Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
590 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Tangle (4 members, 586 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,260 Year: 4,372/6,534 Month: 586/900 Week: 110/182 Day: 17/27 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


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


Message 436 of 469 (894067)
04-29-2022 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by AZPaul3
04-29-2022 6:40 PM


No first cause is required in an infinite universe with all causal chains extending infinitely back in time. No first cause necessary. You lose that justification for your god.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that I agreed with that statement. Fine. If there is an infinite causal chain going back in time, then there is no need for a god.

But as I have been stating, there is no such thing as an actual infinity, back in time. You've admitted the absurdity of it yourself. And if there is no infinite regress in time, then there has to be a First Cause.

if a first cause existed then a spark, an energy potential, is infinitely more probable as that cause than some old white guy from some far future planet Earth.

First, I am not saying, nor have ever said, that some "some old white guy from some far future planet Earth" is the First Cause. You project on me too much.

Secondly, though can appreciate the sarcastic (or maybe not *shrug*) tone, you have no warrant to apply probabilities to either scenario. So your statement is all hot air.

There is no justification, in logic or physics, to posit any god, especially the one you create and operate in your own mind, as a first cause of anything, ever.

There is no justification, in logic or physics, to deny a First Cause (or god), especially since you are scared of the implications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 6:40 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 10:02 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 440 by AZPaul3, posted 04-29-2022 11:15 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 437 of 469 (894068)
04-29-2022 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 8:37 PM


Re: Lest You Forget
So you have to apply a particular definition of infinity that does not work like any other number.

There's part of your problem. You are thinking of infinity as a number. But it isn't. It's a concept, but it isn't a number.

The problem you are all making is a category error (or more precisely a modal operation shift in logic) in how you are defining or using infinity.

No, you are the one making a category error.

In one aspect, you use it like a number, but it is not a number.

No, I always understand that it is not a number.

So you keep having to change your definitions and point of view each time you try to justify it.

No, we do not change our definitions.

You keep complaining about "actual infinite". But there isn't an actual number 3, either. There are actual numerals "3". But the number is an abstraction rather than anything actual.

You are very confused about mathematics, yet you are using your confusion to pontificate.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 8:37 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 438 of 469 (894069)
04-29-2022 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 8:37 PM


Re: Lest You Forget
You do realize that mathematically is infinity ^ infinity = infinity, makes no sense.

Of course it does, if you understand the 'concept' of infinity and not try to treat it like a number.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 8:37 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 439 of 469 (894070)
04-29-2022 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 8:51 PM


But as I have been stating, there is no such thing as an actual infinity, back in time. You've admitted the absurdity of it yourself. And if there is no infinite regress in time, then there has to be a First Cause.

Yes, it is absurd. Any discussion of possible events prior to t=0 is absurd. First cause is absurd. Infinite causal chain is absurd. Any proposed attribute of anything prior to t=0 is absurd. Which means ANYTHING is possible and all are equally absurd.

A giant Cthulhu in a yellow polka dotted Nehru jacket and hot pink spiked heels is as plausible as your ape-god as first cause. So is an energy spark. So is an infinite causal chain with no first cause. And all these are just absurd to speculate.

You have no logic, no evidence, no reasoning, creationist twisted as you may be, to insist that a first cause is required to make anything.

You don't know. Nobody does. Absurd, indeed.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 8:51 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 440 of 469 (894071)
04-29-2022 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 8:51 PM


There is no justification, in logic or physics, to deny a First Cause (or god)

So a total lack of evidence means nothing to you. Oh, that's right, you're a creationist and evidence means nothing. Along with logic.

If there were justification in logic and physics for your ape/man god then it would have had a part, we would have accounted for it, in our theories.

Guess what? It's not there. Why? Because we have found there is no justification, in logic or physics, to include your religious speculations.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by WookieeB, posted 04-29-2022 8:51 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 441 of 469 (894074)
04-30-2022 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 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 taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 442 of 469 (894075)
04-30-2022 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by WookieeB
04-29-2022 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

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


Message 443 of 469 (894077)
04-30-2022 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by PaulK
04-30-2022 1:43 AM


f 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?

But then you are not being consistent.
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.

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.

