The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:51 pm

Ecmandu wrote:You keep using the term “discrete” much to my point.

Discrete is the opposite of continuous, what's wrong with using the word?

Ecmandu wrote:Existence has a beginning and end, just like John argues.

Gib argues that it never started. I agree with gib.

I think atheism is much more mysterious than the god John always invokes.

Okay, lovely.

My point is that the universe is continuous therefore beginnings and ends don't apply.

If you want to make useful and meaningful sense of the universe, you have to change it into something it isn't: a collection of (discrete) parts that interact, which in turn have their beginnings and ends however we decide to define them for maximum perceived utility. This doesn't mean the universe actually is a collection of parts, only that it's useful to think of it that way. It's an error to take this dissection of the universe, scale it up to the scale of the universe itself, and then speculate about what's "outside everything". If you make this error, at best you'll meaninglessly conclude "nothing" is outside everything, and at worst you'll anti-meaningfully conclude that there's even greater existence outside of all existence. Ideally, you won't even make that mistake in the first place, and you'll undo your conceptual dissections (of Continuous Experience into discrete experiences) and get back to the universe as continuous - no beginning or end.

There's literally no holes in using Experientialism like this to get to correct answers and to get to the bottom of misguided threads like this.
You've STILL not said why you don't "believe" in Experientialism.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The definition of the word "infinity" is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon. It's unavoidable.

"A number larger than than every integer" is what 14 Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God rests upon?
Are you sure?

Magnus Anderson wrote:The problem with this discussion is that noone bothers to properly understand what the author is saying. Noone is asking him questions. Instead, everyone is merely assuming (and as a consequence, strawman attacking him.)

Not true. I began my contributions to this thread by thoroughly dissected his first argument line by line in ways that he'd agree with, and he hasn't said he disagrees with the meticulous way that I did it. What he disagrees with (or rather "dislikes") is the lack of logical consistency that I've pointed out results from dissecting his argument.

What I got in return was a complete ignoring of my points, or blanket claims that they don't exist/are weak with zero further explanation, and accusations that I'm the one making blanket claims without any further explanation, which is the literal opposite of what I've been doing.

I went to great lengths to parse what the author is saying, and I received nothing but bad faith. This is why I've concluded that nothing constructive can come from this, and why I'm largely avoiding any contact with him and instead only engaging others.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby gib » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:04 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:Time is discrete. That’s why you can get from t1 to t2. There is a finite number of moments of time between t1 and t2. Time is not continuous. And an infinite regress is impossible.


So why is time discrete? Why could you not get from t1 to t2 if time were not discrete? And what does that have to do with the possibility of an infinite regress?

JohnJBannan wrote:First, there is no scientific proof of an actual infinite in physical reality.


I'm not trying to establish proof, I'm trying to get the necessity out of your arguments about why time must have a beginning. I just don't see a problem with a retro-eternal universe.

JohnJBannan wrote:Second, the universe began with the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology.


We don't know that that was the beginning. Even most scientists, when they're being honest, will admit that we don't know that. In fact, there's been recent evidence (or maybe it was just accepted theory) that the BB wasn't the beginning of the universe, that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, or that our universe exploded into existence from a parent universe.

JohnJBannan wrote:Third, the paradoxes of infinitely regressive time and causation are clear.


Oh, well, since you added that third point, I guess time must have a beginning. I mean, if you stuck with only 2 points, your arguments would hold no weight whatsoever. But this third point, especially since it asserts the clarity of your paradox arguments despite my counter-arguments, settles the matter.

JohnJBannan wrote:Logically, an infinite regression of time could not traverse to the present moment. Moreover, because an infinite regression entails an infinite number of causes, then all causes would have been exhausted before we reached the present time. But, if causes are infinite then causes can’t ever become exhausted. Again, the need for a beginning point becones clear.


I get the point of your argument. I did offer a rebuttal if you care to read it. It was this: the need to traverse an eternity of time, or an infinite number of causes, is only a problem if you imagine starting from somewhere (somewhere eternally distant in the past). But the point of talking about a retro-eternal universe is to do away with any starting point. All points in the time, all events that occur therein, are just there--already in the past (relative to where you are now).

Understanding this depends on how you imagine time in the abstract. You can imagine time in a static context--such as when we plot time on a diagram--all points along the time axis "coexisting". If this is the true state if time (and I would expect you to agree with something like this since you believe God exists in a timeless context) and our experience of time flowing by is just an illusion of subjectivity, then the problem of an eternal universe becomes the problem of an infinite (spatially) universe, which isn't a problem at all as far as I'm concerned.

You can also imagine time in the subjective context--or dynamic context--the one in which time exists just as we experience it. But in this context, the past and future don't exist. There is only now. Now is dynamic, ever changing, becoming the future and relegating its old states to the past. But in a context in which past and future don't exist, what sense does it make to talk about an eternity of time OR a beginning. We're left just talking about what kind of conceptual framework best models the past in our minds. And there's nothing wrong with talking about a model featuring retro-eternal time. Nothing has to "traverse" all of time to get to now in a model. It's just a picture.

JohnJBannan wrote:So, in observation, we have never seen an actual infinite. Would you expect to if it did exist? In science, we have discovered the beginning of spacetime. Careful with the word 'discovered' In logic and philosophy, an infinite regress is paradoxical. It can be problematic but not paradoxical. This trifecta clearly beats the unproven idea of infinite regress.


