Perhaps. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 10:16:57pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Perhaps.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09/26/04 9:32pm
In reply to: Duane 's message, "Ah - apparently we're talking about 2 different things." on 09/14/04 4:37pm

>Wade:
>
>Are you aware that "The Tristam Shandy" paradox was
>originally a mathematical argument and NOT a
>philisophical argument?

Depends which argument you are referring to. If you're talking about my argument, then it is a philosophical argument. Of course, I'm aware Bertrand Russell was discussing mathematics when it came to his own TS scenario.

>In the context of the human mind, or I guess you could
>say in the context of human existence as a whole, that
>infinite time is a concept which is, itself, absurd.

Not by itself. But if it leads to absurdities like "the present cannot be reached" and so forth, then yes.

>It still seems to me that the test condition for your
>premises is the concept of "absurd," which has its
>basis in our intuition. Eventually, we reach a point
>where we say, "Enough already! OK! This is clearly
>not true because it's ridiculous!"
>
>So the limits of philosophy are the limits of human
>intuition.

In practice, that's going to be true for a lot of things. Take for instance the five-minute hypothesis.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]