Michael

I'm afraid it's not, because it doesn't address the issue of supertasks. For supertasks, we have this: P1. If the lamp is off and the button is pushed...

Have you even read Thomson's paper? This is the most relevant part: The answer to his question isn't "a plate of spaghetti", it isn't "0", it isn't "1...

Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecute...

You think the jury was planted?

The code here is effectively the same as a recursive function. I'm arguing that supertasks are metaphysically impossible. He's arguing that supertasks...

What do you mean by saying that they're manufactured? Are you saying that they're a fiction? You need to prove that, not simply assert it – and so we'...

That's precisely why supertasks are impossible. The lamp is off at t0. The lamp must be either on or off at t1. But if the button has been pushed an i...

So because we only care about aspirin when we have a headache then it follows that first person private sensations don't exist, or that if they do exi...

When we're discussing something like the hard problem of consciousness and the ontology of sensations then it very much matters to us if our pains are...

Or it's because the sensation I have when I stab myself in the arm is unlike the sensation you have when you stab yourself in the arm, and so our pain...

That we say it isn't that it's true. Then I will simply say that Wittgenstein is wrong and so we shouldn't listen to what he has to say.

I think it does. We need to examine the process in reverse, and remember that the lamp is on iff the lamp was off and the button was pushed to turn it...

No, I'm saying that it isn't completable, even hypothetically. The fact that there is no definite end value is just one way to demonstrate that it isn...

The fact that we use the same word "pain" to refer to your sensations and to my sensations isn't that your sensations are the same as my sensations.

I don't think it has anything to do with formalism or intuitionism or anything like that. Our starting premises are: P1. If the lamp is off and the bu...

No you can't. I addressed this in my initial defence of Thomson here, and even more clearly below. You're claiming that "a plate of spaghetti" is a co...

Is there a difference between knowing someone's pain and knowing that someone is in pain? Because there's certainly a difference between knowing someo...

The terminal state isn't just undefined; any proposed terminal state is inconsistent. The lamp cannot be either on or off after two minutes even thoug...

I don’t understand your reasoning at all.

Here's an even simpler demonstration: var isLampOn = false function pushButton() { isLampOn = !isLampOn } while (true) { pushButton() } echo isLampOn ...

I don't know what you mean by this. The wait(i *= 0.5) simply means that pushButton is called at successively halved intervals of time, i.e. it is cal...

@"fishfry" You wanted something new so see the above.

Here's some pseudocode to demonstrate Thomson's lamp: var isLampOn = false function pushButton() { isLampOn = !isLampOn } var i = 120 while (true) { w...

There's nothing wrong with defining, or performing, a recursive function. There is a problem with claiming that it is possible to have completed a rec...

Thomson makes a similar point:

Yes, as I further explained in this comment.

No it's not, as explained here. As far as I can see I've addressed everything you've said.

After completing the supertask the lamp must be either on or off, but as I explain here, Thomson's lamp shows that if we have pushed the button an inf...

This is the kind of mistake that Benacerraf makes in his response to Thomson, as explained here. The lamp is not defined as being on or off at particu...

The argument form I am using is called modus tollens and is valid: If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. P = we can recite the natural numbers at succ...

Because it leads to contradictions as shown by Thomson's lamp, defended here and expanded on here. Also because it's the conclusion of this sound argu...

Metaphysical impossibility. Supertasks cannot be performed in any possible world. P3 is a tautology, P2 follows from P3, and so C1 is necessarily true...

You should read beyond the quote to where I respond to explain the error in Benacerraf‘s reasoning.

I’ll keep it simple @"fishfry". This is my argument: P1. If we can recite the natural numbers at successively halved intervals of time then we can rec...

That’s for those who assert the truth of (2) to answer. As it stands it’s just an assertion, and contradicts the tautology given in (1), so I have eve...

It’s the conclusion of those who use the finite sum of a geometric series as proof that a supertask can be completed. If I recite the first number aft...

To make this very simple, we have two competing claims: 1. If we start reciting the natural numbers then either we stop on some finite number or we ne...

It's not mine. It's the hypothesis of those who claim that supertasks are possible. They try to use such things as the finite sum of a geometric serie...

No I didn't. Your argument is analogous to this: If I am immortal then when will I die of old age? I won't. Therefore, I have proved that I am immorta...

I agreed that if P2 is true then C1 is true, as I have agreed from the beginning. This doesn't prove that P2 is true.

In favour of eternalism there's the relativity of simultaneity and the Rietdijk–Putnam argument.

So we're back to my post here: You accept that (b) is impossible but you claim that (a) is possible. You have to prove this. P1 doesn't prove it.

There isn't one. I've answered this several times already. That's what it means for me to accept P1. But you need to prove P2. You haven't done so.

The important part from that post is this: If the lamp is on at t1 then it must have been either turned on at t1 or turned and left on before t1, neit...

That's why it's impossible to complete. Yes, I address that here.

I addressed this here and here.

If time is continuous then supertasks are logically possible. Supertasks are logically impossible. Therefore, time is discrete.

They're clearly being confused by maths. They think that because a geometric series of time intervals can have a finite sum and because this geometric...

It's not just physically impossible, it's logically impossible. No physics can allow me to begin reciting the natural numbers in reverse. I can't even...

It was redefined as 1 at t1/2 and never changed again, so is still defined as 1 at t1. There is no last step before t1, hence no coherent definition o...