The idea of an infinite past

[untermensche]

You give up so many times my stomach turns at the sight of your posts.

Okay. That's kind of awesome. This is a 50-page thread, and it's not the first thread that's done those sort of numbers with folk going back-and-forth with you in whatever Sisyphean struggle this in.

It's not clear to me how you've managed to convince people not to give up, and why these threads still take up bandwidth on this server. You're genuinely blameless on that one. It's the rest of us who need to look in the mirror.

You have no ability to think.

You remind me of that old Woody Allen joke.

Those that can't do teach.

Those that can't teach teach math.

 

[Phil Scott]

You give up so many times my stomach turns at the sight of your posts.

Okay. That's kind of awesome. This is a 50-page thread, and it's not the first thread that's done those sort of numbers with folk going back-and-forth with you in whatever Sisyphean struggle this in.

It's not clear to me how you've managed to convince people not to give up, and why these threads still take up bandwidth on this server. You're genuinely blameless on that one. It's the rest of us who need to look in the mirror.

You have no ability to think.

You remind me of that old Woody Allen joke.

Those that can't do teach.

Those that can't teach teach math.

Cool. Trading insults is about the right level for this thread. Let's keep that going.

- - - Updated - - -

You're horrible too and I hate your tie.

 

[untermensche]

You have no ability to think.

You remind me of that old Woody Allen joke.

Those that can't do teach.

Those that can't teach teach math.

Cool. Trading insults is about the right level for this thread. Let's keep that going.

I was trying to exchange ideas but you quit immediately when one thing you believed was questioned.

There is a mathematics subsection.

Maybe you can impress somebody there.

 

[DBT]

You are saying a real completed infinity is possible.

Prove it.

You have offered no proof. Just some empty speculations.

The description I gave is that of an infinite/eternal Multiverse. There is no apparent reason why such a thing impossible, however unlikely it may be. Whether a multiverse exists or not is irrelevant.

So the question - without your usual causal dismissal of anything you happen to disagree with - what reason do you have to exclude the possibility of an eternal Multiverse?

You gave no description of a multiverse.

It is a relatively familiar concept;

''The universe we live in may not be the only one out there. In fact, our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse."

Though the concept may stretch credulity, there's good physics behind it. And there's not just one way to get to a multiverse — numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.''

''The universe we live in may not be the only one out there. In fact, our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse."

Though the concept may stretch credulity, there's good physics behind it. And there's not just one way to get to a multiverse — numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.''

Infinite Universes

''Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. ''

You gave some empty speculations about it.

All speculations about infinities in the real world are empty.

They are not physical possibilities.

Completion and infinity are two concepts in opposition to one another.

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

That's the Mantra I asked you not to repeat. You are supposed to give a logical account of why an infinite multiverse is impossible, ie, that if the geometry of space is flat, it stretches out forever, ie, it is infinite. Which is quite possible.

 

[untermensche]

It is a relatively familiar concept;

It is an imaginary absurdity.

You have any evidence of a so-called multiverse?

Completion and infinity are two concepts in opposition to one another.

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

It will be repeated until the first person shows it wrong.

 

[Phil Scott]

I was trying to exchange ideas but you quit immediately when one thing you believed was questioned.

What do I believe?

I can think of philosophical arguments which undermine our ideas about the reflexivity of equality. I could even go to the mathematics subsection and talk about formal systems and extensions of the lambda calculus that reject reflexivity of equality. I think I can argue against those systems too, and I think I can argue about arbitrariness.

I quit because I don't think I can have those conversations with you, because I haven't seen any evidence that you know anything, and all I see here are endless threads where the joke is that your posts are so formulaic that they could be machine generated.

I'm more than happy to discuss the ideas of famous philosophers, because I honestly don't believe that folk on internet fora have much in the way of originality, and I'd rather chat about stuff that gets me to read books. That's actually how philosophers get trained by the academy. They don't get examined on their ability to generate double digit threads on internet forums.

But that requires this horrible thing called humility, and who wants that! Much better to be a misunderstood internet genius.

 

[untermensche]

It is not about undermining anything. The scheme is good and useful. It can be built upon.

It is about the fact that none of it is needed to understand and use numbers.

It is an arbitrary scheme.

Not an objective understanding.

 

[Phil Scott]

It is about the fact that none of it is needed to understand and use numbers.

And chemistry isn't needed if you want to understand and use water. That kills this silly line of argument outright. Please think harder. Or I'll do it for you.

 

[untermensche]

It is about the fact that none of it is needed to understand and use numbers.

And chemistry isn't needed if you want to understand and use water. That kills this silly line of argument outright. Please think harder. Or I'll do it for you.

Knowledge of the molecular structure of water is not known by most. And it is not needed by anyone to have understandings of water.

But water and it's structure are a discovery.

Numbers are not.

This is the second time I have had to point out this salient philosophical distinction.

 

[Speakpigeon]

1. 0 is a natural number.

That is just the beginning of an arbitrary scheme. It is an arbitrary definition.

2. For every natural number x, x = x.

Again totally arbitrary. Another arbitrary definition.

There is nothing objective about any of this. It is just very useful to define things in this arbitrary manner.

Could you then give examples of something objective according to you?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

There's no compelling reason to believe that and you certainly have failed to provide any.

