Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Why, in theory, could we not count them?

Them being infinitely many.

That's just an empty claim not a logical argument.

How could some group, made up of things each of which can in theory be counted, be uncountable?

You can't just complain this is a question as if I'm presenting some dissertation for your approval.

You have to logically answer it, not simply make claims and avoid it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Them being infinitely many.

That's just an empty claim not a logical argument.

How could some group, made up of things each of which can in theory be counted, be uncountable?

You can't just complain this is a question as if I'm presenting some dissertation for your approval.

You have to logically answer it, not simply make claims and avoid it.

Statement of fact doesn't need a logical argument.

Just as you are assuming that your mistaken "statement of fact" that if things are real then they can all be counted doesn't need a logical argument to prove.

ETA:
If you change the wording of your assumption from real to finite and said that if the number of things is finite then they can all be counted then you should get no argument.

 

[Juma]

Them being infinitely many.

That's just an empty claim not a logical argument.
.

You asked what could cause that atoms cannot in theory be counted and i just restated what you said earlier: them being infinitely many.



And I'm still waiting for that proof but it doesnt seems like you are capable of presenting anything that are near a coherent logical deduction so...

 

[George S]

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain.

 

[skepticalbip]

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know that just ain't so. -- Mark Twain.

That is one of my favorite quotes. Josh Billings, a contemporary of Twain, made the same observation with his:

“The trouble with most folks isn’t so much their ignorance, as knowing so many things that ain’t so.”

And then the master of terseness, Confucius, had the same thought with "Wisdom is knowing the extent of our ignorance".

 

[George S]

untermenche,

Knowledge is important in discussing such a deep topic as time. Please listen to Smolin (dry as chalk) on YouTube. The title is "A New Theory of Time."

Read Julian Barbour. Listen to Sean Carroll's idea. Read both A Brief History of Time and its followup. Listen to Niel deGrasse Tyson on cosmology.

Then get back with us on your opinion about time.

Just a suggestion. A word to the wise.

 

[untermensche]

That's just an empty claim not a logical argument.
.

You asked what could cause that atoms cannot in theory be counted and i just restated what you said earlier: them being infinitely many.



And I'm still waiting for that proof but it doesnt seems like you are capable of presenting anything that are near a coherent logical deduction so...

I'm waiting for somebody to engage with. Somebody actually willing to answer questions.

What I asked was, how can a group, with members, each of which is countable, be uncountable?

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

 

[untermensche]

untermenche,

Knowledge is important in discussing such a deep topic as time. Please listen to Smolin (dry as chalk) on YouTube. The title is "A New Theory of Time."

Read Julian Barbour. Listen to Sean Carroll's idea. Read both A Brief History of Time and its followup. Listen to Niel deGrasse Tyson on cosmology.

Then get back with us on your opinion about time.

Just a suggestion. A word to the wise.

I have no doubt I could learn from them.

What is questionable is if there is anything to learn from you.

 

[skepticalbip]

You asked what could cause that atoms cannot in theory be counted and i just restated what you said earlier: them being infinitely many.



And I'm still waiting for that proof but it doesnt seems like you are capable of presenting anything that are near a coherent logical deduction so...

I'm waiting for somebody to engage with. Somebody actually willing to answer questions.

What I asked was, how can a group, with members, each of which is countable, be uncountable?

And that was answered. If that group is infinite.

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

It being infinite.

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

Yes it is an answer. You just need to learn what the word means and a little about the possibilities that exist in the universe that we are still far from understanding.

Your expressing your incredulity isn't an argument.

 

[ryan]

What I asked was, how can a group, with members, each of which is countable, be uncountable?

Just because humans can't count to infinity doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist.

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

time, energy, etc

 

[Underseer]

[...]

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

Do we really have to go over freshman calculus again? Calculus is all about counting up an infinite number of zeroes to arrive at a finite number. Sure, it seems absurd, but it works.

 

[untermensche]

[...]

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

Do we really have to go over freshman calculus again? Calculus is all about counting up an infinite number of zeroes to arrive at a finite number. Sure, it seems absurd, but it works.

First of all I don't think in calculus infinities are counted. They are dealt with by introducing other concepts, like limits.

But this is a discussion about things that are real. Things that occupy space and can be observed.

This is what is meant by a "countable" entity. A number is not a "countable" entity. I can't see numbers. Seeing a symbol for a number is not seeing the number itself. I can't measure them or weigh them.

So how can a group of countable entities be infinite? It is contradictory to think so. The nature of all countable entities is that they are all finite, so any amount of them must also be a finite sum.

 

[untermensche]

I'm waiting for somebody to engage with. Somebody actually willing to answer questions.

What I asked was, how can a group, with members, each of which is countable, be uncountable?

And that was answered. If that group is infinite.

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

It being infinite.

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

Yes it is an answer. You just need to learn what the word means and a little about the possibilities that exist in the universe that we are still far from understanding.

Your expressing your incredulity isn't an argument.

It is not any kind of an answer.

It's a non sequitur.

