- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 13
I am not sure what you define me as stating is what I am saying.
You stated "Each thing owes its existence to something previous." This is not known to be true.
Could you give me an example ?
We are made up of things which were beltched out of stars.
We are assembled star dust.
The stars were all assembled from some previous stuff. And so on all the way back to what the current level of what generally accepted contemporary cosmology calls The Big Bang.
I am considering even abstract objects like numbers.
But they too, I think, are conceptual and have their beginnings in MINDS.
I guess it could be a philosophical tangent - "Does the number 42 exist if there are no minds ?"
I think even abstractions derive existence from previous things then.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 13
2 edits
me: I don't think there are any actual cases of infinity except theoritically in the mind.
tw So you start with a belief that there are no infinities, then think that that proves that there are no infinities? Sorry, but that is not good enough.
That is what I heard from a mathematician. Infinity is a concept useful to the mind. But it has no actual corresponding reality in the real world.
There are a lot of stars. I think there are not an infinity of them.
There are a lot of sand particles, a whole lot. I think there are not an infinite amount of them.
There is not even an infinite number of atoms. If you start coundting atoms, one day a long long long time from now you'll come to the last one, I'm pretty sure.
But you are welcomed to point out something of which there are an infinite number of in actuality.
The name of the mathematician I do not recall. No he was not a theist. What he said may have been utilized by a theist. That's fair.
Anyway, tell me what there is an infinite number of.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 13
1 edit
Concerning infinite series and traversing it you wrote:
If that argument held any water, then it could be used to prove that the number zero didn't exist or that the future was finite.
Please explain how the problem of traversing infinity as I described it can be used to deny that the number zero exists.
The flaw is in that you are assuming the existence of a number 'infinity' then placing a starting point on it.
No, that is the opposite of the situation I am describing.
The search for an Owning Lender goes on infinitely. So there is NO starting time when the ipod can start down the series. It will never start to happen.
So why are you saying I am placing a starting point ??
There may be a staring point to the final borrower's request. Let's say it took place on March 16th, 2013.
What is the start date in which the first borrower receives the ipod to pass it down the series ?
NO DATE !
No date in which the borrowing starts means no date in which the final borrower receives the ipod.
16 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipA super large integer capable of being positive or negative.
What is the content of the storage space called SuperLargeSingedInt ?
In what concievable hardware could the address of argument[b]SuperLargeSingedInt actually be infinity ? [/b]
None. And that is the point. It never will be/was infinity.
You know that there is no way the request can [b]actually be programmed or executed.[/b]
No, I do not know this. Give a reasonable argument why it could not rather than simply stating it as fact.
This has to be your tongue and cheek answer to a task which is impossible to practically carry out.
Having read through your unnecessarily windy response, I see I misunderstood your challenge. It seems your task was impossible because you asked me to time travel. A stupid request really and nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Now go get me a pencil from last week. If you don't you loose.
I had naturally assumed you were asking for an example of an algorithm that could have been running for infinity and not that you wanted me to present a computer that had been known to be running for infinity. Why would you make such a ridiculous request.
This brings me to the point that actual infinities I have heard do not exist as far as we know. Infinity is a concept in the mind. We know for certain of no actual infinity in nature.
More correctly, you do not actually understand the concept of infinity. You think it is a number. It is not. An infinite set does not contain a number called infinity.
16 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipQuantum mechanics says that particles are popping into and out of existence all the time.
Could you give me an example ?
We are made up of things which were beltched out of stars. We are assembled star dust.
If quantum mechanics is to be believed then at least some of our matter came from empty space.
Black holes give off Hawking radiation which is entirely from this empty space generated matter.
16 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipSo I am entirely correct that you start with the assumption that there are no infinities then use it to make your claim. Sorry, not good enough.
That is what I heard from a mathematician. Infinity is a concept useful to the mind. But it has no actual corresponding reality in the real world.
There are a lot of stars. I think there are not an infinity of them.
There are a lot of sand particles, a whole lot. I think there are not an infinite amount of them.
There is not even an infinite num ...[text shortened]... ng atoms, one day a long long long time from now you'll come to the last one, I'm pretty sure.
But you are welcomed to point out something of which there are an infinite number of in actuality.
If space and time are infinite then all the things you listed are too. It is up to you to prove they are finite.
I also do not believe that it has been proven that space itself is quantized ie that it cannot be divided up infinitely
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So I am entirely correct that you start with the assumption that there are no infinities then use it to make your claim. Sorry, not good enough.
I am looking for some substancial explanation.
Tit for tat and little quips like this do not solve the problem.
They are not good enough.
What is there an actual infinite number of ?
A reply to that question may get me to consider your skepticism of what mathematicians have said.
But you are welcomed to point out something of which there are an infinite number of in actuality.
If space and time are infinite then all the things you listed are too. It is up to you to prove they are finite.
IF. Current level of opinion is that space and time and energy had a beginning.
Often you do not really give strong rebuttal. You throw up speculative possibility.
Do you wish to commit to saying you know that space and time are infinite ?
Or do you just want a possible escape hatch to slip out ?
You know, no position is always the easiest to defend.
I also do not believe that it has been proven that space itself is quantized ie that it cannot be divided up infinitely
Conceptually maybe it could. What actual infinite amount of things exist ?
" There exists an actual infinite number of _________s in reality, in practicality."
Fill in the blank.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
16 Mar 13
3 edits
A super large integer capable of being positive or negative.
I know of no integer which represents infinity.
I know some very large ones.
ss:
In what concievable hardware could the address of argumentSuperLargeSingedInt actually be infinity ?
tw:
None. And that is the point. It never will be/was infinity.
That's the point ?
That's the point that you cannot program such an algorithm.
That's the point that you cannot have a machine perform such an operation.
