Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

As far as I am concerned, it can be explained with field theories such as quantum field theory.

It's a logical equation.

Either it is valid or it is not. It would take somebody who knows what a logical argument is to deconstruct it.

Quantum theory doesn't enter the picture at all.

Again: If infinite time has already passed in the past that means infinite time passed before yesterday. This is just a rephrasing.

However we can't say that infinite time passed because that is a contradiction. Infinite time does not pass. It goes on and on. This is just a definition.

To argue against the argument you have to show how the internal logic is flawed.

If you talked about the internal logic of the argument you would be the first one to do so.

 

[beero1000]

The whole "this is logical because I said it is" stance appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of logic, however this apparent misunderstanding of logic could be aimed at others who are learning about logic.

...................................................snip.....................................................

I suppose that it is possible that the whole thing is intended as a lesson in how not to form an argument.

It is also possible that this is an amazing example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

And then it is possible that this is just posts by a bot intended to just provoke responses.

It's absurd to think that a human wouldn't have realized their error after it was pointed out the first 50 times, so it has to be posts by a bot.

It's simple logic.

 

[skepticalbip]

I suppose that it is possible that the whole thing is intended as a lesson in how not to form an argument.

It is also possible that this is an amazing example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

And then it is possible that this is just posts by a bot intended to just provoke responses.

It's absurd to think that a human wouldn't have realized their error after it was pointed out the first 50 times, so it has to be posts by a bot.

It's simple logic.

That is flawless logic, unless you take into account the blinders that the Dunning–Kruger effect impose.

However, in either case responding is pretty useless unless you are just curious about how absurd the relpy will be.

 

[ryan]

As far as I am concerned, it can be explained with field theories such as quantum field theory.

It's a logical equation.

Either it is valid or it is not. It would take somebody who knows what a logical argument is to deconstruct it.

Quantum theory doesn't enter the picture at all.

Again: If infinite time has already passed in the past that means infinite time passed before yesterday. This is just a rephrasing.

However we can't say that infinite time passed because that is a contradiction. Infinite time does not pass. It goes on and on. This is just a definition.

To argue against the argument you have to show how the internal logic is flawed.

If you talked about the internal logic of the argument you would be the first one to do so.

I think that you should use the example about yesterday never coming. The other ways that you put it seemed circular.

I didn't have a clear understanding of your issue with infinite regress until you used the "yesterday" example.

Anyways, let's discuss infinity - god help me.

Actually, just give me some time to think about this. I think there is a way where infinity can actually pass.

 

[beero1000]

It's absurd to think that a human wouldn't have realized their error after it was pointed out the first 50 times, so it has to be posts by a bot.

It's simple logic.

That is flawless logic, unless you take into account the blinders that the Dunning–Kruger effect impose.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is merely an abstraction, and therefore could never apply to a real​ person. The map is not the landscape.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is flawless logic, unless you take into account the blinders that the Dunning–Kruger effect impose.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is merely an abstraction, and therefore could never apply to a real​ person. The map is not the landscape.

You're likely right but you just gotta love how it keeps referring to the word-salad screes as "logic".

 

[untermensche]

Actually, just give me some time to think about this. I think there is a way where infinity can actually pass.

There is no way for it to have already passed.

All you have to know is what infinity means to understand that.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that you should use the example about yesterday never coming. The other ways that you put it seemed circular.
.

Google "Zeno's paradoxes". Although they have been completely refuted, they are a much better argument than unter- is attempting to make about yesterday never coming. Of course Zeno's argument isn't the same as this one but it assumes the same concept of things like infinities and infinitesimals.

You may enjoy reading them - and the refutiations.

 

[Kharakov]

It's absurd to think that a human wouldn't have realized their error after it was pointed out the first 50 times, so it has to be posts by a bot.

It's simple logic.

I don't know about that. I looked up untermensche's first few posts over at freeratio. These are from the first thread untermensche posted in:

untermensche's second post:
To "will" something means to be the prime mover.
To be a cause without a preceding cause.
I don't think such a thing exists in this universe.
A cause removed from the chain of causation.

It could be a very thinly veiled disguise of knowing that such a thing exists in this universe.

this response to Garrett's point:

From freeratio archives.
There is no reaction without a preceding action which caused it.

Secular will requires that determinism is true. Your position against will commits the homounculus fallacy.

I see it as the opposite.
Common understanding of "will" commits this falacy.
Strict determinism negates it.
Determinism states there is nothing in animals like humans beyond the workings of cells.
And they acting in conjunction as a central nervous system simply do as they are programmed. There is no ghost in the machine.
Nothing is done by choice.

 

[untermensche]

I think that you should use the example about yesterday never coming. The other ways that you put it seemed circular.
.

Google "Zeno's paradoxes". Although they have been completely refuted, they are a much better argument than unter- is attempting to make about yesterday never coming. Of course Zeno's argument isn't the same as this one but it assumes the same concept of things like infinities and infinitesimals.

You may enjoy reading them - and the refutiations.

For Christs sake!

They are mathematical paradoxes not real world paradoxes.

