For Reality Check

[Sparko]

Then give the answer to it. It does not refute a position to just say it is ridiculous. Keep in mind many atheists do this with the Courtier's Reply.

I just did. Zeno assumes there is no motion, only discrete jumps. And specifically, discrete jumps that somehow keep dividing the remaining distance by 1/2. If you consider motion as smooth and not limited to discrete jumps of 1/2 the remaining distance, then the problem doesn't even exist.

He would ask you what he has to explain.

and he would be dodging the same question "he" gave me. What is the difference between the drum and the air. Since he claims there is no difference, except as illusion, and if illusion is being, then the illusory difference has being also, and he still has not explained the observed difference between the drum and the air.

Plato didn't think it was an illusion. Neither did Aristotle. Still, both of them thought the argument was serious and considering there are still many monists in the world, it is still worth taking seriously.

actually if monists are right there are not many monists in the world at all.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I just did. Zeno assumes there is no motion, only discrete jumps. And specifically, discrete jumps that somehow keep dividing the remaining distance by 1/2. If you consider motion as smooth and not limited to discrete jumps of 1/2 the remaining distance, then the problem doesn't even exist.

I don't think Zeno even believes in discrete jumps. To him, all motion is an illusion because all change is an illusion. He'd still want t know how you make those jumps in fact. He's shown there's an infinite number of points between the start and finish and it is a point in Kalam that you can't transverse an infinite. (With the exception being if you're Chuck Norris who has done it twice.)

and he would be dodging the same question "he" gave me. What is the difference between the drum and the air. Since he claims there is no difference, except as illusion, and if illusion is being, then the illusory difference has being also, and he still has not explained the observed difference between the drum and the air.

And this could be a stalemate, but as the believer in change, he would say you need to show that change is even possible. Can something change by being? If so, it becomes non-being, but how can being become non-being? Can it change by non-being? But that is nothing.

actually if monists are right there are not many monists in the world at all.

Correct, but they are still out there and need to be answered.

[Sparko]

I don't think Zeno even believes in discrete jumps. To him, all motion is an illusion because all change is an illusion. He'd still want t know how you make those jumps in fact. He's shown there's an infinite number of points between the start and finish and it is a point in Kalam that you can't transverse an infinite. (With the exception being if you're Chuck Norris who has done it twice.)

But the distance between the start and finish is not an infinite distance. since "points" have no dimension, you can fit an infinite number of them between any two objects. He is confusing "points" with distance, which is measurable and finite. and I thought it was between the turtle and achilles. and that is another false assumption: that achilles is aiming at the turtle not the finish line.

Achilles moves x, turtle moves x+1 to x2, achilles moves to x2, turtle moves to x2+1 to x3, etc. Achilles can never catch him.

But what really happens is turtle moves to x1. Achilles moves to x1. Turtle moves to x1+.001, Achilles moves to x1+20, at which time turtle is left in the dust.

And this could be a stalemate, but as the believer in change, he would say you need to show that change is even possible. Can something change by being? If so, it becomes non-being, but how can being become non-being? Can it change by non-being? But that is nothing.

simply redefining things in his own terms doesn't make them true. Nuts do that all the time. We typically ignore them. All he is doing is denying the obvious, that there are differences in objects, and things do change. and even calling it "illusion" doesn't solve anything, since to him illusion is real too. It just moves the problem back one step.

Correct, but they are still out there and need to be answered.

Why? Do we have to answer people who believe that the world was created 5 seconds ago, complete with an illusory history and memories for us? There is no way to answer such people.

[Sparko]

heck, if you think about it, Parmenide's theory is self-refuting. If there is no change, then he could not have come up with such an idea, because by doing so, he brought into being something from non-being.

[Pilgrim]

Nothing needs to "sustain" existence. The universe Is what it Is, existence sustains itself.

Which is in no way less a statement of blind faith than saying, "God sustains Godself..." It's just less honest.