Why did you take up the challenge then to write the algorithm if you knew "it never will be/ was infinity?"
ss:
You know that there is no way the request can actually be programmed or executed.
tw:
No, I do not know this. Give a reasonable argument why it could not rather than simply stating it as fact.
The reason I give is that you just confessed that it will never be "was infinity".
Out of your own mouth. If it will never be then it cannot be done.
Having read through your unnecessarily windy response, I see I misunderstood your challenge. It seems your task was impossible because you asked me to time travel. A stupid request really and nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Now go get me a pencil from last week. If you don't you loose.
I had naturally assumed you were asking for an example of an algorithm that could have been running for infinity and not that you wanted me to present a computer that had been known to be running for infinity. Why would you make such a ridiculous request.
I think your objection is ridiculous.
The objection: If time extends back INFINITELY with no beginning, but OF COURSE infinity could be traversed to arrive at today.
That is your objection.
When Hubble showed Einstien what he observed about a logical beginnning to the universe, Einstien said something to the effect that he saw it but he hated it. Not a quote - but something to that effect.
Steady state died effectively. A beginningless eternal universe died effectively.
From all we presently know if the universe is infinitely old then everything should have run DOWN to a cold nothingness by now. It hasn't.
More correctly, you do not actually understand the concept of infinity. You think it is a number. It is not. An infinite set does not contain a number called infinity.
So because of this traversing past infinite time will lead to time arriving at today ?
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou need to find a different signature than the smug face.
You did not begin your sentence with a capital letter. How dumb is that? And how do you know that my edit was not just to add the smug face? 😏
Every time I see a face like that I want to slap it.
I'm sure I'm not the only one.
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipEvery integer can be obtained by the one before it. Therefore the set of integers can be obtained by a series starting at negative infinity. Therefore to get to zero, you would have to traverse infinity, which we know from youtube is impossible. Therefore zero cannot exist.
Please explain how the problem of traversing infinity as I described it can be used to deny that the number [b]zero exists.[/b]
No, that is the opposite of the situation I am describing.
The search for an Owning Lender goes on infinitely. So there is NO starting time when the ipod can start down the series. It will never start to happen.
So why are you saying I am placing a starting point ??
There may be a staring point to the final borrower's request. Let's say it took place on March 16th, 2013.
What is the start date in which the first borrower receives the ipod to pass it down the series ?
NO DATE !
No date in which the borrowing starts means no date in which the final borrower receives the ipod.
In other words you are setting up an addition to the analogy in order to require that the request for the ipod goes via an infinite list after March 16th. Why this condition? Methinks you have realized the original argument is wrong, but you cant admit it. I hope your not one of those Christians who thinks they are infallible.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 13
1 edit
Quantum mechanics says that particles are popping into and out of existence all the time.
So because some quantum particles seem to pop in and out of view you guess the entire universe popped into existence too ?
I think quantum fluxuations are subsecond phenomenon which occur in minute portions of time.
Extraplating that to an entire universe that popped up in this manner for 15 billion years or so, is a long shot I think.
And I think we are just yet to understand these fluxuations more.
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonshipNo, I never said any such thing. You asked for an example of something that does not owe its existence to something prior to it. I have shown that the claim that everything appears to owe its existence to something prior is blatantly false. No such rule is known, and in fact, quantum mechanics strongly suggests otherwise.
So because some quantum particles seem to pop in and out of view you guess the entire universe popped into existence too ?
I think quantum fluxuations are subsecond phenomenon which occur in minute portions of time.
False. I already pointed out Hawking radiation from black holes. This Hawking radiation is known to exist and travels across the universe over billions of years.
Extraplating that to an entire universe that popped up in this manner for 15 billion years or so, is a long shot I think.
Think what you like, but can you justify it with anything other than your guess work? I believe some versions of quantum mechanics and string theory allow for such things to happen. Do you have any logical reason to rule them out? If so, you might be due for a Nobel Prize.
And I think we are just yet to understand these fluxuations more.
And until you can claim to understand these fluctuations, you cannot correctly claim that they are known to not be instances of things coming from nothing and you can not use any such claim in a philosophical argument about the universe as a whole, and you should admit that on this point at least J P Moreland is wrong, (and probably should have known better).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
17 Mar 13
5 edits
In other words
That is usually a bad sigh when you write "In other words ...". That signals that you will try to make a strawman argument and put it into my mouth.
you are setting up an addition to the analogy in order to require that the request for the ipod goes via an infinite list after March 16th.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing sneaky going on in my analogies or questions. Are you projecting ? Should I say "Takes one to know one" here ?
Nothing underhanded here.
The analogy as any you might come up with, like Zeno's arrows, or whatnot, has its problems too if you hunt hard enough to find some.
The simplicity of the situation should be grasped. The item wanted to be borrowed will never be borrowed because for infinity the hunt for a owning lender will continue.
A time in which the ipod will begin to be passed down the series will never occur. There's nothing sneaky about that observation.
If I am incorrect then explain why. Just work on the ipod example. It seems to me that you want to eliminate the analogy because it is effective to demonstrate the problem of traversing infinity.
Why this condition? Methinks you have realized the original argument is wrong, but you cant admit it. I hope your not one of those Christians who thinks they are infallible.
Well, Methinks can think a lot of things.
I don't know what you are talking about. I gather that you do not like the analogy. I gather that you think it is unfair in some sense.
Or I gather that you think the real situation of infinite time is not well represented by the analogy.
I gather that. And I will try only to go back and see why you don't think the analogy is representative or fair.
The latter crap about not being able to confess this or that as a bad Christian, I will spend no time on. This is expected though. You and ThinkOfOne usually do something like attack the integrity of the Christian when you are in a corner.
Nothing new there.