Irrelevant ! — Gnomon
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics
— Gnomon
Wrong. I and others have studied infinite regress in detail, as infinite compositions or iterations. — jgill
what has incensed some posters in this thread is the supernatural implications of the OP. Which they hope to demolish by turning a broad philosophical question into a narrow technical definition. — Gnomon
Anyone wanna trash this theory? — invicta
Tones, apparently you didn't read the OP, and responded only to some abbreviated second & third replies to assertions about Pi & circles & infinity. I would have to be an idiot to make the "claim" you pin on me above. Perhaps that prejudicial misunderstanding is why some posters are treating as an idiot, or worse a woo-monger. I am not arguing with your mathematical acumen, just with your mis-interpretation of what is being said.His response is quite relevant to your claim that infinite regress is not addressed in mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze
An infinite causal chain does not imply a causal loop. Not even metaphorically.I find his dissatisfaction with infinite regression unsatisfactory for if infinite causes are the chain of sequences ad infinitum does such a chain not imply a closed loop, like that primordial snake ouroboros eating it’s own tail. — invicta
apparently you didn't read the OP — Gnomon
I would have to be an idiot to make the "claim" you pin on me above. — Gnomon
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon
Wrong. I and others have studied infinite regress in detail — jgill
Irrelevant ! — Gnomon
some posters are treating invicta as an idiot — Gnomon
What I actually said was that his OP was not a scientific or mathematical assertion — Gnomon
He even asked if "anyone wanna trash this theory?". Would anyone in his right mind ask that of a mathematical fact? — Gnomon
Obviously, what has incensed some posters in this thread is the supernatural implications of the OP. Which they hope to demolish by turning a broad philosophical question into a narrow technical definition. — Gnomon
when others began to make an issue of the PI/infinity concept, I simply pointed out that it was used in a metaphorical context, not as mathematical fact. So, get off his back. — Gnomon
Pi is exactly the ratio of circumference to diameter. It is not infinite — Banno
Ok then mister, please give me the exact value of Pi — invicta
Pi is not a circle — Banno
Of course it’s a circle what is the value of the line when you’ve performed the calculation circumference/diameter…it’s Pi of course. — invicta
If you want to get technical, PI is indeed an infinite series of numbers — Gnomon
a circle -- no beginning or end -- is sometimes used symbolically as a metaphor for infinity — Gnomon
Again, I did not say what you attribute to me. The "not addressed" is your imaginary addition to what I said. Such irrelevant insinuations often diverge mundane philosophical threads off-topic into long sub-threads on peripheral technical or emotional issues. The open-ended OP --- an essay question, not true/false --- regarding opinions about "First Cause", was of mild interest to me, but not the nitty-gritty facts of mathematical infinities.But you also said, "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics". — TonesInDeepFreeze
But you also said, "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics".
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Again, I did not say what you attribute to me. The "not addressed" is your imaginary addition to what I said. — Gnomon
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon
This whole off-topic series of accusations & counter-accusations is what I was referring to as "the shallow end of philosophical debate". — Gnomon
Disagreements about terminology are unnecessary. Discussants can instead acknowledge the clear definitions in mathematics: — TonesInDeepFreeze
Tones, apparently you didn't read the OP, — Gnomon
bear-trap Banno — Gnomon
what has incensed some posters in this thread — Gnomon
they hope to demolish by turning a broad philosophical question into a narrow technical definition. — Gnomon
Let's get back to sharing opinions on general philosophical questions, not specific mathematical technicalities. [with smiley face in original] — Gnomon
The open-ended OP --- an essay question, not true/false --- regarding opinions about "First Cause", was of mild interest to me, but not the nitty-gritty facts of mathematical infinities. — Gnomon
Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. — Gnomon
Referring to invicta as "he" :
"Unfortunately, he continues to argue with Banno about interminable terms that have no bearing on the original post -- just digging himself deeper into the shallow end of philosophical debate." — Gnomon
It is just not the case that one has to accept everything invicta says as merely metaphorical when [invicta] [...] presses others to be mathematically exact. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Of course. And a symbolic metaphor for a thing is not that thing. When invicta says that Pi is a circle, and even presses others to be mathematically exact in disputing that claim, it is unreasonable to disallow that [invicta] is [...] speaking about mathematics not merely [...] non-mathematical musings. — TonesInDeepFreeze
One can arrange digits of any number on any figure you please. One could arrange digits of Euler's constant on a triangle. That doesn't make Euler's constant a triangle. Not even a metaphor for a triangle. One can arrange digits of Pi along a hexagon. So Pi is no less a hexagon than it is a circle. And if one says, as does invicta, that Pi IS a circle, then a circle is a hexagon. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Invoking mathematics into a philosophical argument deserves not mangling that mathematics. Posting incoherently about the mathematics is a set up for degraded discourse from the start. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I owe you an apology. I assumed the subject of the sentence was obvious. But, in retrospect, apparently not. Mea culpa.That is nothing less than bizarre for you to say.
