You had asked me for advice. I provided that advice and as part of it, an explanation of how to discuss or debate with me. Then I asked you a question related to our ongoing disagreement. Afterward, I made a prediction concerning your posting behavior.
You completely ignored the advice.
You completely ignored the question that I asked.
But you exactly followed the prediction:
Although tempted to go into a long detailed discussion of why you were so predictable (there is a little Kim Jong-un dominating your mind), we werenāt done with your last batch of debacles and here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies and then complain that your new distraction has been ignored.
I canāt really argue with that but that doesnāt mean that no one is right. Although as you say, āthe kind that donāt hang out at philosophy forumsā.
I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.
So Iām not really planning on sticking around much longer anyway. Iām just waiting for my parsing program to get written.
oh no doubt. of all the subjects of philosophy, ethics and its extension āpoliticsā is a lived experience in which people have a real stake in something. itās not a subject like epistemology or metaphysics where it wouldnāt matter much if you were wrong (if you even noticed at all). so people are especially impassioned about politics and tend to side with whatever defends and protects whatever position theyāre at on the spectrum. if youāve got economically advantaged people who are getting a free ride - e.g., business owners, stock traders, recipients of big inheritances, trust fund babies, etc., etc. - almost without exception theyāll be conservatives and employ all manner of philosophical sophistry in justifying and protecting these advantages.
the same goes for the liberal perspective, too. the beauty of the political debate is that the parties involved are not motivated by some stupid philosophical theory to hold their groundā¦ and while they generally do end up producing a load of philosophical nonsense to defend their place, the material conditions from which they come are very real.
politics demonstrates that simplest of modus operandi; it begins with a battle over the fruits of laborā¦ who has the ārightā to that fruitā¦ and then develops into something extraordinarily complex, often for the purposes of obfuscating the simple premise from which it began.
the rightās best move would be to continue over-complicating the matter to keep it uncertain and obscureā¦ while the left should be focused on deconstructing the conservative narratives produced by the right. this requires a surgical critique of history to reveal the ways in which conservative philosophy has secured its philosophical hegemony over the minds of people.
ā¦ if you want to see one interesting take on this deal with āinfinityā, go check out Brouwer and the intuitionists. one thing i keep seeing as a cornerstone to this problem is how various mathematicians respond to what cantor did with the transitive infinite or the infinite transitive or whatever. i dunno what the hell it is, but itās something important because i keep seeing it pop up everywhere i read. iām probably wrong here, but i think the dispute is over this thing about defining a set as infinite. these dudes observe a continuum of divisibility within an arbitrarily chosen closed set of natural and real numbers, and then theyāre like āsee? i told you the set was infinite!ā but then the other dudes are like ābut by virtue of it being a continuum, you never actually produce an infinite set, so you canāt call it that!ā
Iām still reading and followingā¦ though not a fella lol
Shame youāll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524ā¦ what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?
= āI disagreeā
as you asked me to say if I donāt agree.
= āA simple reasonā,
followed by the beginning of how it applies aaaaall the way back through your reasoning = āstate only the beginning of itā
= āask for agreementā
= āask if (you) agreeā
This is all very clearly included in my post that followed your advice on how delicately you want to be treated, if youād actually read what I said.
So basically I followed your advice exactly and you are the one ignoring, I even made sure to explicitly address the question you asked:
Both the addition I used and the multiplication example you used were involved in my proof that youāre still trying to understand.
So basically:
is as I predicted 2 pages back:
and
and
This is confirmed by your repeated attempt to move away from logical content to instead politicise the discussion:
I read your excuse that:
followed in the same post by the obvious flaw in this approach:
In researching the history around the person to understand the context behind their works, you are injecting your own history of yourself and your own context into theirs, doubling the muddying their actual content instead of just analysing the logic behind their points and arguments. As Iām demonstrating using proof - neither your intention nor your strong suit.
So we see:
Objectively applies to what you keep doing and not to me in the slightlest as Iāve just proven through quotation and logic.
Buy a mirror for godās sake.
Iām trying to help you and all you can do is - in the terms of James that you quoted yourself āsinā - through āpresumptionā, and give advice that when followed, you ignore.
Stop presuming your criticisms are correct and that the only thing left is to go back to them and admit this, disregarding the possibility that they are not correct and ignoring explanations of why their underlying assumptions are wrong, with accusations of ādistractingā, unbacked claims of fallacies and no justification of debacle, to justify ignoring them. If you donāt see the connection yet, donāt presume there is none, let me explain it to you.
