Where we mark the "start" of any finite series of events, and how we parse it out into discrete steps, is completely arbitrary. Before #1, presumably ...
No, the question-begging claim is that time as an infinite succession of moments is impossible because it would have no first element. Which does not ...
This straightforwardly begs the question by presupposing that being "fully defined" (whatever that means) requires an "initial starting state." Graspi...
Your objections apparently boil down to a demand that mathematicians revise their well-established technical terminology (existence, object, etc.) bec...
This is exactly backwards. An infinite past entails that there has never been a moment that was not preceded by another moment, consistent with the co...
Since all real moments are indefinite, it is logically impossible to distinguish one from another, let alone "remove" one. We can arbitrarily designat...
A sequence has no mass, since it is a mathematical concept, not anything physical. An actual collection of bananas would have mass, but it would neces...
Not when all the bananas are stipulated as identical. It is possible to change something in one respect without changing it in another respect. If I p...
Again, we have changed it in one respect but not in another - no contradiction. We are discussing hypothetical infinity, not actual infinity. We do no...
The only basis for claiming that the two infinite sequences are "identical" initially is that they allegedly consist of "identical" bananas in "identi...
We change it in one respect (whether it includes this particular individual member), but it is not changed in another respect (its cardinality as an i...
No, these are all numbers; and again, existence in mathematics entails only logical possibility, not actuality in metaphysics. Yes, in accordance with...
What does thinking have to do with anything? Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, within which "actual" has a technical meaning that distinguishes i...
Yes, assuming that you meant non-zero duration. Where we disagree is whether this non-zero duration must be finite, and therefore measurable. This onc...
No number can have a length at all. In any case, we are not talking about numbers, we are talking about time. No, and I have stated this plainly befor...
That is not what I mean by "metaphysical actuality." I just mean the modal property of being actual, rather than merely possible or strictly necessary...
Agreed. As usual, this wrongly confuses "infinitesimal" with "actual infinity." The proper mathematical definition of "infinitesimal" in this context ...
No, I said exactly the opposite of that. Actual infinity corresponds to metaphysical actuality, while potential infinity and mathematical existence co...
No, that only applies to distinct instants, not indefinite moments. In any case, what is the first real or rational number after zero? It straightforw...
It is not; as I said, mathematical existence--including the potential infinity of the natural numbers--is not metaphysical actuality, it is logical po...
Yes, it corresponds to the difference between metaphysical actuality and logical possibility. Again, mathematical existence refers to the latter, not ...
As I have pointed out in other recent threads, mathematics is the science of drawing necessary inferences about hypothetical states. Consequently, mat...
Again, not germane to the thread topic, but "Immanuel" means "God with us," not "Son of God." Paul says that Jesus "was in the form of God ... but emp...
Not really germane to the thread topic, but this is clearly false; e.g., see Matthew 1:23, Mark 1:1, Luke 3:21-22, Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians ...
Yes, probably because his first wife was Episcopalian--her father was a bishop--and she presumably only agreed to marry him if he converted from the U...
According to Peirce, there is indeed both immanent mind and transcendent mind, but only the latter is properly called God. In case there is any doubt ...
Easy to say, impossible to show (apparently). You seem locked into specific conceptual dichotomies of mind/matter, thought/reality, and subjective/obj...
False dichotomy. The real is that which is as it is regardless of what any individual mind or finite group of minds thinks about it. This does not ent...
No, that is not what "indefinite" means in this context. No, that is not what "infinitesimal" means in this context. No, calling Peirce a materialist ...
Now this is an example of splitting hairs, so I will rephrase. Infinitesimals are necessarily indefinite, while boundaries are necessarily distinct, s...
That is painting with far too broad a brush. Peirce's objective idealism does not say that we create the world, it describes "the physical law as deri...
Are you just not paying attention? Infinitesimals do not have distinct boundaries, which is why the principle of excluded middle does not apply to the...
Brilliant insight! You have amply demonstrated in other threads that you are not interested in counter arguments. Your mind is already firmly made up ...
The thread title should be "Devans99's Mistake." Your constant grinding of this particular ax became tiresome long ago. Saying the same thing over and...
No one gets to choose a "version of reality," because by definition reality is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Adopting finite dis...
We clearly have very different definitions of "common sense." Who said anything about discarding arithmetic? It is very useful for very many purposes,...
Yes, although before going any farther we need to establish what we mean in this context by "consciousness" and "real." I am not sure what that would ...
Common sense tells us that common sense is highly fallible. Some developments in mathematics and science over the centuries are highly counterintuitiv...
I know what you mean about clones! Hopefully you can at least digest the two short articles about SDG and SIA. Browsing Moore's single volume of Peirc...
Comments