Subject:
|
Re: Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:38:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3959 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> Either way, my best guess that in
> a real world situation, a setup like that, even with the best of materials,
> wouldn't last 500 years, rendering the path of the laser on the ball bearing
> finite. Though that's my best guestimate right off the top of my head.
I think you're blurring the distinction between "impractical in practice" and
"impossible in reality." Whether or not we can devise an mechanism that will
exist for eternity is irrelevant. The fact that we can create an unbounded
two-dimensional surface is, to me, sufficient. It doesn't even need to be a
perfectly smooth surface, nor does it need to be impervious to harm,
deformation, or erosion.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're equating a path that no one has ever
traversed with a path that is, by its fundamental nature, nonexistent. A path
that exists between points A and B exists even if no one has travelled the path.
I would also assert (and this may be a legitimate, mathematical point of
disagreement) that a real object need not be eternal to be infinite in two
dimensions. That is, the objects infinitude isn't determined by the ability of
a laser to trace it or a person to traverse it.
> And I'm saying that there is no infinite dimensions on any surface 'in the real
> world'. In the hypothetical 'two dimensional surface of the sphere world' you
> can go around an infinite amount of times. In the real world, you cannot.
But that's not my argument! I'm claiming that the surface is infinite in two
dimensions because there is no boundary point. That's all.
You're claiming that the surface is not infinite because no one can trace an
infintite, eternal line upon the surface.
> > Um, not really. As an alternative, why don't you give me your theory explaining
> > how the ball reaches the tree, or whatever. Is it magic?
**snip of discussion of the raw mechanics of throwing a ball**
Your explanation may be accurate, but it avoids the point you were making
initially.
(see http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=23828)
If you're claiming, as you do in post 23828, that the ball cannot be thrown
because it must first cross one half of one half of one half (etc) of the
distance to the tree, then you must explain to me how the ball *does* reach the
tree.
> Well, if you can find this piece of wood, I would concede the point. Likewise,
> I can say 'God exists' all I want but your claim of non-existence isn't proof,
> or disproof, of that, either.
Um, let's state for the record that you're the one who suggested the block of
wood in the first place. Your contention was that, because the wood cannot be
infinitely subdivided (while still remaining "wood"), this is an argument
against the possibility of infinity in reality. I rejected the block of wood as
an inadequate determinor of infinity, and therefore attempts to use the block as
a refutation are a straw man.
> So if you claim that a piece of wood that can be divided an infinite number of
> times could have existed in the real world (we can neither prove or disprove the
> existence thereof), I can claim that God could exist as well.
I have *not* claimed that the block exists, nor that the actual block can be
infinitely divided. You seem to be suggesting that my point is incorrect
because your example is invalid.
Anyway, you *do* claim that God exists. To suggest that this one infinite thing
*does* exist but that no other infinite things *can* exist is the fallacy of
special pleading, by the way.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
97 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
