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

[untermensche]

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.

No, it is not larger than finite.

It is a whole different animal.

Finite is real. Infinite is imaginary.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

The model is something to test.

And if the model defines the situation there isn't a need to find another.

To make a logical comment you have to show how the model is deficient.

 

[ryan]

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.

To conserve space like the symbol for pi, the last integer's symbol will be replaced with $.

 

[untermensche]

You have to actually say the integer.

You can't say nothing.

To conserve space like the symbol for pi, the last integer's symbol will be replaced with $.

Infinite time is the amount of time it is possible to SAY ALL the integers.

To say them ALL you can't skip any.

And creating a symbol for the last integer is not saying the last integer. It it not the last integer.

I can create a symbol for Jesus. Does the symbol actually give him to me?

 

[bilby]

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.

Infinite time is infinite. The integers are infinite.

If there is NOT enough time in infinite time to recite all the integers, then you should have no problem answering the question you have been so carefully not answering for the last 23 hours.

Because that is time without end.

..or without beginning.

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

That depends what you mean by 'same thing'. You seem to think that the amount of time in a period is inextricably linked to whether or not the period of time ends; which is a pretty silly idea, and easily shown to be false:

If the future is infinite, then the future is time without end.
But time without end is the same thing as time without beginning
Therefore if the future is infinite, it does not have a beginning.

This is nonsense; and the reason it is nonsense is that the bolded part is simply incorrect.

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

According to you if a simple model works, it doesn't need to be any more complicated. Are you claiming that your model doesn't work? That it DOES need to be more complicated? If so, why did you put it forward in the first place?

Of course. Anything essential you cannot understand.

Essential? What the fuck do you mean by 'essential'? If others cannot understand your point, then the problem lies in your inability to express it clearly.

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

There is no limit to human stupidity. I ask the EXACT same question of you, and it seems clear that you most assuredly are; So I presume that I also could be.

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

Well, you 'built' a model. And I agree with your assessment of it: "If a simple model works there is nothing that forces me to use a more complicated one."

Here is YOUR model:

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.

So, I have one simple question:

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

I presume your refusal to answer is an indication that you realize that the answer exposes the fact that you have been completely wrong from the beginning. If that presumption on my part is incorrect, then answering this question would show me to be in error, and as I am an adult, I would gladly admit my mistake.

Would you admit your mistake if shown to be wrong? Apparently not. You would rather try to deny all of logic, mathematics and science, than admit that you might have been mistaken.

Strangely, this desperation to avoid admitting having made a mistake, leads other people to have a FAR lower opinion of your character than such an admission ever could.

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.

Er... Yes, it is. We are discussing logical possibility.

If something can be modeled without the model contradicting itself, then it is logically possible. If it can be modeled without contradicting either itself or experimental observation, then it is physically possible.

Because time can be modeled to never end in the past, that IS PROOF that it is logically possible.

Because time can be modeled to never end in the past, and the model does not prohibit any observations that we observe in reality, that IS PROOF that it is physically possible.

Possible is a low bar; These things don't prove that the past is actually infinite; But they do PROVE that it is possible, both logically and on the basis of current observations.

The fact is it is impossible.

Your assertion does not become truth through repetition. You have successfully proven the exact opposite; Perhaps, even if you won't take anyone elses word for it, you might at least try not to disagree with your own argument.

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

Actually, it is different in a large number of important ways.

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

You clearly don't know what knowledge is.

You really need to learn the basics of logic and epistemology, before posting in this forum - unless you enjoy humiliation.

 

[George S]

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.

I can count silently in my mind. 1, wait, 2, wait half as long as prior wait, 3, wait half as long as prior wait, ...

I can too count "saying" nothing.

 

[fromderinside]

The relation between time and integers is artificial. All you are saying is a human has not enough time to recite all the integers. The amount of time a humans has, at best about 130 years. Humans can produce six generations in 130 years. So what?

All you've said is that infinite number is beyond one's ability to count. Not relevant.

Take any apple and compare it with any orange and you'll not have proven any point.

No beginning? Infinity. No ending? Infinity. See, both are logically possible.

Don't answer because you can't answer other than how you've answered up to now. You can say the same things as many as you want and you will still not have demonstrated your point whatever it is.