I can’t write out the infinitely recurring decimal 0.33333…. either but everyone knows that is the same as 1/3

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 "...." 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..... But people understand, because of the convention, that both of those statements are equivalent. Computers and (probably) other computation machines dont use the "....". If anything, they have a set number of digits (probably based on a binary level) that is a limit to their precision. So beyond calculating a limited series of .3's, the calculating devices will either truncate or round up the last digit and end the series. But it is understood that beyond that point, accuracy (a realistic representation of what is in the infinite series) goes out the window. But at that point, it usually doesn't matter to most folk, cause whatever is close is good enough, which is the convention.

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.

I suspect you have a definition of "sum" that doesn't care about accuracy to the infinite level. The rules are logic and what is real. If you don't want to follow them, that is your business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 1:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 3:40 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 445 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-30-2022 4:37 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 444 of 469 (894079)
04-30-2022 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by WookieeB
04-30-2022 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

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 445 of 469 (894098)
04-30-2022 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by WookieeB
04-30-2022 2:56 AM


Zeno was wrong!
Dear WookieeB,

Is 2 a number? It can be written many ways: 2 = 1 + 1 = 0.83 + 1.27 = 26 - 24, and probably a few others.

But it can also be written: 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + … + (1/2)^n + ….. I. e., an infinite sum.

There was a time, hundreds of years ago, when mathematicians didn’t know how to deal with the number “0” (zero), so they just insisted it didn’t exist. There was also a time when mathematicians didn’t know how to deal with negative numbers or what we now call imaginary or complex numbers, so they just insisted they didn’t exist and left vast areas of mathematics unapproachable. Mathematicians now know how to deal with infinities and infinite sums in a great many contexts and to do so in a logically consistent manor. Your problem is not that you are ignorant, it is just that you are a couple of hundred years behind the times. But at least you are not an infinite number of years out of date.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2022 2:56 AM WookieeB has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2022 5:40 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5075
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 446 of 469 (894100)
04-30-2022 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by AnswersInGenitals
04-30-2022 4:37 PM


Re: Zeno was wrong!
There was a time, hundreds of years ago, when mathematicians didn’t know how to deal with the number “0” (zero), so they just insisted it didn’t exist.

Decades ago on PBS, I think it was in James Burke's series, The Day the Universe Changed that they recreated the first time that a Moor told a Spaniard about zero (with no subtitles, BTW):

quote:
Spaniard: ¿Qué es eso?
Moor: Eso es un cero.
Spaniard: ¿Qué es un cero?
Moor: Nada.
Spaniard: ¿Qué?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 04-30-2022 4:37 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

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


Message 447 of 469 (894261)
05-08-2022 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by PaulK
04-30-2022 3:40 AM


There's part of your problem. You are thinking of infinity as a number. But it isn't. It's a concept, but it isn't a number.
Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. As an abstract concept, it is not something concrete...ever. It is actually never a real thing. It is an abstract thing. Abstract thing does not equal real thing. As an abstract thing may work in an abstract system like mathematics, which is just fine. I am not negating anything that occurs in mathematics.
Mathematics can model real, concrete things. But the parts in math have to properly represent a real thing, and infinity does not do that. When parts in math represent real things, normal arithmetic still works. With infinity, it does not.
With adding up sums to get a finite number, you need a finite amount of numbers. Since infinity is neither, it doesn't work. You need a number to represent the actual. That is why infinity wont work as a representation of an actuality.
AZPaul3 writes:
if you understand the 'concept' of infinity and not try to treat it like a number.
Yes, and if you understand that infinity is a concept then is not an actual thing
You have no logic, no evidence, no reasoning, creationist twisted as you may be, to insist that a first cause is required to make anything.
The universe had a beginning. Most scientists today agree with that. As such, space, time and matter/energy all had a beginning. So the reasoning is that whatever creates the universe would be, among other things, spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
If there were justification in logic and physics for your ape/man god then it would have had a part, we would have accounted for it, in our theories.
There is plenty of justification in logic. There is no justification in physics because physics wasn’t a thing when the universe was created. So, you have no theories accounting for it because your theories are incapable to account for it because they deal with something that is unrelated to the subject.
PaulK writes:
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,
No I’m not treating like a number. You are. 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. You are trying to throw infinity into a scenario where a number is required. Thus infinity doesnt work in an actualized way.
I’m talking about small portions of time - say 1 second. Are you saying that a single second of time cannot be “actual”?
….
Which is exactly what I am talking about, because each finite slice of time contains an infinite amount of moments. As I have shown.
No, the second is finite. The second is not made of a sum of numbers without end.
To repeat the point it is because I don’t get the sum by doing all the additions by hand.
But you should be able to. Since the numbers being added are without end, then it cannot be a finite end to the sum. 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. And any sum cannot equal the sum plus anything else (that is not zero). Simple logic.
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.
..
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.
You are using a convention that is accepted in calculus, but that convention has no representation in reality. You can use it in math all you want, but it doesnt map to a real thing. Computers use a convention like this too when they reach the limit of their math precision. If the level of precision is not a problem for the user/programmer, the convention is just fine for them to rely on. But they can accept that level of not being precise cause it doesn't matter for them down to that level.
The rules that would be broken are the rules of reality, actual things. And that is all I have been saying. 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. But math is an abstract idea.
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.
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.
No, my position is mathematics is mathematics, and not reality, not an actual thing. There is a difference. It works in math. It doesn't work in actuality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2022 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2022 8:47 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 449 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2022 9:17 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 450 by nwr, posted 05-08-2022 10:00 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2022 1:01 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 453 by ringo, posted 05-09-2022 11:47 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 464 by Stile, posted 05-25-2022 9:48 AM WookieeB has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 448 of 469 (894262)
05-08-2022 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB
05-08-2022 5:54 PM


