Nothing to somthing is logically impossible

[bahman]

Perhaps I should have said that nothing to something is physically impossible. I however have an argument in the form of syllogism:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

So how much time do you need to manufacture the number 0 from nothing?

What!?

[Iwannaplato]

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing. Which can be translated into: there has always been something, since there is something now. And before each moment where there was something, there must have been something. So there is an infinite amount of time...so far. Or?

[bahman]

So, accepting the OP, there is no time in the past where there was nothing.

No, that does not follow from OP. I can show that spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist or be caused. Spacetime however has a beginning otherwise we are dealing with an infinite regress. So we can have spacetime and nothing else. The fact that things exist then means that things are caused in this case. Otherwise, things could pop into existence since the beginning of spacetime.

Which can be translated into: there has always been something, since there is something now. And before each moment where there was something, there must have been something. So there is an infinite amount of time...so far. Or?

As I suggested in the above comment spacetime has a beginning so either things have popped into existence since the beginning of time or they are caused somewhere from the beginning of time.

[Skepdick]

Perhaps I should have said that nothing to something is physically impossible. I however have an argument in the form of syllogism:

P1) Time is needed for any change
P2) Nothing to something is a change
P3) There is no time in nothing
C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible (From P1-P3)

So how much time do you need to manufacture the number 0 from nothing?

What!?

How much time does a state transition take?
if X to Y is a "change" what's the shortest possible duration of a change?

[Skepdick]

Please check the following: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moda ... rgEpisModa

That doesn't address anything.

You need to look at the diagram. Something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible.

In your mind which of these two inferences is invalid?

A. If X is logically impossible then X is physically impossible.
B. If X is logically possible then X is physically possible.

I am saying that something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible so I have a problem with B.

But your OP isn't talking about the implication of physical impossibility.

Your OP is talking about the implications of logical impossibility.

What are the physical implications of logical impossibility?

[bahman]

So how much time do you need to manufacture the number 0 from nothing?

What!?

How much time does a state transition take?
if X to Y is a "change" what's the shortest possible duration of a change?

Very small but never zero. It depends on whether time is discrete or continuous.

[Skepdick]

What!?

How much time does a state transition take?
if X to Y is a "change" what's the shortest possible duration of a change?

Very small but never zero. It depends on whether time is discrete or continuous.

Is it nilpotent?

[bahman]

That doesn't address anything.

You need to look at the diagram. Something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible.

In your mind which of these two inferences is invalid?

A. If X is logically impossible then X is physically impossible.
B. If X is logically possible then X is physically possible.

I am saying that something physically impossible does not mean that it is logically impossible so I have a problem with B.

But your OP isn't talking about the implication of physical impossibility.

Your OP is talking about the implications of logical impossibility.

What are the physical implications of logical impossibility?

I already mentioned that it is better to say it is physically impossible rather than logically impossible.

[Skepdick]

I already mentioned that it is better to say it is physically impossible rather than logically impossible.

If logical impossibility implies physical impossibility also - then it doesn't matter.

if logical impossibility doesn't imply physical impossibility then sure - it matters which impossibility you bring up.

[bahman]

How much time does a state transition take?
if X to Y is a "change" what's the shortest possible duration of a change?

Very small but never zero. It depends on whether time is discrete or continuous.

Is it nilpotent?

No. if time is continuous then it has to be an arbitrarily small number otherwise, if time is discrete, an interval.

[Skepdick]

No. if time is continuous then it has to be an arbitrarily small number otherwise, if time is discrete, an interval.

What's an "arbitrarily small number"?

At what point does an "arbitrarily small number" begin to require "arbitrarily large" amounts of time to compute?

[bahman]

I already mentioned that it is better to say it is physically impossible rather than logically impossible.

If logical impossibility implies physical impossibility also - then it doesn't matter.

if logical impossibility doesn't imply physical impossibility then sure - it matters which impossibility you bring up.

Well, actually after some thought I found out that I can say it is also right to say it is logically impossible given the domain in which a preposition is valid, in the domain of physical.

[bahman]

No. if time is continuous then it has to be an arbitrarily small number otherwise, if time is discrete, an interval.

What's an "arbitrarily small number"?

At what point does an "arbitrarily small number" begin to require "arbitrarily large" amounts of time to compute?

Please read here.

[Skepdick]

No. if time is continuous then it has to be an arbitrarily small number otherwise, if time is discrete, an interval.

What's an "arbitrarily small number"?

At what point does an "arbitrarily small number" begin to require "arbitrarily large" amounts of time to compute?

Please read here.

I am familiar with all of those. The trouble is that if your conception of time has the smoothness property then your "arbitarrily small number" is necessarily nilpotent.

And if your infinitesimals are not nilpotent, then they are nothing but the reciprocals of very large numbers.

[bahman]

What's an "arbitrarily small number"?

At what point does an "arbitrarily small number" begin to require "arbitrarily large" amounts of time to compute?

Please read here.

I am familiar with all of those. The trouble is that if your conception of time has the smoothness property then your "arbitarrily small number" is necessarily nilpotent.

No, that is not correct. An arbitrarily small number is not nilpotent.

And if your infinitesimals are not nilpotent, then they are nothing but the reciprocals of very large numbers.

Yes.