They always come in 3s, don't they?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

In fact, the idea that there's more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea.
- Jordan Peterson

Here's a good rule of thumb for politics--attribute everything to stupidity unless you can prove malice.
- Ben Shapiro

right outta high school i tried to get a job as a proctologist but i couldn't find an opening.
- promethean75

Ahh... gib, zombie universes are so last year! I’m doing hyper dimensional mirror realities now.
- Ecmandu
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9035
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:10 pm

Silhouette wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:There is no infinity associated with discreteness. You got that wrong right there. The battle is between continuous and discrete nature. Between t1 and t2, there are either infinitesimals aka continuous or discrete finite moments aka discreteness. Don’t muddle the distinction.

The solution to Zeno is finite discrete units. Do not confuse math with physical reality.

I don't know how you manage to get things so backwards.

I am literally unmuddling the distinction between the continuous and the discrete by explaining their difference, and un-confusing math with physical reality by explaining how the former is built on the discrete when the latter is continuous.

I'm doing the exact opposite of how you seem to have interpretted me, and it's honestly just weird how you managed to do that...

And the whole problem of Zeno in the first place are these "finite discrete units" imposed on continuity - the solution is to treat it in the opposite way: as continuous without arbitrarily imposing Zeno's infinite discrete fractions of the total distance as conceptual obstacles. In reality, the space between the arrow and its target, or achilles and the tortoise is continuous, and it continues beyond the target and beyond the point where Achilles actually overtakes the tortoise. It's breaking the problem down into finite discrete units that causes the conceptual problem in the first place. Likewise, you can interpret the time between t1 and t2 as either continuous or discrete - the former will be true to experience, and the latter will be useful for analysis of experience - that's my whole point, why are you saying it back to me as though you're correcting some error of mine when it was what I was saying in the first place?

It's impossible to have a discussion with you because you demonstrate no capability to understand what I'm very clearly and logically explaining - don't bother talking to me unless you're going to make the effort to actually understand what I'm saying, I'm not made of straw.

Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,

My personal Solution to Zeno (because I think calculus is bullshit and I don’t believe in experientialism) is this:

All you have to do is double the length of the line, then they reach the old finish line in one step. In this way, you can use lesser fractions for different beings to create an actual race.

What exactly is it about Experientialism that you "don't believe"?

And I don't understand what you're saying for your personal solution to Zeno. What line are we doubling the length of? What finish line? What one step? What lesser fractions? What different beings? I assume you're saying about Achilles and the tortoise for this race? I really can't be sure though.


You got it completely wrong again!

Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:11 pm

Silhouette wrote:"A number larger than than every integer" is what 14 Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God rests upon?
Are you sure?


Is that what I said? I'm not really sure. Let's see.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The definition of the word "infinity" is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon. It's unavoidable.


The manner in which he defines the word "infinity" (the manner in which he defines it need not be "A number larger than every integer") is what ONE of his arguments (not ALL of his arguments) rests upon.

If you wonder which one of the arguments, this one:

John J. Bannan wrote:IV. THE BEGINNINGLESS TIME PARADOX
(BY JOHN J. BANNAN)
The beginningless time paradox proves the existence of God by demonstrating that the beginning of time itself must have an uncaused timeless cause we call God. If time in the cosmos had no beginning, then there would be an infinity of prior moments in time before the arrival of the present moment. An infinity of prior moments of time could never be fully traversed, because there would always be a prior moment in time that had not yet been traversed because infinity is unending. If all prior moments in time are not fully traversed, then paradoxically the present moment in time could never arrive. Because the present moment in time does arrive, then time in the cosmos must have had a beginning. Because time must have had a beginning, then time must have been caused to begin from something besides nothing because nothing cannot cause anything.

The cause of the beginning of time not having time for its own cause must therefore be uncaused. Moreover, the cause of time itself cannot be something subject to time, because the existence of anything subject to time is contingent on the existence of time. The beginning of time itself cannot have a physical explanation, because all physical explanations would be subject to time. Accordingly, there must be an uncaused immaterial explanation for the beginning of time itself we call God.


Note the underlied colored part. Note how he's using the word "infinity".

One has to know what he means when he says "infinity" before one can evaluate the validity of his argument.

The best way to figure that out is to ask him to define the word in sufficient detail. If he's not willing to do so, then you simply ignore his argument.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:18 pm

gib wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Time is discrete. That’s why you can get from t1 to t2. There is a finite number of moments of time between t1 and t2. Time is not continuous. And an infinite regress is impossible.


So why is time discrete? Why could you not get from t1 to t2 if time were not discrete? And what does that have to do with the possibility of an infinite regress?

JohnJBannan wrote:First, there is no scientific proof of an actual infinite in physical reality.


I'm not trying to establish proof, I'm trying to get the necessity out of your arguments about why time must have a beginning. I just don't see a problem with a retro-eternal universe.

JohnJBannan wrote:Second, the universe began with the expanded singularity in Big Bang cosmology.


We don't know that that was the beginning. Even most scientists, when they're being honest, will admit that we don't know that. In fact, there's been recent evidence (or maybe it was just accepted theory) that the BB wasn't the beginning of the universe, that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction, or that our universe exploded into existence from a parent universe.

