Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I'm not convinced....

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:44:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
...that an infinite series of events is possible. I am also not convinced than an actual infinite can exist. When people speak on eternal inflation or a multiverse with an infinite amount of universes, how does make sense of such a proposition? I agree that eternal inflation is scientifically feasible and a multiverse is as well, but logically and philosophically how does one get around the problem of infinity?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:33:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

You said: "logically and philosophically how does one get around the problem of infinity?" What problem?
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:41:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Try repenting of sin, following YHWH in Yahshua's name and obeying Torah, I guarentee you in time answers to the really important questions will hit you like a tomatoe in the temple in no time, as far as infinity, well that will be explained to you by YHWH over the course of infinity. It's going to be a good time, "join us if you want to live." John Cooper, 1997 or so from the band Skillet.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:45:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:33:56 PM, Pwner wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

You said: "logically and philosophically how does one get around the problem of infinity?" What problem?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase:

"The proposed problem"

You cannot claim ignorance on the proposed problem, as this would contradict your original statement that it tends to beg the question.

So, why does the proposed problem beg the question? Certainly you have heard the argument against transversing an infinite series, or against an actual infinite (Hilbert's Hotel). I am not here to defend these arguments. I am asking what reason we should have to believe that the conclusion of these arguments are false.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work. But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is. But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical. That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.

But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.



That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:04:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A concept of infinity can exist:

For example, a math number can be infinite. Since math does not have to be represented physically, since it is more of an idea, it can go on for as long as you want, since it will never physically end, since it does not exist on a physical realm.

That's some deep shite bro.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.



That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy? You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:14:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.

Yes, it is.




That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy?

Because it's a yes or no question......

You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..

What I am saying is that we have a conception of logic, which is based on reality as we currently know it. If reality changed, we would still have that logic based on that reality, and it would not be entirely invalid. How is that hard to understand?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Traversing infinite arguments are unsound because they assume there'd be two points to travel between: one to traverse from and one to traverse to. But in an actually infinite past, there is no 'first' point. Even Thomas Aquinas acknowledged this.

Hilbert's hotel, and similar arguments, would at best show that it's metaphysically impossible to perform subtraction on an actually infinite amount, not that an actually infinite amount can't exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:42:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:14:02 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.

Yes, it is.




That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy?

Because it's a yes or no question......

You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..

What I am saying is that we have a conception of logic, which is based on reality as we currently know it. If reality changed, we would still have that logic based on that reality, and it would not be entirely invalid. How is that hard to understand?

I understand your proposition, you just have not supported it. How could you say our logic would still hold if reality changed? What type of change?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:44:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:42:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:14:02 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.

Yes, it is.




That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy?

Because it's a yes or no question......

You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..

What I am saying is that we have a conception of logic, which is based on reality as we currently know it. If reality changed, we would still have that logic based on that reality, and it would not be entirely invalid. How is that hard to understand?

I understand your proposition, you just have not supported it. How could you say our logic would still hold if reality changed? What type of change?

I doesn't matter what type of change. All I am saying is that you would still have that concept of logic, and the ability to apply it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:48:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:40:20 PM, Pwner wrote:
Traversing infinite arguments are unsound because they assume there'd be two points to travel between: one to traverse from and one to traverse to. But in an actually infinite past, there is no 'first' point. Even Thomas Aquinas acknowledged this.

Even if there is no "point" to transverse from, how would this change the fact that there never would have been a "now" moment due to needing to tranverse an infinite amount? Isn't your rebuttal kind of a red herring, or am I missing something?


Hilbert's hotel, and similar arguments, would at best show that it's metaphysically impossible to perform subtraction on an actually infinite amount, not that an actually infinite amount can't exist.

You are saying that just because you cannot perform math on infinity, that does not mean infinity cannot exist. However, how is the idea of a number that you cannot perform math on make any sense?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:44:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:42:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:14:02 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.

Yes, it is.




That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy?

Because it's a yes or no question......

You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..

What I am saying is that we have a conception of logic, which is based on reality as we currently know it. If reality changed, we would still have that logic based on that reality, and it would not be entirely invalid. How is that hard to understand?

I understand your proposition, you just have not supported it. How could you say our logic would still hold if reality changed? What type of change?

I doesn't matter what type of change. All I am saying is that you would still have that concept of logic, and the ability to apply it.

This makes no sense. If our logic (we will call it logic 1) is based on reality 1, and reality 1 changes to reality 2, then how could logic 1 still hold? Wouldn't we have to make up logic 2?
gordonjames
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 4:50:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

I fond that formal logic is usually flawed in the flawed assumptions we use as a foundation. Reality is. We try to make sense of it.

The existence of dark matter and dark energy suggest that we have a long way to go in understanding our universe.

from NASA - Roughly 70% of the Universe is made of dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%.

- http://science.nasa.gov...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 5:23:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:44:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
... how does one get around the problem of infinity?

Try getting around without it. You'll run into apparent contradictions every bit as fast without infinity as with. Are you really ready to believe that the circumference of the universe has jaggies?
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 5:33:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

Herberts hotel, and other variations of it.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:37:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bump.

