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):

Friday, May 03, 07:31:47pm

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

Subject: Groovy. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09/26/04 9:54pm In reply to: Duane 's message, "Making sure we understand each other" on 09/17/04 4:01am >Wade: > >>Again, it's not a mathematical argument. It's not >>necessarily a formal contradiction. But the >>absurdities are still evidently there. > >Yes, I understand now - you weren't making a >mathematical argument, and I did a bit more reading >(some on your page, by the way, which is quite >interesting - I'll be there from time to time >reading.) and I agree that it is acceptable for the >type of argument you were making to use "absurd" as a >sort of truth condition. Okay. >So, I'm asking you, in the context of this argument, >to do what we all get flamed for doing (usually) - >that is, sort of arguing in a more explanatory fashion >than usual. > >Alright... Based on your latest statement of TS, I'm >leaning towards the conclusion that Tristam never >finishes. I agree that this is the more likely scenario. Which is, before the math came into this >argument, kind of what I was saying. > >So you just said: >>Tell me, how is it that the present cannot be >>reached considering the seemingly obvious fact that we >>are here? > >Ah... So when you said (paraphrase) "Tristam is >infinitely far behind and never reaches the present," >I thought that it wasn't a big deal - I mean, so what? > He's NEVER, EVER, writing about the present - he >can't, based on the rules of the paradox. > >What you meant is, "Tristam never writing about the >present implies that, if infinite past existed, WE'D >never actually "reach" the present" True, because Tristram Shandy never writing about the present implies that there is a day in the infinite past that is infinitely far away from the present (since TS would be infinitely far behind etc.). If such a day existed, it would be metaphysically impossible for the present to be reached. Hence a metaphysical absurdity. >Is this what you meant? Because if it is, then I see >how you could say that situation was absurd... Good. It's a good first step anyway. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]