JohnJBannan wrote:Third, the paradoxes of infinitely regressive time and causation are clear.


Oh, well, since you added that third point, I guess time must have a beginning. I mean, if you stuck with only 2 points, your arguments would hold no weight whatsoever. But this third point, especially since it asserts the clarity of your paradox arguments despite my counter-arguments, settles the matter.

JohnJBannan wrote:Logically, an infinite regression of time could not traverse to the present moment. Moreover, because an infinite regression entails an infinite number of causes, then all causes would have been exhausted before we reached the present time. But, if causes are infinite then causes can’t ever become exhausted. Again, the need for a beginning point becones clear.


I get the point of your argument. I did offer a rebuttal if you care to read it. It was this: the need to traverse an eternity of time, or an infinite number of causes, is only a problem if you imagine starting from somewhere (somewhere eternally distant in the past). But the point of talking about a retro-eternal universe is to do away with any starting point. All points in the time, all events that occur therein, are just there--already in the past (relative to where you are now).

Understanding this depends on how you imagine time in the abstract. You can imagine time in a static context--such as when we plot time on a diagram--all points along the time axis "coexisting". If this is the true state if time (and I would expect you to agree with something like this since you believe God exists in a timeless context) and our experience of time flowing by is just an illusion of subjectivity, then the problem of an eternal universe becomes the problem of an infinite (spatially) universe, which isn't a problem at all as far as I'm concerned.

You can also imagine time in the subjective context--or dynamic context--the one in which time exists just as we experience it. But in this context, the past and future don't exist. There is only now. Now is dynamic, ever changing, becoming the future and relegating its old states to the past. But in a context in which past and future don't exist, what sense does it make to talk about an eternity of time OR a beginning. We're left just talking about what kind of conceptual framework best models the past in our minds. And there's nothing wrong with talking about a model featuring retro-eternal time. Nothing has to "traverse" all of time to get to now in a model. It's just a picture.

JohnJBannan wrote:So, in observation, we have never seen an actual infinite. Would you expect to if it did exist? In science, we have discovered the beginning of spacetime. Careful with the word 'discovered' In logic and philosophy, an infinite regress is paradoxical. It can be problematic but not paradoxical. This trifecta clearly beats the unproven idea of infinite regress.


They always come in 3s, don't they?

Time is not continuous because time dilation proves that time can be stretched or slowed down. You can’t stretch infinitesimals. You can only add to them. You can however stretch discrete units.

There’s a big problem with an infinite regression. No scientific proof that infinities are real. NONE!

There is scientific proof of a beginning to the universe. There is NO scientific proof of a cyclic universe.

Actually, imagining a starting point in the past is a beginning point from which only a finite amount of time or causes need be traversed. I don’t see how this helps you at all.

Time is a REAL dimension of spacetime. Time is not an illusion. The block universe does not mean time is not a real dimension of spacetime.

Time is real and time dilation proves it. The past was once real and affects the present which affects the future.
Last edited by JohnJBannan on Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:32 pm, edited 5 times in total.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:20 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.


I think that Silhouette is using these words ("continuous" and "discrete") in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:39 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.


I think that Silhouette is using these words ("continuous" and "discrete") in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.



Continuous means comprised of infinitesimals. Continuous means you can continuously subdivide without end. Discrete means comprised of a finite number of discrete units. Discreteness means you cannot continuously subdivide without end.

Mathematics is continuous. A number line is continuous.

Physical reality is discrete.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:57 pm

Yes, that's how you and I (and other people) define those terms. But you and I and other people (except for maybe Henri Bergson) are not Silhouette.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:07 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, that's how you and I (and other people) define those terms. But you and I and other people (except for maybe Henri Bergson) are not Silhouette.

Many people, especially atheists and non-believers, think that physical reality is continuous. This is a major misconception, but understandable in light of the fact that physics uses mathematics which it must, but mathematics is continuous. This is why it is important to understand that math is not physical reality. Some people also think that reality can be infinitely subdivided, but nothing could be further from the truth.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:09 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that Silhouette is using these words ("continuous" and "discrete") in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.

See it's stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? :-k WUUUT? :| like I'm some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The definition of the word "infinity" is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon. It's unavoidable.

My bad, I misread you specifying "one".

Also, I'm sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you've entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?

@John, if you're reading - kindly "define infinity" for us as precisely and exhaustively as you can, if you please?

JohnJBannan wrote:You got it completely wrong again!

Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.

Oh did I? Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn't you who got it completely wrong again?

Continuous i.e. "without break" means there's no division - especially not infinite division into infinitesimals...

Again - how do you manage to be so completely backwards? I don't get it. It'd be okay if you were aware of any potential shortcomings and if you came here so that you could learn, but you're so goddamn sure of yourself on top of being so completely wrong that it's insufferable.

JohnJBannan wrote:Continuous means comprised of infinitesimals. Continuous means you can continuously subdivide without end. Discrete means comprised of a finite number of discrete units. Discreteness means you cannot continuously subdivide without end.

Mathematics is continuous. A number line is continuous.

Physical reality is discrete.

