Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
79 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Dredge, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,959 Year: 5,071/6,534 Month: 491/794 Week: 117/89 Day: 1/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


(2)
Message 89 of 470 (891547)
02-02-2022 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign
01-31-2022 12:51 AM


Re: How to tell?
MrIntelligentDesign writes:

Do you want me to copy and paste for you the whole article? Or just go there and read and come here for more?

I am an advocate of Intelligent Design. You would think that I am sympathetic to your position.

But I did read your links and paper(s).... and they make no sense at all. They do not even begin to answer any of the questions put forward so far. I have to agree with many of the commenters here that it comes off as gibberish.

I don't know if this is a language thing, as I dont think English is your native tongue. But you need to explain yourself better. This might be a good venue to try it before submitting your papers elsewhere.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 01-31-2022 12:51 AM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 312 of 470 (893172)
03-30-2022 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by MrIntelligentDesign
03-30-2022 1:28 AM


Re: Bump for Mr.ID
I still cannot understand anything MrID is talking about. He needs to define his terms before he starts using them.

@MrID - What is "naturen" and "intellen"? Those are not English words. I realize "naturen" is a non-english word (meaning: Nature), but if you are explaining in English, just use the English word.

What is the categorization you are trying to make? And how are you defining "Design"? And what is all this referencing of "X" you are doing. You are not being consistent.

---
As for the old-ID, I do not see a problem with it. So I was curious to see the following list, and would like to see an how this is actual, instead of the strawman it appears to be.

ID's failure to take into account naturally occurring complexity by trying to equate complexity with "design" even though naturally occurring complexity is so much more complex than designed complexity could ever hope to be. That would also include how the most common characteristic of a product of evolutionary processes is high levels of complexity, such that if you find something in nature that is highly complex then that is evidence that it had evolved.
ID's fatal confusion of science's practice of methodological materialism ("We are incapable of working with the supernatural, so we do not include it.") with philosophical materialism ("The natural universe is all there is.").
ID's political and social agenda to transform science by forcing it to include the supernatural. Their motivation in pushing that travesty comes from the previous point in which they are unable to understand how science works.
ID having to always resort to explaining everything away with "God Did It" (AKA "goddidit"). More specifically, they point out how highly complex something is such that they have difficulty explaining it completely, so they jump to their go-to "conclusion" of "goddidit".
Of course, that "answer" not only answers nothing at all, but it also blocks any further investigation of that question. As we discussed in my topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), "goddidit" effectively kills science.

ID's worship of the God of the Gaps. This view argues that finding natural explanations for things works to disprove God, which would mean that our inability to explain something works to prove God. That would lead to an agenda which strives to preserve ignorance and to impede the growth of knowledge. Note that this worship of the God of the Gaps is also quite common among YECs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 03-30-2022 1:28 AM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by nwr, posted 03-30-2022 3:20 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 314 by PaulK, posted 03-30-2022 3:52 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 470 by dwise1, posted 06-18-2022 7:48 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 339 of 470 (893624)
04-17-2022 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by dwise1
04-15-2022 12:47 PM


It's the old "First Cause" question (AKA "First Principle") and following it to its logical consequences. Basically:

1. Everything that exists has a cause: cause and effect.
2. Every intermediate cause exists because something else had caused it.
3. Philosophers have extrapolated that chain of cause and effect back to what they postulated as a "First Cause", which they identify as "God".
4. Those same philosophers fail to ask the obvious question: "Since everything needs a cause, Who caused God?"

Except, you have #1 wrong. It should be "Whatever begins to exist has a cause: cause and effect". With that, #3 should make more sense, and #4 is irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by dwise1, posted 04-15-2022 12:47 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2022 5:18 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 340 of 470 (893625)
04-17-2022 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Sarah Bellum
04-16-2022 2:23 PM


It's the fundamental flaw in the "design" argument.

No, you have the "design" argument wrong.

If creationists say that a complex organism couldn't develop naturally,

Perhaps that is what creationists say. But those who hold to ID (that presumably make the "design" argument) do not say that. So please do not conflate the two.

then what does that say about their god, who (presumably) is a seriously complex structure.

Again, if that is what "creationists" say, then you have a point. But that is not what ID is saying.

You have a misunderstanding of the term "complexity" when it comes to the design argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-16-2022 2:23 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2022 5:25 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 349 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-17-2022 8:19 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 363 of 470 (893657)
04-18-2022 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by AZPaul3
04-17-2022 5:18 PM


Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything.

That is the experience of this universe. No one can show anything different.