[Pilgrim]

This is just tautology.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

[Pilgrim]

I just did. Zeno assumes there is no motion, only discrete jumps. And specifically, discrete jumps that somehow keep dividing the remaining distance by 1/2. If you consider motion as smooth and not limited to discrete jumps of 1/2 the remaining distance, then the problem doesn't even exist.

I'm not sure I agree, there. Even with constant motion you always have to pass halfway to a point towards which you are traveling.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

But the distance between the start and finish is not an infinite distance. since "points" have no dimension, you can fit an infinite number of them between any two objects. He is confusing "points" with distance, which is measurable and finite. and I thought it was between the turtle and achilles. and that is another false assumption: that achilles is aiming at the turtle not the finish line.

It's not an infinite distance, but it does contain within it an infinite number of points. Do you deny that? If you don't, then please tell me in a line of say 1 mile, how many points are there?

Achilles moves x, turtle moves x+1 to x2, achilles moves to x2, turtle moves to x2+1 to x3, etc. Achilles can never catch him.

But what really happens is turtle moves to x1. Achilles moves to x1. Turtle moves to x1+.001, Achilles moves to x1+20, at which time turtle is left in the dust.

How does Achilles move to x1+20. How does Achilles cross over a number of infinite points?

simply redefining things in his own terms doesn't make them true. Nuts do that all the time. We typically ignore them. All he is doing is denying the obvious, that there are differences in objects, and things do change. and even calling it "illusion" doesn't solve anything, since to him illusion is real too. It just moves the problem back one step.

Denying that which is obvious has been a hallmark of great thinking. The early scientists did such. A number of atheists would say it's obvious that there is no God.

Why? Do we have to answer people who believe that the world was created 5 seconds ago, complete with an illusory history and memories for us? There is no way to answer such people.

If they present arguments, we should. We can examine those arguments and see how strong or weak they are. Parmenides did present arguments. He asked us to explain change in contrast to Heraclitus who said everything changes constantly. All is in flux.

[Sparko]

It's not an infinite distance, but it does contain within it an infinite number of points. Do you deny that? If you don't, then please tell me in a line of say 1 mile, how many points are there?

points have no dimension. You can fit an infinite number of points in a point. They have nothing to do with the example.

How does Achilles move to x1+20. How does Achilles cross over a number of infinite points?

The same way he moved in Zeno's paradox.

Denying that which is obvious has been a hallmark of great thinking. The early scientists did such. A number of atheists would say it's obvious that there is no God.

If they present arguments, we should. We can examine those arguments and see how strong or weak they are. Parmenides did present arguments. He asked us to explain change in contrast to Heraclitus who said everything changes constantly. All is in flux.

OK how do you respond to Permendes arguments?

How do you respond to Christian Scientists who similarly claim that what we call reality is nothing but illusion? If everything is illusion, then any evidence against it being illusion is also illusion.

You can't argue with crazy.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

points have no dimension. You can fit an infinite number of points in a point. They have nothing to do with the example.

Nothing but everything. Zeno says you made his point. There are an infinite number of points. The Kalam says you can't transgress an infinite. Do you disagree with the Kalam?

The same way he moved in Zeno's paradox.

Zeno's point is that he didn't move.

OK how do you respond to Permendes arguments?

How do you respond to Christian Scientists who similarly claim that what we call reality is nothing but illusion? If everything is illusion, then any evidence against it being illusion is also illusion.

You can't argue with crazy.

I'm not saying yet. I want to see RC answer.

[Sparko]

Nothing but everything. Zeno says you made his point. There are an infinite number of points. The Kalam says you can't transgress an infinite. Do you disagree with the Kalam?

Crossing a finite space is not transgressing the infinite, and the term is "traversing the infinite". You can divide any two points into infinite sub points but the two points can also delimit a fixed finite distance. Traversing the infinite means to reach an actual infinity by sequential addition. If you were trying to count the points between two points and expected to reach infinity, you could never do so. But since the number of points between any other two points is already an actual infinity, it's not a problem. and since the distance between any two points in this universe represents a finite distance, it is especially not a problem to cross that distance.