I repeat, continuous does NOT mean comprised of infinitesimals - it means without break. No division, especially not infinite divisions. An infinitude of discrete units is exactly how the real number line is broken down. In this case you can subdivide infinitely into smaller and smaller discrete quantities, but continuity is one-ness.

And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It's a continuous experience. You can artificially break it up into discrete parts to mentally model it - that's the only way to do such a thing, but in doing so you compromise on its fundamental continuity. Even experiencing the smallest perceivable particles is a continuous experience. Beyond that it's all mental conceptions, all the way into the quantum realm - and even there we speak of continuous wave functions that describe probability distributions.

Mathematics is not "continuous" - there is an entire branch of mathematics called "discrete mathematics", and I contend that even with respect to the continuity of things like the real number line, one performs operations on operands that are extracted as precise discrete values. One even models continuous progressions e.g. like curves as a discrete function through differentiation. You approach this via infinitesimals, but this does not mean the final result is infinitesimal. What you approach is continuous one-ness.
Last edited by Silhouette on Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:10 pm

Gib, the alien gangster wrote:So why is time discrete? Why could you not get from t1 to t2 if time were not discrete?


I think it has to do with the fact that if the number of points between \(t_1\) and \(t_2\) is infinite that means that in order to go from \(t_1\) to \(t_2\) you must cross an infinite number of points. And you can't do that because no matter how many points you cross, there will always be more points to cross.

I am surprised that you believe in the so-called actual or completed infinity given our exchange in that infamous thread.

But I guess you're no longer the same Gib. You are now AN ALIEN GANGSTER.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:15 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Gib, the alien gangster wrote:So why is time discrete? Why could you not get from t1 to t2 if time were not discrete?

I think it has to do with the fact that if the number of points between \(t_1\) and \(t_2\) is infinite that means that in order to go from \(t_1\) to \(t_2\) you must cross an infinite number of points. And you can't do that because no matter how many points you cross, there will always be more points to cross.

Zeeeeeeeeeeeeennnnnnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:24 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that Silhouette is using these words ("continuous" and "discrete") in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.

See it's stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? :-k WUUUT? :| like I'm some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The definition of the word "infinity" is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon. It's unavoidable.

My bad, I misread you specifying "one".

Also, I'm sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you've entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?

@John, if you're reading - kindly "define infinity" for us as precisely and exhaustively as you can, if you please?

JohnJBannan wrote:You got it completely wrong again!

Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.

Oh did I? Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn't you who got it completely wrong again?

Continuous i.e. "without break" means there's no division - especially not infinite division into infinitesimals...

Again - how do you manage to be so completely backwards? I don't get it. It'd be okay if you were aware of any potential shortcomings and if you came here so that you could learn, but you're so goddamn sure of yourself on top of being so completely wrong that it's insufferable.

JohnJBannan wrote:Continuous means comprised of infinitesimals. Continuous means you can continuously subdivide without end. Discrete means comprised of a finite number of discrete units. Discreteness means you cannot continuously subdivide without end.

Mathematics is continuous. A number line is continuous.

Physical reality is discrete.

I repeat, continuous does NOT mean comprised of infinitesimals - it means without break. No division, especially not infinite divisions. An infinitude of discrete units is exactly how the real number line is broken down. In this case you can subdivide infinitely into smaller and smaller discrete quantities, but continuity is one-ness.

And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It's a continuous experience. You can artificially break it up into discrete parts to mentally model it - that's the only way to do such a thing, but in doing so you compromise on its fundamental continuity. Even experiencing the smallest perceivable particles is a continuous experience. Beyond that it's all mental conceptions, all the way into the quantum realm - and even there we speak of continuous wave functions that describe probability distributions.

Mathematics is not "continuous" - there is an entire branch of mathematics called "discrete mathematics", and I contend that even with respect to the continuity of things like the real number line, one performs operations on operands that are extracted as precise discrete values. One even models continuous progressions e.g. like curves as a discrete function through differentiation. You approach this via infinitesimals, but this does not mean the final result is infinitesimal. What you approach is continuous one-ness.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
“The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity—a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz's famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit.

Traditionally, an infinitesimal quantity is one which, while not necessarily coinciding with zero, is in some sense smaller than any finite quantity. For engineers, an infinitesimal is a quantity so small that its square and all higher powers can be neglected. In the theory of limits the term “infinitesimal” is sometimes applied to any sequence whose limit is zero. An infinitesimal magnitude may be regarded as what remains after a continuum has been subjected to an exhaustive analysis, in other words, as a continuum “viewed in the small.” It is in this sense that continuous curves have sometimes been held to be “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.“
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:33 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
“The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity—a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz's famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit.

Traditionally, an infinitesimal quantity is one which, while not necessarily coinciding with zero, is in some sense smaller than any finite quantity. For engineers, an infinitesimal is a quantity so small that its square and all higher powers can be neglected. In the theory of limits the term “infinitesimal” is sometimes applied to any sequence whose limit is zero. An infinitesimal magnitude may be regarded as what remains after a continuum has been subjected to an exhaustive analysis, in other words, as a continuum “viewed in the small.” It is in this sense that continuous curves have sometimes been held to be “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.“

Errr... thanks for confirming my point against you?

Yeah in the later 18th century you'd have been in fashion until the 19th century - as you quoted in your first paragraph. Limits being precise discrete values that came to replace infinitesimals...

