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 19:11:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4079 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
Please read this whole post (or at least the bottom part) before replying. I
may be onto something...
> I think therein lies our little communication problem--the distinction between
> concepts and reality--between theories, hypotheticals, and what happens in the
> material world. You can set up any experiment you wish, and not one will show
> 'infinity' concretely. You can deduce concepts of infinity--"Limited to two
> dimensions, this surface is infinite"--that's a concept. In the real world,
> that ball bearing exists in the finite, limited world and therefore is subject
> to the same finite, limiting 'laws' of reality.
Well, let's identify another distinction that seems to be causing us some
trouble. You're saying that an object cannot be infinite in any way unless it
is infinite in some other way (in this case, a way that we agree is not
infinite). That's simply faulty reasoning. The fact that the sphere is not
infinite in three or four dimensions is irrelevant to its infinitude in two
dimensions. You are, in essence, claiming that because God is not infinitely
evil, he cannot be infinite in any way. You're either mistaking infinitude for
comprehensiveness, or you are placing arbitrary restrictions on infinity.
To put it another way, you're saying that because snow is white, it cannot also
be cold. One has nothing to do with the other, just as a limitation in three
dimensions has nothing to do with a limitation in two dimensions.
> Separate concepts from the physical world and we'll go on with the conversation.
You need to recognize that individual characteristics of a thing can be
discussed without, of necessity, discussing other (or all) characteristics of
that thing. *Then* we can go on with the conversation.
> And I'm saying that as soon as you put that criteria on it, as soon as you
> 'reduce the ballbearing to two dimensions', you've 'reduced' the argument so
> that the infinite can exist.
I haven't reduced the argument--I've reduced the elements of the sphere that are
being considered in the argument, which is very different.
> If I reduce the argument of my working engine to not include friction, wear,
> entropy and having gas/oil on to infinity, my engine, in theory, should run
> on to infinity. However, that's getting rid of the 'reality' of the
> situation and making 'conceptual' statements, which have, shall we say, less
> basis in the concrete world.
I would disagree with your characterization, though. I'm only eliminating the
third and fourth dimensions because they're irrelevant and a distraction. The
sphere is not infinite in three dimensions or four, so there's no need to look
there for purposes of the argument.
Let's discuss the location of oil in your engine. By analogy you're claiming
that, because there's no oil in the fuel tank, there's no oil anywhere in the
engine. I, on the other hand, am asserting that because there's no oil in the
fuel tank, there's no need to include the fuel tank in discussing the location
of the engine's oil.
We are actually at a disagreement not on the possibility of infinity but on
whether we need to or need not include all aspects of a thing when discussing
any particular aspect of that thing.
> And I will then say find any material substance that exists, or has existed, or
> even will exist that you can divide an infinite number of times.
Okay, but that also is not the argument I'm making. Your insistence that I
defend your argument as if it were mine is, again, a straw man.
> I used wood off the top of my head.
I always suspected that about Canadians.
> Well, the wood was just an example--I would surmise that you could substitute
> any physically available object and still ahve the same problem. Forget the
> wood--*any* material substance in this finite universe cannot be divided
> infinitly. Hope that satisfies your 'straw man'.
Not quite, because it's still your rephrasing of my argument, rather than my
actual argument.
> And I would disagree with that assessment. No special pleading needed. If your
> contention is that there can be infinite in the finite universe, then there's my
> God right there.
Sadly, this is still the ontological argument, and it's still a fallacy. The
existence of one thing is no guarantee of the existence of another. You might
as well say that because six-limbed insects exist, then six-limbed centaurs
exist.
> If, on the other hand, you agree with my assessment that there can be no
> physical infinite in a finite world, then I would go on to argue against
> reductionism and state that maybe there could be something that's not
> limited to the physical constraints the physical finite universe. Maybe
> the possibility that *something* that exists outside the realm of science
> and/or mathematics.
>
> Yeah, it's tough when, on the one hand, I'm arguing against the 'infinity cannot
> exist in the material world' but on the other hand there could be a God.
>
> Hmmm, how to deal with that? I think it's rather easy myself. I don't limit
> myself and my understanding to just what science and math teaches me.
Be careful with that formulation, though, because it shifts us from debating to
witnessing. You're aluding to a statement by the wacky apologist William Lane
Craig who has written "as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith,
Christians should employ it." In other words, as long as reason serves the
purposes of Christians, it's fine. But if reason falls short or contradicts
Christianity, then it should be abandoned.
> Logic, as
> someone once said, is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it.
Still the best Vulcan around, IMO. Sarek, Tuvok and T'Pol are satisfactory to
me, but why do all Vulcans seem like tall, petulant children with bad haircuts?
They're not logical as much as they're simply arrogant and stubborn.
THIS JUST IN:
Okay, something has dawned on me. When I've been using the ball bearing as my
example of a sphere, I think I've actually been referring to the sphere
*described* by the surface of the ball bearing. I'm not sure that this
invalidates my argument, but it strikes me as significant.
You used this statement:
> And I will then say find any material substance that exists, or has existed, or
> even will exist that you can divide an infinite number of times.
Infinite divisibility doesn't seem like a necessary condition of general
infinity, but you got me thinking. Certainly distinct, *fractal* divisibility
isn't necessary (a line cannot be divided into an infinte number of separate
lines) but it can (in math) be divided into an infinite number of points.
So here's my current thought. A cloud of gas has a center of gravity (the "net"
center) even if none of the gas occupies that point (think of the air in an
innertube, for example). The center of gravity is real and has real effects
upon the real world, in terms of interaction. So even though the sphere is only
*described* by the ball bearing, I'm not sure that it can be said not to exist
in *real* terms.
Curious. I'll need to think about this more. Put your wooden Canadian head to
work for me, wood you?
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
|
|
|
|