You realise itās possible that youāre wrong, right? All that psychological projection of āPeople who say things like that are saying that only God can understand things that they donātā onto others applies the other way around, you know.
But letās make a prediction: you disregard this possibility and most likely this whole post, which does nothing more than prove your presumptions - in order to help you. I donāt want to have to do this, I want to stay on topic. It shouldnāt need typing out, but you need to stop letting anything like the āpride, politics, and stupidityā, of which youāre presuming to only apply to others, forbid you from growing. Or just continue to think itās all the forumās/other peopleās faultā¦
oh my bad. what i meant was, even though we observed planet y make 2.5 more orbits than planet x in that 24 hour period, we wouldnāt be able to say āplanet y has orbited more times than planet xā, because if theyāve both been orbiting eternally, one couldnāt have made more orbits than the other. iām trying to point out one conceptual problem with actual infinities with this hypothetical planet thing i got from ghazali.
counting is, but not time. time, in its most essential description, is a period in which the difference of the motion of objects can be contrasted and/or compared. anytime there is movement, there is a relative change of position, and ātimeā is the period of transition.
kant once mentioned something similar to this idea when he talks about what we call ātimeā when we look at a clock. its not that the clock contains, produces or represents ātimeā, but that it simply generates the experience of it by its hands moving against a background. thus, time is essentially observed movementā¦ that period of repositioning.
now of course things still move without being perceived (unless youāre a radical empiricist), so what we would call the passage of time, had we experienced such motion, still exists independently of our experiencing it. but yes, the counting is man madeā¦ or i should say āusedā, since we really didnāt āmakeā the possibility of objects belonging to groups that can be quantified.
iāve always figured that time and space were infinite, but not necessarily energy. one problem iām up against here though is explaining how, if space is infinite, energy wouldnāt also be infinite if itās necessary that all space be āfilledā with objects. james is clearly espousing a āfieldā theory of space which at a fundamental level means all space is occupied by something. so iām almost forced to admit that energy is infinite unless i can conceive of a boundary to space. but that wouldnāt make any sense because thereād be something beyond that boundaryā¦ and wtf would i call it if not more space?
see this shit pisses me off because iām being bombarded with conflicting views and information overload and frankly, iām about to say fuck it and go hang out with biggy talkinā bout āhow is the problem of infinity even relevant to conflicting goods and dasein and stuff.ā look, iāve never been faced with having to make a decision in life that depended on whether or not the universe was infinite.
āoh waitā¦ iām not sure if i should do this, because the universe might be infinite. hold on, lemme think about it.ā
no. iāve never said that in my life, and i probably never will.
what we want are affordable solutions to modern, existential dilemmas. donāt we, biggs?
I thought I answered this at least in part, but it was not my intention to bombard you with just another view that conflicts with some others, I merely wanted to present it as what experimental evidence consistently shows, in line with the scientific consensus for centuries now, and why it makes sense. You can reject this like obsrvr and others have tried, based on attempted logical argument thatās based on understandings of infinity that Iāve also refuted - thatās up to you. I like the idea that thereās points in the consensus and my thinking that have been missed myself, but such things need less flawed groundwork than have been presented, or at least experimental evidence against the consensus that counters whatās been gathered so far, which nobody here is providing.
The evidence is that energy is finite and constant, as is mass, and that time hasnāt been going on infinitely so far - at least in the sense of the pre-Einsteinian āabsolute timeā that Einstein and others showed not to be valid. Space, however? Well if constant energy is getting spread out over a non-infinite time as evidence suggests, itās dissipating across space that may as well be infinite, but isnāt necessarily infinite. My line of inquiry explores how space and time arenāt exactly finite or infinite. It is inspired by the experimental evidence that time and space curve under extreme conditions of gravity and speed - such as back in the singularity as experimental evidence suggests that things used to be. Let me know if previous posts on this thread about this subject have lost you, I am happy to explain what I mean in further detail and to receive criticism on these ideas.