The second paragraph just clarifies what is meant by infinitessimals, which I already explained.
Again, you can analyse a continuum "in the small" to be as though it was constructed of infinitesimal discretes, even though the continuum remains continuous...

Thanks again...
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:34 pm

Silhouette wrote:See it's stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? :-k WUUUT? :| like I'm some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.


If the education level of this forum annoys you, perhaps you shouldn't be on this forum.

I think it's not a good thing to get annoyed when people tell you that they do not understand you and that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are working with idiosyncratic definitions.

Also, I'm sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you've entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?


My apologies but I do not really understand what you're saying here.

And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It's a continuous experience.


I know this is written in response to John. I just want to chime in and say that this is where you lose me. What does "gaps of nothingness between real things" mean? What does "continuous experience" mean?

I understand that these terms are part of your philosophy (and I know how you call your philosophy) but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

To make it worse, these terms don't appear to be used by anyone other than you. I can't Google what they mean and I can't find other people who use them.

I know Henri Bergson (and perhaps a number of other philosophers) work (or used to work) with similar terminology but the problem is that they are quite obscure, and so, of no help.

Maybe you should make a thread of your own (if you haven't already) where you clarify your philosophical concepts to those who are unfamiliar with them.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:38 pm

Silhouette wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
“The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity—a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz's famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit.

Traditionally, an infinitesimal quantity is one which, while not necessarily coinciding with zero, is in some sense smaller than any finite quantity. For engineers, an infinitesimal is a quantity so small that its square and all higher powers can be neglected. In the theory of limits the term “infinitesimal” is sometimes applied to any sequence whose limit is zero. An infinitesimal magnitude may be regarded as what remains after a continuum has been subjected to an exhaustive analysis, in other words, as a continuum “viewed in the small.” It is in this sense that continuous curves have sometimes been held to be “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.“

Errr... thanks for confirming my point against you?

Yeah in the later 18th century you'd have been in fashion until the 19th century - as you quoted in your first paragraph. Limits being precise discrete values that came to replace infinitesimals...

The second paragraph just clarifies what is meant by infinitessimals, which I already explained.
Again, you can analyse a continuum "in the small" to be as though it was constructed of infinitesimal discretes, even though the continuum remains continuous...

Thanks again...




“Closely associated with the concept of a continuum is that of infinitesimal. An infinitesimal magnitude has been somewhat hazily conceived as a continuum "viewed in the small", an “ultimate part” of a continuum. In something like the same sense as a discrete entity is made up of its individual units, its “indivisibles”, so, it was maintained, a continuum is “composed” of infinitesimal magnitudes, its ultimate parts. (It is in this sense, for example, that mathematicians of the 17th century held that continuous curves are "composed" of infinitesimal straight lines.) Now the “coherence” of a continuum entails that each of its (connected) parts is also a continuum, and, accordingly, divisible. Since points are indivisible, it follows that no point can be part of a continuum. Infinitesimal magnitudes, as parts of continua, cannot, of necessity, be points: they are, in a word, nonpunctiform.”

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:46 pm

Silhouette wrote:
JohnJBannan wrote:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/continuity/
“The usual meaning of the word continuous is “unbroken” or “uninterrupted”: thus a continuous entity—a continuum—has no “gaps.” We commonly suppose that space and time are continuous, and certain philosophers have maintained that all natural processes occur continuously: witness, for example, Leibniz's famous apothegm natura non facit saltus—“nature makes no jump.” In mathematics the word is used in the same general sense, but has had to be furnished with increasingly precise definitions. So, for instance, in the later 18th century continuity of a function was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function. With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit.

Traditionally, an infinitesimal quantity is one which, while not necessarily coinciding with zero, is in some sense smaller than any finite quantity. For engineers, an infinitesimal is a quantity so small that its square and all higher powers can be neglected. In the theory of limits the term “infinitesimal” is sometimes applied to any sequence whose limit is zero. An infinitesimal magnitude may be regarded as what remains after a continuum has been subjected to an exhaustive analysis, in other words, as a continuum “viewed in the small.” It is in this sense that continuous curves have sometimes been held to be “composed” of infinitesimal straight lines.“

Errr... thanks for confirming my point against you?

Yeah in the later 18th century you'd have been in fashion until the 19th century - as you quoted in your first paragraph. Limits being precise discrete values that came to replace infinitesimals...

The second paragraph just clarifies what is meant by infinitessimals, which I already explained.
Again, you can analyse a continuum "in the small" to be as though it was constructed of infinitesimal discretes, even though the continuum remains continuous...

Thanks again...


The continuous is made of infinitesimals. The discrete is made of indivisibles. There is no such thing as infinitesimal discretes.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:06 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:I think that Silhouette is using these words ("continuous" and "discrete") in a different way than you do (and perhaps even everyone else.) I for one have absolutely no idea what he means by those words.

See it's stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? :-k WUUUT? :| like I'm some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.

Magnus Anderson wrote:The definition of the word "infinity" is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon. It's unavoidable.

My bad, I misread you specifying "one".

Also, I'm sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you've entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?

@John, if you're reading - kindly "define infinity" for us as precisely and exhaustively as you can, if you please?

JohnJBannan wrote:You got it completely wrong again!

