Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/15/04 11:37am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "What's good for the goose" on 04/14/04 5:04pm
>>Sounds like an infinite temporal loop, in which case
>>it would still be infinitely old, having traversed an
>>infinite number of years etc. Damoclese, do you
>>believe the past is infinite or not?
>
>Something existing outside of time cannot said to be
>infinitely old because it exists outside of time.
I think you need to explain your model in more detail here. What is it?
In any case, even if the universe does exist outside of time (and all observations would appear to indicate that time does exist in our universe) it doesn't affect the veracity of the premises or conclusion, since the universe would still not be infinitely old.
>As far as concerns the past, I said there are too many
>possibilities and models from which to choose.
Yes, the problem is that none of them affect the veracity of the premises. Whether the universe is infinitely old or not, whether we're talking about a past that is linear or loopy, whether it has intermittent blotches of temporal limbo etc. doesn't matter. It doesn’t affect the veracity of any of my premises. If the universe is of infinite age, there have been an infinite number of years being traversed before the present regardless of what flavor of an infinite past you use.
>>>I'd encourage you to avoid either/or fallacies
>>>especially when it comes to the universe.
>>
>>I was not making either/or fallacies, I was using
>>sensible logic. If the past exists, it is infinite or
>>it is not. If it is not infinite, then it is finite.
>>There are no other alternatives.
>
>Sure there are. Time itself could break down to name
>one.
Again, I think you need to explain yourself. What is "name one"? Where does time break down? If time does break down at some point, would it not still be finite? (Either the universe begins to exist or it does not.)
>And basically you are saying it is either infinite, or
>finite. Sounds like an either or/fallacy to me.
Only if there are more alternatives. There doesn't appear to be any here. Either the universe begins to exist or it does not (law of excluded middle). The past being finite vs. infinite seems to logically follow from this. I don’t see any alternatives, and your “time breaking down” concept is a little too unclear.
>>>see above. A universe existing outside of time
>>>provides the answer.
>>
>>No it doesn't. If the past is infinite, then an
>>infinite amount of years necessarily has been
>>traversed, regardless if it goes through an infinite
>>temporal loop.
>
>So what?
So, the past would still be infinite regardless of what flavor you choose.
>The universe
>MAKES logic. It doesn't have to obey it.
The universe does have to obey things like the law of excluded middle, the law of noncontradiction etc.
>>I've got a hunch your overzealousness has blinded your
>>thinking. I ask again, what basis do you have for
>>your accusations?
>
>Here's a syllogism for you. Humans have biases. You
>are a human. Therefore you have biases.
You seem to be saying that every human (including me) has biases. That's nice. But that doesn't at all prove that I'm being “intellectually dishonest,” that I'm “egocentrically self-righteous” or anything of the sort.
>>But you are the one who appears to be claiming the
>>argument is unsound.
>
>Well of course I am because you haven't done much in
>the line of proving your defintions.
What definitions? If you don't understand a term just ask me and I'll be happy to explain it. (Note: I did rationally support each premise.)
>>If it's so allegedly flimsy why don't you attack it
>>and destroy the argument in a rational, logical
>manner?
>
>I have by any sane person's criteria.
I'm sane and I don't think so. The logical way to attack a deductively valid argument is to attack a premise, but you have a habit of not doing that here.
>>Again, the only way the argument can fail to be sound
>>is if a premise is false. Do you deny this?
>
>Strictly speaking, yes.
But that denial appears illogical. I am correct in that the only way an argument can fail to be sound is if one of the premises is false. (Remember, soundness = validity + true premises). So if a deductively valid argument is not sound, not having true premises is the only logically possible way it is unsound. I don't see how you can rationally deny this.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 