| Subject: Lifestyles of the rich and semantics |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/11/05 10:54am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "By all means, justify your position (please)." on 06/10/05 9:09pm
>
>No, I'm basing it upon the definition of time that
>change presupposes time.
Based on?
>Oh? Why not? Should we accept illogical theories if
>we want them to be true?
The alternative is not to "accept illogical theories". The alternative that I think is most rational is to assume that the reasoning behind such things is somehow not complete.
Assuming that logic probably isn't complete isn't as radical as you seem to make it out to be.
>
>Call me Mr. Spock, but I'll think I'll stick with a
>finite past if an infinite past is illogical.
But it has nothing to do with the PAST per se, but rather the infinity. It isn't suprising to learn that something that contains the notion of an infinity produces circumstances such that contradictions are generated since infinity does this readily in other contexts.
>
>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).
Choosing one possibility among two equally good ones doesn't make you a rationalist, so I won't call you one.
>
>Well, yes. But the metaphysics (in this case)
>is concerned with what actually happens and
>what is actually possible in the actual world.
I guess if you'd rather use metaphysics as the arbiter of reality rather than reality itself, that's your business.
>
>Ditto.
>
>Nonetheless, I at least have reason to back up
>my claims (e.g. my argument against an infinite past).
Yes, you are using reason on an element that has shown itself to not be very amenable to reason which I don't think really makes you deserving of a gold star.
> What do you have? A really good hunch?
Well, there is that whole "logic doesn't deal well with infinities" bit. Therefore, it is reasonable NOT to rule out an infinite past as a possibility based on your argument.
>
>By all means, justify your position (please).
Alright. If you have to travel a distance then it's safe to assume that you have to travel the WHOLE distance. Therefore, in order to travel the WHOLE distance, you must travel the pieces of the distance. However, the pieces of the distance are infinite in number, so you cannot travel the whole distance because you can never traverse the pieces.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 