Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/22/04 10:55am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "This really deserves its own thread--wade reflections and refutations" on 03/21/04 10:20am
>Ben: X and y (I'm
>>using these instead of your years and days) cannot, of
>>course, be equal, since the very idea of years and
>>days involves their being very different amounts of
>>time.
>
>Wade: The quantity of days and years are both
>infinite. This logically and necessarily follows from
>an infinite past.
>
>Me: Not necessarily. It's possible for something to
>approach infinity without ever becoming infinity. It's
>even possible to sum an infinite series and get a
>finite answer. This doesn't logically follow at
>all.It's a logical GUESS.
It logically follows in this case. In an infinite past, there are an infinite number of years that have gone by. In an infinite past, there are an infinite number of days that have gone by. With all due respect, how can you deny all of this and say it's merely a guess?
>Past Me: >Infinity, by definition, is endless. It is an
>>absurdity to talk about a "past infinity" because it
>>essentially means the past is endless which means
>>there is no such thing as a future or present. (we're
>>stuck in the past, forever.)
>
>Wade: No, this is indeed the present, and an infinite
>past would not imply otherwise.
>
>Me: An endless past could very easily imply that the
>present is never reached.
After some researching on my own after I made the above remark, I actually agree with you. I think that if the past was infinite, the present would never be reached.
>Wade: the scenario is hypothetical, but its conclusion
>logically follows from the premises and if so it
>implies an infinite past cannot exist in the real,
>non-imaginary world
>
>Me:This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of
>the boundaries of logic.
No it does not. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. Perhaps some unwarranted assumptions about concepts are made, but if they are made anywhere it's in the premises.
>Wade: If the physical universe were now infinite[sic]
>old somehow (thus having an infinite past) it still
>stands to reason that there is a present, by direct
>observation
>
>Me: Stands to reason if there is such an entity as the
>present to begin with.
I agree, but it seems quite evident that there is. After all, we are here right now.
>Wade: Either Shandy finished his autobiography or he
>is infinitely far behind.
>
>Me: This is the either/or fallacy based on things that
>are less than tangible.
This isn't an either/or fallacy. I've proved this premise to be correct. If you have a problem take it up with my mathematics used to justify this premise.
>This argument supports both of
>these conclusions simultaneously, making it violate
>the law of noncontradiction also.
No, it does not anywhere claim that both of these are true. This is a disjunction, an or, as you seemed to know when you called this an "either/or" fallacy, not a "both" fallacy.
>Wade: The fact that it implies an
>absurdity/absurdities is the whole point.
>
>Me: Which is precisely the case with my God argument,
>which I'll hasten to remind the reader, was rejected
>by Wade because it implied a contradiction.
Yes. But I see no self-contradiction in my argument.
>Wade: Well, the reason that wouldn't work is that the
>past, since it is infinite, has no beginning
>
>Me: Arguing that there is no beginning to the past
>because it is infinite is less than compelling and
>circular to boot.
How is it circular? I think I need to understand the context here. What text was I replying to?
>There is nothing to prevent
>something from beginning to come into existance, and
>then becoming infinite.
If that "something" is time then yes there is. If time began to exist, we can never reach a point where the past becomes infinite, because an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive finite addition.
>Baz: If one of the conditions within an argument is
>impossible then the reasoning becomes invalid.
>
>Me: Precisely. The argument has no import to reality.
>Wade conveiniently forgets this fact.
>
>Wade in response to Baz: No, the reasoning is
>perfectly valid. Let's look at the argument:
>
>Me: Wade maintains the reasoning is valid despite the
>fact that it is based on things that are not mirrored
>in reality.
I maintain the reasoning is valid because I have established a formal proof proving that it is!
>Baz: In your arguments you have moved from a situation
>where deduction is not possible (we cannot DEDUCE
>whether there has been an infinite past or not,
>because there are no PREMISES from which to argue,) to
>an everyday situation which represents a possible
>situation WITHIN REALITY - Shandy writing his life’s
>story. We have moved into a completely different
>dimension of thought, from speculation to REALITY. In
>REALITY, all we have is an individual writing daily
>until he dies. In REALITY his aims and motives do not
>matter and the situation certainly has absolutely no
>connection with the REALITY, or not, of infinite time.
>Thought does not change REALITY outside the thinkers
>neurochemistry, only action does.
>
>Me: Precisely. Wade uses reality selectively as a test
>for his argument. He either knowingly deceives
>himself, or simply does it unconciously.
The argument is about reality, as to whether or not an infinite past exists. Where have I used reality to selectively test the argument?
>Still, Wade stubbornly persists: The only way to
>reject the conclusion is to reject at least one of the
>premises.
>
>Me: No, that isn't the only way.
Yes, it is. That's the nature of a valid deductive argument.
>I think these tidbits are sufficient to show that Wade
>never was really interested in learning from anyone
>else on this board although he framed the original
>question as though he was.
I think these tidbits show Damoclese may be getting a little too obsessive about this. Seeing inconsistencies that aren't there, spawning new threads in this manner, obfuscating (unintentionally) a number of points etc.
Again, if you want to attack the argument, pick a premise! A premise failing is the only way the arugment can fail, yet you have constantly dodged this. If you can't find one, I suggest you let this go instead of attacking it. Otherwise it looks a bit irrationally obsessive.
And for the record, I was interested in learning from people on this board.
>Clearly, this topic is exhuasted
Then why do you keep bringing it up again?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 