Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Because you are arguing about this using logic, I will turn to mathematical logic. According to mathematical logic, you can.

Mathematics gives a logical explanation on how an infinite number of subintervals can pass given an infinitely long interval. Intuitively this doesn't seem right, but it is.

The only place you will find those infinities is in mathematics.

They have a definitional logic within mathematics but we are talking about time itself not mathematics, or the models that help humans make some sense of it.

If we say there are an infinite amount of seconds then those seconds will never pass.

But they will pass in an infinite amount of seconds. It is a mind-boggling truth in calculus that gives a logical explanation of how infinity can be bounded by infinity.

We can't divide time into sub-intervals. It is not a thing that can be divided. There is no knife to cut it. All we can do is and measure the passing of it with some arbitrary repeating system.

It is your argument that needs time to be divided into quanta of time.

 

[Kharakov]

The problem is that I am not allowed to say when someone is being a dipshit due to the constraints of the order. I have upon my words a constraint of approaching the problem kindly conferred by the order, so I invite stupidity, although I too feel its lash.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2572/pg2572.txt

The siren call of infinite sound should not confuse those who are below.

 

[untermensche]

The only place you will find those infinities is in mathematics.

They have a definitional logic within mathematics but we are talking about time itself not mathematics, or the models that help humans make some sense of it.

If we say there are an infinite amount of seconds then those seconds will never pass.

But they will pass in an infinite amount of seconds. It is a mind-boggling truth in calculus that gives a logical explanation of how infinity can be bounded by infinity.

I have no problem with calculus. I just know that calculus has it's own internal logical structure that has nothing to do with the way the world works. It's not a method to recreate the world. It's just a method for dealing with numbers.

We can't divide time into sub-intervals. It is not a thing that can be divided. There is no knife to cut it. All we can do is and measure the passing of it with some arbitrary repeating system.

It is your argument that needs time to be divided into quanta of time.

That's not my argument at all. My argument just says it is illogical to conclude that infinite time has already passed. It is no more than that.

It says nothing about the division of time.

 

[skepticalbip]

But they will pass in an infinite amount of seconds. It is a mind-boggling truth in calculus that gives a logical explanation of how infinity can be bounded by infinity.

I have no problem with calculus. I just know that calculus has it's own internal logical structure that has nothing to do with the way the world works. It's not a method to recreate the world. It's just a method for dealing with numbers.

Calculus is a method of describing and understanding the real world (reality).

 

[untermensche]

I have no problem with calculus. I just know that calculus has it's own internal logical structure that has nothing to do with the way the world works. It's not a method to recreate the world. It's just a method for dealing with numbers.

Calculus is a method of describing and understanding the real world (reality).

No. It is a method to deal with numbers. It never touches the real world.

 

[skepticalbip]

Calculus is a method of describing and understanding the real world (reality).

No. It is a method to deal with numbers. It never touches the real world.

I have no idea what "It never touches the real world" is even supposed to mean.

Calculus is simply used to describe how reality works. If you had ever tried to describe physical phenomina in detail that had been observed in a way that you could predict precisely future phenomina then you would understand.

 

[untermensche]

No. It is a method to deal with numbers. It never touches the real world.

I have no idea what "It never touches the real world" is even supposed to mean.

Calculus is simply used to describe how reality works. If you had ever tried to describe physical phenomina in detail that had been observed in a way that you could predict future phenomina then you would understand.

To not even touch something means it is not a part of your existence.

Calculus does not in any way describe how reality works.

It is a method for dealing with sums of imaginary numbers.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea what "It never touches the real world" is even supposed to mean.

Calculus is simply used to describe how reality works. If you had ever tried to describe physical phenomina in detail that had been observed in a way that you could predict future phenomina then you would understand.

To not even touch something means it is not a part of your existence.

Calculus does not in any way describe how reality works.

It is a method for dealing with sums of imaginary numbers.

Argument from incredulity isn't very convincing.

 

[untermensche]

To not even touch something means it is not a part of your existence.

Calculus does not in any way describe how reality works.

It is a method for dealing with sums of imaginary numbers.

