For minds greater than mine, where does the Sorites Paradox, or the paradox of the heap, fit in with your discussion of infinity?
You mean if you start with 99 bottles of beer on the wall and start passing them around, at what point do you find yourself lying on the floor passed out and unable to finish counting?mentalgymnast wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:01 pmFor minds greater than mine, where does the Sorites Paradox, or the paradox of the heap, fit in with your discussion of infinity?
I know you say this in jest, but no, that’s not what I’m inquiring about. Let me point you towards a book you may want to read:Moksha wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:24 pmYou mean if you start with 99 bottles of beer on the wall and start passing them around, at what point do you find yourself lying on the floor passed out and unable to finish counting?
On the premise that infinity=eternity we would describe it qualitatively because we cannot assign a quantitative value. But we can describe time in a series of bits and sets. At what point would time become eternity? I ask this from a perspective of looking at time as part of an eternal now. It makes it a bit easier to wrap my mind around eternity. How much time=eternity is where the Sorites paradox comes into play. Doesn’t it?
But a non heap nonetheless, right? After all, at some point a heap is not a heap. Unless a heap is purely arbitrary and it is whatever we make it. But that means that ten grains of sand can be a heap as can 100,0000. So back to eternity. My 70+ years of life are a ‘heap’. So when we describe our lives as being part of one eternal round it, again, is easier to wrap my mind around knowing that I am living in an eternal now. The heap isn’t a mathematical construct as much as a subjective construct. “You’ll know a heap when you see it.”
If this is so, why are many of us reticent of considering the possibility that we are eternal beings? And if so, that there is a creator that makes this all possible? Or at least providing a degree of uncertainty on the part of secularists in their assumptions and premises that lead them towards thinking of time as being finite, as far as the human intelligence/mind is concerned.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:03 pmBelow a certain number you're really not a heap, above another number you are (though these bounds might depend on how the grains are piled as well as on total number). In between there's just a gradual grain-by-grain transition between more and less doubtful heaps.
The Mormon "eternal now" idea is sheer nonsense. Feel free to show otherwise by defining it.MG wrote: I ask this from a perspective of looking at time as part of an eternal now
No. But, I'll give you this, it might make sense in Mormonism.How much time=eternity is where the Sorites paradox comes into play. Doesn’t it?
What Joseph is saying here, while pretending to be getting a revelation, is that "eternal" and "endless" are rhetorical, and there really isn't a such thing. There IS an end to the torment, he implies. Eternity, apparently, doesn't really go on forever.6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
I appreciate this post a lot for many reasons, not least of which being its integrity.Physics Guy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:50 pmIt might be completely wrong to attribute emotions or intentions to whatever it is that set the initial conditions, let alone a white beard. But whatever chooses the initial conditions of the universe does seem to be tantamount to God. If you held a job interview for God and the only candidate that showed up was the thing that set the initial conditions of the universe, it might turn out not be the kind of candidate that you'd had in mind, but you'd have to give it the job.
Failing either of those two escape hypotheses, we seem to be stuck with physics permanently pointing to something beyond itself, to set the initial conditions of the universe. It's not obvious from science that that something has to be much like anything that any religion has called God. But it seems to me that many atheists fail to appreciate how tremendous that something does have to be. It somehow made an awful lot of very specific detailed choices. How? Why? These aren't scientific questions in the sense that they are likely to yield to scientific methods, but they are very much the same kinds of basic questions that motivate science, and so in this sense they're not unscientific. They're just appallingly hard.