Can anybody show how the common arguments for the notion that an infinite series/ actual infinite fail? I would like to believe these infinity scenarios are possible, but I am rather convinced that they are not.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 8:29:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 7:37:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Bump.

Can anybody show how the common arguments for the notion that an infinite series/ actual infinite fail? I would like to believe these infinity scenarios are possible, but I am rather convinced that they are not.

We don't understand infinity well.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 10:34:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 8:29:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2013 7:37:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Bump.

Can anybody show how the common arguments for the notion that an infinite series/ actual infinite fail? I would like to believe these infinity scenarios are possible, but I am rather convinced that they are not.

We don't understand infinity well.

Isn't this potentially like saying we just do not understand a married bachelor well, or non-sequiturs could be valid but we just do not understand them fully? If something is illogical then it cannot exist, it's not that we just do not understand them.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 4:49:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You need to be convinced of this:

http://www.beithakavod.com.........

Please heed this:

Luk_17:4 "And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day comes back to you, saying, "I repent," you shall forgive him."
Act_2:38 And Kepha said to them, "Repent, and let each one of you be immersed in the Name of Yahshua the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins.1 And you shall receive the gift of the Set-apart Spirit. Footnote: 1See 2:40, 3:19, 3:26.
Act_3:19 "Repent therefore and turn back, for the blotting out of your sins, in order that times of refreshing might come from the presence of the Master,
Act_8:22 "Repent therefore of this evil of yours, and plead with Elohim to forgive you the intention of your heart.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 4:58:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 4:49:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:44:40 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:42:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:14:02 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:08:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 4:02:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:56:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:48:25 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:18:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:14:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:06:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 3:00:27 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:57:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/26/2013 2:52:05 PM, Pwner wrote:
In my experience, arguments against actual infinites tend to beg the question. I'm curious, what's the problem with infinity?

I never made the positive claim there was a problem with infinity. I made the claim that I am not convinced that it is possible. For all you know, I could have neutral stance on the issue; I did not make any positive claims. You made the positive claim however that the arguments against an infinite series and an actual infinite beg the question. The only reasonable thing for you do do now is support this, because without such action it remains a bare assertion.

I'v seen some arguments for infinities not being possible. They generally consist of stating that it is not logically possible. But I disagree that reality conforms to logic.

"But I disagree that reality conforms to logic."

I agree; Logic conforms to reality. Therefore, it is a perfect tool for discovering the truths and falsehoods pertaining to reality. If logic does not work, then reality does not work because logic is based on reality.

Or your conception of logic is incorrect.

What do you mean by "my conception"? You mean everybody's conception of basic logic? I don't have my own conceptual brand of logic you know, so I have no clue what you mean . In order to say something is incoherent you would have to presuppose logic exists. Thus, your argument is self-refuting if you are trying to say that the human races logic is incoherent.

Logic is just a way of describing consistency in how things work.

I agree.


But logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.

I agree. No quarrels here.

Therefore, whatever you, or anyone else, considers logic, can be different than what reality is.

This is a non-sequitur, and it makes no sense. Logic is based on reality, therefore how can you say that logic can be different than one reality is? Are you saying that it is possible that some corners of existence where perfectly spherical cubes and married bachelors could be dancing around?

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know, is that if reality changes, you will still have your conception of logic, but it will not correspond with reality.


But, lets say this happened. Lets say that all of reality suddenly changed and no longer corresponded to what we consider to be logical.

This is self-contradictory. Your argument assumes the logic of this reality to make that claim feasible. If something changes "x", then "x" is not the same as it was before the change. This is based on our logic. Thus you would have to presume our logic to get rid of it in this fashion.

Now that's a non-sequitur.

That is a bare assertion.

Yes, it is.




That does not mean that I can no longer use logic, or that logic as we know it is entirely invalid. It simply means that reality is no longer corresponding with what we think of as logical.

This is the exact same thing. If the universe no longer corresponded with what we think is logical, then all our logic is completely invalid. A reality that no longer corresponds with our logic would include a house that is as red as possible with a blue spot in the corner, this would make our logic that says this cannot happen invalid.

So, I can't think in terms that are not logical?

If you answer yes, you're an idiot. If you answer no, then you have disproved yourself.

How is this a true dichotomy?

Because it's a yes or no question......

You already disproved yourself by claiming that laws are descriptive of our reality, but that our logic would still be valid if reality if we had a different reality. Please explain how that makes sense please..

What I am saying is that we have a conception of logic, which is based on reality as we currently know it. If reality changed, we would still have that logic based on that reality, and it would not be entirely invalid. How is that hard to understand?

I understand your proposition, you just have not supported it. How could you say our logic would still hold if reality changed? What type of change?

I doesn't matter what type of change. All I am saying is that you would still have that concept of logic, and the ability to apply it.

This makes no sense. If our logic (we will call it logic 1) is based on reality 1, and reality 1 changes to reality 2, then how could logic 1 still hold? Wouldn't we have to make up logic 2?

Yes, if we wanted our logic to be consistent with reality 2, then a formulation of logic 2 would be necessary, but that does not erase logic 1 from our memories. We would still have logic 1, it would just not correlate with reality.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.