Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Which leads me to "is there any science that would prove infinite history or disprove infinite history?"...

There is but it will take human beings an infinite amount of time to get there. We just have to wait an infinite amount of time. Undermeschen is not diagreeing with an infinite future. And once there, we will obviously have an infinite past.

The Mods were getting jittery that this thread might actually go on for ever. Me I thought it was taking them forever to do it.

Still, maybe philosophy would have been more fitting.
EB

The moderators are right, in my opinion.

The OP belongs in Pseudoscience because it assumes something unscientific. It was the discussion about the OP had more to do with science and philosophy.

 

[Juma]

The thoughts of calculus and geometry are natural processes in the brain; they are nature.

Yes. So what? Cant you se the difference between reality and the information system modelling it?

 

[ryan]

The thoughts of calculus and geometry are natural processes in the brain; they are nature.

Yes. So what? Cant you se the difference between reality and the information system modelling it?

I am not sure what you mean by modelling an information system. And how is it not reality; how is anything not reality?

 

[Juma]

Yes. So what? Cant you se the difference between reality and the information system modelling it?

I am not sure what you mean by modelling an information system.

? I didnt write anything about modelling an information system. I wrote that you have problem separating reality and the information system modelling reality.

And how is it not reality; how is anything not reality?

That is beside the point for this discussion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The OP belongs in Pseudoscience because it assumes something unscientific.

Like what?

Look at the OP again:

I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

All I see is a question based on a hypothetical. What is unscientific about that? What is assumed here that's unscientific?
EB

 

[RavenSky]

The Moderators

 

[Juma]

Like what?

Look at the OP again:

I don't know how well this articulates but I hope somebody understands....:
I saw it mentioned "that infinite regress is impossible" as an argument.
Something to do with now being undefined due to an infinite time offset in history.
Does the same logic apply to a location in the universe?
that a position in theory, like infinite regress of time to now, is unattainable do to infinity in all directions?

All I see is a question based on a hypothetical. What is unscientific about that? What is assumed here that's unscientific?
EB

This is sophistry, not science.

 

[fromderinside]

So do I, but there must be a floor somewhere in the universe, otherwise there would be an infinite number of turtles needed to support your world, which is not possible, so your world would not exist.

Show

But what is the floor made of and what is supporting it?

ever here of such as center of force, mass, etc. That's hat happened to regress.

A bit late perhaps. Regresses include those toward moments which are effective for the process under consideration. Consider the turtle as the effective point for the process. There only need be one turtle.

Or

Consider the Turtle as either point of limit or discontinuity (infinity)

 

[ryan]

I am not sure what you mean by modelling an information system.

? I didnt write anything about modelling an information system. I wrote that you have problem separating reality and the information system modelling reality.

Okay, but I don't see the difference between reality and information systems, whether they are brains or computers. Why can't we be a part of "reality" like everything else is?

 

[Juma]

? I didnt write anything about modelling an information system. I wrote that you have problem separating reality and the information system modelling reality.

Okay, but I don't see the difference between reality and information systems, whether they are brains or computers. Why can't we be a part of "reality" like everything else is?

Sigh...of course it is! But the model of how stones behave is not a stone.
It is another aspect of reality.

 

[ryan]

Okay, but I don't see the difference between reality and information systems, whether they are brains or computers. Why can't we be a part of "reality" like everything else is?

Sigh...of course it is! But the model of how stones behave is not a stone.
It is another aspect of reality.

The model of how stones behave is a process being affected by the stones and other influences in the environment. This process is just a different process than the stones. The model of how stones behave are just other processes in nature.

I spent years trying to find a dual aspect in reality, but I realize that the true nature of reality is what we are. We are what is out there because we are out there.

 

[Juma]

Sigh...of course it is! But the model of how stones behave is not a stone.
It is another aspect of reality.

The model of how stones behave is a process being affected by the stones and other influences in the environment. This process is just a different process than the stones. The model of how stones behave are just other processes in nature.

I spent years trying to find a dual aspect in reality, but I realize that the true nature of reality is what we are. We are what is out there because we are out there.