Then that means the universe was caused. What was its cause?

And philosophically, you cannot have an infinite regression of causes. You will have to have a first cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2022 5:18 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 12:43 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 364 of 470 (893658)
04-18-2022 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by AZPaul3
04-17-2022 5:25 PM


No, Sarah has it all quite right. You ID/Creationists are the ones who misunderstand design and complexity.

So then define "design" and "complexity" in the context of causes/origins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2022 5:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 12:52 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 378 of 470 (893702)
04-18-2022 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by AZPaul3
04-18-2022 12:43 AM


Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything.
...
wookieeb writes:

What was its cause?


We don't know, yet. We need another 50 - 1,000 +- years or so.

So you are acknowledging then that the universe must have a cause.

I don't know what logic you are using but a causal chain cannot be anything but infinite in an infinite universe.

It is not clear what you mean by an "infinite universe". If the universe has a cause, then it also had a beginning. Therefore in what sense is it infinite?

Remember that following a causal chain is moving backward through time. In this universe we can go back to t=~0. We haven't enough data to look any farther back.

Again, it seems like you are acknowledging at least a temporal beginning to the universe. So the question still remains out there: "What caused the universe?"

We have no idea what happened prior to t=0.

And here you are trying to answer that. But your statement is illogical in the context of a temporal universe.

That we don't know means you cannot insist on a first cause. You don't know what causal chain led to this big bang and it may well stretch infinitely back.

So if you are proposing some alternate temporal dimension, you would probably have to justify that. But even if we assume one, the idea of an infinitely back temporal dimension is still illogical. (I'll let you figure out why)

Ultimately, yes, one would have to insist on a first cause. It may or may not be that the first cause generated our universe, but that a first cause exists is the only thing that makes sense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 12:43 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2022 4:45 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 381 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 5:53 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 379 of 470 (893704)
04-18-2022 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by AZPaul3
04-18-2022 12:52 AM


1. Oxford English dictionary is good enough for me.

2. I'm not the one tilting at windmills. I don't see any reasoned argument for your BS. I am not compelled to give any arguments against.

3. Fuck you. I don't take assignments from you.

You do the assignment. You want to talk ID? Define your terms.

Touchy, touchy!

I initially was responding to a comment from Sarah Bellum. I pointed out that she wasn't making a distinction between creationists beliefs and ID. As for what creationists may believe, it can be anything. But as far as ID theory goes, which is where the "design" argument usually stems from, SB was incorrect in their assessments. Funny how it was their comments that put design in quotes, so I would suspect they had a particular set of ideas on what "design" would mean.

Now you come back and conflate the two groups again. You also supposedly also understand what SB was referring to with regards to design and complexity. So I ask you to define them, keeping them in context of the discussion being causes/origins.

You seem so sure of yourself. A simple definition of terms to what you are so sure of should be easy. Plus, you have spend a lot of time complaining to MrID for him to explain his turns (which I agree needs to be done). But when asking the same thing of you, instead you turn tail and run.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 12:52 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by AZPaul3, posted 04-18-2022 6:19 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:40 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 392 of 470 (893728)
04-19-2022 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign
04-18-2022 11:40 PM


Thought Experiment 1: Let us assume that there is a teacher or professor who has 50 students in a given class. The teacher/professor would like to give test/examination to the class with questionnaire, having 100 questions. The teacher/professor will surely explain to the students that the passing score is, say, 70 scores, and the perfect score is 100 scores.
As you can see, that the teacher/professor is asking the students to make two solutions, one for passing score and one is for perfect score, in one given exam (problem). From this, we can derive intelligence.

No, the teacher asked the students to make 100 solutions. Each question is a potential solution or not. Whether or not they get 70 of 100 correct is an arbitrary threshold already set by the teacher, a design (intelligent) choice that (presumably) tells their grade. Your other threshold for the students makes no sense as an determination of intelligence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 04-18-2022 11:40 PM MrIntelligentDesign has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 398 of 470 (893754)
04-19-2022 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Tangle
04-18-2022 4:45 PM


Tangle writes:

Logic is of no use when trying to understand cosmological problems. You need maths


This statement is breathtakingly bad. You do realize that there is no math without logic.

Terrible move, lazy.

Not really. Just seeing if y'all can think. Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths.

There's no reason to assume this - unless of course you'd care to give us one.

I will...but I'll let y'all think about it first.

