| Subject: "one" |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/12/04 6:56pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Tee hee." on 04/12/04 4:47pm
>>
>>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.
The right hand side of the limit being less than one.The left hand side takes an decimal value of x on into infinity.
>
>
>
>What side? What are you talking about? If the
>universe is of finite age, it would not be infinitely
>old. Period.
Not quite. If time collapses like I said before, then the universe wouldn't necesarily cease to exist, but it'd be outside of time which would effectively make it infinitely old. However, within each node of time before it collapses, things are quite finite.
I'd encourage you to avoid either/or fallacies especially when it comes to the universe.
>
>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?
see above. A universe existing outside of time provides the answer.
>
>You're right. Converging has to do with potential
>infinites, not actual ones.
I'm not sure that the division between potential and actual infinities is one that is necessary when one begans to talk about the universe and time and the origins or endings or existence thereof. The singularity that the universe is supposed to have been, does, as you'll recall, violate and bend the rules of physics as we understand them to be.I'm not persuaded in such an exteme situation that such definitions would still hold good.
>)
> If
>the situation is examined carefully and accurately, I
>think no such basis will be found.
I'm sure there wouldn't be, if I asked you about it. I have a hunch you've got biases just like every other human; you just simply are more oblivious to them. S'alright though. That's the effect of religion on a formerely cautious brain.
>
>Remember, the argument can only fail if one of the
>premises is false. So, which premise is false and why?
Based on your rejection at the end of this post, this doesn't seem to be totally true. :)
>
>
>No, I don't assume that in any of the premises.
Yeah, you're right, you assume it definitionally within the premises themselves. You treat the universe and time as if it is some immutable entity based on what you've seen on Earth despite things like relativity that pretty much demonstrate that time does not operate in intuitive ways.
>
>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.
That's all well and good, but of course, I'm not the one trying to make the metaphysical argument about the way time must be here. I've presented other possible ways it could be, to which you've responded with something akin to "No, my model is the only one that makes sense." But it doesn't make sense because there is no reason to assume that the universe follows what you believe to be intuitively logically true. I refrain from making judgements on the nature of time on a universal level because the evidence is lacking and there are simply too many possibilities.
You, on the other hand, blithey proceed as if your observations about time on a micro-scale by any universal measure are going to persist indefinately. I'm not willing to risk such temerity. You apparently are.
Then, after being so careless as to assert the certainty of your intuitions, you ask me to reject some given premise they rest on while categorically rejecting all other models that are viable. You turn a blind eye to my objections that I reject the entire scaffolding your argument rests on. You instead insist I attack some particular piece of lumber that may simply be a flight of whimsy in the first place.
So, here, allow me to make it perfectally clear, I reject the entire formulation of the problem to begin with. I reject the definitions the argument rests upon, and I reject those conclusions that follow as a consequence.Beginningless tasks are non-logical beasts, and infinite time isn't any better) (how to define such a thing?) The two compose a chimera that is interesting to think about, but of little practical value.
Therefore, and without reservation, I can pronounce this argument as interesting to think about, but folly to suppose is anything relevant in reality. There simply is no good reason the universe must obey an "actual infinity" or produce one through the gradual accumulation of years. There is nothing to keep the universe from existing outside of time thus conferring on it the benefits of effectively being infinite in nature anyway. There is nothing to prevent a finite time dimension being nested inside the infinite that is the universe. Infinity and finiteness are not mutually exclusive ideations as concerning the universe.
In short, until you provide some sort of rationale for why the universe should behave definitionally the way you assume it should, there is little reason to espouse this argument or to insist on some premise or the other necessarily being wrong. It's awfully hard to reject a particular piece of an apple when the whole thing is rotten to begin with, and this argument smells of fermentation.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 