Register | Sign In

 Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Messages Thread Titles This Thread

 EvC Forum active members: 52 (9184 total)
 3 online now: Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,406 Year: 5,663/9,624 Month: 69/619 Week: 2/56 Day: 2/35 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Thread  Details

Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 (1)
 Message 412 of 1197 (893839) 04-21-2022 12:57 AM Reply to: Message 410 by WookieeB04-20-2022 7:57 PM

quote:
Minimum value of what?
Whichever quantity is being used in the sum, of course. In the context of this discussion - which you should remember - that would be the time required for a cause to produce an effect.
quote:
That really doesn't matter. 1/3 = 0.333333..... to infinity. Which is 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + 0.0003.....But if you take any point along that string and add up everything, you will not ever have precisely 1/3
You have odd ideas of relevance. If an infinite series of causation took 1/3 of a second it would take 1/3 of a second regardless of the impossibility of us adding up the total by hand.
quote:
Simply put, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.
Simply put that is a ridiculous falsehood. The impossibility of producing the sum by hand in no way makes the sum infinite. One third is finite, whether it is conceived of as a ratio or the result of an infinite summation.
quote:
Please explain this. What do you mean by "durations".
As I said above it is the time taken for the causes to produce their effects. I’m sorry you have difficulty remembering the context. I suggest you refer back to previous messages using the handy links that this forum provides.
quote:
I suppose I would agree that time is continuous, but I am not assuming any duration is an infinite number of moments.
If you agree that time is continuous you are agreeing that any finitely small duration is an infinite number of moments. That is a logical truth, not an assumption.
quote:
Again, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.
Again you are wrong and obviously so. One third is a finite number. It is easy to construct an infinite series which sums up to one third, therefore an infinite sum series can have a finite sum.
quote:
Again, I'm not really sure what you are saying here. How are you defining a "logical impossibility"? I get the feeling you have an odd view of warrant in a claim.
I’m using the standard definition - which would be that the concept is self-contradictory. Are you suggesting that everyone who accepts the normal ideas of logic has “an odd view of warrant in a claim” ?
quote:
So then you are rejecting the axioms that everyone else is using.
No, I am saying that a view that others here accept is not the only possibility, I am sure that they would all agree that it is not an axiom that there must be time prior to the existence of our universe.
quote:
Then that also establishes that you are proposing no beginning to the universe. Space, time, matter, energy have all existed in some form. I will just point out that at this time, science and philosophy disagree with you there.
I am proposing that it is a possibility. And at this time science and philosophy agree with me.
quote:
A difference without a distinction from what I said
That’s because you don’t understand what a definition is.
quote:
Nope. You misunderstand the context. The reference to a "causal chain infinitely into the past" is referring to causes that eventually lead to the creation of the universe. You cannot have that an an eternal universe at the same time.
Again you are citing irrelevances to cover up your error. I was not in any way limiting time to our time in our universe. I simply pointed out that your statement could reasonably be read as meaning that the chain was infinite without making any assertion about the duration of past time.
quote:
In context that is correct. But the context is also making a distinction between time of our universe and anything outside of it that could be categorized as a temporal state. So yes, as to our universe time, the implementation of the beginning of the universe would appear to happen instantly. But that doesn't have anything to say about a causal source being present outside of our universe spacetime.
In context we are dealing with the case where there is no time at all prior to our universe - including other temporal dimensions. In that context my claim is true, and your response is just special pleading.
quote:
Yes. That is correct
Thank you for agreeing that if there is no time prior to our universe it did not “begin to exist”.
quote:
But you are missing the context of that statement. I laid it out initially in Message 402 when I first responded to you. That assumed that we were talking about something we are still calling "time" that is outside the time in our universe.
And in that context the idea that time began with our universe would exclude the existence of such a thing. It seems then that you were the one who missed the context.
quote:
The assumption was there was some temporal state outside of our universe. If that is still true, then the causation of the universe would not take zero "time".
That assumption was excluded by the scenario under discussion, so obviously it is not relevant.
quote:
But if you are referring to time as just our universe experience of it
I wasn’t.
quote:
Classic! You do realize you are dinging your own side.
By pointing out that your arguments are bad?
quote:
"a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof" was YOUR argument, not mine. I do agree with that statement, but it is not part of my argument. And now you are saying it was a bad argument? Fine. You gave a bad argument. TeeHee!
Of course not. I am agreeing with it as a criticism of your argument. And since you agree, you admit that you made a bad argument.
quote:
If you think not having an observed instance of an actualized infinity is not good evidence, let alone logical proof that an actualized infinity doesnt exist, that is fine. But then it can be said equally that not having an observed empirical observation of a First Cause (or God) is not good evidence, let alone logical proof that a First Cause (or God) doesnt exist.
I am not aware of anyone using such an argument, so it would seem to be another completely irrelevance.
quote:
Yes! I would say the same thing, and have been saying that essentially. I do not think there is such a thing as an actualized infinity. The concept exists, but the reality of it doesnt.
No, you said that it should be easy to show an actualised infinity not that it would be impossible to show an actualised infinity even if it did exist.
quote:
But do you forget what you said previously in other posts? "for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity."
Of course not. Nor do I forget that you argued against it on the grounds that the subdivision would take an infinite time - which is a perfect example of my point.
quote:
No, that was not my argument. My argument is that there are no actualized infinities. see above.
By which you mean “yes it is my argument that actualised infinites can’t exist”.
Edited by PaulK, : Assorted minor corrections