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Tangle, posted 04-18-2022 4:45 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 3:03 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 400 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2022 3:31 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 401 by nwr, posted 04-19-2022 3:37 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 04-19-2022 5:11 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 402 of 470 (893764)
04-19-2022 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by PaulK
04-19-2022 3:03 PM


Paulk writes:

To prove that you’d have to assume both a finite past and that each cause takes a minimum amount of time to produce its effect.

My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise.

Now when you use the word "time" in this context, you have to be careful. Since the beginning of our universe (which is granted so far) is the beginning of time in our experience. In context of anything outside our universe, you must be meaning something else that has similar properties to "time". I referred to it as a "temporal" something. But I am willing to use the term "time" to refer to whatever this property outside the universe would be.

So that said, the amount of time it would take for a cause to produce an effect is irrelevant as long as it is not zero. Are you are suggesting a cause and its effect are both created at the same instant?

nwr writes:

I'm pretty sure that Tangle's point was that logic by itself is insufficient.


But that is not what he said. He said: "Logic is of no use". That is a very different meaning than 'insufficient'. I agree that logic alone is insufficient. But it is a necessary part. And 'maths' is based on logic. So at the very least, his statement was a self-contradiction.

Of course, it is possible. That often happens in mathematical models.

But mathematical models do not always represent realities. They are always conceptual.

So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 3:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 5:17 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 5:27 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 407 of 470 (893801)
04-20-2022 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by PaulK
04-19-2022 5:27 PM


Tangle writes:

Oh, please. Tell me, what's logical about quantum theory? By logic here I'm meaning our ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it. The universe is not something that makes normal, logical sense.


You have a problem with language. You should probably go look up what "logic" is. Use AZPaul3's Oxford dictionary. I highly doubt though you will ever find a definition like: the "ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it".

Paulk writes:

That was not in the post I replied to..

The post you replied to said: "Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible." Right there, I am asking a question assuming we're dealing with a proposed infinite time in reverse.

The integral calculus only works because adding an infinite number of terms - each greater than zero - can have a finite value. (That is first year stuff for university mathematics).

Yes, I understand the concept. It can be shown in a geometric series or a repeating decimal number, like 1/3. But that concept is also is using a very particular definition of an infinite sum: the value of the infinite sum to be that particular value if and only if its partial sums can be made arbitrarily close to that particular value. At any moment in time, your set is is not complete, and you will not truly have your finite number.

So it might be an interesting mathematical concept, but it is not anything rooted in real spacetime. So you never have a complete instance of it.

However, in a similar discussion I have seen someone arguing that our universe was created assert that cause and effect can be simultaneous. Indeed, unless you assume that there was a time - or “temporal something” before our universe that assumption is necessary to claim that our universe DID have a cause.

And of course it is a logical - and scientific - possibility that there was no time preceding our universe. It therefore seems that you must concede that it is possible that our universe did not have a cause.

You seem to be proposing that there possibly was not a cause to the universe. But I'm afraid that violates the axioms put forward already by all the others (AZPAUL3 et al), who say: "Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything."

If you are proposing a more strict definition of time, in that it only exists in our universe and “there was no time preceding our universe”, then that also is negating everyone else’s proposal that there is a "causal chain infinitely into the past". Nevertheless, even if there is no time before our universe, it doesn't mean there is no cause. First, that violates every observation we have (‘Everything that exists has a cause’ OR ‘Whatever begins to exist has a cause’). Secondly, the whole idea of a First Cause or more specifically “God” is that it exists outside of time.
I actually have no problem with the idea of no time before the beginning of the universe. It resolves any issue with a regress and doesn’t obviate a (First) cause.

WookieeB writes:

Can anyone show an actualized infinity?

PaulK writes:

First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof.


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.

Second if you admit the possibility of an infinite past you accept that an actualised infinity may exist.

I dont admit nor accept an infinite past. I was merely proposing that if the axiom of an infinite past is taken, the arguments that were proposed as a result were illogical.

Third 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.

Nope.

You seem to not realize that the concept of infinity has a time component weaved into it. If something is subdivided into infinity, it means it will be subdivided to no end. The ratios of subdividing (½..¼…1/8…) will keep getting smaller and smaller to no end. The amount of time to subdivide, no matter what time frame you assign to perform a division, will have no end. No end implies that the task will never be completed. You will never subdivide anything to completion, thus you can never show that anything was subdivided to infinity.

In the ‘maths’, at any point in the chain of subdivision (assuming dividing all components by 2) you can stop and add up all the components to get a whole. But then you are dealing with a finite number of divisions, a number can be represented. You cannot represent infinity as any number, and infinite implies you never complete subdivisions. So you do not actually have anything you can present as a whole that has been subdivided X amount of times.

