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

[untermensche]

Because we are talking about time. Not something without dimension.

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

If we model it that way where does the count begin and where does it end?

Is it time with no beginning anymore?

Or is it now time without end?

 

[bilby]

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

If we model it that way where does the count begin and where does it end?

Is it time with no beginning anymore?

Or is it now time without end?

I don't care.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

 

[untermensche]

If we model it that way where does the count begin and where does it end?

Is it time with no beginning anymore?

Or is it now time without end?

I don't care.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

I do care.

 

[bilby]

I don't care.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

I do care.

So what? If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

Or are you now retracting your claim that this simple model, that you proposed, works?

You presented this:

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

So answer a simple question about your simple model.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

 

[untermensche]

I do care.

So what? If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

Simple model? You have an obscure phrase "no beginning".

In the real world something with no beginning does not exist.

 

[bilby]

So what? If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

Simple model? You have an obscure phrase "no beginning".

It's your model. And that phrase doesn't appear in it:

You presented this:

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

So answer a simple question about your simple model.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

In the real world something with no beginning does not exist.

Never mind that; YOU presented a MODEL. Are you now retracting your claim that this simple model, that you proposed, works?

If not, then answer one simple question about YOUR simple model:

If we model the past in the way YOU outlined, (1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...) what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

 

[untermensche]

Simple model? You have an obscure phrase "no beginning".

It's your model. And that phrase doesn't appear in it:

Yes. I at least have a model.

That model for infinite time in the past would look like this: 1, 2, 3 ...

It sure looks a lot like the model for infinite time in the future: 1, 2, 3 ...

So answer this.

Does infinite time ever end?

 

[bilby]

It's your model. And that phrase doesn't appear in it:

Yes. I at least have a model.

That model for infinite time in the past would look like this: 1, 2, 3 ...

It sure looks a lot like the model for infinite time in the future: 1, 2, 3 ...

So answer this.

Why should I? You have so far failed to answer my simple question about your simple model.

If you want me to answer your questions, you will need to do me the courtesy of answering mine.

It's not a difficult question: If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

Does infinite time ever end?

I am happy to answer this question (again - I am sure you have asked it before in this thread, and I have already answered it at least once); But not until you answer my question.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

 

[untermensche]

So answer this.

Why should I? You have so far failed to answer my simple question about your simple model.

Do as you choose.

You have no answer for this.

You think it is possible for somebody to recite ALL the integers in the past.

You think it is possible for the past to be infinite.

 

[untermensche]

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

Are you saying that I am claiming my model is possible?

I am saying it is impossible.

 

[bilby]

Why should I? You have so far failed to answer my simple question about your simple model.

Do as you choose.

I am.

You have no answer for this.

On the contrary, I am certain that I have answered it at least once already in this thread; And I certainly have an answer - But I have no motive to allow you to interrogate me, while you refuse to answer a simple question about the simple model YOU presented.

You think it is possible for somebody to recite ALL the integers in the past.

No, I don't; And I have never said that I did. This is an example of what you would call a 'Straw man fallacy', if you had the slightest grasp of how logic works.

You think it is possible for the past to be infinite.

I do. Largely because despite your endless bluster, you have as yet refused to provide me with any logic or reason to think otherwise.

Finally, after 1,900+ posts in this thread, you presented this:

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

So answer a simple question about your simple model.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

If you don't want to answer simple questions about your own model, then you must accept that nobody else needs to give two shits about any of the claims you refuse to defend.

Note that the above is an EXACT quote; I am (unlike you) not attempting to claim that you said something you did not; All I am asking is that you answer one simple question about YOUR simple model:

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

 

[untermensche]

You think it is possible for somebody to recite ALL the integers in the past.

No, I don't; And I have never said that I did. This is an example of what you would call a 'Straw man fallacy', if you had the slightest grasp of how logic works.

Just because you don't understand the implications of your absurd claims is not evidence I do not.

You are claiming that infinite time could pass if it just had enough time.

Conceptually that is no different from saying you could recite all the integers if you just had enough time.

You think it is possible for the past to be infinite.

I do. Largely because despite your endless bluster, you have as yet refused to provide me with any logic or reason to think otherwise.

Logical implications may appear as bluster to some but to some not much is clear.

If you think the past is infinite you think it is possible to recite ALL the integers in it.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

I guess since this is bolded it is supposed to mean something.

If we model the past as I outline it describes time without end.

It demonstrates that time without beginning conceptually is the exact same thing as time without end.

 

[bilby]

No, I don't; And I have never said that I did. This is an example of what you would call a 'Straw man fallacy', if you had the slightest grasp of how logic works.

Just because you don't understand the implications of your absurd claims is not evidence I do not.

