Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

[colubridae]

Hello.
I don't choose to question inf. = inf. because it won't "map onto reality". I've questioned it because it's irrational to discuss the equivalence of something which itself may not be possible. The details can be found in previous posts.

Sorry JT I followed the discussion I was hoping that by putting it into ‘simple’ terms you would be able to understand.

If you simply refuse to accept XG’s point about the telephone call equivalence, then there’s not really much more to be said.


You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Never seen that on one of these forums either…

Just out of interest do you believe in god?

[jamest]

If you simply refuse to accept XG’s point about the telephone call equivalence, then there’s not really much more to be said.

XC's telephone analogy was exposed as severely lacking. There are no phone calls made or received in realms where infinite numbers have to be dialed.

Just out of interest do you believe in god?

Yes I do... but not because of Zeno.

[The Dagda]

If you simply refuse to accept XG’s point about the telephone call equivalence, then there’s not really much more to be said.

XC's telephone analogy was exposed as severely lacking. There are no phone calls made or received in realms where infinite numbers have to be dialed.

Just out of interest do you believe in god?

Yes I do... but not because of Zeno.

It's very simple we define infinite as uncountable. If you want to define it as something else then you are right, if not then you are wrong.

[colubridae]

If you simply refuse to accept XG’s point about the telephone call equivalence, then there’s not really much more to be said.

XC's telephone analogy was exposed as severely lacking. There are no phone calls made or received in realms where infinite numbers have to be dialed.

Just out of interest do you believe in god?

Yes I do... but not because of Zeno.

XG's statements were not an analogy.
they were not lacking; they were precisely to the point.


As other people said, just because you can't deal with infinity doesn't negate other people's ability do so.
If you are male you can't gestate a baby, doesn't mean babies can't be gestated.


So you have no evidence for god based on reality yet you believe.??


Doesn't fit with your other assertions.

[jamest]

To be clear, something with a definite and meaningful identity can have a mirror-image - a self equivalence. But if we consider the totality of something that has no definite identity, then we are not considering anything. There is nothing of any meaningful substance to consider. Therefore, there can be no 'self' equivalence. This is why I am arguing that A = A needs qualification - to denote the fact that it only applies to finite entities.

Of course, even an acknowledgement that I might be right about this casts doubt upon the utilisation of A = A (where A is an infinite entity) for any subsequent conclusions about the sum (totality) of A. That is why I believe that XC's math are null & void.

Again, this is a matter for rational consideration. It's not a mathematical discussion that we are supposed to be having, and I don't have to be a mathematician to argue my point.

[GrahamH]

To be clear, something with a definite and meaningful identity can have a mirror-image - a self equivalence.

A = A is not about a 'mirror image', it is about the thing itself. It is what it is.

By your thinking does that mean that your infinite god is not god?

[The Dagda]

To be clear, something with a definite and meaningful identity can have a mirror-image - a self equivalence. But if we consider the totality of something that has no definite identity, then we are not considering anything. There is nothing of any meaningful substance to consider. Therefore, there can be no 'self' equivalence. This is why I am arguing that A = A needs qualification - to denote the fact that it only applies to finite entities.

Of course, even an acknowledgement that I might be right about this casts doubt upon the utilisation of A = A (where A is an infinite entity) for any subsequent conclusions about the sum (totality) of A. That is why I believe that XC's math are null & void.

Again, this is a matter for rational consideration. It's not a mathematical discussion that we are supposed to be having, and I don't have to be a mathematician to argue my point.

Maths is philosophy though you do realise that right? Applied maths is science, this is most definitely a BA subject.

Again your weakness is that a mirror image of infinity is - infinity and a mirror image of a graph of +x and +y is called a negative value of x and y. negative numbers do not exist as discreet things except as debt etc in science or in maths.

the opposite as opposed to the mirror image of infinity is nothing which does not exist by definition.

[colubridae]

By your thinking does that mean that your infinite god is not god?

'No he's not god he's just a naughty boy.'

(Where shall we 'fuck off' to, oh lord.)

[jamest]

By your thinking does that mean that your infinite god is not god?

Infinity is not something to be applied to God's waist size.

[Trolldor]

So, what you're saying is that "immeasurable" does not relate to God's size... that can only mean that he is measurable. How tall are we talking here?

[GrahamH]

By your thinking does that mean that your infinite god is not god?

Infinity is not something to be applied to God's waist size.

It must apply to any aspect of god that is not finite. Only a finite god can be a god if A=A only applies to the finite (countable). But a finite god is not a god by most definitions.
Therefore god does not exist (according to James' irrational axioms)

[jamest]

By your thinking does that mean that your infinite god is not god?

Infinity is not something to be applied to God's waist size.

It must apply to any aspect of god that is not finite. Only a finite god can be a god if A=A only applies to the finite (countable). But a finite god is not a god by most definitions.
Therefore god does not exist (according to James' irrational axioms)

Who says that any aspect of God is either finite or infinite? Not moi.

[Trolldor]

lawl. So god is neither measurable nor immeasurable, that only leaves non-existant.

[GrahamH]

lawl. So god is neither measurable nor immeasurable, that only leaves non-existant.

Actually LI has already stated that his god doesn't exist either, although he did claim it was 'real'

Existence <> Reality
Reality = non-existence
Everything = nothing

[GrahamH]

It seems defining god is simply a matter of making up contradictions.

God is neither measurable nor immeasurable.
God is neither material nor immaterial.
God is neither conscious nor non-conscious
God is neither here nor not here.

[Is this starting to sound deep yet? No? OK, I'll keep digging]

A = A does not apply to Reality
A = NOT A applies only to infinity
God is the excluded middle.
God is illogical (theoillogical?)

Logic is invalid in reality
Logic only works within existence, which is not real.
Only logic can explore reality (to which it does not apply)
Axioms founded on experience are false.
Unfounded axioms are true if not stated.

There is no language that can address reality, let's talk about reality.
There are other ways of knowing than the basis of everything we know that we know.
Empiricism can only mislead
Experience must be caused but cannot reveal anything about the cause.
Experienced causality is a lie, maintained by a 'designed' causality that cannot be experienced.
The physical world is all mental, mental is not physical.

Awareness can be unaware
An omniscient god can forget himself

I think I need a drink.