But the assertion being made is that 1/10 + 1/100+... can be taken to an infinity of terms and summed to 1. — EnPassant

That doesn’t sum to 1, that sums to 1/9.

You do know how to calculate a limit, don’t you?

I am not a Cartesian dualist. — unenlightened

Neither am I, but even without that there is a division like of software and hardware between mind and body. In the future that analogy might become literal, if we become able to upload our minds into other hardware, including possibly new artificial bodies.

The only problem I see is that there is no "energy" version of neurotransmitters, neuroleptics, psychotropics, mood enhancers, anesthetics, etc. I know of. — TheMadFool

Those are all chemicals, made of molecules made of atoms made of other particles that are just excitations of energy fields.

In short, as I mentioned before, sanity is about being rational, how one thinks, rather than about what beliefs one holds, what one thinks. — TheMadFool

Correct, but a consequence of that is that everyone is at least slightly “insane”, as we are all imperfectly rational, subject to cognitive biases, etc.

it just intuitively feels that my relation to my body is not a property relation — unenlightened

I think that is perhaps because of what you take a property relation to be.

People like me who say our bodies are our own property take ownership of property to be identical to having claim rights to a thing. To say that one’s body is one’s own property is thus to say exactly that one has claim rights to one’s body; in other words, that what it is permissible for anyone to do to one’s body is a matter of one’s choice, and everyone is obliged to heed those choices and not violate them. To say the one necessarily owns one’s body is just to say that those rights one has over their own body are inalienable.

there exists a correlation between religiosity and right-wing politics — Kenosha Kid

I have always thought this myself, but I have noticed on the internet a tendency for some people, seemingly younger than me and probably you, to associate atheism with the right wing instead. Do you know of any real data with which to answer that question?

Only if by "motion" you mean some nonsense that couldn't possibly happen under any theory, because it's not even a coherent thing to wonder about happening.

Eternalism features motion. You just don't understand what motion means, and think some incomprehensible magic must be happening for things to be moving.

No I'm pretty sure @Kenosha Kid will deny as much as I do that objects change their temporal position. Objects span durations, as in, they exist for more than one instant of time, and they change their spatial positions over the course of that duration that they exist. I'll let him confirm that he agrees with that.

neither does the temporal position of the object change — Luke

What would a "change in temporal position" even be, unless you're invoking some kind of meta-time? (In which case exactly the same problem can be raised for the account of meta-time). Every change is with respect to something else. You seem to want to deny that "change" can be with respect to anything but time, but we can work with that for the moment here. What could "change in temporal position" possibly mean? At time t₁ object A was at time t_x, and between time t₁ and time t₂ object A moved from time t_x to time t_y? How quickly did it change its temporal position? How many seconds per second did it move through time? What the hell would that even mean?

Here's another "proof" (illustration) for why 0.999... = 1.

To write the difference between 0.999... and 1, write a zero, a decimal point, and then infinitely many zeroes, and then "when you finish", write the "final" 1.

Problem is, you will never finish, because the zeroes are infinite, so the difference between 0.999... and 1 is 0.000... forever. In other words, just 0.

And if the difference between two things is 0, there is no difference between them; they are the same.

I think you are all misunderstanding the importance of being in the center of the diagram. Nothing’s position signifies importance or unimportance, only its relatedness to other fields.

If you take philosophy’s relation to the sciences and trades below it to signify “importance”, then math, the arts, logic, rhetoric, and most of all language are even more “important”, being above it, and the more abstract things upon which philosophy depends to do its jobs of facilitating the more practical things below it.

Banno, you’ll note that I already said above, the oldest version did start with logic at the center, of language, math, and philosophy, before expanding to feature logic and rhetoric as dual centers, and incorporate the arts opposite math. Philosophy was at the bottom of that chart. It was also at the bottom of another chart, with the sciences and trades, which I turned upside-down to glue to the top chart, making this one. That’s the only reason philosophy is at the center.