Physical reality is not continuous, i.e. comprised of infinitesimals. Physical reality is comprised of discrete indivisible units of reality.

Oh did I? Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn't you who got it completely wrong again?

Continuous i.e. "without break" means there's no division - especially not infinite division into infinitesimals...

Again - how do you manage to be so completely backwards? I don't get it. It'd be okay if you were aware of any potential shortcomings and if you came here so that you could learn, but you're so goddamn sure of yourself on top of being so completely wrong that it's insufferable.

JohnJBannan wrote:Continuous means comprised of infinitesimals. Continuous means you can continuously subdivide without end. Discrete means comprised of a finite number of discrete units. Discreteness means you cannot continuously subdivide without end.

Mathematics is continuous. A number line is continuous.

Physical reality is discrete.

I repeat, continuous does NOT mean comprised of infinitesimals - it means without break. No division, especially not infinite divisions. An infinitude of discrete units is exactly how the real number line is broken down. In this case you can subdivide infinitely into smaller and smaller discrete quantities, but continuity is one-ness.

And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It's a continuous experience. You can artificially break it up into discrete parts to mentally model it - that's the only way to do such a thing, but in doing so you compromise on its fundamental continuity. Even experiencing the smallest perceivable particles is a continuous experience. Beyond that it's all mental conceptions, all the way into the quantum realm - and even there we speak of continuous wave functions that describe probability distributions.

Mathematics is not "continuous" - there is an entire branch of mathematics called "discrete mathematics", and I contend that even with respect to the continuity of things like the real number line, one performs operations on operands that are extracted as precise discrete values. One even models continuous progressions e.g. like curves as a discrete function through differentiation. You approach this via infinitesimals, but this does not mean the final result is infinitesimal. What you approach is continuous one-ness.


Because there is no time between indivisible units of reality, then there is no “nothingness” gap in the sense of observable spacetime. However, the lack of time in the “gaps” does not mean it is continuous. See Occasionalism.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Magnus Anderson » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:15 pm

Off-topic post directed at Silhouette:

I know what "continuous motion" is. It simply refers to an object that is moving (i.e. changing its position) constantly, without ever stopping.

I can be more precise than that. Here:

An object continuously moving in the universe where time is finitely divisible simply means that for every two adjacent points in time the object is at different positions in space.

An object continuously moving in the universe where time is infinitely divisible simply means that there is no period of time consisting of more than one point in time where at every point in time during that period of time the object is at the same position in space.

But what does "continuous experience" mean?

I have no idea.

Maybe "non-stop experience"? E.g. never losing consciousness? But I am sure that's not what you mean.

To continue is to persist, or better yet, to repeat. That which is continuous repeats. If we're working with that definition, then to say that the contents of our experience is continuous is to say that something within it (perhaps even everything within it) repeats. What exactly repeats? What's the thing that repeats? Everything? But it's not true that everything repeats. I can see my fingers moving as I type this post. Their position in space is changing, it is not repeating.
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."

Mr. Reasonable
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:24 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Silhouette wrote:See it's stuff like this that annoys me so much about the education level of this forum.

Discrete in science is the opposite of continuous: something that is separate; distinct; individual.

I mean, I use basic technical terminology and everyone is like HUHH?? :-k WUUUT? :| like I'm some kind of alien for knowing how to use the correct words correctly.

If the education level of this forum annoys you, perhaps you shouldn't be on this forum.

Yeah, I know...

But I put a lot of years into this forum, y'know? Fun fact - my account is even older than Carleas'. I certainly wasn't always this clued up - this forum actually helped me get to where I am now and I never really connected with a different one - obviously I should try harder.

I use this opportunity to try and teach here, but people don't like being taught by some rando on the internet. They themselves, randos on the internet want instead to assert their opinion and fight their corner - would you disagree, on balance? And statistically since there's no qualifications necessary to post on an internet forum, it's not surprising when the majority of these same people aren't of elite intelligence and education.

Perhaps I should save it for your thread on the "purpose of this forum", which you already know I've taken an interest in.

Magnus Anderson wrote:I think it's not a good thing to get annoyed when people tell you that they do not understand you and that they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are working with idiosyncratic definitions.

The annoying thing is not when people tell you they don't understand and/or err on the side of probability in dealing with a random sample of faceless people.

Everyone is a student. Everyone ought to seek guidance and inspiration to improve. Certainly myself, and certainly everyone else here - that's to be encouraged, I think we agree.

The annoying thing is when people present themselves as perfect experts when someone like me is around who can academically destroy them, and they don't even understand what happened when I do so, and assume I'm wrong by default. Some of the more intellectually capable among the remaining posters have recognised what's going on with me and respect it, but of all the former posters who could have maybe stood to debate on my level, they're simply not here anymore.

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Also, I'm sure you meant how John is defining infinity, but you've entered the fray arguing your definition of the word infinity - forgive me for inducing that you did this to assist with this definition of infinity, since you judge one of his arguments to unavoidably and precisely rest upon?

My apologies but I do not really understand what you're saying here.

Okay.

Well I thought you were bringing up your definition of infinity ("A number larger than than every integer") and subsequently claiming the definition of this word "is precisely what one of his (I mean John's) arguments rests upon" because you wanted to help John out with this definition of infinity, so as to get to the bottom of this argument of his. A crude assumption on my part - of course.

