For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
There can, indeed, be an infinite number of past events, as I have shown.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:02 pm There cannot be an infinite number of past events because differentiation of existence itself into events is conceptualisation, and only special beings can conceptualise.
To claim that differentiated events transcendentally exist is tantamount to claiming that God created things from the elemental chaos.
I think infinite regression as a supposed fallacy is simply a lack of imagination.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:23 pmThere can, indeed, be an infinite number of past events, as I have shown.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:02 pm There cannot be an infinite number of past events because differentiation of existence itself into events is conceptualisation, and only special beings can conceptualise.
To claim that differentiated events transcendentally exist is tantamount to claiming that God created things from the elemental chaos.
I failed to understand what you wrote.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:23 pmThere can, indeed, be an infinite number of past events, as I have shown.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:02 pm There cannot be an infinite number of past events because differentiation of existence itself into events is conceptualisation, and only special beings can conceptualise.
To claim that differentiated events transcendentally exist is tantamount to claiming that God created things from the elemental chaos.
They are infinities made up of a never-ending number of bits, for example time being made up of quantities of 'moments'. But if we think of infinity that way then it becomes self-contradictory. For example, if infinities were made up of numbers then some infinities would be larger than others (half-infinity would be infinite, but also only half the size of complete-infinity). I think infinity only makes sense if it is not thought of as a quantity, but rather being outside quantification. So we cannot traverse 'infinite space' because those words do not describe a quantity of space.
Actually, yes, you can traverse anything infinite, in finite space, if the things that make up the infinite number of units you traverse are infinitely small.Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:45 amThey are infinities made up of a never-ending number of bits, for example time being made up of quantities of 'moments'. But if we think of infinity that way then it becomes self-contradictory. For example, if infinities were made up of numbers then some infinities would be larger than others (half-infinity would be infinite, but also only half the size of complete-infinity). I think infinity only makes sense if it is not thought of as a quantity, but rather being outside quantification. So we cannot traverse 'infinite space' because those words do not describe a quantity of space.
Another way of looking at traversing through an infinite number of things is the speed of travel. You can travel through 8 Km in two hours if you traverse distance at a rate of 4 Km/h. Similarly, you can traverse an infinite amount of "moments" in the past by going at a speed of infinite amount moments per unit time.Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:45 amThey are infinities made up of a never-ending number of bits, for example time being made up of quantities of 'moments'. But if we think of infinity that way then it becomes self-contradictory. For example, if infinities were made up of numbers then some infinities would be larger than others (half-infinity would be infinite, but also only half the size of complete-infinity). I think infinity only makes sense if it is not thought of as a quantity, but rather being outside quantification. So we cannot traverse 'infinite space' because those words do not describe a quantity of space.
In spacetime, an event is designated by four coordinates: (t,x,y,z) If spacetime is infinite, and the evidence suggests that it is, than there are a infinite number of events, including an infinite number in our past.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:27 amI failed to understand what you wrote.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:23 pmThere can, indeed, be an infinite number of past events, as I have shown.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:02 pm There cannot be an infinite number of past events because differentiation of existence itself into events is conceptualisation, and only special beings can conceptualise.
To claim that differentiated events transcendentally exist is tantamount to claiming that God created things from the elemental chaos.
What do you mean by "event", and who determines the boundaries of an event?
I understand what you mean by an event. But you didn't say who is the authority who defined.In spacetime, an event is designated by four coordinates: (t,x,y,z) If spacetime is infinite, and the evidence suggests that it is, than there are a infinite number of events, including an infinite number in our past.
This is a consequence of general relativity. All events in spacetime are defined by four coordinates. Moreover, all of them exist. The past, present and future all exist.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:00 pm Davidm wrote:
I understand what you mean by an event. But you didn't say who is the authority who defined.In spacetime, an event is designated by four coordinates: (t,x,y,z) If spacetime is infinite, and the evidence suggests that it is, than there are a infinite number of events, including an infinite number in our past.
But within one limited universe of discourse? I'd need to be able to justify its status.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:09 pmThis is a consequence of general relativity. All events in spacetime are defined by four coordinates. Moreover, all of them exist. The past, present and future all exist.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:00 pm Davidm wrote:
I understand what you mean by an event. But you didn't say who is the authority who defined.In spacetime, an event is designated by four coordinates: (t,x,y,z) If spacetime is infinite, and the evidence suggests that it is, than there are a infinite number of events, including an infinite number in our past.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:17 pmBut within one limited universe of discourse? I'd need to be able to justify its status.
Davidm, I mean that the above is from one metaphysical perspective. The materialism(physicalism) perspective. Metaphysics people ask "what exists?" and expect all the theories of existence to be the answer. If you are going to claim that materialism(physicalism) is the the best theory of existence I'd prefer that you justified that claim, even if only pragmatically.This is a consequence of general relativity. All events in spacetime are defined by four coordinates. Moreover, all of them exist. The past, present and future all exist.
Cantor's Transfinite numbers are different sizes of infinity.Londoner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:45 amThey are infinities made up of a never-ending number of bits, for example time being made up of quantities of 'moments'. But if we think of infinity that way then it becomes self-contradictory. For example, if infinities were made up of numbers then some infinities would be larger than others (half-infinity would be infinite, but also only half the size of complete-infinity). I think infinity only makes sense if it is not thought of as a quantity, but rather being outside quantification. So we cannot traverse 'infinite space' because those words do not describe a quantity of space.
Actually, I've given you a solid demonstration of it.