 

[untermensche]

You have to actually say the integer.

You can't say nothing.

I can count silently in my mind. 1, wait, 2, wait half as long as prior wait, 3, wait half as long as prior wait, ...

I can too count "saying" nothing.

That is not my model.

And even a thought requires some time.

And it is impossible to think every integer.

 

[untermensche]

The relation between time and integers is artificial.

Not totally.

It is used because to say an integer takes time and they are infinite. That is what makes it a good model for infinite time.

All you are saying is a human has not enough time to recite all the integers.

In infinite time there is not enough time for infinite humans to recite all the integers.

 

[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.

No, it is not larger than finite.

It is a whole different animal.

Okay, then it's just a different property, the property of being infinite, not finite.

Whatever it is, humans, as you would probably agree, can only make finite measurements due to our singular and finite nature in time; we don't have forever; we don't get to be in multiple places in space and time at once like objectivity or entanglement.

 

[bilby]

Not totally.

It is used because to say an integer takes time and they are infinite. That is what makes it a good model for infinite time.

All you are saying is a human has not enough time to recite all the integers.

In infinite time there is not enough time for infinite humans to recite all the integers.

Of course there is.

If not, how much does it fall short by?

How much more time would be required?

 

[untermensche]

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

Infinite time is infinite. The integers are infinite.

If there is NOT enough time in infinite time to recite all the integers, then you should have no problem answering the question you have been so carefully not answering for the last 23 hours.

I've answered it five times.

You don't like the answer.

We can model the past as 1 hour in the past, 2 hours in the past and so on....

It would look like 1,2,3....

Time without end.

Time without end has no final hour.

Now the question is: Can time with no final hour have occurred before some moment in time?

And of course the answer is no. It is impossible. As impossible as reciting all the integers before some moment in time.

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

According to you if a simple model works, it doesn't need to be any more complicated. Are you claiming that your model doesn't work? That it DOES need to be more complicated? If so, why did you put it forward in the first place?

The model WORKS to model infinite time.

If you want to test a model you need one.

Saying the model works to model infinite time is not saying it is possible.

The stupidity becomes too much sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Not totally.

It is used because to say an integer takes time and they are infinite. That is what makes it a good model for infinite time.

In infinite time there is not enough time for infinite humans to recite all the integers.

Of course there is.

If not, how much does it fall short by?

How much more time would be required?

No matter how much time you would be given it could not be done.

It is impossible to do it.

That is how I am able to conclude it is impossible the time in the past was infinite.

 

[bilby]

Infinite time is infinite. The integers are infinite.

If there is NOT enough time in infinite time to recite all the integers, then you should have no problem answering the question you have been so carefully not answering for the last 23 hours.

I've answered it five times.

You don't like the answer.

We can model the past as 1 hour in the past, 2 hours in the past and so on....

It would look like 1,2,3....

Time without end.

Time without end has no final hour.

Now the question is:

Does time without beginning have a final hour?

And your answer is...

.. that is time without end.

Which as we know is the exact same thing as time with no beginning.

... that time without beginning and time without end are the exact same thing. So we can conclude, using ONLY your logic:

If the future is infinite, then the future is time without end.
But time without end is the same thing as time without beginning
Therefore if the future is infinite, it does not have a beginning.

This is nonsense; and the reason it is nonsense is that the bolded part is simply incorrect.

That's at the heart of your error - your false claim that time without end is the exact same thing as time with no beginning.

They have exactly similar duration. But they are not the same thing, and the duration tells us NOTHING about whether they begin (unless we already know that they end) or about whether they end (unless we already know that they begin).

 

[untermensche]

Does time without beginning have a final hour?

There is no final hour in the concept of time without beginning.

And since the past had a final hour. The hour right before any moment.

It could not have been without beginning.

You are claiming an infinity completed before some moment in time. It is absurd.

No real infinities can be completed. No matter how much time they have.

You can't walk infinite miles. You can't recite all the integers. Infinite time cannot pass. No matter how much time it has. It cannot be in the past.

Therefore if the future is infinite, it does not have a beginning.

Oh my. You do not know how to think the least bit rationally.

Therefore: If the future is infinite it has the same amount of time as time without beginning.