 This message is a reply to: Message 410 by WookieeB, posted 04-20-2022 7:57 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 413 by WookieeB, posted 04-22-2022 10:57 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 414 of 1197 (893908) 04-23-2022 3:03 AM Reply to: Message 413 by WookieeB04-22-2022 10:57 PM

quote:
Of course. 1/3 was used just because it was easy enough to represent in decimal and show the flow of adding parts of it to infinity, but you would never get the whole 1.
That seems irrelevant. If the series of causes and effects took 1/3 of a second - as they could in principle even if the series were infinite - the whole series would last 1/3 of a second.
quote:
You misunderstand what I'm saying.
I think not. What you said was quite clear - and clearly wrong.
quote:
If I could revisit it, I would say it as: "an infinite series of additions does not result in a finite sum"
Which means exactly the same thing.
quote:
But that also does not mean I am saying that "an infinite series of additions results in an infinite sum". If anything, such a sum is undefined, or incomplete.
Then you were being unclear. You should have asserted that it does not have a sum. And you would still be wrong.
quote:
And yes, "One third is finite, whether it is conceived of as a ratio". But NO to "or the result of an infinite summation." An infinite summation would never produce a finite sum.
And yet it does. The sum of the infinite series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003… is 1/3. Just because we can’t do the addition by hand doesn’t mean that we can’t calculate the sum. Indeed, the integral calculus is built on the fact that we can. It’s like saying that an infinite decimal expansion doesn’t have a value since we can’t write it out by hand. Yet we can represent 1/3 in exactly that way.
quote:
Not exactly. You could take a finite length of something and, in concept, proceed to divide into it infinitely. But that is referred to as a potential infinity. It would never be actualized, because dividing into it infinitely means no end to dividing into it, and summing up all the parts you are dividing would never reach the finite length.
Your objection is irrelevant. The fact that we can’t measure the infinity (because it’s infinite) doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And if it is there it is actualised.
[quote]But admitting the concept of a potential infinity of divisions within any length is not the same thing as saying that any length has been divided infinitely. [quote]Indeed, it I am not talking about doing the division. The point is that there are an infinite number of distinct moments whether we do the division or not. And your objection actually admits this.
quote:
Not obviously so. Any infinite series adding up to one third will never complete. You will get close, but never actually get there. So you cannot say an infinite sum has a finite sum.
And yet I can because there are other ways of calculating the sum other than adding up by hand. For a simpler analogy you don’t do large multiplications by repeated addition - so are you arguing that a sufficiently large multiplication can’t be done in a human lifetime?
Repeated addition is not the only way to calculate a sum.
quote:
No. But I am saying that a logical impossibility of a claim is adequate to invalidate that claim. You apparently feel differently.
I certainly do not. Where we disagree seems to be that I think that the claim must actually be shown to be logically impossible. You think you can make the assertion and then waffle on and on about practical difficulties without ever supporting the claim of logical impossibility. Since that is what you are doing.
quote:
Huh? What? That is not what I said. Time didnt exist. To speak of it prior makes no sense. But then as our universe began, time began to exist.
You misunderstand - i meant that our universe did not begin to exist.
However the same point does apply to time.
quote:
No, I explicitly stated that in our experience time[1] is something that began with the universe.
We are discussing a scenario I proposed where there is no time (including other temporal dimensions) prior to our universe existing. What you said cannot override that.
quote:
No you made a statement in criticism of my argument. I held that your statement wasnt applicable to my argument, thus it could not be a criticism of it. I actually do agree with the statement, but my argument does not depend on that statement in any way. So I can agree with the statement, but it has no bearing to anything else I was saying.
And yet it quite clearly does apply to your argument - and you never gave any reason to think otherwise.
quote:
No, I didnt say that. Read more carefully. I said "presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity." I didnt say presenting an actual infinity would be easy
If it is impossible to present an actual infinity then presenting an actual infinity can’t be an “easy refutation” of your assertion. At least not in any way that helps your argument.
Arguing that your assertion is technically true but incredibly misleading and actually irrelevant doesn’t really seem to be a very good objection.
quote:
I contended there are no actual infinities (not z), and the easiest way to disprove that would be to show an actual infinity (z). It's a basic, self-evident statement. How hard or easy it is to actually show an actual infinity is irrelavant to my statement
The ease of actually doing something is rather clearly relevant to the assertion that it is the easiest.
More importantly if it is impossible to actually show an actualised infinity, even if one does exist the whole point is just sophistry. It tells us nothing relevant to the argument.