I say that if something exists it can in theory be counted.

And you counter this with: It is possible for something to exist that can't be counted. Therefore infinity is possible.

You make no argument for this position. You simply claim it.

 

[untermensche]

Just because humans can't count to infinity doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist.

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

time, energy, etc

These are practical not logical impediments.

What logically prevents some thing that exists from being counted?

If there is no logic to make counting it impossible then it is in theory countable.

 

[skepticalbip]

And that was answered. If that group is infinite.

What exactly, using logic, prevents the group from being counted?

It being infinite.

Just saying the group is infinite is no answer. You have to show how a group of countable entities could be infinite.

Yes it is an answer. You just need to learn what the word means and a little about the possibilities that exist in the universe that we are still far from understanding.

Your expressing your incredulity isn't an argument.

It is not any kind of an answer.

It's a non sequitur.

I say that if something exists it can in theory be counted.

And you counter this with: It is possible for something to exist that can't be counted. Therefore infinity is possible.

You make no argument for this position. You simply claim it.

Reality is reality whether you accept it or not.

I'm an old fart and your incredulity reminds me of me trying to explain to some Vietnamese villagers that I knew fairly well that we had landed "GIs" on the moon (For them American meant GI). They would have none of it. There was absolutely nothing I or anyone else could say that would convince them. They were incredulous because, to them, such a thing made absolutely no sense because the moon was just a light in the sky, not something people could land on. It was impossible for people to go there.

How would you have convinced them with "logic"? Remember, in their world view, the moon is just an unreachable light.

 

[ryan]

Just because humans can't count to infinity doesn't mean infinity doesn't exist.

time, energy, etc

These are practical not logical impediments.

What logically prevents some thing that exists from being counted?

If there is no logic to make counting it impossible then it is in theory countable.

Counting is practical. It is something humans do. But humans are limited as to much they can count due to limited lifespans.

Or maybe I still don't understand your "counting" argument.

 

[untermensche]

Reality is reality whether you accept it or not.

I'm an old fart and your incredulity reminds me of me trying to explain to some Vietnamese villagers that I knew fairly well that we had landed "GIs" on the moon (For them American meant GI). They would have none of it. There was absolutely nothing I or anyone else could say that would convince them. They were incredulous because, to them, such a thing made absolutely no sense because the moon was just a light in the sky, not something people could land on. It was impossible for people to go there.

How would you have convinced them with "logic"? Remember, in their world view, the moon is just an unreachable light.

I assume we share a common logic.

We have access to reality. As you say, it is what it is.

And we know that in reality all the things that can be observed and distinguished as discrete entities can be counted.

We have no reason to think the situation is different in some other part of the universe simply because we can't see it.

It's no different than imagining a monster is in the closet because the door is shut.

 

[skepticalbip]

Reality is reality whether you accept it or not.

I'm an old fart and your incredulity reminds me of me trying to explain to some Vietnamese villagers that I knew fairly well that we had landed "GIs" on the moon (For them American meant GI). They would have none of it. There was absolutely nothing I or anyone else could say that would convince them. They were incredulous because, to them, such a thing made absolutely no sense because the moon was just a light in the sky, not something people could land on. It was impossible for people to go there.

How would you have convinced them with "logic"? Remember, in their world view, the moon is just an unreachable light.

I assume we share a common logic.

We have access to reality. As you say, it is what it is.

And we know that in reality all the things that can be observed and distinguished as discrete entities can be counted.

We have no reason to think the situation is different in some other part of the universe simply because we can't see it.

It's no different than imagining a monster is in the closet because the door is shut.

You didn't answer my question. How would you have convinced them with "logic"?

 

[untermensche]

These are practical not logical impediments.

What logically prevents some thing that exists from being counted?

If there is no logic to make counting it impossible then it is in theory countable.

Counting is practical. It is something humans do. But humans are limited as to much they can count due to limited lifespans.

Or maybe I still don't understand your "counting" argument.

I am talking about a property of the thing being counted. Not the human activity of counting it.

The property of being countable is used specifically here and it means the property of being observable and observed as a discrete entity.

A thing either has the property of being countable or it doesn't have the property of being countable.

If something has the property of being countable it can in theory be counted. This is not to say it is possible to actually count it. There may be physical, but not logical barriers to counting it.

So if we look at any group of things that have the property of being theoretically countable we must say the group is finite since every member of it can theoretically be counted.

You can't have the property of being countable and exist in any amount that couldn't be counted. To say something has the property of being countable yet exists in a group that can't be counted is a logical contradiction.

 

[untermensche]

I assume we share a common logic.

We have access to reality. As you say, it is what it is.

And we know that in reality all the things that can be observed and distinguished as discrete entities can be counted.

We have no reason to think the situation is different in some other part of the universe simply because we can't see it.

It's no different than imagining a monster is in the closet because the door is shut.

You didn't answer my question. How would you have convinced them with "logic"?

The question is for some other thread.

Just because people display normal skepticism without evidence is not evidence they have a problem.