Your description of what the job of philosophy is sounds more or less accurate to me, and my placement of philosophy at the center of that diagram isn‘t meant to be counter to that. It’s just that philosophy is at the edge of each of those other fields, so when you go beyond that field out into the weeds you end up in philosophy... and from there can wander back out of the weeds into the more developed parts of another field.

That diagram started with only three hexagons surrounding logic, which has a foot in each of languag, mathematics, and philosophy. I realized rhetoric has a foot in each of language, the arts, and philosophy. I used to have a different chart showing the relationship described in the OP between ontology & epistemology / physical sciences / engineering / technology / work on the one hand and my analogous ethics / “ethical sciences” / entrepreneurship / business / work on the other hand. This diagram here is the result of adapting the two of those to fit together and filling in some details.

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8+....1/x >

1/x + 1/x + 1/x+...+1/x — EnPassant

This is false soon as the number of terms is greater than or equal to x, after which point the bottom sum is greater than 1 and the top sum is still less than 1.

any positive quantity summed infinitely, is infinity. — EnPassant

That’s where you’re wrong. Just flat wrong. You tried to show that true and I showed it false in just three terms.

The same positive quantity added to itself infinitely many times is infinity, sure. But not every series is like that. No convergent series is like that. A series like that can have no limit. Any series with a limit is unlike that. A series with a limit sums to that limit. That’s what the limit is.

The point of a limit is that the sum never exceeds it. No matter how many terms you add to that convergent series, it will never exceed 1. Why then would you think it could ever add up to infinity? If it could, that would make it a divergent series, one with no limit, by definition.

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8...to k terms
> 1/x + 1/x + 1/x...to k terms — EnPassant

This becomes false as soon as k = x.

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 0.875
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1

From this we conclude that any positive quantity added infinitely sums to infinity — EnPassant

Only in the special case you describe of adding the same thing to itself forever. Diminishing quantities act differently. Otherwise Achilles could never pass the tortoise, or even get started running.

One of those two series you gave diverges; it does not have a limit. The other converges: it has a limit. The second one never gets anywhere close to infinity no matter how long you run it. It would only ever even get up to 1 if you ran it forever, with your “God-calculator”.

This is exactly what limits are for. Only a series without a limit sums to infinity. A series with a limit sums to that limit.

It would, if lots of single mothers were evolutionary advantageous. And if, as you said, larger population sizes don’t create a cost themselves.

Under the assumption that an increasing population produces no cost to the surviving genes, yes. — Key

Population growth is limited by females one way or another. Males reproducing more doesn’t make population grow faster, it just makes more of the resulting population carry their genes.

You know you can edit your posts?

Burn more shit, it works. — StreetlightX

Burn cop cars, smash racist statues, do symbolic violence against symbols of violence, yes. But wanton violence against random places that just happen to be nearby? No.

I asked earlier and don’t think I got any response: is anyone burning and looting the houses of the cops or other known racists? Or the houses of rich people generally? Or just random houses? Why is a small local business a more appropriate target than any of those? Not that I think those are all appropriate targets either, but at the very least the home of a cop or known racist seems a less inappropriate target than some random business.

What other economic system could there be, given that money, which is essential to any complex economy, in the absence of strict central control, by accumulation necessarily gives rise to capital. — Janus

It is not the absence of strict central control, but the strict enforcement of things like rent and interest (never mind property itself, but I’m not arguing against that) that leads to accumulation of wealth in few hands. In absence of those kinds of laws, having more wealth does not give you leverage to extract further wealth from those less wealthy. (And in absence of property laws at all, wealth is only ever of a community as a whole, since everyone is free to use anything as they please).

I don't mean to pick you out, but this has getting my goat for some time. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, it's not a fucking football match. What exactly is this cheer-leading supposed to achieve? — Isaac

Personally, I find it encouraging when people respond with positive approval as well, instead of saying nothing when they agree and only speaking up to disagree. Those little emojis are a simple quick way of expressing support even when you have nothing more to add. It lets people know that someone liked what they said, even if all the substantive replies are disagreement.