Even in Zeno's paradox, he has Achilles crossing that finite distance between one part of the example and the other. Every step the turtle takes and Achilles takes is crossing a finite distance filled with infinite points.

Zeno's point is that he didn't move.

Yet he used the closing relative distances between the turtle and achilles to try to show that. He refuted his own argument.

I'm not saying yet. I want to see RC answer.

I think he is long gone.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Crossing a finite space is not transgressing the infinite, and the term is "traversing the infinite".

My bad on getting my words mixed up. However, you are assuming that it is a finite space. Zeno says that this is an argument that it isn't, hence motion is impossible.

You can divide any two points into infinite sub points but the two points can also delimit a fixed finite distance. Traversing the infinite means to reach an actual infinity by sequential addition. If you were trying to count the points between two points and expected to reach infinity, you could never do so.

It just means to complete an infinite set. Can you cross over an infinite number of points? You have said that there is such, but you also say it cannot be transversed. Which is it?

But since the number of points between any other two points is already an actual infinity, it's not a problem.

That is the problem.

and since the distance between any two points in this universe represents a finite distance, it is especially not a problem to cross that distance.

Begging the question. There is no finite distance to Zeno.

Even in Zeno's paradox, he has Achilles crossing that finite distance between one part of the example and the other. Every step the turtle takes and Achilles takes is crossing a finite distance filled with infinite points.

That's because he's using his opponents terminology. They believe this is happening? Okay. Let them show it.

Yet he used the closing relative distances between the turtle and achilles to try to show that. He refuted his own argument.

No. He used his opponents' beliefs.

I think he is long gone.

I head out of town for a few days again tomorrow so we will see. I'm not ready to say he's gone yet.

[Sparko]

My bad on getting my words mixed up. However, you are assuming that it is a finite space. Zeno says that this is an argument that it isn't, hence motion is impossible.

I am not assuming it is a finite distance. It can be measured. Therefore Zeno is wrong. In the end, his paradox is nothing but an elaborate puzzle that makes wrong assumptions as it's parameters.

It just means to complete an infinite set. Can you cross over an infinite number of points? You have said that there is such, but you also say it cannot be transversed. Which is it?

A circle has an infinite number of points and it is a finite object. points and distance are two different things. and the problem with traversing the infinite is going from a POTENTIAL infinite to an ACTUAL one by successive addition. Not crossing an infinite number of points.

That is the problem.

no it isn't

Begging the question. There is no finite distance to Zeno.

Well he is wrong. If he said the moon is made of cheese, would that make it so?

No. He used his opponents' beliefs.

apparently not.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I am not assuming it is a finite distance. It can be measured. Therefore Zeno is wrong. In the end, his paradox is nothing but an elaborate puzzle that makes wrong assumptions as it's parameters.

You think it can be measured, but you've said there's an infinite number of points. How can a finite distance contain something infinite in it? How can you measure something that contains an infinite?

A circle has an infinite number of points and it is a finite object. points and distance are two different things. and the problem with traversing the infinite is going from a POTENTIAL infinite to an ACTUAL one by successive addition. Not crossing an infinite number of points.

But you've said there is an actual infinite number of points and if there is an actual infinite, it cannot be transversed.

no it isn't

Lack of a reply.

Well he is wrong. If he said the moon is made of cheese, would that make it so?

No. He doesn't just say so however. He argues why it is so.

apparently not.

His opponents did not believe a race was possible?

[Sparko]

You think it can be measured, but you've said there's an infinite number of points. How can a finite distance contain something infinite in it? How can you measure something that contains an infinite?

But you've said there is an actual infinite number of points and if there is an actual infinite, it cannot be transversed.

points have no dimension. they take up no space. not just a little space. None. They are just mathematical symbols. You seem to be doing the same thing that Tassman does, that no matter what anyone says to you, just ignore it and repeat yourself.

Lack of a reply.

because a lack of argument.

No. He doesn't just say so however. He argues why it is so.

If he argues that the moon is made of cheese because it has holes in it just like swiss cheese then I guess you would take him seriously?