Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/11/05 9:05pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Lifestyles of the rich and semantics" on 06/11/05 10:54am
>>No, I'm basing it upon the definition of time that
>>change presupposes time.
>
>Based on?
I'll explain this again. To quote myself:
Change (as from state A to state B) presupposes time. There would be a past state A and a current state B.
>>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.
Ah, assume that the reasoning is flawed, as opposed to actually refuting it.
Call me a skeptic, but I would like to see some explanation why my evidential arguments are flawed.
>>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.
Some (such as William Lane Craig) have used such contradictions to argue that an actual infinite can't exist in the real world; it's a mathematical concept only. Are you saying that the absurdities don't matter? Is reductio ad absurdum somehow an exception here?
For that matter, what about my arguments? Do you have an actual reason why they don't work (e.g. which premise fails and why)? Or are you just assuming they’re flawed?
>>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
Equally good? By all means, justify your position. I have given justification for my claim that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible (and is therefore not equally good as a finite past). Maybe you think my evidential arguments are wrong, but ignoring them certainly won't make them go away.
>>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
You’re making a false dichotomy. Metaphysics is concerned with actual reality. I am using reality and reason to justify my position.
>>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
By all means, justify your position.
Call me a rationalist, but I’m not giving up on reason just yet. I think reason is very appropriate finding the truth about an infinite past.
>>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.
Why not? First of all, I dispute the claim that space actually consists of an infinite number of discrete units. That would seem like question begging. Suppose I traverse ten meters at the rate of one meter per second. It is true we could a priori subdivide the region infinitely many times. But how would those subdivisions prevent me (logically or otherwise) from traversing that distance?
It might be valid if I only travel one of the infinitely small pieces at a finite rate (say, one per second); 1 piece, 2 piece, 3 piece... Like the story of Count Int (see this web page) it cannot be done. But that's not what is happening here. I'm traveling an infinite amount of those subdivisions per second. Given that, those subdivisions do nothing to prevent me from walking the distance.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 