I think that it is more logical that space and time have always existed because quantum mechanics forbids non existence
An absolute vacuum at the quantum level is too unstable to survive which is why quantum fluctuations violate it so easily
The expansion of space is creating time given that space and time are interconnected rather than entirely independent states
The only time that truly exists in reality is the eternal NOW since the past is just a memory while the future has yet to happen
I dont know if we are moving through time or if time is moving through us or if it actually matters which of these it is
The eternal NOW however is a dynamic state in a constant state of motion even though it can also appear to be static
Timelessness cannot possibly be true unless motion is an illusion because motion without time is simply not possible
I find it to be the most counter intuitive idea I have ever heard of and conceptually very hard indeed to understand
This is why I suggest the spacetime curvature theory, because it models how space and time have āeased inā over what tends towards infinity in false notions of āabsolute timeā before any given point, due to increased time dilation further and further back towards the singularity, which all evidence suggests the universe tends back towards. That is to say, quantum instability and fluctuations forbade the process from not starting, but time was so stretched out over this start that it lasted for what tended towards an eternity. So, in absolute time, there was āa timeā to mark the beginning, but in actual relative time, it eased in from then over a time that tended towards the infinite.
I agree with the rest of what you say about time being an āeternal nowā, but what Iāve been describing so far has been in keeping with traditional conceptions of time.
I also agree that this eternal now is a dynamic state. I would say that traditional conceptions of time are an attempt to measure of incongruity of this dynamic state of the eternal now.
Every man needs a hobby. I have a family so I donāt get much hobby time. Actually, I have 3 families; mine, my wifeās, and my wifeās former sister-in-lawās (long sorted story). Between the kids, parents, grand parents, and politics there isnāt much room to stabilize a consistent hobby, so I just choose random projects and see how far I can go with it. I was in the midst of choosing another project when I was reminded of āaffectanceā and the infamous James S Saint. So I looked to see if I could find him and do a personality research dossier. And here I am swimming through reams of thoughts and exploring the depths and breaths. Everyone should do that to another person sometime (if they learn to be responsible about it). An older relative would probably be best. Itās better than collecting stamps or watching the political news.
I donāt really know what I will do with the data. I enjoyed professionally collecting and correlating such, but itās different now. So Iām not sure how far Iāll take it, nor where or when it will end. It wouldnāt be the first time I just tucked a completed project away in a bin, long to ever be seen again.
Even if I knew what that meant, Iām pretty sure that Iām not there yet.
My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.
And āMay I query this explanation?ā does NOT equate to āI disagreeā. If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - āthis hereā vs āthat thereā). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:
No it doesnāt. I said that you add 1 to your position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:
Infinite set represented as: {ā¦, x, Y, z, ā¦}
Add 1 TOposition y:
New set looks like: {ā¦ x, y, Z, ā¦}
The set itself doesnāt change, merely where you are located in or pointing to within the set.
So the rest of your post is nonsense and you still havenāt addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2
Like I said, just because āyou donāt see the connection yet, donāt presume there is none, let me explain it to youā - do you agree that āpresumption is the seed of all sinā like you said, or not? Youāre so convinced of some combination of malevolence, incompetence, psychological or political compromise on my part that you refuse to see other quite obvious explanations as to how hard it seems to be to have a simple discussion. Stop presuming so I can unpack this for you, and it will all come together for you unless you donāt want to see it do so, which wonāt be my fault.
We calm now? Great. We can continue
To briefly address this one before we get to the actual content, I thought it was fairly straight forward, but as before I have simply been misinterpretted and presumed to be distracting. People ask if they can query something if they think they see the source of some disagreement in said something, no? I proceded to that source, to query whether it shined any light on whatās going on here. Like I said, thereās a connection between all the things Iām saying that Iām trying to bring together in a way that gets to the bottom of our disagreement. If youād let me explain it to you, youād see it too. I apologise for not being as literal and concise as you seem to need me to be, ok? Iām trying.
Right, great. Query answered! Easy, right?
Letās ride this momentum, shall we? It doesnāt mean the rest of my post is nonsense, it just means it doesnāt necessarily get to the bottom of things as directly as I suspected and wanted to test.
I felt I had, you disagree. This is fine, donāt flip the fuck out.
To be clear, Iāve been well aware of the formula (x + y)^2 = (x^2 + 2xy + y^2) since I learned and repeatedly applied it correctly while at school.
You took my method of expanding (x+y)^2 as something like just ā2xyā, or just āx^2 + xyā - only part of the full process at any rate & missing āsubtotalsā as you say, which makes sense from the way youāve perfectly correctly presented it.
