| Subject: What's good for the goose |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/14/04 5:04pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tishtammer
's message, "Two" on 04/14/04 1:06pm
>You said nothing about the universe being "outside
>time."
In the first instance I was talking more about the time dimension in the universe. As I'm only aware of one time dimension, I figured it'd be understood. My mistake.
I always view the universe and time as seperate entities wherein the universe encompasses time.
>
>Sounds like an infinite temporal loop, in which case
>it would still be infinitely old, having traversed an
>infinite number of years etc. Damoclese, do you
>believe the past is infinite or not?
Something existing outside of time cannot said to be infinitely old because it exists outside of time.
As far as concerns the past, I said there are too many possibilities and models from which to choose. I don't hold to any of them, because there's no reason to assume any of them are definitive.
>
>
>>I'd encourage you to avoid either/or fallacies
>>especially when it comes to the universe.
>
>I was not making either/or fallacies, I was using
>sensible logic. If the past exists, it is infinite or
>it is not. If it is not infinite, then it is finite.
>There are no other alternatives.
Sure there are. Time itself could break down to name one. Then it's neither infinite nor finite because it doesn't exist within time. Simple really, if you think about it.
And basically you are saying it is either infinite, or finite. Sounds like an either or/fallacy to me. Categories defined by humans don't mean squat to nature.
?
>>
>>see above. A universe existing outside of time
>>provides the answer.
>
>No it doesn't. If the past is infinite, then an
>infinite amount of years necessarily has been
>traversed, regardless if it goes through an infinite
>temporal loop.
So what? Kinda like you have to travel an infinite number of fractional measures to get where you are going? You act as if the past has to obey some seriously small minded set of logic. The universe MAKES logic. It doesn't have to obey it.
>
>I've got a hunch your overzealousness has blinded your
>thinking. I ask again, what basis do you have for
>your accusations?
Here's a syllogism for you. Humans have biases. You are a human. Therefore you have biases. Which premise do you disagree with?
Here's a logical proof proving it:
All h have b
x is an h,
therefore
x has b.
Ironclad proof by your standards that you're biased.
>
>What doesn't seem to be totally true? That the only
>way the argument can fail is if one of the premises is
>false? No, that is totally true. That's the
>nature of a deductively valid argument; it can only
>fail to be sound if one of the premises is false.
Great! Then you won't mind humoring me above. We'll deal with your biases first.
>But you are the one who appears to be claiming the
>argument is unsound.
Well of course I am because you haven't done much in the line of proving your defintions. That's the nature of having the burden of proof which you necessarily carry.
>
>I reject your objections because they don't clearly
>attack any premise! Remember, a false premise is the
>only way the argument can be unsound.
Alright then, I'll be waiting for you to show me precisely where it is premise wise that you aren't biased.
>
>
>If it's so allegedly flimsy why don't you attack it
>and destroy the argument in a rational, logical manner?
I have by any sane person's criteria. I'll be waiting with anticipation to see you disagree with the bias argument. I mean, I went to the trouble of constructing a logical proof for crying out loud. That means you can only reject it by rejecting a premise. I'll be interested to know which one you pick.
>
>Which definition? Which premise? I did
>provide a formal proof of the argument establishing
>it's validity. "I reject the entire formulation of
>the problem" is just too vague to be of much use.
>It's not an adequate attack against the argument.
We shall see. When you address my above proof, we'll talk about it some more.
>
>Again, the only way the argument can fail to be sound
>is if a premise is false. Do you deny this?
Strictly speaking, yes.
If not,
>why do you keep avoiding the issue? Why do you keep
>attacking phantom assumptions that don't seem to exist
>in any of the premises?
Let's see what sorts of ghosts my argument about your bias contains before we start insinuating I'm making up "phantom assumptions"
Why do you continue to refuse
>to explain yourself in these matters?
Sometimes the only way to demonstrate something is to show another person that thing. Play along, and you'll discover why. Refuse not to, and you'll never understand. Let's see what YOUR intentions are, and if you are willing to play by your own rules. Then, and only then, will I continue to have this conversation.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 