And that's post No. 505! That's really impressive!

And I still don't know what you mean exactly by "completed". What exactly would not be completed about an actual infinite past?
EB

 

[untermensche]

The only way a present can occur is if all the events in the past have completed.

There's no compelling reason to believe that and you certainly have failed to provide any.

And that's post No. 505! That's really impressive!

And I still don't know what you mean exactly by "completed". What exactly would not be completed about an actual infinite past?
EB

It is the definition of "past".

And the distinction between the past and the present.

The present are events in progress.

The past are events that have completed.

You seem to have no understanding of the distinction between present and past.

- - - Updated - - -

1. 0 is a natural number.

That is just the beginning of an arbitrary scheme. It is an arbitrary definition.

2. For every natural number x, x = x.

Again totally arbitrary. Another arbitrary definition.

There is nothing objective about any of this. It is just very useful to define things in this arbitrary manner.

Could you then give examples of something objective according to you?
EB

First of all. Do you think saying 0 is a natural number is an objective statement?

The structure of the benzene ring. The sun. The universe.

The distinction between that which is discovered and that which the human mind invents whole.

To say x = x requires first the human inventing "x" and humans inventing "=".

It is total invention. It requires a mind. A human mind. And it requires a mind for any of it to make sense.

And my point is not that it is not incredibly useful.

My point is that it is not necessary to understand what a number is. It is not what a number is. It is a useful scheme which enables humans to use numbers effectively.

Unless you claim that 99% of people who use numbers just fine don't understand numbers.

Some preschool children can understand and use numbers if taught.

 

[fromderinside]

It is a positive claim that a real completed infinity is possible.

All the time in the past completes at every present moment.

It was not infinite.

Two objections. First, infinities don't complete. nor do dimensions, quantities, numbers, etc. complete. Either they are beyond measure or the are beyond counting. Even bounded dimensions don't complete. They have limited extents which all may be infinite.

Physically infinities may be impractical which makes then unusable rather than non existent. Clearly volume, mass, size, number may all be beyond counting, measure, or both, yet they are all possible. Impractical is not impossible.

 

[untermensche]

Of course time does not complete.

The events in the past are complete at every present moment.

At that moment only future events will occur.

No more events will occur in the past.

The past represents change that has completed. It has all occurred.

The future represents changes that will occur.

 

[fast]

The map is invented, not the terrain. Well, human made exceptions of course, but not the fundamental components of it.

 

[Phil Scott]

This is the second time I have had to point out this salient philosophical distinction.

And it's at least the second time that you've dropped the distinction and stuck to a completely invalid line of reasoning. You can't just argue "people have been able to use numbers before modern definitions of them, therefore the modern definitions don't tell us what numbers are", because I have counterexamples to this line of reasoning coming out the wazoo. Your position only holds up because you've got a bunch of additional distinctions in your mind, which you seem to think everyone else is on board with. But I'm frankly flabbergasted that you don't realise how philosophically controversial this is:

But water and it's structure are a discovery.

Numbers are not.

You've got your work cut out for you arguing this, but given that your threads are just a demonstration of your intellectual laziness and general fear of learning anything new, I don't expect you to unpack it any time soon.

 

[Phil Scott]

Moreover, I'm not impressed by the fact that one can save face against a philosophical refutation by making another distinction. That game can be played forever. At some point, you have to show that you're not merely providing ad-hoc get-outs to reinforce a presupposition. But that's a general criticism of certain strains of analytic philosophy.

 

[beero1000]

We go through cycles of posters valiantly trying to get untermensche to understand the basics of logical argument before eventually running out of patience and giving up. It's been years, and trust me, you can lead this horse to water, but you can't make him think.

 

[untermensche]

We go through cycles of posters trying to get untermensche to understand the basics of rational thought before eventually running out of patience and giving up. It's been years, and trust me, you can lead this horse to water, but you can't make him think.

You are deluded.

I get one lost puppy after another that believes a real completed infinity is possible.

But not one of these puppies can demonstrate their absurd claim.

 

[untermensche]

This is the second time I have had to point out this salient philosophical distinction.

And it's at least the second time that you've dropped the distinction and stuck to a completely invalid line of reasoning.

Bad joke.

You are the one making invalid stupid arguments.

Arguments like the properties of water are somehow like the properties of numbers.

You can't just argue "people have been able to use numbers before modern definitions of them, therefore the modern definitions don't tell us what numbers are", because I have counterexamples to this line of reasoning coming out the wazoo.

Sure. And you're keeping them all a secret because you're just quirky.

Numbers are not.

You've got your work cut out for you arguing this, but given that your threads are just a demonstration of your intellectual laziness and general fear of learning anything new, I don't expect you to unpack it any time soon.

You have things exactly backwards like all religious adherents. It is your work to show a number is a discovery.

Show me a number to discover.

Not some arbitrary unneeded scheme from a human mind.

A number in the real world to discover. Not a rock. Not a tree. Not even a symbol. A number.

Moreover, I'm not impressed by the fact that one can save face against a philosophical refutation by making another distinction.

It is not a philosophical refutation to say a number is like water.

We are stuck with water. It is there. We can only understand what it is.

We can make schemes about numbers endlessly and none of them are objective.