Does that make sense now?

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Silhouette wrote:And where are the gaps of nothingness between real things? It's a continuous experience.

I know this is written in response to John. I just want to chime in and say that this is where you lose me. What does "gaps of nothingness between real things" mean? What does "continuous experience" mean?

I understand that these terms are part of your philosophy (and I know how you call your philosophy) but I have absolutely no idea what they mean.

To make it worse, these terms don't appear to be used by anyone other than you. I can't Google what they mean and I can't find other people who use them.

I know Henri Bergson (and perhaps a number of other philosophers) work (or used to work) with similar terminology but the problem is that they are quite obscure, and so, of no help.

Maybe you should make a thread of your own (if you haven't already) where you clarify your philosophical concepts to those who are unfamiliar with them.

That's fine - I always wanted you to appreciate that I am open to questions about what I mean, rather than mere assertations that what I mean is wrong. It's the outright assertion that I'm flatly wrong when I know I'm not that bugs me.

Simple experiment: observe your surroundings. Consider the scientific explanation of what is going on: light bounces off everything, and the rays that enter your eyes' pupils project a flat image onto your retina. What you "see" goes on in your brain with regards to the flat information that your retina passes on. It's a 2D area of vision of various shades, and if like me you're lucky enough to not be colourblind, various colours too. The image is a continuous variation of shades and/or colours. A competent artist will instruct you never to draw black lines to distinguish one feature from another if you want to paint or draw a realistic looking picture. Photographs are the same - there is a contuous variation of shades and/or colours with no "gaps" in between. It's like a continuous steady fluctuation of visual data. You have to focus on one "part" of it to distinguish it from another, but whenever you go to lengths to distinguish it from another part, there is never a distinct dividing line. This is actually a huge difficulty for AI technology - the distinction of sensory data is infamously difficult to parse.

The same goes for sounds, touch, smells, tastes - the entire sensory plethora that constitutes overall "experience". It is continuous, thus "Continuous Experience".

Let me know if that helped or not.

Yes, Experientialism is my own unique philosophy - it's the one area where I have introduced my own terms, which I have on many occasions tried to define and explain on this forum - but by no means do I expect everyone to be familiar with them by now. I know Fixed Cross ought to be by now, we've discussed it at length spanning the course of many years, albeit broken up by long gaps. I'm still not convinced anyone else can yet truly represent it satisfactorily - an ongoing work of mine.

Thank you for introducing me to the name Henri Bergson - I am unfamiliar with him. Yes, I ought to make an official Experientialism thread, but I am in constant debate with myself over how best to begin to explain it in an official capacity. I'm sure I'll get round to it at some point.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:26 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Off-topic post directed at Silhouette:

I know what "continuous motion" is. It simply refers to an object that is moving (i.e. changing its position) constantly, without ever stopping.

I can be more precise than that. Here:

An object continuously moving in the universe where time is finitely divisible simply means that for every two adjacent points in time the object is at different positions in space.

An object continuously moving in the universe where time is infinitely divisible simply means that there is no period of time consisting of more than one point in time where at every point in time during that period of time the object is at the same position in space.

But what does "continuous experience" mean?

I have no idea.

Maybe "non-stop experience"? E.g. never losing consciousness? But I am sure that's not what you mean.

To continue is to persist, or better yet, to repeat. That which is continuous repeats. If we're working with that definition, then to say that the contents of our experience is continuous is to say that something within it (perhaps even everything within it) repeats. What exactly repeats? What's the thing that repeats? Everything? But it's not true that everything repeats. I can see my fingers moving as I type this post. Their position in space is changing, it is not repeating.



By “continuous experience”, he means no gaps in between moments of time. But, as I pointed out, those “gaps” are timeless, which means you can get a feeling of continuous experience despite the indivisible unit of time like in a movie film. Each frame is a discrete indivisible unit that when played in sequence gives the sensation of “continuous experience”.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Silhouette » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:10 pm

JohnJBannan wrote:By “continuous experience”, he means no gaps in between moments of time. But, as I pointed out, those “gaps” are timeless, which means you can get a feeling of continuous experience despite the indivisible unit of time like in a movie film. Each frame is a discrete indivisible unit that when played in sequence gives the sensation of “continuous experience”.

Ah, you are showing some colour, John.

Thank you for taking the effort to represent me honestly - though I refer to continuity spatially as well as temporally.

An objection of mine, as this explanation of yours continues, is towards your analogy by movie film. Indeed the movie film "simulates" a continuous experience whilst instead being a rapid succession of discrete frames, and humans cannot distinguish rapidly presented frames from continuity beyond a certain threshold. Does it then follow that all sensory data is therefore discrete and merely interpretted continuously by the human?

I contend no by virtue of the formal logical fallacy: "affirming the consequent". \((P\to{Q},Q)\to{P}\) where P denotes the presention to a human of a rapid succession of discrete frames, and Q denotes the experience of continuity by humans.

I also applaud your reference to Occasionalism. I was familiar with the concept, but not the term.
Do I need to go much further than reminding you of the term "Falsificationism"? Let me know.

Can you expand on your statement "the lack of time in the “gaps” does not mean it is continuous"? Surely the quoted words are true by definition? Unless you mean to imply "perceived" continuity? To this I refer you back to my mention of affirming the consequent and Falsificationism.