May I please request, at this point, for you to agree or disagree whether this adequately encapsulates where you think I went wrong? May I also please request if you think Iāve sufficiently acknowledged and shown understanding of the point of your contention?
If so, I invite you to consider the scenario where x = y, as done all the way back on page 4:
Using the same form as I did above just now, we now get (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + 2xx + x^2)
Do you agree that this can also be written as (x^2 + 2xx + x^2) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)?
More specifically, on page 4 we were covering the case that x = y = 1
so since (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)
we have (1 + 1) * (1 + 1) = (1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2)
this can be written as (1 + 1)^2 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
Am I right? Do you agree there has been no funny business or āswitching upā so far?
A similar thing occurs when you have (1+1+1)^2 = (1^2 + 11 + 11 + 1^2 + 11 + 11 + 1^2 + 11 + 11)
Obviously the right hand side can be expanded to (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
As I said in this post: "Consider the example (1+1+1+ā¦+1), is it agreed that the āā¦ā represents an endless string of ā1+1"s?ā
We covered the examples of (1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1) and (1+1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1). Iām sure you donāt need any more examples of adding an extra 1 each time to solve (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on?
So we ought to be able to jump all the way to (1+1+1+ā¦+1)^2, I feel.
Each time we progress towards this from (1+1)^2, through (1+1+1)^2, through (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on, we get an answer that can be written as (1 + āsome finite number of zeroesā + 1)^2 = (1 + āsome other finite number of zerosā + 1)
I want to stress that in these finite examples, I acknowledge that āsome finite number of zeroesā on the left hand side is not the same as āsome other finite number of zeroesā on the right hand side.
Are we in agreement that I acknowledge this and there is still no funny business or āswitching upā so far?
The problem is once you transcend these finite examples to the infinite, by the definition of infinity you can no longer bound āsome finite number of zeroesā or āsome other finite number of zeroesā - they are both endless. There is not an end to either, such that oneās end can be longer or further than another.
Are we in agreement that this is where you think the funny business happens?
My argument is that if you stick strictly to the definition of infinity, (1+ "infinite zeroes +1)^2 = (1+ "infinite zeroes + 1)
That is to say, (1+1+1+ā¦+1) * (1+1+1+ā¦+1) = (1+1+1+ā¦+1)
As I understand it, you distinguish infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up from other infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up. Are you in agreement with this?
You represent the rationale by showing the relation that finite examples show as you tend towards infinity, which is correct.
You represent the rationale by showing the construction of the infinite examples and how they are constructed differently, which is also correct.
Do you agree that I acknowledge your rationale fairly and accurately?
Do you agree that I understand where our arguments diverge?
Do you agree that infinity, by definition has no bounds in order to say one is larger or goes further than another?
Do you agree that this on topic and relates to where you think I made a mistake here:
Why is it so hard to read what Iām saying, instead of forcing it all into something that sounds like a loaded question, under the guise of "well itās just a simple yes or no question "
Why does it feel like youāre trying to trick me into warping what Iāve said into something you can dishonestly and dismissively construe as either dumb/malevolent/corrupt, when the reality is far from that?
Everything you need to know about what Iāve actually said is in my words. Excuse my suspicion of you, but itās firmly justified by how youāve been treating me so far. You havenāt presented yourself as trustworthy or honest one bit so far - can I trust that this has changed?
To be clear what Iām answering, Iām assuming that by āSum the productsā, you mean in calculating (1+1+1+ā¦+1) * (1+1+1+ā¦+1), yes?
In full answer, in case youāre trying to trick me:
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+ā¦+1) * (1+1+1+ā¦+1), where āā¦ā is FINITE as (1+1+1+ā¦+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+ā¦+1) * (1+1+1+ā¦+1), where āā¦ā is INFINITE as (1+1+1+ā¦+1)
In both cases I have properly performed the calculation and did not make the mistake you thought I made.
To also clarify just in case, for the sum of: (1+1+1+ā¦+1) + (1+1+1+ā¦+1), where āā¦ā is INFINITE, I used one method of adding term by term to get (2+2+2+ā¦+2), which can both be presented correctly as 2 * (1+1+1+ā¦+1), and again, where āā¦ā is INFINITE and since ā2ā can obviously be presented as ā1+1ā, it can also be presented correctly as (1+1+1+ā¦+1), again, where āā¦ā is INFINITE. Hilbertās Hotel was set up nearly 100 years ago to visualise these exact kinds of paradoxes when dealing with infinity, I am not communicating anything new or controversial here.
