Are we having fun now — Banno

It was fun while it lasted but generally i don't like talking to you. You have 26, 563 posts on a philosophy forum and you don't even know what philosophy is about. See ye

I never said anything about murder

George Carlin was a raving manic. Disgusting

You say "Metaphysics is thinly veiled erotica". I see nothing erotic about the beauty of knowledge. Erotica is the physical, love itself as matter itself. But love like that makes a stain in consciousness; the paradox is you have to lose your freedom to give a new generation the ability to give up their freedom for a new generation of humans. The New Testament clearly says "it is better not to touch a woman". It's ironic that the Vice President says parents are better than non-parents when saint Paul clearly says the exact opposite

Men do bad things too. Female influence is extremely powerful though, behind very strong man is a strong woman you could say. The mystery of humanity's origin is not known, despite the absurd theory of modern science. Women corrupt men. I love my mom, gramma, and sisters, but they are exceptional (obviously in my opinion). Many great thinkers thru history have warned men about females. Talk to Chat gpt about that and you'll get a legion of quotations from history.

Yes

And yet you can't even reformulate a single one of my arguments

Yes but i'm probably right in most of what i say.

Spirit pushes itself from potential to actual because the way was always open for it to

Masculinity oppressing and oppressed, masculinity a problem in itself — Tobias

My biggest disappointment in life has been females. They make for terrible friends and even worse girl friends. The world would be better run by guys but as it is the girl's run the show imo. They have the emotional intelligence that lends them the ability to influence male primalality (a word?), plus they are shape shifters too lol

I am still trying to find out on Hegel's idea on — Corvus

Think of how Spinoza held that the world was God's thought and that this God had no free will. Then think of how for Hegel the world is Spirit enfolding into it own's complete freedom.

Hegel believed in fate and free will, compatabilism

Although unfair to Hegel, this too has good information and might be more agreeable than the previous link

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tNP5O3GXKdo&pp=ygUUV2VpZ2llc3QgaGF0ZWQgaGVnZWw%3D

This is interesting:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ruAPCcdklS4&pp=ygUbd2h5IHNjaG9wZW5oYXVlciBoYXRlIGhlZ2Vs

Please don't start to argue that Calculus is not true — ssu

It's very first principles are wrong. Like in history when guys started questioning Euclidean postulates? Just because you misunderstood my arguments do not make them wrong. Have a good day

Holly shite! there are numbers that cannot be counted.. — Banno

Same with the odd vs whole. Oh it's *different* with infinities of infinities? This is not established in that video

Yet if your argument is that infinity doesn't exist, then basically calculus wouldn't exist — ssu

Exactly. It's useful, not true. Like Gabriel's horn. Obviously false. I've presented at least 5 cogent arguments against infinity on this thread and you didn't indicate that you understood any of them

Yeah, we have, at least enough to be getting on with. For every number there is a next number — Banno

No you don't know how a countable infinity relates to uncountable and their qualities before the argument starts.

I can't, becasue they are incoherent — Banno

You couldn't try? You're dishonest

They cannot be wrong — Banno

But you say:

Of course, not all the issues are ironed out and answered — Banno

So you have only probable assurance that Zeno's paradoxes have an answer?

Then state my argument, or at least ONE of them, in your own words

You see, calculus exists — ssu

Why couldn't its foundations be wrong?

So what is it they want — Banno

For you to honestly address the issue

Your problem is that you simply don't understand the concept of infinity — ssu

Then answer my arguments

you were right then you could specify who does not get a room. In the first case, each individual is assigned to the room one more than the room they are in, and so every individual gets a new room. The person who was in room two is now in room three; the person who was in room three is now in room four; and so on. In the second case, each individual is assigned to the room twice the number of the room they are in. Again, each individual gets a room. In the third case, in which and infinity of new guests arrives, and the spreadsheet is used, each individual is still assigned a room. But for the party bus, the diagonal argument shows that there will always be an individual who does not get a room — Banno

This is just repeating the video. What infinity are we talking about with the first hotel situation. We haven't established what infinities are so maybe you can't move guy 3 to room 4 because theybare all filled. Imagine planks going infinitely into the horizon. Two sets. With the odd vs the wholes you are pulling the odd numbers back to line up with the whole numbers and that is geometrically crazy. Just as it is to say all the points on the edge of a cube are the same as the points in the cube. None of it makes sense

This process repeats infinitely, but the distances form a geometric series that converges to a finite sum. — Banno

False. It's infinite and finite at the same time in the exact same respect

The very first step of the video i question. If all the rooms are filled you can't move 1 to 2 and 3 to room 4 because all the infinite rooms are already filled. The problem with the diagonal argument for me is this first part about the odd numbers equalling the whole numbers: You are not using the same logic for the two types of infinities.

What do you say?

