Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Here is one off of the top of my head.

Postulates: Let's assume that at least nothing or something can exist, which I tentatively think is unarguable. And if you can also assume that there is only one kind of nothing, i.e. nothing is unique, then keep reading.

If nothing existed, then we know that something, where something = x energy + (-x) energy, comes from nothing. So at any point that there is nothing, there will be something. Therefore in a reality of only something and nothing, something will always exist.

If at all times nothing and something allegedly exists then at no time does nothingness exist.

I meant "nothing or something", not "nothing and something".

 

[untermensche]

If at all times nothing and something allegedly exists then at no time does nothingness exist.

I meant "nothing or something", not "nothing and something".

What you are saying is that reality shifted from nothing to something infinite times in the past.

So before yesterday could occur reality had to shift between nothing and something infinite times.

It really doesn't change anything.

 

[ryan]

The scientific interpretation of Occam's razor (When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.) definitely favors your point, but the original version (Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.) definitely doesn't.

My head actually hurts right now. This is an evil topic.

Try to think of all the ways that 1 is the logical equivalent of negative fluffy and you'll get a headache too.

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[George S]

If there ever was a state of 'no time' -- whatever that may mean -- time began. If there never was such a state, time is a permanent, eternal feature of reality. Time goes on.

 

[ryan]

I meant "nothing or something", not "nothing and something".

What you are saying is that reality shifted from nothing to something infinite times in the past.

So before yesterday could occur reality had to shift between nothing and something infinite times.

It really doesn't change anything.

I brought that up because you were in a different level of the argument. It was intended for the argument of the context you were in.

Although, I have come up with some arguments against the claim that infinite regress is a logical fallacy.

 

[Wiploc]

Easy. Numbers are countable and infinitely many.

And yet you can't name anything easier to count than numbers. Numbers are so easy to count that they are what we use to count everything else!

Tell me this: Are there more numbers or molecules?

 

[Kharakov]

And yet you can't name anything easier to count than numbers. Numbers are so easy to count that they are what we use to count everything else!

Tell me this: Are there more numbers or molecules?

Yes.

 

[George S]

And yet you can't name anything easier to count than numbers. Numbers are so easy to count that they are what we use to count everything else!

Tell me this: Are there more numbers or molecules?

If they are not equal, then it is numbers.

 

[Juma]

And yet you can't name anything easier to count than numbers. Numbers are so easy to count that they are what we use to count everything else!

Tell me this: Are there more numbers or molecules?

We are not discussing reality here, just unters argument.

 

[Juma]

This is what you presented:

[axiom? Lemma?:]
If an atom exists it can in theory be counted.

[definition of "can in theory be counted":]
It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

[proposition:]
If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

[proof of proposition:]
[nothing...]

this is you concise and complete argument?

i see no proof of that proposition whatsoever...

 

[Kharakov]

And yet you can't name anything easier to count than numbers. Numbers are so easy to count that they are what we use to count everything else!

Tell me this: Are there more numbers or molecules?

If they are not equal, then it is numbers.

Not necessarily. You might say "I count molecules with the set of integers, and the set of reals is far greater than the set of integers", but in all seriousness, do numbers exist without a mind contemplating them?

I tend to think molecules exist independently of my contemplation of them, and maybe there as many molecules as the set of integers.

However, perhaps all numbers exist as force differentials between varying points, charges, masses, and other factors in continual spacetime. But how would the numbers be scaled- the speed of light, the strength of various constants? They'd exist as pure ratios, even the transcendentals.

So maybe numbers exist (not linguistically, but the pure ratio of strengths) in the continuum of reality in a certain sense. So, given the relationship between spacetime and molecules, in the case of numbers existing as pure ratios (without dependence on language or human contemplation), numbers far outnumber molecules.

Anyway, I still say "yes" to "Are there more numbers or molecules", because in my experience, there are always more numbers or molecules to fuck with. And I like to dodge questions as much as I like to answer them, when I feel that the answer is already known by the party asking.

 

[untermensche]

This is what you presented:

[axiom? Lemma?:]
If an atom exists it can in theory be counted.

[definition of "can in theory be counted":]
It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

[proposition:]
If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

[proof of proposition:]
[nothing...]

this is you concise and complete argument?

i see no proof of that proposition whatsoever...

What do you mean? It is there.

If you have any group of entities that can in theory be counted then the amount of the members of that group is finite.

An infinite group of entities could not even in theory be counted.

The counting would never end.

It is clearly nonsensical to say that an infinite amount of some real entity actually exists. It is like saying I just counted to infinity.

The very idea of existence implies the finite. It is a binary concept. Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no room for infinity when things are so black and white.

 

[Juma]

What do you mean? It is there.

No, it is not. The post ends with two questions and nowhere any hint of a logical proof.

If you have any group of entities that can in theory be counted then the amount of the members of that group is finite.
An infinite group of entities could not even in theory be counted.

The counting would never end.

So how do you know that atoms can be counted?

 

[Kharakov]

Come on Juma, he told you the proof is there.

Remember, you must assume that the number of atoms in the universe is countable using unter's definition of countable. Do not use the mathematical definition associated with a  countable set! Remember: math and counting are not real because unter has defined mathematics as an inaccurate modeling language for reality (never mind unter uses counting...), so do not assume mathematical ideas apply to counting...

So, unter's definition of countable includes the axiom that anything which is countable cannot have an infinite number of units- so all countable infinite sets become non-existent. Anything that can be counted, that has an infinite number of units, is rendered non-existent by untermensche's authority over things logical.

