Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/12/04 3:28pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Arguments aren't necessarily deductions" on 03/12/04 3:10pm
>
>>then, according to Craig, one could only answer that
>>the days are infinitely distant from the present. It
>>appears that for every day Shandy is writing, there is
>>an infinite distance from that day to the last
>>recorded day."
>
>>>>I agree, but that only strengthens the argument I
>>>gave.
>
>This seems to be your argument:
>"Therefore an infinite past is not metaphysically
>possible."
>
>Fine. But the above only supports that point if, and
>only if constructing a task which has no beginning is
>feasible.
I don't believe it is because I don't believe an infinite past is feasible.
>Here the quote is again with important stuff you left
>out:
Important?
>"Craig further points out that the picture Russell
>paints entails a beginningless task. That is, if one
>were to ask "Where in the temporal series of events
>are the days recorded by Tristram Shandy at any given
>point?" then, according to Craig, one could only
>answer that the days are infinitely distant from the
>present"
How is this "important"?
>So, the distance from the present is the ONLY measure,
>because there is no beginning from which to start.
Yes, I suppose that's correct. Again, how is this "important"?
>Do you really think constructing a task with no
>beginning (that an immortal human does no less) seems
>like something that OUGHT to necessarily be the case
>with what in reality we consider the past?
Not if the past is finite.
> If so,
>please explain to me why it is necessary to assume a
>task with no beginning.
Because the Tristram Shandy paradox examines the implications of an infinite past.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 