How obfuscating and declarifying won the west -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sunday, May 26, 08:27:46pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

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