 This message is a reply to: Message 413 by WookieeB, posted 04-22-2022 10:57 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 419 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 3:09 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 (1)
 Message 415 of 1197 (893909) 04-23-2022 3:10 AM Reply to: Message 413 by WookieeB04-22-2022 10:57 PM

Let us note that this “example” doesn’t come close to representing the actual conversation.
quote:
example-
Me: Chocolate tastes good.
You: But steak tastes better.
Me: That is true.
You: See, you agree your argument is refuted.
Me: Not really.
This is closer:
Wookie: “Brussels sprouts taste good”
Me: “No, they’re horrid”
Wookie: “I agree and broccoli is horrid too”
Me: “so you said that something horrid tastes good”
Wookie: “You admit that Brussels sprouts aren’t horrid! I win!”
And just for reference here is the actual conversation.
Me: First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof.
Wookie: I agree. And that reasoning applies equally to the concept of a First Cause or God.
Nonetheless, presenting an actualized infinity should be an easy proof or refutation against my idea that there is no such thing as an actualized infinity. The lack of any such evidence is not a proof in support, but it certainly leans that way.
Me: Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.
Wookie: Classic! You do realize you are dinging your own side.
"a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof" was YOUR argument, not mine. I do agree with that statement, but it is not part of my argument. And now you are saying it was a bad argument? Fine. You gave a bad argument. TeeHee!
Note that Wookie gave no reason to hint that the lack of observation was relevant to a claim of logical impossibility (because it isn’t - there’s no way to get from non-existence to logical impossibility). He did not even dispute the point that it would be impossible to directly observe that something was actually infinite - which he would need to do for his points to have any validity at all.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 413 by WookieeB, posted 04-22-2022 10:57 PM WookieeB has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 427 of 1197 (894058) 04-29-2022 5:08 PM Reply to: Message 424 by WookieeB04-29-2022 4:50 PM

