tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post9151526390361996757..comments2023-10-24T03:46:41.971-07:00Comments on Contingencies: ~(infinity)Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-26464209220943787442010-08-04T10:10:24.822-07:002010-08-04T10:10:24.822-07:00to take a constructivist view, the point, line, eq...to take a constructivist view, the point, line, equations indeed entire coordinate system is itself...posited, made to fit "the world", specific problems, projects, etc. And what are points? obviously building a bridge, or skyscraper or trench, the points are "real" in space--or we take them to be....(if you mean absolute space as per Newton or something, a rather different Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-56854593881417962662010-08-04T07:57:49.738-07:002010-08-04T07:57:49.738-07:00I left this question in my blog, which we could al...I left this question in my blog, which we could also discuss here: are locations real? If I set up some arbitrary starting point and method of determining direction, the place that is one inch north from my origin is easily and uniquely identified. Is it real? If you can identify such a place for every member of the successor set, that mean there are an infinite number of real places?<br /><One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-43598628040142177662010-08-03T19:55:49.291-07:002010-08-03T19:55:49.291-07:00Hey OB.
I was hoping you would say something on ...Hey OB. <br /><br />I was hoping you would say something on this topic. I am opposed to Craig's arguments...yet the strictly constructivist points (ie nothing to do with theology) against Cantor's hierarchy of sets don't seem completely off base, as Lucas points out. Is mere successorship sufficient for infinity? Furthermore the idea that sets could be both greater than (set off Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-34121281766880544582010-08-03T18:47:19.102-07:002010-08-03T18:47:19.102-07:00Actually, we recognize a positive definition of in...Actually, we recognize a positive definition of infinity: a set is infinite if it is the same size as a proper subset. This is true whether we are using a count or a measure for size.<br /><br />In particular, this definition makes it clear why the William Lane Craig arguments are such failures.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592514.post-8545579366292921242010-08-03T10:38:09.438-07:002010-08-03T10:38:09.438-07:00INFINITY?
I took her out once.
She was an Absol...INFINITY?<br /> I took her out once. <br />She was an Absolute ZERO!<br /><br /><br />(I am staying as Anonymous<br /> because once my secret is out<br /> I might get way-laid by the likes of Jessica Smith<br /> or worse: One of her ClubbiesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com