The universe had a beginning. Most scientists today agree with that. As such, space, time and matter/energy all had a beginning. So the reasoning is that whatever creates the universe would be, among other things, spaceless, timeless and immaterial.
Except the universe may not have had a beginning. The big bang may not have been the beginning. We/you don't know.
Most scientists today agree the universe may indeed be infinite. In both time directions. We/you don't know.
You base your conclusions on unfounded speculations. Your reasoning is faulty.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

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 455 by WookieeB, posted 05-18-2022 4:14 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 449 of 469 (894263)
05-08-2022 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB
05-08-2022 5:54 PM


There is plenty of justification in logic. There is no justification in physics because physics wasn’t a thing when the universe was created. So, you have no theories accounting for it because your theories are incapable to account for it because they deal with something that is unrelated to the subject.
The twisted logic reminds me of recent Russian pronouncements. Stupid.
Of course there is justification for our present understanding of the universe through physics. Physics has developed into the sole method of accurately determining the past, present and future state of this universe. Nothing else even competes.
We have a lot of holes in our knowledge of this universe. Physics is the only way we have to explain the workings of anything and applies to everything. Nothing else, certainly not your psycho-emotional religious fantasies, has ever come close to revealing the operations of anything in this universe. All our knowledge of this universe and everything in it comes from the science of physics.
Your priests don't know anything beyond their emotional speculations. Your 'beginnings' are mere speculations and your god is not logically required.
If you insist on speculating a first cause, think something more realistic like an energy differential, a spark, not some ape-man god floating in nirvanah beyond the reach of reality.
If you care to be a believer of fantasy stories you are most certainly free. Just understand that your religious bullshit is not reality. Physics is.

Edited by AZPaul3, .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by WookieeB, posted 05-08-2022 5:54 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 450 of 469 (894264)
05-08-2022 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by WookieeB
05-08-2022 5:54 PM


Sigh. Another WookieeB spew of nonsense.
Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number.
Great. And in case you don't know, numbers are also abstract.
With adding up sums to get a finite number, you need a finite amount of numbers. Since infinity is neither, it doesn't work.
What doesn't work?
When we talk of the sum of an infinite series, we are following the conventions of mathematics. Nobody claims to actually add them step by step. Mathematics has well established conventions for discussion of infinite series. And those conventions work very well.
If you don't like the conventions, then don't use them. There's no point about repeatedly getting red in the face with anger at people doing things that they don't actually do.
The universe had a beginning.
This is your assertion. Do you have any supporting evidence?
Most scientists today agree with that.
Do you have a link to the poll where you determined this?
As far as I know, most physicists are clear that they are talking about a period of rapid inflation, and not about any actual beginning.
You are using a convention that is accepted in calculus, but that convention has no representation in reality.
All of mathematics is conventional. And it works very well for modeling reality.
If you are going to throw out calculus because it uses conventions, then you should also throw out simple arithmetic, which also uses convention. And you should stop trying to count objects, because counting is also conventional.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

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 456 by WookieeB, posted 05-18-2022 4:23 PM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022