Due to the pressures of natural selection, genes that enable their "gene machines" to reproduce with fated partners do not propagate through the gene pool. — Key

It’s not that genes that allow for some doomed offspring get eliminated, it’s that genes that don’t allow for some non-doomed offspring get eliminated. Males can just make lots of offspring at no cost and let some of them be doomed so long as some others survive. Females can’t make lots of offspring at no cost, so have to be careful that their few offspring do survive.

I wonder if MU believes in negative numbers either, or just the naturals. Does zero count to him?

You didn't answer the question: do you believe that temporal passage is real? — Luke

I believe the question is confused.

You believe that temporal passage is real? Perhaps you are a Moving Spotlight Theorist instead of an Eternalist. — Luke

I gave an account of the perception of time earlier in this thread, with a building. I suggest you go back and read that. Moving Spotlight is nonsense; if something "moved" to give the perception of time, it would have to be over time, and so would appear static from a perspective outside of time.

This entire question is confused. Nothing moves through time, and time itself doesn't move past anything. Saying that either of those things happens is nonsense. Things move through space over time. They can also move through one dimension of space over another dimension of space, without bring time into anything at all.

The virgule was intended to signify "or", not division. — Luke

Yes, and that "or" was an incorrect statement, that I corrected.

So nothing actually changes? It's merely comparative? — Luke

All change is comparative. Something changes in one dimension with respect to another dimension. The road to my house changes its altitude in respect to its latitude (it gets higher the further north it goes). It also changes its number of lanes with respect to either its latitude or its altitude (it gets narrower the further north or up into the mountains -- same thing -- it goes). It generally doesn't change in any of those aspects over time: it's no further north or south, higher or lower, narrower or wider, than it was when I was a kid. But it's higher in the north, and narrower in the north, and narrower up high; and it gets lower the further south it goes, and wider too, as it goes south and lower. All in the same moment, without any time passing.

And I'm asking what justifies your assumption that such change/motion does happen? — Luke

That I see it happen, and nobody's presented a good reason to doubt that. I remember things being different at earlier times than they are now. That's what change over time is.

I also remember things that span a distance of space being different in one place than in another, like the road to my hometown. Actually I can look at one in its entirety right now: my forearm is narrower at the wrist than at the elbow. It gets thicker the further away from my hand you look. That's not a change over time, that's a change over space. My arm isn't thicker now than it was when I started writing this paragraph. It's just thicker closer to my hand than it is farther from my hand. "Oh no, the same arm is thicker than itself, how can this possibly be!" Because it's thicker in one place than it is at another place. And I'm taller at this time than I was at an earlier time.

You've been talking about a change in altitude/diameter. — Luke

A change in diameter over altitude. The mountain isn't changing its altitude. Over the dimension of altitude, the mountain changes its diameter. At higher altitudes (near the top), the mountain is narrower than at lower altitudes (near the bottom). "Oh no, the same mountain is thicker than itself, how can this possibly be!" Because it's thicker in one place than it is at another place. It's also probably shorter at this time than it was at an earlier time (because mountains tend to shrink over time).

I don't deny that it "gets" narrower over time — Luke

The point of the "road narrows" sign is not to warn you that if you wait around a while, the road will be narrower. It warns you that further down the road, it is narrower than the part you're on right now. The road gets narrower over space. That is the point of this analogy. Even common government signs like this use language that implies change over space is an ordinary way of talking.

I am saying that if you think eternalism precludes change or motion, you are misunderstanding eternalism, because I am an eternalist, I've read the views of other eternalists plenty, and none of us deny that change or motion happen. The only claim is that change in n dimensions over an extra dimension is equivalent to a static figure in n+1 dimensions.

How can you give the diameter of a mountain without specifying at which altitude you mean? The mountain has different diameters at different altitudes.

How can you specify the height of a person without specifying at what age you mean? Or perhaps even more illustratively: how can you specify the position of the hands of a clock, without specifying at what time you mean?