JohnJBannan wrote:The continuous is made of infinitesimals. The discrete is made of indivisibles. There is no such thing as infinitesimal discretes.

The continuous is mentally modelled through infinitesimals (denoted by discretes), which is different to it actually being made of infinitesimals.

You can quantify every possible increment between 0 and 1 infinitely. Every single instance is presentable as a discrete number. There are an infinite number of these possible numbers, even between 0 and 1. They are all discrete. This is in spite of the true continuous progression between 0 and 1. One can still only represent any snapshot of this continuity as a discrete quantity.

JohnJBannan wrote:“Closely associated with the concept of a continuum is that of infinitesimal. An infinitesimal magnitude has been somewhat hazily conceived as a continuum "viewed in the small", an “ultimate part” of a continuum. In something like the same sense as a discrete entity is made up of its individual units, its “indivisibles”, so, it was maintained, a continuum is “composed” of infinitesimal magnitudes, its ultimate parts. (It is in this sense, for example, that mathematicians of the 17th century held that continuous curves are "composed" of infinitesimal straight lines.) Now the “coherence” of a continuum entails that each of its (connected) parts is also a continuum, and, accordingly, divisible. Since points are indivisible, it follows that no point can be part of a continuum. Infinitesimal magnitudes, as parts of continua, cannot, of necessity, be points: they are, in a word, nonpunctiform.”

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Okay, and thanks again for confirming my point against you... - keep going if you prefer?

1) The infinitesimal magnitude "hazily" conceived as a continuum...
2) "In something LIKE the same sense" is a discrete entity made up of its individual units - such as 17th century mathematicians conceived them.
3) "The coherence of a continuum" mirrors exactly what I said about the need to represent the continuous in terms of the discrete in order to model it, despite it being in fact continuous.
4) Obvious contradiction: given that each of the connected parts of a continuum are divisible, they can at no point be part of a continuum. I.e. given "continuum" therefore "not continuum". The author should have been more careful here.
5) Infinitesimals "as parts of continua" can't be (discrete) points - yes, my whole point. But this is the only way in which to mentally model them, even though they are "nonpunctiform" due to the continuous nature of what these "points" are intended to be abstracted from (continuity).
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4402
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:17 pm

I'd hate to be the kill joy to burst the beautiful bubbles most everyone is riding sky high on, including near infinitely reduced affective arguability, in stead of 'effective'.

But regardless this appearent near approaching final epoch, of almost epic like proportion, let me be the one please to remind You and you, that this argument which has gone on ceaselessly for generations, numerically coincidental with the many turtles resting upon each other's back, that.....

well, that is, the inversive nature of the law of contradiction , demand the simplest modicum of truth.

That truth, the complexity of a series of infinite number of turtles, is very prone in intermittent series, as if totally, absolutely reliant on literally counting them one turtle at a time.

To sequence them as such, literally by totally dismissing one unfortunate turtle who was left in the lurch, may create as many sequential sets, as probabilities can account for.

Sure it is not merely inconvenient to discount such a rare occuramce, and De-politicisedl the odd man out, the third man, the man in the grey flannel suit, cause he resides in shades almost fading to pure white.

Almost white is the inconvenient truth, as the presupposition that it is merely a glitch, a very odd man indeed, who dares to proclaim that He may be identifiable by all that near to very near approach to the pure white.

That is the problem here: we only hear what we want to hear, but can't or don't want to sense the big picture within which we have to re-represent ourselves as the Author of the very thought re presentation, as if suddenly realizing that we are the authors of our own created self image.

That may be simpler to see, then to try to get out, exit, where we feel hemmed in by the ' No Exit' sign.

If unwilling, to reduce to this unfounded , insinuated level of authenticity, how can we come up by a quantified quality, that can overcome and rule out any distinction between knowledge and and it's method.

Cantor, Nietzche tried, and their reason was undermined by the then current boxed in dimensions of existence.

They had to reduce their understanding within a scintilla of an non measurable ' eigenblick'.

But if that reasoning could be sustained, then those limits could again structurally disintegrate, therefore paving the way to total structural disarray, where a cognitive domino effect can compel Prometheus to totally unbound.

Who can ever in hell face that personal responsibility unto themselves?

Even all the tricks in Faust's jack in the box could never untangle the ness, let alone identify the culprits, the other demons, and then surely would not be left any others to debate or argue with, lest to seek to vindicate one's self as Dostoevsky tried in "Letters from Underground" No one dared, except at the outset of the last great world war, Sartre, who could only are by and with himself in "Nausea" until..........
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7635
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:24 pm

I have a post for Magnus...

Let’s say you have an infinite number of 3’s...

This logical definition is that this only equals infinity

3+3+3+3...

If you take one three away ... does that mean it equals infinity minis 3?! No fucking way! And thus, Magnus is refuted
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11083
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of

Postby JohnJBannan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:30 pm

An indivisible unit of spacetime that is destroyed, and then re-created, has no spacetime in the “gap” between the destruction and re-creation, because the spacetime was destroyed before re-creation. The lack of spacetime in the “gap” means spacetime appears continuous, but is not because each spacetime slice is indivisible.
JohnJBannan
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:31 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]