Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

Saturday, December 26, 02:58:06pm

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

Subject: How obfuscating and declarifying won the west Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 06/10/05 8:15pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "By all means, justify your position." on 06/10/05 12:26pm > >Due to the definition of what time is. Change (as >from state A to state B) presupposes time. If you mean everything YOU'VE experienced as time involves change, alright. That's quite a bit different than stating that the universe must respect what you think time is from your involvement with it. > >Then by all means please solve address my >philosophical reasons for thinking that. You can >start rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil >/past.html">here and rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil >/infinity_avenue.html">here. The operative word here is "good". Infinity not making logical sense isn't exactly some sort of newsflash nor is it a reason to suppose that an infinite universe can't or couldn't have existed. > >I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you are saying >that the notion of an actual infinite leads to >absurdities, I suppose you may be right. I'm saying that anytime you begin to deal with infinities of any variety it isn't all that hard to generate paradoxes. But that >itself argues against the existence of an actual >infinite, and in doing so argues against an infinite >past. No, it doesn't. Either the reasoning is right and an infinite past is impossible or the reasoning is inadequate in the first place. >Really? How would this dimension act without actually >being (or involving) time? I’m not convinced that >your proposal is a coherent position. I don't know any particulars but I can tell you something I'm not convinced of; I'm not convinced that the dimensions humans experience are the only kinds of dimensions that exist. Would you like to argue with that? Lacking a comprehensive explanation for dimensions we never experience isn't exactly a good reason to discredit the possibility of other dimensions. > >You seem to be confused. Metaphysics is a branch of >philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental >nature of reality. I'm aware of what it is; however, I don't think you are aware of its limitations--namely that one can metaphysic all day long but that at the end of the day what really matters is what ACTUALLY happens, not what metaphysics supposes cannot. When I say something is >"metaphysically impossible" I mean that it cannot be >possible in actual reality under any possible >circumstances. And reality will continue to be indifferent to your proclaimation. > >Mathematics does not suggest any such thing. Uh, yes it does. Zeno's >paradox has been resolved for quite some time now. No, it hasn't really been resolved. It's just been swept aside. >Didn't we discuss it already? I discussed it and you delcared it resolved. And didn't I offer a >resolution to the paradox? No. You offered the definition of a limit which doesn't really solve the problem it all; it just recasts it in a different light. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date By all means, justify your position (please). Wade A. Tisthammer 06/10/05 9:09pm Lifestyles of the rich and semantics -- Damoclese, 06/11/05 10:54am Lifestyles of Count Int -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/11/05 9:05pm