In the real world we can reach our destinations. We don't walk forever getting half way closer every time.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know about that. I looked up untermensche's first few posts over at freeratio. These are from the first thread untermensche posted in:

untermensche's second post:
To "will" something means to be the prime mover.
To be a cause without a preceding cause.
I don't think such a thing exists in this universe.
A cause removed from the chain of causation.

It could be a very thinly veiled disguise of knowing that such a thing exists in this universe.

this response to Garrett's point:

From freeratio archives.
There is no reaction without a preceding action which caused it.

Secular will requires that determinism is true. Your position against will commits the homounculus fallacy.

I see it as the opposite.
Common understanding of "will" commits this falacy.
Strict determinism negates it.
Determinism states there is nothing in animals like humans beyond the workings of cells.
And they acting in conjunction as a central nervous system simply do as they are programmed. There is no ghost in the machine.
Nothing is done by choice.

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

Pathetic.

 

[George S]

Actually, just give me some time to think about this. I think there is a way where infinity can actually pass.

There is no way for it to have already passed.

All you have to know is what infinity means to understand that.

Draw a vertical line. We call motion in one direction up, the other down. We can imagine this line to be infinite in both directions.

On the time line the directions are normal and backwards. Particles can move backwards in time. When they do we call them anti-particles moving forward in time for convenience.

Put a center point in time. It is the moment of the Big Bang. Time ticks forward from there and backward too. Mirror images. With time increasing limitlessly away from that center in each direction.

 

[skepticalbip]

Google "Zeno's paradoxes". Although they have been completely refuted, they are a much better argument than unter- is attempting to make about yesterday never coming. Of course Zeno's argument isn't the same as this one but it assumes the same concept of things like infinities and infinitesimals.

You may enjoy reading them - and the refutiations.

For Christs sake!

They are mathematical paradoxes not real world paradoxes.

In the real world we can reach our destinations. We don't walk forever getting half way closer every time.

Read, for christ's sake.

 

[untermensche]

There is no way for it to have already passed.

All you have to know is what infinity means to understand that.

Draw a vertical line. We call motion in one direction up, the other down. We can imagine this line to be infinite in both directions.

On the time line the directions are normal and backwards. Particles can move backwards in time. When they do we call them anti-particles moving forward in time for convenience.

Put a center point in time. It is the moment of the Big Bang. Time ticks forward from there and backward too. Mirror images. With time increasing away from that center in each direction.

This merely changes the definition of "the past".

The past is normally defined as time that has already occurred. If you say the past increases away from the future then that means part of the past has not occurred yet.

If you want to change definitions fine. But my formulation works when we define the past as time that has already occurred.

 

[untermensche]

For Christs sake!

They are mathematical paradoxes not real world paradoxes.

In the real world we can reach our destinations. We don't walk forever getting half way closer every time.

Read, for christ's sake.

Read what?

My argument is that we can't apply certain mathematical principles to the real world. There are no infinitesimals in the real world.

Without infinitesimals these paradoxes fall apart.

 

[Kharakov]

Actually, just give me some time to think about this. I think there is a way where infinity can actually pass.

There is no way for it to have already passed.

All you have to know is what infinity means to understand that.

Sure there is. If time did not begin, time has always existed, any point in time can be selected from, which has an infinite amount of time before it and after it.

However, if time has a beginning, then there is no way that an infinite amount of time has passed.

Now, if you know that time had a beginning, you can say that an infinite amount of time has not passed.

- - - Updated - - -

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

Pathetic.

I better not wash my hands, because that will seal my fate....

 

[untermensche]

There is no way for it to have already passed.

All you have to know is what infinity means to understand that.

Sure there is. If time did not begin, time has always existed, any point in time can be selected from, which has an infinite amount of time before it and after it.

Simply saying the words "time did not begin" and actually providing argument how this could be logically possible are worlds apart.

Time that did not begin means time without end. So the time before yesterday was without end. How yesterday arrived when time without end occurred first is the mystery.

 

[skepticalbip]

Read, for christ's sake.

Read what?

My argument is that we can't apply certain mathematical principles to the real world. There are no infinitesimals in the real world.

Without infinitesimals these paradoxes fall apart.

Exactly. Your "yesterday would never arrive" means that last hour would never arrive, last minute would never arrive, last second would never arrive, etc. etc. to an infinity of infinestimals of time. Exactly the same "logic" that destroyed Zeno.

 

[skepticalbip]

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

Pathetic.

I better not wash my hands, because that will seal my fate....

That is the "logical" conclusion.

 

[untermensche]

Read what?

My argument is that we can't apply certain mathematical principles to the real world. There are no infinitesimals in the real world.

Without infinitesimals these paradoxes fall apart.

Exactly. Your "yesterday would never arrive" means that last hour would never arrive, last minute would never arrive, last second would never arrive, etc. etc. to an infinity of infinestimals of time. Exactly the same "logic" that destroyed Zeno.

Yesterday is just used as an example. If times moves infinitely into the past then no now could ever occur because any now would require infinite time to pass before it could occur.

This has nothing to do with infinitesimals.