You are claiming that infinite time could pass if it just had enough time.

Conceptually that is no different from saying you could recite all the integers if you just had enough time.

You think it is possible for the past to be infinite.

I do. Largely because despite your endless bluster, you have as yet refused to provide me with any logic or reason to think otherwise.

Logical implications may appear as bluster to some but to some not much is clear.

If you think the past is infinite you think it is possible to recite ALL the integers in it.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

I guess since this is bolded it is supposed to mean something.

Yes. It means I want you to answer a simple question about your model.

If we model the past as I outline it describes time without end.

It demonstrates that time without beginning conceptually is the exact same thing as time without end.

That's lovely.

Now, could you please answer my question?

you presented this:

It can be modeled with the integers.

1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, and so on...

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one.

So answer a simple question about your simple model.

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

If a simple model works there is nothing that forces us to use a more complicated one. So use your simple model, and answer my simple question.

Or does your simple model not, in fact, work, as you claimed that it did?

 

[Juma]

My specific problem is that you have repeatedly stated that time must have started a finite time ago. Yet have you failed to give a logically sound argument for that position.

That is your opinion. Good luck with it.

Tell me in your own words what I have said.

Tell me what I am claiming is the point.

You claim that time must have started a finite time ago.

You have not presented any logical argument for this.

Your ”counting” argument isnt holding due to:
1) counting is something done by people and takes time which requires time and thus cant be used to model time.
2) a one-to-one mapping of integers to time-intervals (for example hours) simply dont result in any logical inconsequences since there are no limit on the integers.
3) times doesnt require any counting, time just happens.

Eternity is hard to understand but it is not impossible just because you feel like it.

Show with a complete argument that the hypotesis ”time has always been” must be wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

It's a class thing. If time can pass then infinite time can pass.

Test. The time is now.
Retest. The time is now one.
Time now precedes time now one.
Time now is in the past.
Time passes.

Can you recite ALL the integers?

If you can then infinite time can pass.

Can you try another strawman?

I choose two points in time. All one need do is understand one is past to the other's present.

 

[untermensche]

If we model the past as I outline it describes time without end.

It demonstrates that time without beginning conceptually is the exact same thing as time without end.

That's lovely.

Page after page you wailed and cried and falsely claimed that time with no beginning is NOT the same thing as time with no end.

It is.

Try to figure the rest out on your own. I tire of spoon feeding you.

 

[untermensche]

You claim that time must have started a finite time ago.

Wrong. I conclude it.

You have not presented any logical argument for this.

I have presented enough so that somebody capable of rational thought should be able to easily understand.

It all centers around this notion of a "completed infinity". An infinity that has finished. Like walking infinite miles, or saying infinite things, or infinite time passing.

Every argument I have made is really all about the impossibility of completing an infinity. You cannot count ALL the integers. NO MATTER HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE. You cannot run through infinite time. No matter how much time you have.

Real infinities can never be completed. Only imaginary infinities can. And they too are never really completed.

Your ”counting” argument isnt holding due to:
1) counting is something done by people and takes time which requires time and thus cant be used to model time.

To model infinite time it HAS to take up time.

Your objection is irrational.

2) a one-to-one mapping of integers to time-intervals (for example hours) simply dont result in any logical inconsequences since there are no limit on the integers.

The impossibility of reciting ALL the integers clearly shows the impossibility of infinite time ever completing.

 

[untermensche]

Can you recite ALL the integers?

If you can then infinite time can pass.

Can you try another strawman?

I choose two points in time. All one need do is understand one is past to the other's present.

So you are saying you can recite all the integers?

Great!

Which is the last?

If the past was infinite before any moment that means there was enough time to recite ALL the integers.

 

[untermensche]

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

That is the whole issue.

Is it possible there was no highest number of hours ago?

Saying that the model demands it is not proof the model is possible.

You have to look beyond the model.

You have to look at the logical implications of applying the model to the real world.

When you apply the model of time with no highest number of hours ago to the past you find out it is impossible.

It is just like saying you had enough time to recite ALL the integers.

Totally irrational.

 

[George S]

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'?

You have to look at the logical implications of applying the model to the real world.

Logical possibility is distinct from physical possibility.

It is logically possible for time to be infinite with no beginning nor end.

In my opinion time has a zero, a beginning. Our universe's time.

Big Bang theory replaced the infinite, eternal universe (which was then, as now, logically possible).

Is Big Bang and Inflation right? If so then, yep, our observable universe had a beginning in our real world.

See the difference? Infinite, eternal time though logically possible does not match the real world in a popular physics theory.

Even if our universe has a time zero, the containing bulk in which multiverses arise over time may itself be eternal or had a beginning. Both are logically possible.