Re: Lest You Forget
quote:
If some proposed, real entity (ie:causal chain, universe) never began to exist, then the number of past events in the history of such an entity is infinite.
This is not true, since if time is finite anything that existed at the first point of time will have always existed and have never begun to exist, yet we need not propose an infinite number of events (unless you get into Zeno’s Paradox which will just cause you even. Ore trouble).
Note also that you propose that God is a real entity that never began to exist, so you will no doubt propose exceptions for that, too.
quote:
But having an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. If they could, various absurdities would result.
Which simply means that infinities don’t behave like normal numbers. It certainly isn’t an argument for logical impossibility. It isn’t even a good argument for lesser degrees of impossiblity
quote:
Or take PaulK's example. Conceivably, a finite thing (time length) could be sub-divided an infinite number of times. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8....... And supposedly that is enough to demonstrate an actual infinity.
Given the assumption that time is a continuum - which you granted - it is in fact a proof. And therefore it is certainly enough.
quote:
Why would the same concept not apply within the same thing, as in fractions of fractions.
Obviously it does.
quote:
Any fraction (any single sub-division) could further be subdivided an infinite number of times. So instead of one infinite chain, you potentially have an infinite chain with infinite subdivisions that themselves could be infinitely divided. So in PaulK's example, traversing an infinite chain to get a finite is the same as an traversing an infinite ^ infinite chain to get the same finite. So now infinity ^ infinity = infinity = something finite. Absurdity!
The traversal is your addition however the truth isn’t wrong just because you think that it is absurd.
quote:
It is impossible to transverse an infinite. If the entity (universe) has existed for an infinite number of days, we could never arrive at today because that would mean infinity came to an end. But infinity can’t come to an end.
That depends on a view of time that is controversial and largely rejected by physicists (due to relativity). The alternative view of time - treating it as a dimension has no such problem. There is no need for the time to be traversed. (I knew this one was coming, because it was obvious that you were parroting apologetics).
quote:
If an actual infinity is impossible, any entity (ie: the universe) could not exist for an infinite number of moments.
If time is continuous any finitely small portion of time contains an infinite number of moments. That’s an actual logical truth. So it seems that you are saying that the universe can’t exist. Of course you are wrong because you don’t understand what you are saying.

 This message is a reply to: Message 424 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 4:50 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 433 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 7:07 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 428 of 1197 (894059) 04-29-2022 5:12 PM Reply to: Message 426 by WookieeB04-29-2022 4:54 PM

quote:
Then please show an example. I have a feeling "special cases" means bending the normal rules.
It doesn’t. Start with the examples I have given.
The sum of the series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003…
Or - again - the integral calculus (which is very much part of the “normal rules” of mathematics).

 This message is a reply to: Message 426 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 4:54 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 434 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 7:20 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 441 of 1197 (894074) 04-30-2022 1:37 AM Reply to: Message 433 by WookieeB04-29-2022 7:07 PM

Re: Lest You Forget
quote:
You dont see the contradiction of this???? If this makes any sense, you have different meanings for the terms "exist", "time", and 'begin'.
There is no contradiction. Surely even you can see that there is a difference between something that has always existed and something that has not. And yet your argument relies on assuming that this difference is irrelevant - for no clear reason at all.
quote:
Yes, I have been saying infinity is not like normal numbers. Not like in that, in at least one respect, a thing represented by infinity cannot be actualized. Whereas things represented by finite numbers can and are actualized.
However you are using arguments that treat infinity like a normal number to make that case. Saying that you know that your arguments are invalid because you are using them is hardly a defence,
quote:
And sorry? Degrees of impossiblity?
Obviously things can be physically impossible without being logically impossible. Miracles - commonly considered - are often physically impossible but logically possible. Logical impossibility requires a contradiction at the very strict level of logic. Physical impossibility merely requires braking the laws of physics.
quote:
No it is not. You continue to obfuscate
Obviously you are not using the standard definition of “obfuscate”.
quote:
An actuality would be a snapshot of time, not the whole continuum of it.
I’m talking about small portions of time - say 1 second. Are you saying that a single second of time cannot be “actual”?
quote:
Or at the very least, a finite slice of time.
Which is exactly what I am talking about, because each finite slice of time contains an infinite amount of moments. As I have shown.
quote:
Yet you never get to the end in your addition. So how can you say you get your finite thing?
To repeat the point it is because I don’t get the sum by doing all the additions by hand. I use other means to work out what it is. As I said before, nobody uses repeated addition to do large multiplications, so there is no need to restrict ourselves to adding by hand.
quote:
In your addition, you have to cross the finish line to get your finite thing. Yet you will never do so in the infinite summation. That is not hard to understand. Only unless you bend the rules, which you apparently want to do, could someone finish the race.
There is no rule that says that we have to add everything up by hand. But please go tell everyone using the integral calculus that they are doing it wrong, breaking your rules and must stop.
quote:
Now who is special pleading?
Referring to a view widely held by the relevant experts is not “special pleading”.
quote:
Of course there would have to be an alternative view. What is it?
It would be the one I mentioned. If you want the philosophy Wikipedia has it covered.
However if time is treated as a dimension your argument is rather clearly absurd. The argument that distance must be finite because you could never traverse an infinite distance makes no sense - and if time is a dimension, the same point applies.
quote:
Explain please. I think you have a unique view of what it means as to "time is continuous".
I am using the standard view of a continuum. I.e. time has no discrete parts which cannot be further subdivided. There is nothing unique in my view - you simply don’t understand the concept of a continuum.

