Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/12/04 4:47pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "heh" on 04/12/04 11:14am
>>
>>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".
One what? It doesn't sound like you're making any sense.
>>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.
What side? What are you talking about? If the universe is of finite age, it would not be infinitely old. Period.
>>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.
Of course I am. If the universe is infinitely old, necessarily an infinite amount of years has been traversed. How could it possibly be otherwise?
>At any rate, I'm not sure that an "actual infinite"
>wouldn't converge on anything
You're right. Converging has to do with potential infinites, not actual ones.
>>>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)
Okay, so you've gone from calling me "egocentrically self-righteous" to saying that I'm intellectually dishonest. Damoclese, I advise you to control your emotions. They appear to be clouding your judgment. Exactly on what grounds do you base these personal attacks on? (This is not a rhetorical question.) If the situation is examined carefully and accurately, I think no such basis will be found.
Remember, the argument can only fail if one of the premises is false. So, which premise is false and why?
>>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.
No, I don't assume that in any of the premises.
Your attacks against the argument fail until you provide compelling reasons for why a given premise is false. Have you got one? No? Then your attacks lack force, which in turn means they have little relevance in reality.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
