Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:12 pm Unless or until an infinite Universe can be falsified

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:54 pm

Belinda wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Bit of a non sequitur there Bel as one is not automatically the consequence of the other and its also rather idealistic too
Quality education does not guarantee reason and what is reasonable anyway is open to interpretation
Happiness is a psychological state not necessarily linked to living standards but is also very ephemeral
And so it can not last whereas contentment which is rooted in pragmatism is actually more sustainable
Contentment also accepts the human condition whereas happiness does not and so there is that as well

Your objections are true but are not sufficient reasons for not acting to help people to have more personal autonomy

Have as much autonomy as you like as long as you do not impose it upon others

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:52 pm

1 wrote:
If you go say 100 numbers a day each day then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression

A computer processing at 99 . 99 per cent light speed all the irrationals between 0 and I would never reach the end even if it had infinite time
Not only that but it would not actually get past the first irrational because it would like all the others after it have an infinity of decimal places

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:25 pm

1 wrote:
If you go say 100 numbers a day each day then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression

This is false because even with an infinite number of days you would still never get to the end
And so there is no such thing as the end of infinity because if there was it would just be finite

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:48 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:27 am Actually, that is the impossibility that we can rule out with absolute certainty, mathematically. An infinitely regressed chain of causes has no starting point. And that makes it certain that if such a thing were posited it never started.

It was never started, because it has gone on since time infinite.

You've forgotten that it's a regress.

A "regress" means that X cannot happen until X-1 has already happened. And X-1 cannot happen until after X-2 has happened, and so on. But if the causal regress chain is infinite, then no number of the sequence can happen until X-∞ has already taken place.

But since X-∞ diminishes infinitely, and so is forever lost in the infinite past, and is, in fact, not a "point" at all but an infinite sequence of prerequisites, there is no starting point for the causal chain...and nothing at all could ever happen...infinitely. For causality means that X-23 must cause X-22, which it cannot do if it is not before X-22. And so on.

Having no starting point does not mean it cannot exist.

That's exactly what it means, and it's mathematically certain. That is, provided causality is true.

What you point out correctly is that it never startred.That is true.

It cannot be. We can be certain of that.

Regarding your math progression of "not being able to say an integer number before saying the one smaller by one previous to it". You insist that if we make that rule, no number could be uttered, since you never end going into the past needing to name a one smaller integer. (Negative integers.)

That posit is only true if you restrict yourself to a FINITE amount of time going backward into the past.

The opposite is actually true -- it's true because you're positing an infinite past of causal prerequisites.

Because you can't pin it down, you insist it can't be done.

Actually, it's because of mathematics. It's not even really a matter of "imagination" at all, except the "imagination" to understand the mathematics. It's actually an absolute certainty...an "infinite" certainty, if you like.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:14 am Straw man! The authority we need and should aim for is neither supernatural nor human dictator , but is the authority of reason with universality of reason. Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all, which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all.

Reason may be a false idol for all we can know, but it is the best resource we have.

The law follows after received morality whatever be the source and nature of the moral system.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:39 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:14 am Straw man! The authority we need and should aim for is neither supernatural nor human dictator , but is the authority of reason with universality of reason. Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all, which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all.

Reason may be a false idol for all we can know, but it is the best resource we have.

The law follows after received morality whatever be the source and nature of the moral system.

I'll buy what you just wrote here. But in your first post, whcih I criticised, you wrote something incongruent to this. I am glad you clarified your stance... why the quizzical, ambiguous post previously? NO need to answer, just wondering.

To refresh you rmemory, previously you wrote that in non-democracies people need a god or other authority, and in democracies, the politicians are corrupt. And that's where your post which i criticised, ended.

In this post you wrote things I fully agree with, but it has a completely different content. Which is fine, I have no problem with that.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:33 am You only assume I did not read or comprehend what you had written earlier.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:12 pm Unless or until an infinite Universe can be falsified it will remain a valid propostion
The fact that it is not logical is irrelevant as logic and empiricism are not the same

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:56 am Everything is moving away from everything else; the outer most galaxies are moving way from us faster than the speed of light. The best calculations so far point to a universe that will expand for ever.

1 wrote:
I almost died one day due to a heart attack by reading the incredibly stupid posts here by incredibly stupid people . Why do stupid
people post on philosophy board ? Because they dont realise they are stupid . So this is a social experiment : I am telling all stupid
people that come my way that they are stupid

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:30 amI almost died one day due to a heart attack by reading the incredibly stupoid posts here by incredibly stupid people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:26 pm

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 10:56 am Everything is moving away from everything else; the outer most galaxies are moving way from us faster than the speed of light. The best calculations so far point to a universe that will expand for ever.

A ray, a line with a definite starting point and an infinite trajectory, is not an empirical impossibility. This is why the Big Bang was posited; we can observe the movement of the universe outward, and this implies an original explosion.

But being itself a "caused" event, the BB is only one link in the requisite chain, and is not itself the ultimate inception point. For it has a causal explanation, something like "noble gasses and plasma floating in space somehow combined to explode." But gasses, plasma and space are already taken to exist, and their existence will also need a causal explanation, as will the forces producing their sudden explosion on the occasion of the BB.

This is the model of the universe that is linear and causal. But therein lies the problem.

Infinite causal regress -- our explanations moving backward in time, that is, seeking out causal explanations indefinitely -- is impossible to achieve. It has no inception point. It never started, in other words.

Again, if we just try it, we can see. Both logically and empirically, it simply cannot be done. So this mathematical proof hits both the empirical and the theoretical.

-1- wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:46 am If you go, say, 100 numbers a day, each day, then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression. Your reasoning fails because you can't imagine that it can be done. It is your own limitation of reasoning power or imagination that renders the task impossible, not the inherent impossibility of the task itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:26 pm Infinite causal regress -- our explanations moving backward in time, that is, seeking out causal explanations indefinitely -- is impossible to achieve. It has no inception point. It never started, in other words.