Argument from incredulity isn't very convincing.

Then you should stop doing it.

Our models do just that. They "model" reality. And calculus is a method to enable the use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

To think that calculus describes how reality works is to not have a clue what it is.

 

[skepticalbip]

Argument from incredulity isn't very convincing.

Then you should stop doing it.

Our models do just that. They "model" reality. And calculus is a method to enable the use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

To think that calculus describes how reality works is to not have a clue what it is.

Are you just playing games?

The models employ calculus because calculus is necessary to describe reality.

 

[untermensche]

Then you should stop doing it.

Our models do just that. They "model" reality. And calculus is a method to enable the use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

To think that calculus describes how reality works is to not have a clue what it is.

Are you just playing games?

The models employ calculus because calculus is necessary to describe reality.

No. Calculus is needed to make use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

Calculus is internal to the model. It is not out there in the world.

Yet some claim they know the difference between the models and the real thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you just playing games?

The models employ calculus because calculus is necessary to describe reality.

No. Calculus is needed to make use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

Calculus is internal to the model. It is not out there in the world.

Yet some claim they know the difference between the models and the real thing.

I am getting the feeling that you don't have a clue what a model is and what its purpose is.

 

[untermensche]

No. Calculus is needed to make use of certain mathematical concepts within the models.

Calculus is internal to the model. It is not out there in the world.

Yet some claim they know the difference between the models and the real thing.

I am getting the feeling that you don't have a clue what a model is and what its purpose is.

It models reality so we can make predictions.

It is not the same thing as reality. And calculus only exists in the models. It doesn't exist in reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am getting the feeling that you don't have a clue what a model is and what its purpose is.

It models reality so we can make predictions.

It is not the same thing as reality. And calculus only exists in the models. It doesn't exist in reality.

And how does it model reality?

Models are mathematical constructs that allow us to understand and predict.

Here is a model for you:

 

[untermensche]

So you're claiming that equation is out there in the universe and the universe uses it to make movements?

 

[skepticalbip]

So you're claiming that equation is out there in the universe and the universe uses it to make movements?

WTF???

Now you are just flinging BS. As I said models help us understand and predict. I didn't say that the model itself has physical reality.

 

[untermensche]

So you're claiming that equation is out there in the universe and the universe uses it to make movements?

WTF???

Now you are just flinging BS. As I said models help us understand and predict. I didn't say that the model itself has physical reality.

No, you said calculus describes how reality works.

Reality does not work by employing calculus. Calculus is something humans work with, not reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

WTF???

Now you are just flinging BS. As I said models help us understand and predict. I didn't say that the model itself has physical reality.

No, you said calculus describes how reality works.

Reality does not work by employing calculus. Calculus is something humans work with, not reality.

Please take a few science courses. As of now, you don't understand enough to even know that you should be embarrassed by some of the things you are posting. Or if learning is too much trouble, hang out in our philosophy forum where unfounded assertions and nonsensical claims are welcomed as brilliant.

 

[untermensche]

No, you said calculus describes how reality works.

Reality does not work by employing calculus. Calculus is something humans work with, not reality.

Please take a few science courses. As of now, you don't understand enough to even know that you should be embarrassed by some of the things you are posting. Or if learning is too much trouble, hang out in our philosophy forum where unfounded assertions and nonsensical claims are welcomed as brilliant.

I have a PharmD. I have taken a lot of science.

But you have demonstrated none of these claims.

You haven't touched the logic of my arguments because you have never once addressed them.

 

[skepticalbip]

You haven't touched the logic of my arguments because you have never once addressed them.

The "logic" of your “argument” is based on a nonsensical strawman. You assert that we believe that the models are real physical things that reality has to consult to know what to do.

We are saying that models help us predict what reality will do (however it does it).

i.e. A comet comes into the inner solar system. Our model tells us the path it will take with respect to the other bodies in the system. The fact that it does indeed take that path means that our model is a good model for describing and predicting what the reality of the comet’s orbit will be. Our saying that the model is good at describing the reality of the comet’s orbit does mean that we believe that the comet consults our model to know where to go.

Please take your silly strawmen somewhere else.