Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/10/05 9:09pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "How obfuscating and declarifying won the west" on 06/10/05 8:15pm
>>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.
No, I'm basing it upon the definition of time that change presupposes time.
>>Then by all means please solve address my
>>philosophical reasons for thinking that. You can
>>start here and 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.
Oh? Why not? Should we accept illogical theories if we want them to be true?
Call me Mr. Spock, but I'll think I'll stick with a finite past if an infinite past is illogical.
>>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.
Call me a rationalist, but I'll think I'll stick with the former. I don't want to give up on reason just yet unless I have good reason to (pun not intended).
>>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
That's what I thought.
>>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
Well, yes. But the metaphysics (in this case) is concerned with what actually happens and what is actually possible in the actual world.
>>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.
Ditto.
Nonetheless, I at least have reason to back up my claims (e.g. my argument against an infinite past). What do you have? A really good hunch?
>>Mathematics does not suggest any such thing.
>
>Uh, yes it does.
By all means, justify your position (please).
>>Didn't we discuss it already?
>
>I discussed it and you delcared it resolved.
Indeed, but then by all means justify your insinuation that my resolution didn't work.
If you don't remember what it is, by all means justify your position regarding what mathematics allegedly says and I'll give a rebuttal.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 