 This message is a reply to: Message 433 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 7:07 PM WookieeB has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 442 of 1197 (894075) 04-30-2022 1:43 AM Reply to: Message 434 by WookieeB04-29-2022 7:20 PM

quote:
Except you never have a final sum equaling 1/3. Any sum that results in a finite number would have to have a finite number of elements added up. The "sum" as a completion of all the additions, then NO, you never actually have a sum.
If you mean that I would be breaking your arbitrary rule that I have to do the additions by hand then I have to ask what is the point? I can’t write out the infinitely recurring decimal 0.33333…. either but everyone knows that is the same as 1/3.
The series has a sum, and I know what it is. That is all that matters. I don’t have to follow rules that you made up.

 This message is a reply to: Message 434 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 7:20 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 443 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2022 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 (1)
 Message 444 of 1197 (894079) 04-30-2022 3:40 AM Reply to: Message 443 by WookieeB04-30-2022 2:56 AM

quote:
But then you are not being consistent.
You do make up some ridiculous nonsense.
quote:
If you were an immortal being living in our spacetime, and you were able to add numbers at a googolplex (10^100^100) terms per second, and you did this for a googolplex number of years, you still would not have ended adding terms for an number with infinite terms.
So? My position is that the sum can be determined in other ways than adding everything up by hand. That’s hardly inconsistent with the idea that it is impossible to determine the sum by adding up by hand.
quote:
You were the one that also wrote out the 1/3 series as adding 0.3, 0.03, 0.003,...., so you were alluding to the adding of terms in a singular series on to infinity...which means to no end. So just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it wouldn't occur that way.
You don’t seem to be making a point, indeed your position seems to be that mathematics is wrong because you don’t like it. Because you are disagreeing with mathematics and you don’t give any valid reasons.
quote:
Of course you cannot write it out. And in decimal base10 numeration you cannot express 1/3 completely accurate by writing out 0.333333... no matter how many digits you use. base10 decimal cannot accurately represent 1/3, so it has to show it as an infinite series. use a base3 notation and write it as 0.1. No infinite progression needed.
The only relevant point here seems to be that 1/3 can indeed be represented by an infinite series - which concedes the point.
quote:
The "...." is a convention. Everyone knows that it is the same as 1/3 because that is an accepted convention for it. The "...." has no numerical value in itself, otherwise 0.3333...... would be a different number than 0.3333333333333333333.....
It’s a convention for writing a infinitely repeating decimal. Which, again, agrees with my point. If you were correct the infinitely repeating decimal 0.3333…. would have no value - but, of course, it does, as you admit.
quote:
I suspect you have a definition of "sum" that doesn't care about accuracy to the infinite level.
This is, of course, untrue. Instead of trying to invent imaginary flaws in my position maybe you should take some time to understand the issues. Indeed 0.33333…. is equal to 1/3 at an infinite level of accuracy. Obviously you haven’t taken any degree-level mathematics - and probably less than that since you don’t even seem to understand multiplication.
quote:
The rules are logic and what is real.
In fact your “rules” are what you dictate, regardless of logic and reality (which you feel free to ignore whenever it suits you).
But unfortunately for you, you aren’t God, however much you want us to think you are.

 This message is a reply to: Message 443 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2022 2:56 AM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 447 by WookieeB, posted 05-08-2022 5:54 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 451 of 1197 (894265) 05-09-2022 1:01 AM Reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB05-08-2022 5:54 PM

quote:
No I’m not treating like a number. You are.
Ah, the usual creationist habit of attributing their faults to their opponents. None the less your argument is that infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. I on the other hand make no such argument.
quote:
To do the arithmetic in a way that makes sense in an actualized manner, your sums have to be finite and of a finite amount.
But I am not determining the sum in that way. Again, you are arguing against quite standard mathematics that has been around for a long time. And you are doing it by making up arbitrary rules.
quote:
You are trying to throw infinity into a scenario where a number is required. Thus infinity doesnt work in an actualized way.
Complete nonsense. If you want to argue against mathematics you have to do better than that.
quote:
No, the second is finite. The second is not made of a sum of numbers without end.

