My point is that "the natural numbers" is defined in such a way that is impossible to count them all. No matter how many you count, there will always ...
Some theories are false. It's very hard to convince the people who believe in false theories, that they are false. That's life. It appears like your s...
There is no highest number, that's what makes the set of natural numbers uncountable. If I could identify the highest number, we could count to it, an...
This is questionable though. We can understand time as discrete units, or we can understand time as a continuity. We can also understand it as some ki...
Here's a question then. Do you think that there is such a real thing as a continuity, and if so what would be its nature? Remember the premise, it can...
This is exactly the problem with the Zeno paradox of the op. Zeno's premise is that space is continuous. Then he introduces mathematics to deal with t...
That's a very simple question to answer. The highest number is the one that's not capable of being counted. Again, you are saying that because it is p...
This is a textbook case of the fallacy of composition. And, you've also forgotten one premise here, that any particular natural number has numbers hig...
I agree that there is an important difference between natural integers and real numbers, and even an important difference between rational numbers and...
Yeah sure, that's the name you gave instead of the name "countable". But I'm not sure that I would agree with the assumption that there is a substanti...
Infinite: endless. Countable means capable of being counted. If it cannot be counted, as is the case with something infinite, or endless, it is not ca...
How does this imply that all the natural numbers are countable? It actually implies the very opposite. Every number you count has a larger number, the...
They are not synonymous, but infinite is by definition not countable. There could be something else uncountable which is not infinite. As we've alread...
Robots, iPhones, etc., work on principles known to human beings, and applied by human beings. Living beings work on (as of yet) unknown principles. If...
No, the fact is that you cannot count an infinite set, that's what "infinite" means. You can count a finite subset, but you cannot count the infinite ...
You don't seem to understand what "in principle" means. It is impossible to count the infinite, and this is what infinite means, that no matter how yo...
Yes, yes, that's exactly the point, the distinction between 'matter and property' was lost, because matter was taken for granted. If you read Newton, ...
Try this: See, you say that no one can actually count them, yet it has been proven that it is possible in principle to count them. It's not possible i...
As you said, the equations refer to mass, not matter itself. Mass is a measurable property of matter. The duality, or complexity, of substance is inhe...
No I don't see the difference, and you've already tried to explain, but all you do is contradict yourself. "Countable" means possible of being counted...
I have, but you can't believe that just because a mathematician says it is so, therefore it is so. There's a lot of misunderstanding and sophistry in ...
No, to say that one is infinitely bigger than the other is nonsense, unless you are assigning spatial magnitude to what is being counted. We are refer...
I don't agree with the Freudian model, especially the distinction between ego and superego. I use "subconscious" in a way defined by philosophy rather...
Yes of course, but a subset of integers is not infinite. The difference here is with respect to the thing being counted, what is within the set, real ...
It can't be done, but that doesn't mean that the natural numbers are countable. Neither real nor natural numbers are actually countable, because of th...
That's the point, they are not countable, so to call them "countable" is just a name, a label, it doesn't mean that they are actually countable. You m...
Mass was said to be a fundamental property of matter, weight or some such thing, which is quantifiable. Matter has mass, means that the matter of a bo...
That's right. It appears very obvious to me that if it is impossible to count them, then it is false to say that they are countable. Why would you acc...
The argument I made to Pierre-Normand is that the concept of enduring substance is inherent within Newtonian physics, as the given. It is taken for gr...
Right, and to divide something it is to do something. So to assume that it is infinitely divisible is to assume that something is capable of dividing ...
Well that's surely your problem not mine. You believe that something is possible (potentially doable) though it is actually impossible to do it. If yo...
Why must this question be answered first? If the philosophical nature is simply "the desire to know", then why can't we direct our inquisition toward ...
Well, I think that "substance" was proper to Aristotle's logic, the categories, while the unity of matter and form was proper to his physics. Now we c...
You're still making the same mistake. It is false to say that space is potentially infinitely divisible unless it actually is. It is false to say that...
You appear to be entering contradiction in an effort to support an untenable metaphysical position. Subconscious, by definition is not a form of consc...
If you say that things are different in some ways, and the same in other ways, this appears to prioritize difference, as these "ways" must be differen...
I don't think there is any issue with points in this paradox. I believe the problem is quite similar to how TheMadFool states it. The issue is the ass...
No, the fact that it is impossible to add infinitely many fractions is relevant. Because your premise is "if someone were to add infinitely many fract...
That would be really really boring. I already know you can do whatever you want with maths, just make it up as you go, and prove whatever you want to ...
Didn't see anything there that says I don't understand mathematics. However,I am good at recognizing falsity when I see it though. Whether that falsit...
Comments