Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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, July 03, 06:19:51am

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

Subject: Infinity. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/12/04 10:25am In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Assuming" on 04/12/04 8:25am >>> >>> Why should we do it this way? Why shouldn't we? >> >>Because it's not an accurate representation of the >>problem. > >Bull. That of course, has been the subject of debate. What finite number could it possibly approach to? Do you really thing an infinite past wouldn't have an infinite number of years? That doesn't make any sense. If the universe were only a finite number of years old it wouldn't be infinitely old. In fact it wouldn’t even “approach” anything, because this is an actual infinite, not a potential one. >YOUR argument is not an accurate >representation of the problem Really? Then which premise is false and why? >>In any case, none of this explains which premise is >>false and why, and the soundness of the argument would >>still appear to be intact. > >It explains how you've framed the problem with >suppositions about how infinity works and about what >it can and cannot do. Well, I do suppose that it follows the rules of basic logic! (See what I said above about finite years and the universe being infinitely old.) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date heh Damoclese 04/12/04 11:14am Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 4:47pm "one" -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 6:56pm Two -- Wade A. Tishtammer, 04/14/04 1:06pm What's good for the goose -- Damoclese, 04/14/04 5:04pm What other alternatives are there? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:37am Ganders -- Damoclese, 04/15/04 5:36pm Why abandon logic? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/04 12:14pm Hiatus over -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 6:53pm Illogical to abandon logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:47pm what a bounty -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:25pm Of logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:11pm of intuition -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 10:51am Of more logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:25pm One mistake... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:40am