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

[untermensche]

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

Logical possibility is distinct from physical possibility.

Not when you are making a claim about something real.

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

No. It cannot BE infinite. An infinite amount of time cannot BE.

There can only BE time that never ends. That is all.

It is impossible that an infinite amount of time occurred before any moment in time.

That is exactly like saying somebody recited ALL the integers before some moment in time.

 

[ryan]

How much time does it take to get from one moment to the very next moment?

 

[untermensche]

How much time does it take to get from one moment to the very next moment?

Does it take no time?

 

[ryan]

How much time does it take to get from one moment to the very next moment?

Does it take no time?

And to complete the structural properties of time, how long does it take for the present to come and go?

Could this be the same as asking how long 4 exists for as well as how long 4 is gone for before 5 emerges? In other words, like the successive natural numbers on a numberline, time, as a numberline doesn't depend on how long it takes me to count from 4 to 5, it just exists as infinite or it doesn't.

 

[untermensche]

Does it take no time?

And to complete the structural properties of time, how long does it take for the present to come and go?

Could this be the same as asking how long 4 exists for as well as how long 4 is gone for before 5 emerges? In other words, like the successive natural numbers on a numberline, time, as a numberline doesn't depend on how long it takes me to count from 4 to 5, it just exists as infinite or it doesn't.

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

 

[ryan]

And to complete the structural properties of time, how long does it take for the present to come and go?

Could this be the same as asking how long 4 exists for as well as how long 4 is gone for before 5 emerges? In other words, like the successive natural numbers on a numberline, time, as a numberline doesn't depend on how long it takes me to count from 4 to 5, it just exists as infinite or it doesn't.

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

What does reciting the integers that measure time have to do with how many there are? Isn't this a human limitation, not a limitation of the quantity?

 

[George S]

And to complete the structural properties of time, how long does it take for the present to come and go?

Could this be the same as asking how long 4 exists for as well as how long 4 is gone for before 5 emerges? In other words, like the successive natural numbers on a numberline, time, as a numberline doesn't depend on how long it takes me to count from 4 to 5, it just exists as infinite or it doesn't.

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

One model of an eternal time is a circle. Time never ends; "now" just keeps going round and round. Forever.

That circle is/was an uncaused entity. There is no "before" because to be "before" requires time. "Where did time come from Mommy?" "It just is."

 

[ryan]

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

One model of an eternal time is a circle. Time never ends; "now" just keeps going round and round. Forever.

That circle is/was an uncaused entity. There is no "before" because to be "before" requires time. "Where did time come from Mommy?" "It just is."

Yeah, even if it repeats and is finite, the "passing", whatever that means (and nobody seems to want to define it) could have always been happening and could go on forever. Thank the universe/God that this circle doesn't loop with humans being in excruciating pain.

 

[untermensche]

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

What does reciting the integers that measure time have to do with how many there are? Isn't this a human limitation, not a limitation of the quantity?

It is a model of a real infinity.

Infinite numbers are an imaginary infinity.

Saying those numbers would be a real one.

- - - Updated - - -

Time is what allows things to happen.

Infinite time means infinite things happened.

Like reciting ALL the integers.

One model of an eternal time is a circle. Time never ends; "now" just keeps going round and round. Forever.

It is impossible you went around your circle infinite times in the past.

That again is just like reciting ALL the integers in the past.

 

[untermensche]

The fact that it is impossible to recite all the integers is in itself a demonstration that infinite time can never end.

You cannot recite all the integers in the past.

You cannot have the passage of infinite time in the past.

 

[ryan]

What does reciting the integers that measure time have to do with how many there are? Isn't this a human limitation, not a limitation of the quantity?

It is a model of a real infinity.

Infinite numbers are an imaginary infinity.

Saying those numbers would be a real one.

Counting infinity might only be a human/subjective activity, but it's not like that from an objective "point" of view. An objective point of view does not have to start counting anywhere. It would start at all numbers at once. Every number that has been would not take time to finish.

 

[untermensche]

 

[ryan]

Conceptually and logically, infinite has the property of being larger than finite. Why can't the the universe/time have this property too? My last post answers this question.

 

[Juma]

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.

In reality there is no connection between ”time has always been there” and ”counting to infnity”
Only in your twisted mind.

If it is so simple to understand then show a logical complete argument where no steps are missing.

 

[bilby]

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

That is the whole issue.

It's a fucking QUESTION.

It's not an 'issue'; it just demands an answer.

If you cannot answer it without abandoning your claim, then your claim is worthless.

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

It's not only possible; it's a certainty. Perhaps that's why you refuse to answer the question - because to do so entails admitting that you were wrong.

Perhaps admitting that you are wrong, when you are actually and demonstrably wrong, is not a bad thing.

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

This is word salad. It's (according to you) a simple model, and doesn't need to be any more complicated.

You have to look beyond the model.

LOL. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

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

That's good advice. Someone should give you that advice.

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

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

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

Totally irrational.

At this point, even your own arguments are saying that you are wrong.

What would it take for you to man up, and admit your error?

 

[untermensche]

In reality there is no connection between ”time has always been there” and ”counting to infnity”
Only in your twisted mind.

This is about time that has ALWAYS been there.

To say time has always been there is to say there was enough time to recite all the integers.

 

[untermensche]

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

It's not only possible; it's a certainty.

If that is possible then you are claiming there was enough time to recite ALL the integers in it.

Because that is time without end.

Which as we know is the exact same thing as time with no beginning. The simple model tells us that.

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

This is word salad. It's (according to you) a simple model, and doesn't need to be any more complicated.

Of course. Anything essential you cannot understand.

Are you really this stupid? Could you possibly be this stupid?

What you are saying, and are too stupid to know it is: If a model can be built that proves the model is possible.

It is on the level of a first grader. Lower.

Just because time can be modeled to never end in the past that is not proof it is possible.

The fact is it is impossible.

To say time in the past WAS infinite is no different from saying you already recited ALL the integers.

It is as ignorant as thinking the building of a model is proof the model is possible.

 

[beero1000]

How long before untermensche notices that this new tack is fundamentally flawed too? Y'know, cuz the argument "Here is a model, this model doesn't work, therefore no models can work" isn't valid?

 

[ryan]

To say time in the past WAS infinite is no different from saying you already recited ALL the integers.

If you could start counting at 1 then wait 1/2 of a second and then count 2, wait a 1/4 of a second and then count 3, wait an 1/8 of a second ... you would finish all the natural numbers in 1 second. That's what you could do in 1 second.

Or, if you had an infinite amount of time, you could equally space out the time between numbers and finish that way.

 

[untermensche]

To say time in the past WAS infinite is no different from saying you already recited ALL the integers.

If you could start counting at 1 then wait 1/2 of a second and then count 2, wait a 1/4 of a second and then count 3, wait an 1/8 of a second ... you would finish all the natural numbers in 1 second. That's what you could do in 1 second.

Or, if you had an infinite amount of time, you could equally space out the time between numbers and finish that way.

You have to actually say the integer.

You can't say nothing.