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):

Monday, April 28, 06:06:34am

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

Subject: Which premise? Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09/12/04 6:46pm In reply to: Duane 's message, "NOOOOOOOOOooo! Tristam lives again.... (retraction of some of previous statement)" on 09/ 7/04 8:16am >Wade: > >RRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh... (pardon my noise of >frustration) > >I think I was wrong about what I said in the first >post of this thread... > >"Infinite" implies one-to-one and onto (which is the >same as bijection), so premise 1 is OK. > >This paradox haunts my dreams. (like the painted man) > >But my comments on "absurdity" and the actual >relevance of infinity to the real world still stand. >I think that those trying to "disprove" something >about our natural world using this paradox are >probably trying to apply meaning to the natural >numbers system that can't be applied without extra >axioms. If you think my argument is wrong, which premise is false and why? To recap: If an infinite past is metaphysically possible, then Tristram Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as time has existed should not lead to absurdities. If Shandy has been writing from eternity past (i.e. has been writing all along the infinite, beginningless past) he is either infinitely far behind or he finishes his autobiography at some point. Shandy finishing his autobiography, since it takes him a whole year to write about a day, is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen. Shandy being infinitely far behind means the present would never be reached (the day he wrote about last year is infinitely far away, there is no way to get from that day to the present), which is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen. All (both) possible options generate an absurdity, if Shandy were writing his autobiography from eternity past (2, 3, and 4). Therefore an infinite past is not metaphysically possible (1 and 5). The argument is valid, i.e. the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject at least one of the premises. So, which premise do you reject? In a way it kind of sounds like you're disputing premises 3-5, that the absurdities themselves are not proper absurdities. But that doesn't seem to work quite right either (if TS was infinitely far behind, the present would never be reached--that isn't a genuine absurdity?). [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]