The second is a finite time consisting of an infinite number of moments. Or it is if time is continuous, as you agreed that it is. That is a simple matter of logic. If you want to say that logic is wrong you need to do better than confused misrepresentations of the point,
quote:
But you should be able to.
I should be able to do an infinite number of additions? Really? It’s not even practical to multiply large numbers by repeated addition - that’s one reason we use multiplication - and why logarithms were invented.
quote:
Since the numbers being added are without end, then it cannot be a finite end to the sum.
“Mathematics is wrong because Wookie says so” is not a convincing argument, it is especially not a convincing argument when the sum is obvious to everyone without the need to add it up by hand.
quote:
At some point, you are saying that 1 = ½ + ¼ + ⅛ +.... But at any point, if the sum equals 1, then there is another number being added, because the numbers being added never end.
“Mathematics is wrong because Wookie doesn’t understand what he’s talking about” is an even less convincing argument. By definition the sum of the series is what you get if you add up all the terms. In this series you won’t have got to 1 if you stop before the end. And that really is obvious - you can even work out how far short it is of 1 without adding up the terms by hand. (Which just goes to show how daft your arbitrary rule really is).
quote:
And any sum cannot equal the sum plus anything else (that is not zero). Simple logic.
Using an obviously false premise - since there is no such point the rest is moot. Really your incompetence at mathematics is not a good reason to think that mathematics is wrong.
quote:
You are using a convention that is accepted in calculus, but that convention has no representation in reality.
No, it’s been the basis of the integral calculus since Newton and Leibniz invented it. Let me just suggest that a guy who seems to think multiplication is forbidden isn’t really in a position to disagree.
(Indeed it must involve the sum of an infinite number of terms if you understand it).
quote:
Computers use a convention like this too when they reach the limit of their math precision.
I am not aware of anything equivalent.
quote:
The rules that would be broken are the rules of reality, actual things
The rule that we must determine a sum by adding up all the numbers by hand is a “rule of reality”? Reality says that multiplication is forbidden? Nobody is going to be stupid enough to believe that.
quote:
If someone is saying in math that a series approaches close enough to a finite number that is is ok to treat it as that finite number, fine
Mathematics says more than that. Mathematics says that if the limit of the sum (as the number of terms tends to infinity) is a finite number then it is that finite number. Or to put it another way, if there is no finitely small difference between two numbers then they are equal. (This is University-level mathematics but quite basic at that level).
quote:
Scientifically, it would never work. For one, at this time you could not provide any evidence of it (can’t look that deep yet), and secondly, once you hit the Planck length (if referring to a spacial measurement) or Planck time (if measuring the time of an event) you would not be able to go any further without your basis (physics) breaking down. There is a limit there.
Except, of course, that none of the arguments here involve making such measurements. So nobody is breaking that rule either.
quote:
No, my position is mathematics is mathematics, and not reality, not an actual thing.
Trying to deny that you are arguing that mathematics is wrong when you repeat those very arguments in this post is hardly sensible.
Unfortunately the points raised are relevant to reality. If time and space are continuous then the relevant mathematics does describe them - it is not just an abstraction.
quote:
There is a difference. It works in math. It doesn't work in actuality.
If it models reality well enough for science that’s good enough for me. And the opinion of someone who can’t handle even the simpler mathematics involved isn’t exactly persuasive. The more so when this person makes up silly rules and insists that they are “reality”.

Edited by PaulK, : Corrected typos

 This message is a reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB, posted 05-08-2022 5:54 PM WookieeB has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 452 by jar, posted 05-09-2022 8:16 AM PaulK has not replied Message 457 by WookieeB, posted 05-18-2022 4:29 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 458 of 1197 (894517) 05-18-2022 5:06 PM Reply to: Message 457 by WookieeB05-18-2022 4:29 PM

