| Subject: Presto |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/22/04 5:49pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "If you want to refute the argument, please pick a premise and try again." on 03/22/04 10:55am
>>
>>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?
Because successive addition of finite quantities such as days and years does not necessarily imply an infinite quantity.(how else do you get an infinite number of days or years?) Perhaps the case is that the limit is infinity. That would of course mean that years and days draw nearer and nearer to infinity,but that at each point the quantity of days and years passed is finite.
>
>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.
Then I withdraw that particular remark from the overall point of that post. (although you could have disagreed with me and admitted the possibility of such a thing happening and I'd still have withdrawn)
>>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.
Okay. So unwarranted assumptions are made in the premises, at least theoretically. Doesn't that theoretically mean the conclusions this argument draws about reality are subject to error?
>
>
>>
>>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.
Because we have a word called the present that is defined as "immediate existence" doesn't mean that there actually exists the thing in the first place. In fact, I'm not sure one can ever experience the present as we define it, because everywhere I try to appeal to something called "the present" I'm actually looking at "the recent past" or perhaps the near future.
For example, I can say I'm writing this post in the present, but that's actually not true, because each and every moment that I try to make that statement and prove it to myself, I'm appealing to the recent past to justify the claim.
However, I digress. The point is that just because we have a word for something doesn't mean that that something actually exists as some component of reality we can grab ahold of and manipulate.
>
>
>>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.
Looks like one to me. What about the possibility that both conclusions are simultaneously true? (as per my example about time being finite anywhere you go but approaching infinity)? What about those blurry assumptions about infinite pasts and beginningless tasks? Might those change the either orness of this argument? Aren't there truly gradations of truth for any given argument, this one included?
Black and white issues seldom if ever exist in nature. I have reason to suspect this argument doesn't violate that general rule.
And don't forget, nature has a way of making things that seem like obvious paradoxes at first glance end up being far deeper and more profound than expected. Paradoxes often belie ignorance of the mechanism of the way something works, like all the paradoxes that existed before the advent of relativity. Once the fundamental mechanism is elucidated, the paradoxes cease to be paradoxical, because the underlying assumptions change from one of imaginative speculation to observable facts in reality.
>
>
>>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.
I didn't say it said both were true. I said it supports both conclusions at once, which is what makes it a paradox in the first place. On the surface, that violates the law of noncontradiction. (e.g. he finishes in one line of reasoning based upon this argument, and he doesn't, in another based upon this argument) You yourself have admitted this argument means as much.
>
>
>
>Yes. But I see no self-contradiction in my argument.
Nor did you show any clear stated self-contradiction in my God argument. You simply took the implications one step further and rejected it out of hand. The premises of course, do not say anything that is directly self-contradicting.
>
>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.
Well, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree that successive finite addition can't be used to reach an actual infinite. What business have we postulating time as an "actual infinite" because the only way for time to imaginably be an "actual infinite" concerns finite addition? (in this case, the summation of years and days) You seem to be saying to me that an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, and then in the same breath saying somehow or other days and years can be infinite, which are by definition finite concepts, and can only imaginably be infinite by being added without bounds. You've even modeled your set this way.
If days are truly infinite, and years are truly infinite, they loose their meanings that we attach to them. In essence, they cease to be days and years as we know them.
>
>I maintain the reasoning is valid because I have
>established a formal proof proving that it is!
What I'm saying, and what I think Baz is saying is that the argument ceases to be valid if it doesn't hold in reality, even if it is perfectally logically valid.
It's possible for something to be logically valid, and in reality be invalid. It's simply a matter of how you choose to define your terms. Do you deny this?
>
>The argument is about reality, as to whether or not an
>infinite past exists. Where have I used reality to
>selectively test the argument?
Because you apply the conclusion of the argument to reality, without subjecting the premises to reality in the first place. It simply cannot work that way. You can't imagine up whatever you like, throw it in a deductive framework and command reality to function the way you imaginarialy invisioned it working.
>
>Yes, it is. That's the nature of a valid deductive
>argument.
The "nature of a valid deductive argument" is to be useful as a tool to make judgements about reality. What you've done is imagined a six-pointed philips head screwdriver, and commanded reality to thereby make all philips head screws six-slotted because it MUST be that way given your imaginative suppositions.
>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.
It's funny how three other people essentially agree with me on the main points, but obviously I'm the one who's "seeing (things) that aren't there".
>
>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.
Again, I do enjoy how three other people agree with me on the main points, but I'm the irrational one.
Nonetheless, what you are asking me to do in essence is attack your imagination and have me show you where it is wrong in how it pertains to reality. Well, with no offense intended, duh, it's imagination. That means not reality. That means "stuff I can make up that nature doesn't do". How can I attack something that isn't demonstratably real in the first place?
>
>And for the record, I was interested in
>learning from people on this board.
Well then, I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 