You cannot recite all the integers in the future and you cannot recite them all in the past.

No real infinity could ever be completed.

 

[bilby]

There is no final hour in the concept of time without beginning.

And since the past had a final hour. The hour right before any moment.

It could not have been without beginning.

If this is what passes for 'logic' in your mind, then it's no wonder you are hopelessly confused.

You are claiming an infinity completed before some moment in time.

Yes.

It is absurd.

If you think so, then you need to demonstrate this.

No real infinities can be completed. No matter how much time they have.

If you think so, then you need to demonstrate this.

You can't walk infinite miles.

I can't.

You can't recite all the integers.

I can't.

Infinite time cannot pass.

Oh yes it can.

No matter how much time it has. It cannot be in the past.

Why the fuck not?

Therefore if the future is infinite, it does not have a beginning.

Oh my. You do not know how to think the least bit rationally.

As you might notice, if you replied to all of my post, instead of cherry-picking bits that you think you can successfully argue against, this conclusion is drawn from following the EXACT logical steps YOU are using. I presented it as part of a demonstration that YOU do not know how to think the least bit rationally; It appears that you agree with my assessment.

Therefore: If the future is infinite it has the same amount of time as time without beginning.

Oh, so you now accept that 'same amount of time as' does NOT imply 'also does not have'?

It's a shame that you have been employing that equivalence as the cornerstone of your argument then.

The past is the same amount of time as 'time without end'; but that DOES NOT imply that the past also does not have an end.

You can't have it both ways; The rules you impose on my arguments must also apply to your arguments.

You cannot recite all the integers in the future and you cannot recite them all in the past.

Nobody ever said that they could.

No real infinity could ever be completed.

Prove it.

 

[untermensche]

No real infinities can be completed. No matter how much time they have.

If you think so, then you need to demonstrate this.

When would the reciting of all the integers end?

That is a real life model of infinite time

 

[bilby]

If you think so, then you need to demonstrate this.

When would the reciting of all the integers end?

That depends; How long have they already been going for?

That is a real life model of infinite time

It is, if you include in your model the possibility that time has no beginning, and that therefore infinite time has already passed at any specified point in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I am not unaware of the fact that you are responding only to about one in five of the points I make.

It's fucking hilarious that you imagine yourself to be arguing successfully against my refutation of your dumb claims, when you are completely incapable of responding to most of what I say.

 

[bilby]

Infinite time is infinite. The integers are infinite.

If there is NOT enough time in infinite time to recite all the integers, then you should have no problem answering the question you have been so carefully not answering for the last 23 hours.

I've answered it five times.

Only if 5 = 0.

Please feel free to repeat your answer; or, if you have already answered five times, to post a quote of yourself answering it (just once will do, but all five if you like).

I don't think you can; because I don't think you have answered it once. I think you are trying to convince yourself that you have; But I don't think that you actually have.

Of course, if you have, the evidence is readily available; All you need to do is post an un-edited quote from earlier in this thread, in which you answer that question.

Can you present any such quote? Just in case you have forgotten the question it was:

you presented this argument:

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'?

I am pretty sure you haven't yet told me (or anyone else in this thread) what the highest possible number of 'hours ago' is, in YOUR model.

 

[untermensche]

When would the reciting of all the integers end?

That depends; How long have they already been going for?

You do not understand that they never end? So reciting them could never end?

That is a real life model of infinite time

It is, if you include in your model the possibility that time has no beginning, and that therefore infinite time has already passed at any specified point in the past.

Infinite time cannot pass no matter how long you give it.

The model to test if infinite time can be completed is the model of reciting all the integers.

Can that be completed?

 

[untermensche]

Please feel free to repeat your answer; or, if you have already answered five times, to post a quote of yourself answering it (just once will do, but all five if you like)

Post #1973

Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?

 

[bilby]

Please feel free to repeat your answer; or, if you have already answered five times, to post a quote of yourself answering it (just once will do, but all five if you like)

Post #1973

Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?

That post comes AFTER your claim to have answered it five times (in post #1971), so it cannot represent any of those alleged five answers; And the question we are discussing is:

If we model the past in the way you outline, what is the highest possible number of 'hours ago'? not "Before any moment in time does the past have a final hour?"

Try again.