This is in contradiction to where āā¦ā is FINITE, in which case (1+1+1+ā¦+1) + (1+1+1+ā¦+1) = 2 * (1+1+1+ā¦+1), always.
Assuming what you mean is contained in the above, which sums up everything I have been saying in relation to mathematically operating on āinfAā, at every step so far in this discussion, then I have properly āsummed the productsā every time so far in this discussion.
Now, are you going to disregard the correct distinctions that Iāve been making, in order to make out like Iāve said something obviously mistaken, even to me this whole time, which Iāve not actually done, and explained why several times?
Again, excuse me if youāve taken a turn and are no longer trying to misrepresent me. Itās perfectly understandable if you thought I said something that I didnāt - thereās always room for improvement in everyoneās wording including my own, and Iām sorry if Iāve ever misled you - Iāve done my best to prevent this and rectify it where it appeared to me to be needed. At every step Iāve wanted to hear what others have to say about mistakes they think Iāve made and with 100% honesty I have always willed to accept them if theyāve validly been pointed out. Of course, if theyāve been incorrectly pointed out, I have done nothing but try to correct this with 100% honesty and with no intention to distract, or deny any truth at any point, even if anyone has believed this is not the case. Quid pro quo, to check if youāve actually read any of this, let me ask you a question: have you read and understood everything Iāve said? This is a separate question to whether you agree with it, which you can answer too if you want, separately.
Because 3 times now I have asked for the very simple conformation, āI disagreeā but you insist on the obfuscating tactic of dodging and trying to rewrite the narrative. It only sounds like a āloaded questionā because you are trying so hard to divert from it. Grow a couple.
Yes, I am referring to your 3rd grade arithmetic error that you refuse to correct.
That wasnāt your argument, but that is what you did in effect.
And that is where you go off the track.
I showed you a pretty simple rule to follow. The question is, āwhy do you think that the rule has to change just because you no longer can see the end of the chain?ā
So far, you have presented nothing at all, even in your added faux pas that justifies changing how to multiply merely because you donāt think that the chain has an end.
Which was just Sil-ly.
Hilbertās Hotel is a joke for the simpleminded.
I explained your 3rd grade issue with this:
Simple question
Simple Question
SIMPLE QUESTION:
What is the first line in that explanation, given long ago, that you see to be in error?
āomg. if you read Aristotleās poetics youād recognize the peripety there. Duh. The comic tells a joke which isnāt funny at all, and in making a histrionic display of appreciation for telling it, he doubles his idiocy and becomes the brunt of the joke himself, thus creating the sense of the comic.ā - prom75
for all this technical talk, the moral of the story is really rather simple. wittgenstein is suggesting that we are bewitched āmetamathematicallyā when we take an otherwise perfectly sensible language of rule governed abstract symbols - in this case numbers - to use for quantifiying our experiences of things, processes, events, durations, etc., ā¦ all of which are finite and limited experiences - and naturally mistake the intensional use of the language as a proper representation (or i should say evidence for) of an actual, extensional instance of an āendlessā experience (e.g., counting infinitely). we extend the rule beyond our experience of what the rule can yield as extension in normal experience, and imagine that to simply continue to follow the rule would necessarily result in an extension of the infinite. but he points out that endlessness canāt be done, and is therefore a senseless notion despite it being perfectly logical that the rule (intension) should produce an infinity if it is simply followed through endlessly. itās that concept of āendlesslyā that gets us all befuddled. we are writing a listā¦ and we stop. weāve created a set. but why shouldāt we be able to list without ever stopping? itās here that the intensional and the extensional intersect and create the confusion. the extension of the list is completed whenever the listing stops. it reaches an extensional terminus, so to speak, while its still possible to continue with the rule indefinitely. therein lies the bewitchment.
so think about that quote above, again. he says āno such thing as all numbersā. you will never complete a finished set of all numbersā¦ but what you can experience directly is applying the rule. following the rule in a direction toward infinity is only ever an āapproachā, as sil put it. if one insists that an āactualā infinity can exist, well this is some kind of quasi-platonic realism so far divorced from empiricism that itāsā¦ well itās just fucked up, man. wtf.
lol
"