You wrote:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — Gnomon — TonesInDeepFreeze
What proof is there of 1/Pi…creating irrational diameter ? — invicta
Mathematically speaking ? — invicta
a line with irrational extension would snake its way when drawn — invicta
— Gnomon
That is nothing less than bizarre for you to say.
You wrote:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics — TonesInDeepFreeze
I assumed the subject of the sentence was obvious. — Gnomon
"Infinity" is a legitimate mathematical topic, but "Infinite Regression" is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Hence, to get into mathematical technicalities is irrelevant to questions about a world-creating act of Causation. — Gnomon
[bold added]What proof is there of 1/Pi…creating irrational diameter ?
Mathematically speaking ? — invicta
An Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover is a Platonic/Aristotelian notion of Metaphysics, not Physics, nor Math. [...] Or do you think philosophical questions can be solved mathematically? — Gnomon
An Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover is a Platonic/Aristotelian notion of Metaphysics, not Physics, nor Math. — Gnomon
A self-drawn circle is the theory to be "trashed", not the definition of Infinity. — Gnomon
Apparently, in the face of such sniping, Invicta bailed on his own thread. — Gnomon
For those interested in the actual topic of this thread — Gnomon
philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe. — Gnomon
Again, that is not my claim. It's your erroneous interpretation, but not my intention. "Infinite Regress" and "First Cause" are examples of the subject content, acted upon by the predicate. Instead, it is "philosophical concepts" that the predicate modifies with "not addressed". And it's the "Infinite Regression"*1 argument, not the definition of "Infinity", that is in question.Yes, the subject is:
"Infinite Regress" and "First Cause"
The predicate is:
are philosophical concepts that are not addressed by Mathematics
That is a claim that "Infinite Regress and "First Cause" are (1) philosophical concepts and (2) they are not addressed by mathematics. — TonesInDeepFreeze
that is not my claim. It's your erroneous interpretation, but not my intention. — Gnomon
Instead, it is "philosophical concepts" that the predicate modifies with "not addressed". — Gnomon
I admitted above that the sentence construction could be misconstrued --- by someone with a pre-conception. — Gnomon
And it's the "Infinite Regression"*1 argument, not the definition of "Infinity", that is in question. — Gnomon
impassioned mathematical side-track — Gnomon
I suspect that we are actually in agreement about the math of PI & Infinity, but perhaps not about the philosophical concept of a pre-big-bang First Cause. — Gnomon
invicta seems to be insisting on a colloquial usage of "infinity" — Gnomon
while you are insisting on technical definitions. — Gnomon
philosophical questions about contingency and necessity, causation and explanation, part/whole relationships (mereology), possible worlds, infinity, sets, the nature of time, and the nature and origin of the universe.
— Gnomon
Of course those are informed by mathematics and science.
contingency and necessity. That is informed by modal logic, which is a study in formal logic very closely related to mathematical logic.
mereology. Also studied in formal logic.
possible worlds. Again, informed by modal logic. Also, analogous to semantics for intuitionistic logic for intuitionistic mathematics.
infinity. The notions 'is infinite' and 'points of infinity' are informed by mathematics.
sets. Informed by set theory and class theory, which are mathematics and are themselves foundations for mathematics.
the nature of time. I don't know about 'the nature of', but the subject of time is, of course, informed by mathematics and physics.
the nature and origin of the universe. questions about the universe are of course addressed by cosmology, which is informed by mathematics.
It is curious, at best, to me that a person would want to dogmatically declare that philosophy should not be discussed in cross-context with [added: certain] subjects. Especially when the original poster her(or him)self introduced mathematical aspects and not merely metaphorically. On the contrary, intellectual curiosity, intellectual creativity and open mindedness invite cross-study/conversation, not shutting it down. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Do the general questions listed above have mathematical solutions? — Gnomon
Yes. I emphasized the subject of the sentence, to show where you missed the point of the original statement. Apparently, that didn't have the desired effect. But I'll continue to do it again, if you continue to misinterpret my meaning. In the words of Paul McCartney, "let it be". :smile:You did it again: You bolded in my quote without indicating that the bolding was not original. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You did it again: You bolded in my quote without indicating that the bolding was not original.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes. I emphasized the subject of the sentence, to show where you missed the point of the original statement. Apparently, that didn't have the desired effect. But I'll continue to do it again, if you continue to misinterpret my meaning. — Gnomon
In the words of Paul McCartney, "let it be". — Gnomon
You’re saying im being irrational just like Pi.
— invicta
Hmm. Well, it seems you both go on forever. — Banno
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.