Oh. That's all it is? -- Ben's Message Board

[ 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):

Friday, May 09, 02:10:39am

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

Subject: Oh. That's all it is?

Author:
Duane

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08/12/04 5:10am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Invalid? Where?" on 03/ 5/04 11:51am

Wade:

>No, the reasoning is perfectly valid. Let's look at
>the argument:
>
>

If an infinite past is metaphysically possible,
>then Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as
>time has existed should not lead to absurdities.
>
If Shandy has been writing from eternity past
>(i.e. has been writing all along the infinite,
>beginningless past) he is either infinitely far behind
>or he finishes his autobiography at some point.
>
Shandy finishing his autobiography, since it takes
>him a whole year to write about a day, is an absurdity
>and cannot possibly happen.

This *is* an absurdity. I agree.

>
Shandy being infinitely far behind means the
>present would never be reached (the day he wrote about
>last year is infinitely far away, there is no way to
>get from that day to the present), which is an
>absurdity and cannot possibly happen.

Well, this is not an absurdity. The way you've defined your axioms ensures that Shandy will always be unable to finish his autobiography. This is only a feature of your logical construct.

>

>Therefore an infinite past is not
>metaphysically possible (1 and 5).

>The conclusion logically follows from the premises.
>Which premise doesn't logically follow from the ones
>it's based upon?

O.K., so Shandy will never finish. Given your assumptions, this is neither absurd nor surprising. I'll repeat my earlier assessment: you're playing with interesting properties of infinity. You haven't "shown" or "proven" anything.

Kurt Godel was the ultimate contrarian. I suggest that if you want to be like him, you should probably read him first.

Duane

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]