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, May 12, 08:56:17am

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

Subject: heh Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/12/04 11:14am In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Infinity." on 04/12/04 10:25am > >What finite number could it possibly approach to? Do >you really thing an infinite past wouldn't have an >infinite number of years? Well, with a limit, it would have an infinite number of years. They'd just converge on "one". That doesn't make any >sense. Hey, I didn't invent calculus... If the universe were only a finite number of >years old it wouldn't be infinitely old. Well, it would be infinitely old on the left hand side, but it would be very finite on the right. e.g. the one. In fact it >wouldn’t even “approach” anything, because this is an >actual infinite, not a potential one. I'm not sure that an "actual infinite" is "actually an accurate model", and neither are you. At any rate, I'm not sure that an "actual infinite" wouldn't converge on anything, at least as regards time. That's the problem with this foolishness. > > >>YOUR argument is not an accurate >>representation of the problem > >Really? Then which premise is false and why? Insert complete intellectual dishonesty here.(you know, to offset yours) > > >Well, I do suppose that it follows the rules of basic >logic! (See what I said above about finite years and >the universe being infinitely old.) So does mine. There's nothing to keep the universe from experiencing time in regular intervals wherein the existence of time is incrementally snuffed out and started over. That'd make the universe infinitely old as it were, but the oscillations that time goes through approach a limit, and when they hit that limit, things start over. You assume a static universe where time plays nicely in the way it does on earth. There's no reason to do that. Period. Your argument fails until you provide compelling reasons for why such an assumption should be made. Have you got one? No? Then your argument lacks force, which in turn means it has little relevance in reality. I'd advise you to rememeber that basic logic is not the same as basic "wade intuition". [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Tee hee. Wade A. Tisthammer 04/12/04 4:47pm "one" -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 6:56pm Two -- Wade A. Tishtammer, 04/14/04 1:06pm What's good for the goose -- Damoclese, 04/14/04 5:04pm What other alternatives are there? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:37am Ganders -- Damoclese, 04/15/04 5:36pm Why abandon logic? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/04 12:14pm Hiatus over -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 6:53pm Illogical to abandon logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:47pm what a bounty -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:25pm Of logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:11pm of intuition -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 10:51am Of more logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:25pm One mistake... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:40am