 

[untermensche]

No, it is not. The post ends with two questions and nowhere any hint of a logical proof.

Since there are no questions I don't know what you read.

It is about the idea of counting something. To make it easy imagine counting all the leaves that exist on this planet. There may be problems in deciding what is and isn't a leaf so determinations will have to be made. The process would have to be near instantaneous because leaves are dying and decaying and starting all the time. With all these conditions I call it theoretical counting. Counting that can't take place now but counting that doesn't violate any logical boundaries.

Now imagine we had access to every planet that also has what we would define as leaves. We could do the same on them. If a leaf existed we could theoretically count it.

If in theory all the things that fit our definition of a leaf could be counted there is not an infinite amount of them.

The same would hold for atoms.

And if we can't count atoms we would have to come up with some logic why that which holds for leaves does not hold for atoms.

Besides the problems in saying there are infinite atoms, which means it takes infinite space to hold them and gravity is infinite in all directions.

 

[George S]

No, it is not. The post ends with two questions and nowhere any hint of a logical proof.

Since there are no questions I don't know what you read.

It is about the idea of counting something. To make it easy imagine counting all the leaves that exist on this planet. There may be problems in deciding what is and isn't a leaf so determinations will have to be made. The process would have to be near instantaneous because leaves are dying and decaying and starting all the time. With all these conditions I call it theoretical counting. Counting that can't take place now but counting that doesn't violate any logical boundaries.

Now imagine we had access to every planet that also has what we would define as leaves. We could do the same on them. If a leaf existed we could theoretically count it.

If in theory all the things that fit our definition of a leaf could be counted there is not an infinite amount of them.

The same would hold for atoms.

And if we can't count atoms we would have to come up with some logic why that which holds for leaves does not hold for atoms.

Besides the problems in saying there are infinite atoms, which means it takes infinite space to hold them and gravity is infinite in all directions.

There is counting and there is counting. Counting, placing in a list, adding 1 to a predecessor, may continue or end. The definition of 'finite' is that there is a final number, last list entry,--a place where counting stops.

The number of molecules is either finite or infinite. If it is infinite then it is an infinite subset of all the infinite energy forms.

Our observable universe is finite. It is a sphere 13.73 billion light years in radius and growing. The number of molecules is finite in that sphere, and, btw, they've been counted (give or take a few thousand billion).

 

[Juma]

No, it is not. The post ends with two questions and nowhere any hint of a logical proof.

Since there are no questions I don't know what you read.

Not really my problem that you cannot remeber your posts. But here it is. With the trailing questions:

If an atom exists it can in theory be counted. It can in theory be distinguished from that which is not the atom and be observed as a discrete entity.

If all the atoms that exist can in theory be counted then there is a finite amount of them.

How does something exist that can't in theory be counted or measured or observed in some way?

How could you have an infinite number of countable entities?

It is about the idea of counting something. To make it easy imagine counting all the leaves that exist on this planet. There may be problems in deciding what is and isn't a leaf so determinations will have to be made. The process would have to be near instantaneous because leaves are dying and decaying and starting all the time. With all these conditions I call it theoretical counting. Counting that can't take place now but counting that doesn't violate any logical boundaries.

Now imagine we had access to every planet that also has what we would define as leaves. We could do the same on them. If a leaf existed we could theoretically count it.

If in theory all the things that fit our definition of a leaf could be counted there is not an infinite amount of them.

The same would hold for atoms.

And if we can't count atoms we would have to come up with some logic why that which holds for leaves does not hold for atoms.

Besides the problems in saying there are infinite atoms, which means it takes infinite space to hold them and gravity is infinite in all directions.

All these words and you didnt answer the question: how do you know that atoms can be counted?

 

[Bomb#20]

So mathematically you can easily fit an infinite regress of time into a bounded number of hours.

Okay, but what about an infinite number of hours?

Sorry for the delay; this dropped off my radar. Yes, you can also fit it in an infinite number of hours. A first cause, an infinite regress in finite time, and an infinite regress in infinite time are three distinct possibilities; and all three hypotheses are consistent with observation.

... if the particles used to be closer together and used to be moving faster than they are now, then an interaction would have taken less time in the past than it does now. And that is in fact the case, since this is an expanding universe. Actually 14 billion years turns out to be plenty of time for a chain of cause and effect containing infinitely many particle interactions.

If there are an infinite number of particle interactions in 14 billion years, then aren't there particle interactions during at least one interval of time of any size?

That's exactly right.

 

[untermensche]

All these words and you didnt answer the question: how do you know that atoms can be counted?

Why, in theory, could we not count them?

Are they real, or only conceptual?

If they are real then it is, in theory, possible to count them.

They are there, waiting to be counted. Not hiding.

What you are asking is; How do I know it is possible for humans to invent a technology that can count atoms?

I don't. I only know that if they exist, and if they exist as something discrete, they can, in theory, be counted.

If you want to say that the atom is only a conceptual entity then again, like a number, it doesn't fit my definition of a countable entity.

Your question seems to me nothing more than asking, how do you know you can count all the houses in Texas? What exactly would prevent it?

So if we could see atoms, like we see houses, what would prevent us from counting them?

 

[Juma]

All these words and you didnt answer the question: how do you know that atoms can be counted?

Why, in theory, could we not count them?

Them being infinitely many.