| Subject: Making sure we understand each other |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/17/04 4:01am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Just for fun, let's deal with the actual premises" on 09/13/04 11:55pm
Wade:
>Again, it's not a mathematical argument. It's not
>necessarily a formal contradiction. But the
>absurdities are still evidently there.
Yes, I understand now - you weren't making a mathematical argument, and I did a bit more reading (some on your page, by the way, which is quite interesting - I'll be there from time to time reading.) and I agree that it is acceptable for the type of argument you were making to use "absurd" as a sort of truth condition.
>If you wish to
>dispute the absurdities (premises 3 and 4), let's get
>it on.
Well, I've got to be completely honest about this. While we both understand the rules of mathematics (any flaming rhetoric to the contrary aside... ), I don't have very much experience with logical formalisms, so I think if we have this argument, while I am going to try to bone up on the background I'm lacking, it'd be much easier if you were to say, in the context of this argument,
"Yes, you can say that, no you can't say that, here's a better way to formalize that statement, etc"
So, I'm asking you, in the context of this argument, to do what we all get flamed for doing (usually) - that is, sort of arguing in a more explanatory fashion than usual.
Alright... Based on your latest statement of TS, I'm leaning towards the conclusion that Tristam never finishes. Which is, before the math came into this argument, kind of what I was saying.
So you just said:
>Tell me, how is it that the present cannot be
>reached considering the seemingly obvious fact that we
>are here?
Ah... So when you said (paraphrase) "Tristam is infinitely far behind and never reaches the present," I thought that it wasn't a big deal - I mean, so what? He's NEVER, EVER, writing about the present - he can't, based on the rules of the paradox.
What you meant is, "Tristam never writing about the present implies that, if infinite past existed, WE'D never actually "reach" the present"
Is this what you meant? Because if it is, then I see how you could say that situation was absurd...
Anyways, I wrote a lot last night, and I've got to sleep, so this one is short. But at least for starters, I think that Tristam doesn't finish. But I have to think about the "never reaching today" business a little more.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 