We are what we are due to evolution.
A lot of our models are wrong.
That is: ithey are more or less useful but not perfect.

 

[ryan]

The model of how stones behave is a process being affected by the stones and other influences in the environment. This process is just a different process than the stones. The model of how stones behave are just other processes in nature.

I spent years trying to find a dual aspect in reality, but I realize that the true nature of reality is what we are. We are what is out there because we are out there.

We are what we are due to evolution.
A lot of our models are wrong.
That is: ithey are more or less useful but not perfect.

I can certainly agree with you that models aren't perfect, but why do you think that is?

 

[Juma]

We are what we are due to evolution.
A lot of our models are wrong.
That is: ithey are more or less useful but not perfect.

I can certainly agree with you that models aren't perfect, but why do you think that is?

Because they where created by evolution. The selection mechanism results in "best available" and "good enough". "Perfect" models will probably cost too much energy to sustain and will really dont add any benefits.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Like what?

Look at the OP again:

All I see is a question based on a hypothetical. What is unscientific about that? What is assumed here that's unscientific?
EB

This is sophistry, not science.

Sophistry: Plausible but misleading or fallacious argumentation.

The OP wasn't even an argumentation, so your claim it was sophistry is wrong.

And of course the OP was not science. It didn't even pretend to be science! What is unscientific about not pretending to be science and not being science? Can you give specifics?
EB

 

[untermensche]

The moderators are right, in my opinion.

The OP belongs in Pseudoscience because it assumes something unscientific. It was the discussion about the OP had more to do with science and philosophy.

A discussion of infinity is not pseudoscience. Infinity is something real, even if only an imaginary concept.

Much of modern science incorporates this idea of infinity.

And infinity is an imaginary entity.

So much of modern science incorporates imaginary entities to try to explain the real world.

The problem is, many scientists are so enmeshed in the imaginary world of mathematics they lose their ability to know what is real and what isn't.

Some even think the past exists somewhere and we can return to it.

 

[Malintent]

The moderators are right, in my opinion.

The OP belongs in Pseudoscience because it assumes something unscientific. It was the discussion about the OP had more to do with science and philosophy.

A discussion of infinity is not pseudoscience. Infinity is something real, even if only an imaginary concept.

Much of modern science incorporates this idea of infinity.

And infinity is an imaginary entity.

So much of modern science incorporates imaginary entities to try to explain the real world.

The problem is, many scientists are so enmeshed in the imaginary world of mathematics they lose their ability to know what is real and what isn't.

Some even think the past exists somewhere and we can return to it.

It could be outside of psudeoscience.. given a higher quality discussion. unfortunately, this 300+ page long thread belongs in Psudo because of the poor focus of discussion and sheer quantity of circular dialog. It almost belongs in E~.

 

[untermensche]

It could be outside of psudeoscience.. given a higher quality discussion. unfortunately, this 300+ page long thread belongs in Psudo because of the poor focus of discussion and sheer quantity of circular dialog. It almost belongs in E~.

Are you saying you could have shaped a better discussion but chose not to?

The topic fell apart when none of the supporters of real infinities could provide evidence of one or argument why we should suppose this imaginary concept has real existence.

There was no real argument in other words.

That doesn't mean the discussion is about pseudoscience.

 

[ryan]

I can certainly agree with you that models aren't perfect, but why do you think that is?

Because they where created by evolution. The selection mechanism results in "best available" and "good enough". "Perfect" models will probably cost too much energy to sustain and will really dont add any benefits.

A model represents what happened, and predicts that it will happen again under the exact same conditions. A model is perfect when applied to the right conditions. It is when other factors are involved does a model seem inaccurate.

 

[Juma]

Because they where created by evolution. The selection mechanism results in "best available" and "good enough". "Perfect" models will probably cost too much energy to sustain and will really dont add any benefits.

A model represents what happened, and predicts that it will happen again under the exact same conditions. A model is perfect when applied to the right conditions. It is when other factors are involved does a model seem inaccurate.

I must ask you:
What did you hope to accomplish with this post?
What in my post made you react in this way????