Actually logic has its problems even as an abstract product of mind.
There is little doubt that one could deduce anything close to the truth of reality without first establishing one's metaphysical principles.
The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.
The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now
The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.
Actually logic has its problems even as an abstract product of mind.
RJG wrote:BigBango, if you can't reason with 'logic', then your views are nothing more than just feel-good fairy tales. For without logic, ...'ANYTHING' is possible!
Is this reasoning based on logic?BigBango wrote:Actually logic has its problems even as an abstract product of mind.
There is little doubt that one could deduce anything close to the truth of reality without first establishing one's metaphysical principles.
No, not really. This reasoning is based on our ability to intuit or imagine what is fundamentally true of reality. As Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge. Once we have these ideas about the nature of existents then we can reason about them with logic as our tool for furthering our ideas.RJG wrote: ↑October 29th, 2018, 10:59 pmRJG wrote:BigBango, if you can't reason with 'logic', then your views are nothing more than just feel-good fairy tales. For without logic, ...'ANYTHING' is possible!Is this reasoning based on logic?BigBango wrote:Actually logic has its problems even as an abstract product of mind.
There is little doubt that one could deduce anything close to the truth of reality without first establishing one's metaphysical principles.
Thanks for the feedback!
Infinity does not exist; there is no number X such that X > all other numbers because X+1>X.
Does the impossibility of "walking on water" mean the existence of water is impossible?Devans99 wrote:Because Eternity (in time) has no start, the being is unable to start counting hence the paradox. Anything without a start cannot exist.
To the contrary, this means numbers continue infinitely.Devans99 wrote:Infinity does not exist; there is no number X such that X > all other numbers because X+1>X.
I should have said 'Anything real without a start cannot exist'. Care to give a counter-example
Yes that's a potential infinity. I'm not disputing the potential infinities; its the existence of actual infinity which is impossible.
Devans, it doesn't matter if it is real or not, it is the logic (the math) that is flawed/invalid. The "anything real without a start cannot exist" conclusion still does not logically follow from "counting from infinity is impossible".Devans99 wrote:I should have said 'Anything real without a start cannot exist'. Care to give a counter-example.
There is NO valid logic that draws this conclusion.Devans99 wrote:...its the existence of actual infinity which is impossible.
The answer/solution to this paradox is ...[drumroll please]... oo (infinity!)Devans99 wrote:The counting paradox:
- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Things are defined by their start. Take away your birth, you would not exist. Take away Monday and the rest of the week does not exist. Take away the start of time and time does not exist. It's logically impossible for something real to not have a start.RJG wrote: ↑October 30th, 2018, 10:54 amDevans, it doesn't matter if it is real or not, it is the logic (the math) that is flawed/invalid. The "anything real without a start cannot exist" conclusion still does not logically follow from "counting from infinity is impossible".Devans99 wrote:I should have said 'Anything real without a start cannot exist'. Care to give a counter-example.
The existence of an actually infinite set is impossible, its like the largest number - and I just proved that does not exist.
He's been counting so he must be on an actual number. He can't be on infinity because it's impossible to count to infinity - no matter how long you count you never reach infinity.RJG wrote: ↑October 30th, 2018, 10:54 amThe answer/solution to this paradox is ...[drumroll please]... oo (infinity!)Devans99 wrote:The counting paradox:
- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Reasoning:
If this being started 100 counts ago, then he would be at 100 right now.
If he started X counts ago, then he would be at X right now.
If he started oo counts ago, then he would be at oo right now.
oo (infinity) is the answer.
"Matter has always existed" is fully defined. It is only the indoctrinated human mind that thinks that things 'must' have a start.Devans99 wrote:An actually infinite set has no end which is not allowed for real objects. Real things have to be fully defined; you can't just leave one end nebulous.
RJG wrote:The answer/solution to this paradox is ...[drumroll please]... oo (infinity!)
Reasoning:
If this being started 100 counts ago, then he would be at 100 right now.
If he started X counts ago, then he would be at X right now.
If he started oo counts ago, then he would be at oo right now.
oo (infinity) is the answer.
The author of this paradox relies on us being conned into first believing that "always counting" is actually possible. "Always counting" is as self-contradictory (logically impossible) as are "married bachelors" and "square circles".Devans99 wrote:He's been counting so he must be on an actual number. He can't be on infinity because it's impossible to count to infinity - no matter how long you count you never reach infinity.
...and it's also impossible to count 'from' infinity. "Always counting" is impossible.Devans99 wrote:...because it's impossible to count to infinity...
Matter had a temporal start in the Big Bang.RJG wrote: ↑October 30th, 2018, 1:55 pm"Matter has always existed" is fully defined. It is only the indoctrinated human mind that thinks that things 'must' have a start.Devans99 wrote:An actually infinite set has no end which is not allowed for real objects. Real things have to be fully defined; you can't just leave one end nebulous.
Always counting is implying no more than always existing, which is possible. Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal (in time) is not.RJG wrote: ↑October 30th, 2018, 1:55 pm
This author of this paradox relies on us being conned into first believing that "always counting" is actually possible. "Always counting" is as self-contradictory (logically impossible) as are "married bachelors" and "square circles".
"Always" implies 'no' starting point, and "counting" implies a starting point. These are mutually exclusive (cannot co-exist) terms. If we wish to play the author's game, then we throw the "always" (infinity) element back at him in our response, as I have done.
"Cut infinity in two and each 'half' is still infinite." --- Karpal
Did someone tell you this? So then 'what' banged? Was it 'nothing' or 'something'?Devans99 wrote:Matter had a temporal start in the Big Bang.
Counting REQUIRES a start point (i.e. a "0"), ...Existing does not.Devans99 wrote:Always counting is implying no more than always existing, which is possible.
...or he could 'always' exist, it's one or the other, ...right?Devans99 wrote:Imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist.