Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Interesting Idea...

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 12:45:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could be way off on this....But unless once accepts an actual infinite number of things exists (at least in some sense), there will always be a metaphysical question mark hanging over any truth.

Something can only be true, if its true that its true (and so on and so forth). If only potential infinities can exist but not no actual infinities, then we could always add one more question mark behind the truth succession, and we would never know if the last truth was true or not. There has to be an actually infinite set of truths to say anything is true with certainty.

Therefore, if one is trying to argue that it is definitely true that an an actual infinite number of things is impossible, then the statement itself carries the seed of its own refutation.

Where am I wrong folks?
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 3:55:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a potential infinite or actual infinite you can still have a finite truth. For example in the set of all real number the number 1 is a finite truth. So is the statement "actual infinite number of things is impossible" a truth like the number 1? The extreme forms of finitism would say that it is a truth, but then again they also deny potential infinites.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 7:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You don't have to assume an infinite amount of proofs to have truth. If you prove something, say that 1 is a number, that's true. Then you could ask, is it true? is it true it's true? is it true it's true it's true? forever. But the first 'is it true?' is answered yes by the original proof, and so the next is yes as well, and the next, on and on, like mathematical induction. So we know it's true even if we go to infinity, but we don't have to.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:50:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 12:45:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be way off on this....But unless once accepts an actual infinite number of things exists (at least in some sense), there will always be a metaphysical question mark hanging over any truth.

Something can only be true, if its true that its true (and so on and so forth). If only potential infinities can exist but not no actual infinities, then we could always add one more question mark behind the truth succession, and we would never know if the last truth was true or not. There has to be an actually infinite set of truths to say anything is true with certainty.

Therefore, if one is trying to argue that it is definitely true that an an actual infinite number of things is impossible, then the statement itself carries the seed of its own refutation.

Where am I wrong folks?

The topic.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 9:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:50:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:45:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be way off on this....But unless once accepts an actual infinite number of things exists (at least in some sense), there will always be a metaphysical question mark hanging over any truth.

Something can only be true, if its true that its true (and so on and so forth). If only potential infinities can exist but not no actual infinities, then we could always add one more question mark behind the truth succession, and we would never know if the last truth was true or not. There has to be an actually infinite set of truths to say anything is true with certainty.

Therefore, if one is trying to argue that it is definitely true that an an actual infinite number of things is impossible, then the statement itself carries the seed of its own refutation.

Where am I wrong folks?

The topic.

BURN!

Though I am in favor of people working out concepts on their own, even if the concept could be found in some textbook.

I recall when very young posting what I considered an ingenious argument in a forum whereby if you know all the variables of interaction at the moment of creation, you can predict everything that happens afterwards.

Couldn't understand why people kept asking if I just liked to hear myself talk.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 10:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 7:07:19 PM, natoast wrote:
You don't have to assume an infinite amount of proofs to have truth. If you prove something, say that 1 is a number, that's true. Then you could ask, is it true? is it true it's true? is it true it's true it's true? forever. But the first 'is it true?' is answered yes by the original proof, and so the next is yes as well, and the next, on and on, like mathematical induction. So we know it's true even if we go to infinity, but we don't have to.

Fair enough. This was just something I came up with when I was high a few hours ago.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 10:06:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/30/2013 9:55:25 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/30/2013 9:50:14 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/30/2013 12:45:58 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I could be way off on this....But unless once accepts an actual infinite number of things exists (at least in some sense), there will always be a metaphysical question mark hanging over any truth.

Something can only be true, if its true that its true (and so on and so forth). If only potential infinities can exist but not no actual infinities, then we could always add one more question mark behind the truth succession, and we would never know if the last truth was true or not. There has to be an actually infinite set of truths to say anything is true with certainty.

Therefore, if one is trying to argue that it is definitely true that an an actual infinite number of things is impossible, then the statement itself carries the seed of its own refutation.

Where am I wrong folks?

The topic.

BURN!

Though I am in favor of people working out concepts on their own, even if the concept could be found in some textbook.

I recall when very young posting what I considered an ingenious argument in a forum whereby if you know all the variables of interaction at the moment of creation, you can predict everything that happens afterwards.

Couldn't understand why people kept asking if I just liked to hear myself talk.

"I recall when very young posting what I considered an ingenious argument in a forum whereby if you know all the variables of interaction at the moment of creation, you can predict everything that happens afterwards."

Determinism basically?