Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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):

Tuesday, May 13, 06:06:46pm

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

Subject: Guess who's back (guess who's back (guess who's back)) Author: Duane [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02/11/04 9:39am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Proof against an infinite past?" on 01/ 9/04 5:47pm Wade, Ben, Dam, Don, Jorge: (well, maybe not Jorge) (Whatever happened to him, anyways?) ;) First, my apologies to any of Ben's Forum regulars I've left out. It's been a while, and its nice to see that the diehards are still live and kicking. On to Wade's paradox. There is no paradox. Let's review the argument: 1) Tristam requires one year to record a day's worth of events 2) The past is an infinite amount of time. 3) If the past is an infinite amount of time, there is a 1:1 correspondence of days to years. 4) Therefore, Tristam can complete his biography. #4 is clearly an inappropriate deduction because of the additional axiom you stated: 1) a) Tristam cannot write about a day before he has lived it which implies that Tristam's experience of and existence in time is directional. #3 clearly follows from #2, but they are both unrelated to our hero's plight. Tristam experiences time in a linear fashion, and therefore exists within time, as you've defined it in this argument. It follows, therefore, that Tristam can never complete his autobiography, since his rate of completion is less than his rate of accumulation of new experiences to write about. (Incidentally, I can't say I'd be very interested in reading the chapters about "The Writing Years": "I was writing and writing and writing and writing and writing and writing...") There is technically no paradox in this argument. It appears to be paradoxical due to the fact that axiom #2 and inference #3 are lexically similar to the situation in axiom #1, but, clearly, deduction #4 is inappropriate given corollary 1.a). Comments? Complaints? Dissent? Please let me know. And, it's good to read all of your words again. Thanks, Ben! Sincerely, Duane [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Nobody wants Marshall no more Damoclese 02/11/04 8:42pm What day did he write about last year? Wade A. Tisthammer 02/12/04 10:29am Infinity interrupted -- Damoclese, 02/12/04 12:14pm Re: Infinity interrupted -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/13/04 12:02pm dandy -- Damoclese, 02/13/04 9:01pm The numbering scheme. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/15/04 3:15pm Practicality -- Damoclese, 02/15/04 7:33pm Actuality -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/16/04 8:07pm ? -- Damoclese, 02/16/04 9:29pm ! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/20/04 10:43am Looking Back... -- Damoclese, 02/22/04 9:44pm Some clarifications. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/27/04 1:54pm Answer -- Damoclese, 02/27/04 3:28pm Infinity began? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/27/04 10:45pm Infinity squared -- Damoclese, 02/28/04 7:19am oops -- Damoclese, 02/28/04 7:59am Splitting unnecessary hairs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/ 5/04 11:59am Giggle -- Damoclese, 03/ 5/04 3:34pm My point exactly -- Ben, 03/ 2/04 7:34am And what point would that be? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/ 5/04 12:03pm Not absurd - only logical. -- Duane, 02/12/04 4:35pm Logically absurd -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/13/04 11:56am Invalid -- Baz, 03/ 4/04 1:49am Invalid? Where? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/ 5/04 11:51am Fallacious thinking. -- Baz, 03/ 5/04 8:39pm And........ -- Baz, 03/ 7/04 4:56pm I missed yesterday!!!! -- Damoclese, 03/ 7/04 5:11pm Oh yeah? Where? Which premise? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/12/04 10:48am I give up! -- Baz, 03/12/04 12:12pm Why? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/12/04 12:54pm Actually -- Damoclese, 03/12/04 3:27pm Factually -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/12/04 3:39pm This. -- Damoclese, 03/12/04 4:18pm That. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 1:38pm Premise pogo -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 1:51pm Don't pogo around the premises, pick one! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 2:23pm twister -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 3:01pm 'round and 'round we go... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 4:26pm In the argument -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:29pm I can do that too. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 10:17pm But not as well -- Damoclese, 03/14/04 8:11am Where are the assumptions? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 12:23pm Confession of much apathy -- Damoclese, 03/15/04 5:29pm If you're apathetic about this, why have you continued so far? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/18/04 9:55am Oh. That's all it is? -- Duane, 08/12/04 5:10am