You can talk about infinities all you want to. But you cannot produce one. For you to produce something that would go on forever, you yourself would have to live forever to do it. That's the whole point. — h060tu
Then 1 does refer to things, like velocity and time. Glad to see that you finally see that I made sense, Banno.We agree that an object has a location at a particular time.
We agree that the location does not change at an instant.
Where we disagree is that there are those amongst us who are happy to ascribe a velocity at a particular time, and those who are not.
What is hard to see is how those who do not ascribe a velocity at a particular time can do any basic mechanics.
It's the 0.9999... = 1 denialists, hard at work again. — Banno
All you need to do is define "infinity" in such a way that you can produce them, and voila, you can produce infinities. It's a very simple trick which the mathemagicians do with their axioms. — Metaphysician Undercover
hoping to reveal the fact that ambiguity and equivocation are abundant in mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover
I'll take that under consideration since you obviously have an in-depth knowledge of the subject. — jgill
Mathematicians on the other hand seem to be disinterested, being more inclined to take the axioms for . . . — Metaphysician Undercover
Mathematics evolved over millennia and foundations are fairly recent. — jgill
So this statement implies that you misunderstand what the foundations of mathematics really are — Metaphysician Undercover
The result, modern mathematics is a disorderly mess. — Metaphysician Undercover
I know. It's a tragedy that requires competent philosophical guidance. Thanks for being there when we need you! :scream: — jgill
So we have a double tragedy, philosophical guidance is needed, but it's not heeded. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your ideas on the foundations of mathematics might receive a more serious scrutiny were you to post them on a site like https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=math+stackexchange . — jgill
Counting infinity has nothing to do with time. — EnPassant
Counting infinity has nothing to do with time. An infinity of numbers does not require time to exist. — EnPassant
...time... — jgill
It requires an infinity of time to count an infinity of numbers, so "counting infinity" does have something to do with time. — Metaphysician Undercover
↪A Seagull
Counting is a temporal process. Two comes after one. Three comes after two. You cannot remove the temporal aspect of counting, to claim that time is irrelevant to counting. It is essential. Try counting when four comes before three. It doesn't work. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where do you think our sense of infinity comes from? It comes from us, i.e., finite beings, we create the concepts using finite signs. We extrapolate based on the continuation of 1,2,3.. that it goes on ad infinitum. There's no mystery here. — Sam26
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.