Banno

Indeed.

Hm. Ok, here is Hilbert's writing: Nowhere in there does it make the claim to attribute to him. Hence what you said was rubbish.

Ah - one negation too many. Fixed - now it parallels your argument.

I don't know if this is true, or not. But it is irrelevant. It's on a par with saying that there are never six things - always slightly more or slight...

You claim that Hilbert created his hotel to show that actual infinfities were impossible. I say that is rubbish. Prove me wrong. Produce a reference, ...

SO what is a dimension? Take a point and slide it. You get a line. One dimension. Only one number is needed to set out the relative position of two po...

This argument is philosophically more interesting. Consider this argument, which purports to show that width is not a dimension... 1. If width is a di...

Adopting for the sake of argument Bart's term "actual infinity", which strikes me as itself muddled... (1) is wrong. A dimension need not be actually ...

Folks, notice the slide Bartricks makes from "it doesn't exist", as used in the OP, to "it's not a thing", as used here.

:up:

@"Bartricks" arguments are particularly poorly formed. So that the ensuing discussion does not progress should not be a surprise. But that one, two or...

Rubbish.

I've no idea of what you are saying.

(3) is wrong. Hilbert's hotel can always take more visitors. And yet again, your objection shows only that you choose not to use"infinite" in the way ...

Ah. Quick, change the topic...

So you say seven doesn't exist? Or seven cannot be divided by any other number? Or both? Keep going; it all only serves to further my point.

Rationalism. It's a tried and failed philosophical method. Good for you.

Which that?

:smile: Nor is mere assertion. Here is your assertion: Nothing existent can be infinitely divisible But, says I, there are things that can be infinity...

There's the issue: your failure to recognise the critique of your argument. (2) is false. But not just false, it is malformed. Clearly there are thing...

And here's the problem with your posts. You think I have not addressed your argument. I have, by pointing out that you are off-track. When you use "di...

Then god does not cause any events in our universe, either. The baby went out with the bath water.

The myth of the maverick. The false notion that it is the half-trained outsider who innovates.

That's exactly wrong. It's those who have taken the time to understand the topic who are in the best position to critique it.

Why him first? Unfair. Obvious bias.

Sure; but you are missing the point of this thread, which is about first understanding phlogiston in order to be able to criticise it.

Read this thread as an extension of my maxim that it is always easier to critique a theory if you start by misunderstanding it. The article cited in t...

That's clearly not what was said. Take QM - and contemplate just how much discussion and agreement has had to take place for the disagreement you choo...

That's a terrible argument. Phlogiston was an excellent first approximation of chemical energy. And those who developed it into our understanding of o...

Again you provide the correct answer and are ignored.

My crawl.

?

Which is to say no more than that you choose to use the word "dimension" in a way quite at odds with how it is used in physics. You have invented a us...

You know it doesn’t work like that. Even though we are a day in your future it takes 24 hours for news from your end Of the world to reach us.

Flat Earth physics. Which is worse, bad theology or physics without the mathematics? Neither has a place in this forum.

Davidson is talking about translation and interpretation; language is presumed. But if you like, Davidson describes how we "make it up as we go along"...

Davidson's earliest work is about learning languages: Theories of Meaning and Learnable Languages. He shows that some theories of languages are untena...

Yeah, that's good. That children lack the sophistry we use to hide from reality. The banality of evil walks hand in hand with this sophistry; the stor...

Tiff...? You there?

Actually I’ve kept rabbits as pets for years. One does not, generally speaking, eat one’s friends. Besides, that recipe was far too simple. Not even a...

Brings Hannah Arendt to mind.

I'll take care of the rabbit.

So are you claiming that all knowing-how reduces to knowing-that?

The obvious question is, what is Reason? and why the capital letter? Just to reifying it? The followup question is, how is it that Reason never errs? ...

Well, not really. He describes developing that theory as no more than farting. It was rejected from the start. I'll add to the dualities described her...

Tell @"Metaphysician Undercover"

That's just wrong. Systems that are not in a state of equilibrium are a commonplace.

You seem to be using "balance" in a new way - to mean something like "interrelation". Be my guest. But don't expect me to follow you.

I can't see this argument as worth the time, Meta. Check it on google, or argue with @"ovdtogt" who seems keen. Yep.

Good point.