And if you want to try this in this universe on anything real, other physics will prevent you from accomplishing it. Once you get down to the planck length you cannot realistically get any smaller. Or you cannot keep processing anything less than the planck time per division.

Yes, dividing into infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but it has no bearing to reality. You cannot actually do it, or represent it as done.

So no, a length is not an actualized infinity, nor is a unit of time an actualized infinity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2022 5:27 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by nwr, posted 04-20-2022 3:01 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 409 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2022 3:28 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 410 of 470 (893835)
04-20-2022 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by PaulK
04-20-2022 3:28 PM


That’s the case being considered - and it is certainly possible if there is no minimum value.

Minimum value of what? 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. Even computers calculating that will have a limit (thus not infinite) to how far they will carry that out calculation based upon however precise their numbers will be (usually based on how many bits they will use to represent for any number). At some decimal place, the decimal number must be rounded or truncated.

Simply put, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.

That isn’t even true since it is durations we are summing. After the sum is reached the set is necessarily complete. Also I note that you are assuming that time is continuous and any duration consists of an infinite number of moments.

Please explain this. What do you mean by "durations". I suppose I would agree that time is continuous, but I am not assuming any duration is an infinite number of moments. Again, an infinite series does not have a finite sum.

Even worse for you you are making a claim of logical impossibility so such appeals - even if true - would be inadequate.

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.

It is a real possibility so far as we know.

So then you are rejecting the axioms that everyone else is using. Fine. 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 pointing out that there is a possibility that our universe includes all of time, but I am certainly not proposing a stricter definition.

A difference without a distinction from what I said.

Both are possibilities.

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.

Then you must propose that causation may take no time at all. Which was the main point I was making in that part of the post.

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.

You assert that the former is false, and I do not think that something that has existed for all past time “begins to exist” - after all it has always existed.

Yes. That is correct. Something that has always existed, or a necessary entity, is a big part in the definition of a First Cause, and probably applies to most persons concept of God.

It didn’t seem that way when you were questioning if I was proposing that causation could take zero time.

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. 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". But if you are referring to time as just our universe experience of it, then yes, it would take effectively zero time. (Technically that probably would not be true either, because if time was only in our universe, then saying zero time is referring to something that doesnt exist yet. so you would have to refer to it as something else.)

Funny how you’re using arguments you know to be bad.

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!

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 would say “impossible” rather than “easy”. How can we observe that something is infinite?

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.

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."

Yet your whole argument for the impossibility of doing the subdivision assumes that they are actualised infinities.

No, that was not my argument. My argument is that there are no actualized infinities. see above. That was your contention in response to my original question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2022 3:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by nwr, posted 04-20-2022 9:33 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 412 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2022 12:57 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 413 of 470 (893907)
04-22-2022 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by PaulK
04-21-2022 12:57 AM


In the context of this discussion - which you should remember - that would be the time required for a cause to produce an effect.

Ok, understood, and that is fine. But in such a scenario I am not assuming a finite past that is somehow being sub-divided infinitely. I was referring to the idea, that was put forth by the others, that the past was infinite back in time.

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.

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.

Wookieeb writes:

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.

You misunderstand what I'm saying. Perhaps I could have said that statement a little clearer. If I could revisit it, I would say it as: "an infinite series of additions does not result in a finite sum". 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. So yes, "The impossibility of producing the sum by hand in no way makes the sum infinite." 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.

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.

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.

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. That is two different claims. A length, say a line, is not a collection of points, but it logically exists before you identify any points on it. The possibility of a potentially infinite number of steps does not imply an actual infinite number of points. And if this argument is extended to the idea of infinite causes, it is putting the cart before the horse.

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.

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.

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” ?

No. But I am saying that a logical impossibility of a claim is adequate to invalidate that claim. You apparently feel differently.

Thank you for agreeing that if there is no time prior to our universe it did not “begin to exist”.

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.

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.

No, I explicitly stated that in our experience time[1] is something that began with the universe. In context though, a proposed thing outside our universe that bears temporal properties (time[2]), that we do NOT have experience with, (and that I believe others were alluding to, but not you specically), was included in the parameters of the original discussion. That outside-our-universe thing can be referred to with the same label: "time", and I was willing to use that label. But that other item time[2] is separate and distinct from time[1].

But you apparently were only referring to time[1] and ignored the other possibility. I can live with that. I was only making concessions to others to use the same label in case they felt there was more than time[1].

