| Subject: A compendium of refutations |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/21/04 10:17am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Not so simply resolved." on 01/ 9/04 10:52pm
Ben: X and y (I'm
>using these instead of your years and days) cannot, of
>course, be equal, since the very idea of years and
>days involves their being very different amounts of
>time.
Wade: The quantity of days and years are both infinite. This logically and necessarily follows from an infinite past.
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.
Past Me: >Infinity, by definition, is endless. It is an
>absurdity to talk about a "past infinity" because it
>essentially means the past is endless which means
>there is no such thing as a future or present. (we're
>stuck in the past, forever.)
Wade: No, this is indeed the present, and an infinite past would not imply otherwise.
Me: An endless past could very easily imply that the present is never reached. This being the present is immaterial to the question. Again, this is not necessarily wrong, but it's a logical guess about the implications of an infinite past.
Wade: the scenario is hypothetical, but its conclusion logically follows from the premises and if so it implies an infinite past cannot exist in the real, non-imaginary world
Me:This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the boundaries of logic. Premises rest on assumptions about concepts (in this case) that are nebulous. Does that mean they fail? Not necessarily. They simply cannot be known at present.
Wade: If the physical universe were now infinite[sic] old somehow (thus having an infinite past) it still stands to reason that there is a present, by direct observation
Me: Stands to reason if there is such an entity as the present to begin with. For all we know, all we live in is some repeating past that we divide into past, present and future. The observation of the physical universe seemingly having a present doesn't lend credence to one explanation or the other.
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 argument supports both of these conclusions simultaneously, making it violate the law of noncontradiction also. It clearly seems to be the case that only one OR the other can be the case based upon realilty, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument supports both conclusions, and it also goes to show that Wade wants to have his cake and eat it too because he likes to use reality selectively when it comes to this argument.
Ben: You can create any kind of paradox using words and ideas, but a paradox is only truly useful to me if it represents an actual real-world problem.
Me: Precisely. This is a far cry from a real-world problem, which Wade has yet to refute. He simply decries it as necessarily true in reality without basing it in reality to begin with. (e.g. the beginningless task).
Wade: The fact that it implies an absurdity/absurdities is the whole point.
Me: Which is precisely the case with my God argument, which I'll hasten to remind the reader, was rejected by Wade because it implied a contradiction.
Duane: Of course, since we're dealing with a logical argument, we can declare any conditions we choose - even ones that are impossible in our own natural world.
Me: Precisely. The conditions Wade initially chose are not ones that seem to mirror reality, although he pugnaciously maitains his conclusion must follow in reality.
Wade: Well, the reason that wouldn't work is that the past, since it is infinite, has no beginning
Me: Arguing that there is no beginning to the past because it is infinite is less than compelling and circular to boot. There is nothing to prevent something from beginning to come into existance, and then becoming infinite.
Baz: If one of the conditions within an argument is impossible then the reasoning becomes invalid.
Me: Precisely. The argument has no import to reality. Wade conveiniently forgets this fact.
Wade in response to Baz: No, the reasoning is perfectly valid. Let's look at the argument:
Me: Wade maintains the reasoning is valid despite the fact that it is based on things that are not mirrored in reality. Remember, earlier Wade appealed to reality to help support his argument as noted above (e.g. a present in reality). Now he ignores reality.
Baz: In your arguments you have moved from a situation where deduction is not possible (we cannot DEDUCE whether there has been an infinite past or not, because there are no PREMISES from which to argue,) to an everyday situation which represents a possible situation WITHIN REALITY - Shandy writing his life’s story. We have moved into a completely different dimension of thought, from speculation to REALITY. In REALITY, all we have is an individual writing daily until he dies. In REALITY his aims and motives do not matter and the situation certainly has absolutely no connection with the REALITY, or not, of infinite time. Thought does not change REALITY outside the thinkers neurochemistry, only action does.
Me: Precisely. Wade uses reality selectively as a test for his argument. He either knowingly deceives himself, or simply does it unconciously.
Still, Wade stubbornly persists: The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject at least one of the premises.
Me: No, that isn't the only way. Baz explained it in the preceding quote much better than I'd care to. The bottom line is that you can't take imaginary premises and then say reality must follow what they dictate.
Wade: I'm not saying that we can fully envision all things about an infinite past, but, with the help of logic, certain things can be concluded. Unless you have a means to dispute my mathematics, what premise do you dispute here?
Me: This is a situation in which no one can win. Wade selectively applies reality, and then hides behind the alternative assumptions one can make about something that isn't well defined in the first place.
I think these tidbits are sufficient to show that Wade never was really interested in learning from anyone else on this board although he framed the original question as though he was.
It also shows some inconsistencies in Wade's thinking that so far myself and three others have pointed out. Clearly, this topic is exhuasted, and Wade is bordering on schizophrenic.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 