quote
Ahh, the usual evolutionist habit of straw-manning any argument that disagrees with them
Ah, the usual creationist habit of making false accusations.
quote
My argument is NOT that since infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. It is that any finite sum needs to be the result of adding two or more (but a finite count) of numbers. And that something that has no end cannot end (infinity cannot be actualized).
As should be obvious that isn’t your argument that infinity can’t exist. This is the argument I was talking about:
But having an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. If they could, various absurdities would result.
As an example, if I had an actually infinite number of CDs all with an infinite number of songs on them, if you listened to only one CD, you would hear the same number of songs as you would if you had listened to every CD in my collection
Message 424
And the “absurdity” is simply that infinity does not act the same as finite numbers, which was the point.
quote
No, the second is a finite time…period.
And by logic is time is continuous every finite time period contains an infinite number of moments.
quote
And to echo my point that you are the one using infinity as a number…. You just said it there-” infinite number of moments”
Except for the fact that I am not expecting it to behave like a finite number. So no, you are doing it, I am not.
quote
No, any finite measure (a number) of time is not made up of a non-ending number of moments, because a non-ending amount of anything is not a number of anything.
Your objection makes no sense, which is hardly sufficient to refute logic.
quote
I question now what you actually think infinity is! Because to you, any time measure is made of an ‘infinite number’ of divisions, which themselves can be infinitely divided. Then there are an infinite number of time measures. So infinity times infinity times infinity would encompass everything. You have basically made the term infinity meaningless.

Which is again the error of treating infinity like a normal number. It’s weird. I get that. But that doesn’t make it impossible,
quote
No, you should be able to do however many additions is needed to get a finite sum, because the amount of things being added is finite. Nobody can actually do an infinite number of additions, because they would be adding to no end.

Thanks for admitting that your challenge was just a silly trick.
quote
Whether or not it is practical to show multiplication of large numbers by repeated addition is irrelevant. The issue is it can be done if the numbers involved are finite. You cannot do either if the amount of numbers is an infinite chain.
Which does not negate the point that sums may be calculated without adding every single term by hand.
quote
Strawmanning my arguments is not a convincing argument
It isn’t a strawman. You are claiming that mathematics is wrong and you aren’t giving any valid reasons.
quote
If there is no end to the numbers being added on the right side, then the value of X on the left side will never be finite.
And we know that isn’t true. That’s already been shown in this thread.
quote
But you never have all the terms, because the terms being added never end. So there is no end to adding, and thus you never get a sum of 1. You cannot take a snapshot at any point and have a finite 1, because a snapshot can never show the sum complete, because the adding never ends. In limit-speak, you never actually equal the end.
Which is exactly the way it should be if 1 is the sum of the infinite series. (At least one like that). You shouldn’t get to 1 by adding a finite number of terms. That’s obvious.
quote
So what. I never disputed it is part of calculus. I dispute that it represents an actuality. You cannot seem to understand the difference.
OK, so you do accept that an infinite series has a sum.
quote
So then you are referring to just something that is presented in abstract math, and not in reality. If that is the case, then I agree. Such measurements can be done in the imagination of abstract math, yet you could not in actuality subdivide any measurement to infinity.
Integration does deal with real quantities, that was why it was invented. The fact that it doesn’t rely on physically doing an infinite number of measurements is obvious enough that it can’t be the real reason for your disagreement.
quote
No, I am not saying mathematics is wrong. I am saying that mathematics itself is an abstract thing, and itself is not anything actual
The fact that you have changed your tune does not mean that you were not arguing against mathematics.
Mathematics says that infinite series can have finite sums. You disagreed.
Mathematics says that these sums can be calculated without individually adding all the terms. You disagreed. And had the nerve to claim that this arbitrary rule you invented was “logic and reality”. It was neither.
That you now disavow these claims hardly means that you never made them.

 This message is a reply to: Message 457 by WookieeB, posted 05-18-2022 4:29 PM WookieeB has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 472 of 1197 (896743) 08-18-2022 4:01 AM Reply to: Message 471 by MrIntelligentDesign08-18-2022 3:50 AM

Re: GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
The “new ID” is the ramblings of an individual suffering from mental illness. He should get help.

 This message is a reply to: Message 471 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 3:50 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 (2)
 Message 474 of 1197 (896745) 08-18-2022 5:29 AM Reply to: Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign08-18-2022 4:58 AM

Re: GOD of THE GAPS or dirtdidit?
My basis is documents you wrote and publicised on this thread.
Please get help. You need it.

 This message is a reply to: Message 473 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 08-18-2022 4:58 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 475 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 10-09-2022 9:24 PM PaulK has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024