I am agreeing with it as a criticism of your argument. And since you agree, you admit that you made a bad argument.

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.

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.

I am not aware of anyone using such an argument, so it would seem to be another completely irrelevance.

Then you are not aware.

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.

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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2022 12:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2022 3:03 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 415 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2022 3:10 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 416 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2022 7:30 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 417 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2022 8:01 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 419 of 470 (894049)
04-29-2022 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by PaulK
04-23-2022 3:03 AM


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.

But it is not irrelevant. Yes, 1/3 is 1/3, and 1/3 is a finite number. any series of causes and effects would take a finite 1/3. The series could not be infinite, because 1/3 is finite.

And yet it does. The sum of the infinite series 0.3, 0.03, 0.003, 0.0003… is 1/3.

And yet it's not. In decimal, you need to keep adding forever smaller amounts, and yet you still never get 1/3 fully. You get close, but close is not 1/3. Not ever! Decimal representation is limited in how it displays 1/3. 1/3 is not representable exactly in decimal notation. Try using base3. 1/3 in base3 (ternary) is 0.1 . Done and wrapped up with a bow, no infinite representation needed. So 1/3 in reality is not the result of an infinite series.

Just because we can’t do the addition by hand doesn’t mean that we can’t calculate the sum.

Nobody can fully calculate the sum. Even if a person was immortal and all they did was add up the continuing chain of infinite terms would they come up with a final sum. That is inherent in the definition of infinite. It goes on to no end.

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.

And yet is doesn't. The representation of a limit in calculus in such calculations implies that you never actually get to the end. So instead you just fudge it and say "close enough" at some point in the chain.

For an infinity, no person can add it all up, no computer can add it all up. That is why numbering in computers has a concept called "precision" that limits how far down the rabbit hole you can go before your calculations start becoming inaccurate. You can represent 1/3 that way, but not exactly. It is a convention that is acceptable depending on a situation. And though in decimal you may need to represent it in an infinite expansion, that is actually because decimal cannot represent it exactly. Use another base numbering system and you can easily show it as finite.

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.

No, the fact that we can't actually measure the infinity does mean that it isn't actually there. We cannot actually measure it...ever! It exists as a concept, just like numbers and math, but there isn't anything actually there. There is no actualized infinity.

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.

You cannot do the division infinitely and have any finite result, because the division cannot be exhausted or completed. To say it can is a contradiction. You cannot reach the end of something that has no end! And the fact that we do have finite (end of) measurement means that the measurement is not made of of something infinite (no end). It is simple definitions and logic.

Frankly, you cannot treat infinity as a number or apply the usual mathematical functions (like division) to it and get something that holds to mathematical logic.
1 + [infinity] = [infinity]
[infinity] + [infinity] = [infinity] (not = 2[infinity])
2 x [infinity] = [infinity] (not = 2[infinity])
[infinity] x [infinity] = [infinity]
[infinity] / [infinity] = [infinity]

In math representation, infinities are treated differently. They do not follow the normal number logic. So then, it doesn't make any logical sense for you to come and say that any sum of infinite terms = a finite number (which does operate withing normal math logic).

Next, since we are talking about time, it makes no sense to say that a fixed amount of time can be divided up into an infinite division of time, and then expect that time was traversed. A finite amount of time would not take an infinite amount of time to do so. (Which alludes to why an actually infinite past is not logical)

So I'm curious. What came first, the finite thing being measured or the infinite terms that supposedly sum up to the finite thing?

You misunderstand - i meant that our universe did not begin to exist. However the same point does apply to time.

Well then it is you against the current science thinking. Most cosmologists agree the universe began.

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.

I didnt try to override anything. I acknoweledged your view just after the statement you quoted by saying: "But you apparently were only referring to time[1] and ignored the other possibility"

And just for reference here is the actual conversation.

And yet you never provide my opening argument or the question that led to your response. Figures.

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).

Pardon? I don't have to give such a reason, cause it should be self-evident. Something that is impossible to do would be something that doenst exist.

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.

Huh? That it would be impossible for anyone to observe something that was actually infinite is the whole point. Of course a finite lived human would not observe an infinite time, but an eternally living being would also not ever observe it. It's not a matter of capability, it is a matter of definition. Infinite implies without end. So somebody observing something that had no end would not ever observe the end. The observation would not have any completion to it, so you would not have any observation to present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2022 3:03 AM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by Son Goku, posted 04-29-2022 3:18 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 421 by Stile, posted 04-29-2022 3:26 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 422 by nwr, posted 04-29-2022 3:40 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022