[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted:03/22/04 3:28pm In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Not Tristram Shandy again..." on 03/22/04 10:27am
>
>That's true, but that doesn't imply that you'll never
>reach the end, unless you actually halve your
>distance at each step.
Sure it does. You wouldn't even have to halve it. You'd simply have to travel all those distances less than 1/8, which I think you'll find to be infinite.
>
>Perhaps the Shandy argument is flawed. But since it
>is deductivley valid, the only way it can fail
>is if one of the premises fail. Perhaps a premise
>does fail. But that would require some clear and
>specific justification, not just some vague assertions
>about calculus, ignorance, knowing the unknowable, or
>anything of the sort.
When I clearly understand what in the world a beginningless task is logically, and when I understand what it means for the past to be infinite and am not simply talking through my hat as it were about what their nature might logically be, I'll be more than happy to pick a premise and show you why it's in error.
Until such a time, I think the conclusion is highly disputable, and any attempt to promote it as something that must be true in reality is foolishness.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
