pair 1 with -1, 2 with -2, ....

But, of course, they are not the exact same other than cardinality.

In the realm of the past we can actually see what was. There is a sphere around us at every age represented by negative (past) time. It is fixed. It happened.

IF time had no beginning then an infinite time has passed until now. IF. Even IF it is not the case in reality.

If time has a beginning then we see back to the beginning, a sphere at 13.8 Billion light years away. I favor this view.

 

[untermensche]

Then what exactly is the problem?

If it is static it is finite.

Scientists discover a string ironically ending in your backyard. They follow it up and up and up ... but they give up trying to reach the end. Why does this static string have to end? And what does static have to do with it anyways?

You know for certain at some moment the ENTIRE past is static.

You know it cannot change. You don't have to search anywhere.

 

[ryan]

Scientists discover a string ironically ending in your backyard. They follow it up and up and up ... but they give up trying to reach the end. Why does this static string have to end? And what does static have to do with it anyways?

You know for certain at some moment the ENTIRE past is static.

You know it cannot change. You don't have to search anywhere.

I don't understand what this has to do with something being finite.

Can you just explain why the string has to end on both sides instead of just one side?

 

[bilby]

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.

What fresh horseshit is this?

Since when have arguments which employ identified logical fallacies qualified as 'sound'?

You have yet to present any argument that doesn't beg the question, or entail a non-sequitur, or involve an appeal to incredulity. You have even managed all three at once.

And now you present a fresh round of equivocation as though it were somehow meant to bolster the point you have not yet properly addressed?

Perhaps you should learn logic before trying to employ it.

Are you really unaware that you used the word 'fixed' to mean two different things in that 'argument'?

This is why formal language is valuable when attempting logical arguments.

Ideally, mathematics.

Add that to the long list of things you need to learn more about before you are competent to even attempt to discuss what is or is not 'logically possible'.

 

[untermensche]

You know for certain at some moment the ENTIRE past is static.

You know it cannot change. You don't have to search anywhere.

I don't understand what this has to do with something being finite.

Can you just explain why the string has to end on both sides instead of just one side?

The past cannot change.

We don't have to search every second of it to know this.

The absence of change is stasis.

 

[George S]

Here's another logically possible IF.

Suppose that time emerges from a point. Growing in radius at one second per second is a sphere. As it grows the past gets more space. The fixed stars we see are close to the surface of that sphere. In a galaxy far, far away we see events from long, long ago.
Our future will take place in that very space we see. At each moment we see what could have affected us -- our personal light cone. And see all the spaces we could effect in the future. Our future light cone.

Suppose spacetime emerges from a point. Growing in radius at one second per second. Time and space together. The direction in which the Big Bang bangs is the future. The Big Bang continues now as Dark Energy.

 

[bilby]

Seriously? Why would you use a word that you don't know the meaning to? It means that the string is not changing.

Then what exactly is the problem?

If it is static it is finite.

Add English to the list. You're going to need to learn that too.

 

[untermensche]

The past is FIXED.

It is unchanging. Unchangeable.

It could only be finite.

 

[untermensche]

Then what exactly is the problem?

If it is static it is finite.

Add English to the list. You're going to need to learn that too.

How many times in this thread have I had to correct your nonsense?

If some amount is unchanging it is finite.

If it is static it is finite.

 

[ryan]

I don't understand what this has to do with something being finite.

Can you just explain why the string has to end on both sides instead of just one side?

The past cannot change.

We don't have to search every second of it to know this.

The absence of change is stasis.

Can we forget about time for a moment and focus on the string? Why does the static string have to end?

 

[bilby]

The past is FIXED.

It is unchanging. Unchangeable.

It could only be finite.

So much wrong in so few words.

It's a real skill.

Not a useful skill, but real, nevertheless.

 

[untermensche]

The past cannot change.

We don't have to search every second of it to know this.

The absence of change is stasis.

Can we forget about time for a moment and focus on the string? Why does the static string have to end?

But we do not have a string.

We have time that has passed.

If it has ALL passed then it had to be a finite amount of time that passed.

- - - Updated - - -

The past is FIXED.

It is unchanging. Unchangeable.

It could only be finite.

So much wrong in so few words.

It's a real skill.

Not a useful skill, but real, nevertheless.

You are so lost it isn't funny.

At any moment the past cannot grow. It cannot change.

It is static and unchanging.

Finite.