In both the case of the mountain and the case of my height or the position of the clock hands, we assume we mean the indexical value of the dimension across which it varies: the one that we're at. When we ask the diameter of a mountain, by default we mean at the altitude that we're at, unless there's some context where it's been established that we're talking about another altitude. When we ask the height of a person, we mean at their current age; when we ask the positions of the hands of a clock, we mean at the present time. Unless there's some context where it's been established that we're talking about another time. But in any case, if something about a given thing changes across some dimension that is spans -- a dimension of space, or a dimension of time -- you have to specify at which point in that dimension you want the measure to be taken.

Let me try another analogy. There is a highway that runs from the nearest big city to my little mountain town. It runs north-south, going uphill in the northward direction. It has four lanes each direction as it leaves the big city, and only one lane in my little town. There's a sign where the lanes decrease that warns that the road narrows, like this:



You (and MU) seem to think that that sign is lying. "The road doesn't actually get narrower. The road is the same width it's always been, unless a construction crew has just been through to remove some lanes. The road is the same width always, unless it changes over time. There is no sense in which the road 'gets' narrower as it 'goes' north up into the mountains. The road has fewer lanes in the north up in the mountain town than it does down south by the coastal city, but it's not 'changing' its width with latitude or altitude!"

That sounds like willfully misinterpreted nonsense thinking to me, trying to prove a philosophical point against a view that nobody actually holds.

Having mental health problems doesn’t entail that everything you say is false. It is quite easy for someone to have functional enough cognitive faculties to correctly assess and report that there are some other dysfunctions in their cognitive faculties.

Sure, it doesn’t matter if one of us thinks it’s weird so long as we understand each other.

I was shorter as a child than I am now. That child and the adult I am now are the same person. How can one person possibly be shorter or taller than themselves? The same way a mountain can be smaller at the top: we’re talking about an n-1 dimensional section of an n-dimensional whole. Some measure in the first n-1 dimensions changes over the last dimension. In the case of the mountain it’s diameter over altitude. In the case of me it’s height over time.

You may think it’s a weird way of talking, but understanding that way of talking is necessary to understand what eternalists mean, and if you don’t, then you’re not talking about the same thing as them at all.

I’d like input from others on this forum about that, because I just asked the other people around me in person and they all think it’s a perfectly normal way of speaking.

Would you not say that a cone is smaller at the point than at the open end? A mountain is cone-shaped, roughly, with the pointy end up. So it’s smaller at the top than at the bottom. Its size is different at different altitude. Not the 3D size of the entire mountain, but the part of the mountain that’s at a given altitude. Is that really such a weird way to speak to you?

nobody knows what an infinite sum is — EnPassant

Actual mathematicians do.

Or I can quote the preceding few sentences too if you're not going to bother clicking:

The infinite sequence of additions implied by a series cannot be effectively carried on (at least in a finite amount of time). However, if the set to which the terms and their finite sums belong has a notion of limit, it is sometimes possible to assign a value to a series, called the sum of the series. This value is the limit as n tends to infinity (if the limit exists) of the finite sums of the n first terms of the series, which are called the nth partial sums of the series. — Wikipedia

They're talking about infinite series, and saying that the limit is the sum of that series. I didn't quote the whole article, just the relevant part. Click the link and read for yourself.

You need to provide the link — EnPassant

The word "Wikipedia" at the bottom of the quote is a clickable link to the article in question.

but what is an infinite sum of terms — EnPassant

The limit of the series of partial sums. By definition.

When this limit exists, one says that the series is convergent or summable, or that the sequence is summable. In this case, the limit is called the sum of the series. — Wikipedia

I'm only talking about finite sums and limits.

The limit of the series of finite sums represented by 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... is 2. You do agree that you can calculate a limit, right? We can know that the limit of that series is not infinity, right? What do you think "the limit is 2" means, if not "this will never add up to more than 2, no matter how many terms you add"? And given that, we know that it will never, ever add up to infinity.

A limit is by definition something that will not be exceeded. We can be absolutely sure that 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... will never add up to infinity, because the limit of the partial sums is 2, which means it will never ever ever add up to more than 2, and only "at infinity" will even add all the way up to 2.