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, October 17, 09:46:39pm

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

Subject: Nah Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/12/04 4:13pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "This one is." on 03/12/04 3:28pm > >I don't believe it is because I don't believe an >infinite past is feasible. An infinite past is not the same as a beginningless task performed by a human. >Important? yes. > >>"Craig further points out that the picture Russell >>paints entails a beginningless task. That is, if one >>were to ask "Where in the temporal series of events >>are the days recorded by Tristram Shandy at any given >>point?" then, according to Craig, one could only >>answer that the days are infinitely distant from the >>present" > >How is this "important"? Because it is only true in reference to a beginningless task. (as the quote shows) > >Yes, I suppose that's correct. Again, how is this >"important"? see above. > >>Do you really think constructing a task with no >>beginning (that an immortal human does no less) seems >>like something that OUGHT to necessarily be the case >>with what in reality we consider the past? > >Not if the past is finite. An infinite past doesn't imply a beginningless human task. > >Because the Tristram Shandy paradox examines the >implications of an infinite past. No it doesn't. It examines the implications of a human who is given a beginningless task. (which is of course, impossible) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Sure. Wade A. Tisthammer 03/13/04 1:42pm Yes you did. -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 2:01pm Did what? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 2:18pm I don't think so. -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 3:09pm I do. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 4:21pm Go to it then -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:30pm