
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 52 (9184 total) 
 
paulwilliam  
Total: 918,406 Year: 5,663/9,624 Month: 69/619 Week: 2/56 Day: 2/35 Hour: 0/0 
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



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

quote: 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: 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 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: 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: 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 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: I’m using the standard definition  which would be that the concept is selfcontradictory. Are you suggesting that everyone who accepts the normal ideas of logic has “an odd view of warrant in a claim” ?
quote: 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: I am proposing that it is a possibility. And at this time science and philosophy agree with me.
quote: That’s because you don’t understand what a definition is.
quote: 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 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: Thank you for agreeing that if there is no time prior to our universe it did not “begin to exist”.
quote: 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: That assumption was excluded by the scenario under discussion, so obviously it is not relevant.
quote: I wasn’t.
quote: By pointing out that your arguments are bad?
quote: 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: I am not aware of anyone using such an argument, so it would seem to be another completely irrelevance.
quote: 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: 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: By which you mean “yes it is my argument that actualised infinites can’t exist”. Edited by PaulK, : Assorted minor corrections


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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: I think not. What you said was quite clear  and clearly wrong.
quote: Which means exactly the same thing.
quote: Then you were being unclear. You should have asserted that it does not have a sum. And you would still be wrong.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: You misunderstand  i meant that our universe did not begin to exist.However the same point does apply to time. quote: 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: And yet it quite clearly does apply to your argument  and you never gave any reason to think otherwise.
quote: 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: 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6

Let us note that this “example” doesn’t come close to representing the actual conversation.
quote: 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 nonexistence 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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: 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: Given the assumption that time is a continuum  which you granted  it is in fact a proof. And therefore it is certainly enough.
quote: Obviously it does.
quote: The traversal is your addition however the truth isn’t wrong just because you think that it is absurd.
quote: 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 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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).


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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: 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: 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: Obviously you are not using the standard definition of “obfuscate”.
quote: I’m talking about small portions of time  say 1 second. Are you saying that a single second of time cannot be “actual”?
quote: 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: 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: 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: Referring to a view widely held by the relevant experts is not “special pleading”.
quote: 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: 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6

quote: You do make up some ridiculous nonsense.
quote: 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 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: The only relevant point here seems to be that 1/3 can indeed be represented by an infinite series  which concedes the point.
quote: 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: 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 degreelevel mathematics  and probably less than that since you don’t even seem to understand multiplication.
quote: 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: 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: 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: Complete nonsense. If you want to argue against mathematics you have to do better than that.
quote: 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: 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: “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: “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: 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: 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: I am not aware of anything equivalent.
quote: 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: 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 Universitylevel mathematics but quite basic at that level).
quote: Except, of course, that none of the arguments here involve making such measurements. So nobody is breaking that rule either.
quote: 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: 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


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote Ah, the usual creationist habit of making false accusations.
quote 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 424And the “absurdity” is simply that infinity does not act the same as finite numbers, which was the point. quote And by logic is time is continuous every finite time period contains an infinite number of moments.
quote 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 Your objection makes no sense, which is hardly sufficient to refute logic.
quote 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 Thanks for admitting that your challenge was just a silly trick.
quote Which does not negate the point that sums may be calculated without adding every single term by hand.
quote It isn’t a strawman. You are claiming that mathematics is wrong and you aren’t giving any valid reasons.
quote And we know that isn’t true. That’s already been shown in this thread.
quote 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 OK, so you do accept that an infinite series has a sum.
quote 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 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.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
The “new ID” is the ramblings of an individual suffering from mental illness. He should get help.


PaulK Member Posts: 17864 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6

My basis is documents you wrote and publicised on this thread.
Please get help. You need it.



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024