Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/23/04 8:09pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Presto" on 03/22/04 5:49pm
>>>
>>>Me: Not necessarily. It's possible for something to
>>>approach infinity without ever becoming infinity.
>It's
>>>even possible to sum an infinite series and get a
>>>finite answer. This doesn't logically follow at
>>>all.It's a logical GUESS.
>>
>>It logically follows in this case. In an
>>infinite past, there are an infinite number of years
>>that have gone by. In an infinite past, there are an
>>infinite number of days that have gone by. With all
>>due respect, how can you deny all of this and say it's
>>merely a guess?
>
>Because successive addition of finite quantities such
>as days and years does not necessarily imply an
>infinite quantity.
Well, yes. I agree. But an infinite past (with an infinite amount of time having gone past) still means an infinite number of years and days. It's only logical.
Now perhaps the argument does fail, but if it fails I don't think it's here.
>>No it does not. The conclusion logically follows from
>>the premises. Perhaps some unwarranted assumptions
>>about concepts are made, but if they are made anywhere
>>it's in the premises.
>
>Okay. So unwarranted assumptions are made in the
>premises, at least theoretically. Doesn't that
>theoretically mean the conclusions this argument draws
>about reality are subject to error?
YES!
What I'm saying is that if the argument fails, a premise has to be wrong (because the argument is deductively valid). Perhaps the argument can be refuted and destroyed, but if we're going to establish that we have to pick one of the premises and explain why it is wrong. (Note: I suggest the first premise, that one appears most vulnerable.)
I just don't want anyone to reject the argument for the wrong reasons. Perhaps there are objections that work, but here are clearly many that do not.
>>I agree, but it seems quite evident that there is.
>>After all, we are here right now.
>
>Because we have a word called the present that is
>defined as "immediate existence" doesn't mean that
>there actually exists the thing in the first place.
True, but the "present" when defined as "a moment or period in time perceptible as intermediate between past and future" or perhaps more accurately, "now" it seems we are indeed here on the basis of direct observation.
>>>Wade: Either Shandy finished his autobiography or he
>>>is infinitely far behind.
>>>
>>>Me: This is the either/or fallacy based on things
>that
>>>are less than tangible.
>>
>>This isn't an either/or fallacy. I've proved this
>>premise to be correct. If you have a problem take it
>>up with my mathematics used to justify this premise.
>
>Looks like one to me. What about the possibility that
>both conclusions are simultaneously true?
Even if that wasn't contradictory, the disjunction would still hold. At least in the formal proof, it’s an inclusive or.
>And don't forget, nature has a way of making things
>that seem like obvious paradoxes at first glance end
>up being far deeper and more profound than expected.
Fine, but I still like to base my knowledge of reality on reason. If we have reason to believe the past is not infinite (as via a sound deductive argument), then so be it.
>>>This argument supports both of
>>>these conclusions simultaneously, making it violate
>>>the law of noncontradiction also.
>>
>>No, it does not anywhere claim that both of these are
>>true. This is a disjunction, an or, as you
>>seemed to know when you called this an "either/or"
>>fallacy, not a "both" fallacy.
>
>I didn't say it said both were true. I said it
>supports both conclusions at once
Hmm, what do you think I was talking about when I said "it does not anywhere claim that both of these are true"?
What were those conclusions anyway? Where they not, "Either Shandy finished his autobiography or he is infinitely far behind"? If so (as it seemed to be in the first post of this thread) I maintain that the argument does not anywhere claim that both of these are true.
>>If that "something" is time then yes there is. If
>>time began to exist, we can never reach a point where
>>the past becomes infinite, because an actual infinite
>>cannot be formed by successive finite addition.
>
>Well, let's say for the sake of argument that I agree
>that successive finite addition can't be used to reach
>an actual infinite. What business have we postulating
>time as an "actual infinite" because the only way for
>time to imaginably be an "actual infinite" concerns
>finite addition?
Well, I don't really postulate that time is an actual infinite at all, really.
>If days are truly infinite, and years are truly
>infinite, they loose their meanings that we attach to
>them.
I think you misunderstand. When I said there were an infinite number of years in an infinite past, I was not talking about the length of the years, only that they would be in infinite quantity in the infinite past.
>>I maintain the reasoning is valid because I have
>>established a formal proof proving that it is!
>
>What I'm saying, and what I think Baz is saying is
>that the argument ceases to be valid if it doesn't
>hold in reality
The argument is deductively valid whether it is true or not, whether it is sound or not, whether it holds in reality or not. Remember what I mean by "valid," I'm using terminology from logic. An argument being deductively valid does not by itself mean that the argument is true, it only means that the conclusion is true if all the premises are true. Thus, if the argument is false, at least one premise must be false. (And that is why I have tried to focus on the premises of this Tristram Shandy argument.)
>It's possible for something to be logically valid, and
>in reality be invalid. It's simply a matter of how you
>choose to define your terms. Do you deny this?
Depends on how you define the terms. Something that is logically valid is in reality valid, if you don't redefine the terms in this sentence.
Perhaps the argument is not valid in the sense that it is logically unsound, but to establish this, a premise needs to be attacked.
>>The argument is about reality, as to whether or not an
>>infinite past exists. Where have I used reality to
>>selectively test the argument?
>
>Because you apply the conclusion of the argument to
>reality, without subjecting the premises to reality in
>the first place.
I think the premises could in reality be true. And if they are true then the conclusion must be true also.
>>Yes, it is. That's the nature of a valid deductive
>>argument.
>
>The "nature of a valid deductive argument" is to be
>useful as a tool to make judgements about reality.
Again, an argument that is deductively valid just means that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true. Hence, if the argument is flawed it has to be in the premises. That's all I'm saying here.
>>I think these tidbits show Damoclese may be getting a
>>little too obsessive about this. Seeing
>>inconsistencies that aren't there, spawning new
>>threads in this manner, obfuscating (unintentionally)
>>a number of points etc.
>
>It's funny how three other people essentially agree
>with me on the main points
On what main points? Care to give some specific examples?
>>Again, if you want to attack the argument, pick a
>>premise! A premise failing is the only way the
>>arugment can fail, yet you have constantly dodged
>>this. If you can't find one, I suggest you let this
>>go instead of attacking it. Otherwise it looks a bit
>>irrationally obsessive.
>
>Again, I do enjoy how three other people agree with me
>on the main points, but I'm the irrational one.
Rationality is not decided by popular opinion.
I have proved the argument to be deductively valid. I was not incorrect or irrational in saying that the only way to successively attack the argument is to attack a premise. I'm saying you might appear irrationally obsessive because you attack the argument as if it is wrong (and perhaps it is) but often neglect a rational means of attacking it (i.e. attacking a premise, since a premise is the only logical way the argument can fail). And what are these points anyway?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 