God for Hegel I believe is reason personified, but it is always a personification. My grasp of Hegels philosophy of religion is not that great though, but he sees in the elaboration of God a similar process of development as he sees in reason — Tobias

"Logic is his [mans'] natural element, indeed his own peculiar nature. If nature as such, as the physical world, is contrasted with the spiritual sphere, then logic must certainly be said to be the supernatural element which permeates every relationship of man to nature, his sensation, intuition, desire, need, instinct, and simply by doing so transforms it into something human".
Preface to the second edizione, Science of Logic

Where would you start — ssu

With any point bijected to 1, 2, and 3.

don't miss any number (if you would have infinite time a so on...). If you can't do this, then it's uncountable — ssu

Again, if you can start with 1, 2, and 3 and move the 2 to one and the 3 to 2 ect. you could also take a segment parallel to the whole numbers and move each point down to the left like you did before and assume it's all good at the other infinite end, like you did trying to prove the even numbers are equal to the whole numbers. Also, doesn't this violate the principle that the whole is greater than the part? Infinity doesn't make any sense. What am I missing?

. Between any two points you select, there are infinitely many more points — Banno

There is the same problem with the odd vs the whole numbers. With these, imagine them going off into the horizon. In how they explain this, they just pull all the odd numbers towards number 1 and say woopy! equal! Why is that a legit move? Why can't you do this move with the uncountable as well?

The koch snowflake is just sending a finite boundary into infinity. It can't exist. How do you prove that all the even numbers are equal to the whole numbers? Well they line up a few numbers and send it to infinity, not realizing that you can do the same trick with an uncountable infinity. Take all the points on a segment and line each one up one at a time to the whole numbers. Walla they both get sent off into hhe infinite universe. Equal! (The problem i put to T Clark illustrates how geometrically this all doesn't make sense.)Take an orange and cut it in half. Then cut one of the halves in half and do this forever, lining them up largest to smallest. What is the smallest? Obviously something discrete otherwise the orange's partsv would go out infinitely into an infinite universe. Mathematical nfinity swallows itself and there's nothing that save it

While the "experts" might say something like that, the experts don't. Space is expanding, but saying the universe is expanding implies that it has a size, which it doesn't if it isn't bounded — noAxioms

There are many physicists who say the infinite-in all-directions-universe is expanding into hyper-dimensional multiverses. I would say Aristotle was right in writing that the spiritual (Heaven) surrounds the finite universe and that's that. He was wrong though about Zeno's arguments and the Greek atomists were on to something

Zeno did not describe infinite space squished into finite something. It was never spatial infinity.

These comments will also not help you Infinity isn't a hard concept to grasp, but giving it a bound when by definition there isn't one is always going to run into trouble. — noAxioms

Zeno said the apparent finite distance was really a series of infinite steps; hence infinite inside finite. It's not that hard to grasp. Infinity as an idea is sound only when it is used to refute itself

Like when "experts" say the universe is infinite and expanding. That's called mental masturbation. A bad habit

I didn't say the continuous was discrete. I said the continuous doesn't make sense because spatial infinity squished into a finite size makes no sense.

So does this subdividing result in a series of discrete steps, or goes on forever? Since it's continuous, it must sink down in there forever, which doesn't make any sense since it is a finite segment. See?

"But reason in its truth is spirit"

"Consciousness is spirit as concrete knowing, a knowing too, in which externality is involved"

Preface to the first edition of the Science of Logic (1812)

So "nothing" sound pleasant?

Why can't you just divide the "unified whole" if it's not discrete?

It cannot be because that already presupposes terms, such as atom or world. For Hegel it is the 'movement of the concept' that creates such dualisms — Tobias

Remember how he has nothing sublate itself and being and being in turn sublate nothing and itself. Everything sublates everything else in Hegel, although thatbis not the total history of the movement

read this in light of his criticism of Kant that his categories are 'formal'. Kant 'deduced' them, in some merely mental exercise. For Hegel they would show themselves both mentally as well as in the history of the world, in the emergence of spirit. The processes by which the world shows itself are the same as the operations of thought. 'Substance as subject — Tobias

Very good

your point that Zeno treats motion as a series of steps, while both physics and maths treat it as continuous? — Banno

Continuous means infinitely dense, which in turn would be either then discrete or an infinite series of steps

It sounds like Will is some sort of agent or force with no principle on its operation. Is it something that is contrary to rationality or intelligence? All — Corvus

They work together but also have their autonomy. Will is setting down the law of action in view of something seen by Reason for the reason that it wants it because it wants to exercise freedom. Reason is the seeing into truth

Here, wait a second, I'm going to imagine infinity... There, satisfied? Want me to do it again? It's not a magic power, it's just imagination.

Nuff said — T Clark

You must think finitism is repressive or something. Anyway, explain how a two meter segment placed parallel to a one meter segment is longer when you have a one-to-one correspondance between points, but when you angle the two meter segment to form a triangle they line up the same. Thank you

Why are the infinitesimals we are discussing any different — T Clark

Because as Berkeley said they are ghosts of departed quantities. You are adding up nothing and arriving at something. Why do you post on this forum at all if we could all have magical powers in the mind you don't have?

Addition:

"Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) is a theory that attempts to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics by proposing that spacetime is not continuous but rather composed of discrete, fundamental units at the Planck scale, forming a 'fabric' of spacetime loops". Google AI

This is a reinterpretation of General Relativity, which traditionally had continuums in its maths. It's just hard to image space that can't be divided. There is something missing it seems when we try to reason about it. God knows. Food for thought. Weren't the Greek Atomists a reaction to Zeno?