|
|
In article <45476fcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Tony Orlow wrote:
> >> Randy Poe wrote:
> >>> Tony Orlow wrote:
> >>>> Randy Poe wrote:
> >>>>> Tony Orlow wrote:
> >>>>>> Virgil wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <4542201a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>>>>>> Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> When you say "noon doesn't occur"; I think "he doesn't accept (1):
> >>>>>>>>> by a
> >>>>>>>>> time t, we mean a real number t"
> >>>>>>>> That doesn't mean t has to be able to assume ALL real numbers. The
> >>>>>>>> times
> >>>>>>>> in [-1,0) are all real numbers.
> >>>>>>> By what mechanism does TO propose to stop time?
> >>>>>> By the mechanism of unfinishablility.
> >>>>> But that's why I asked you a question about variables labelling
> >>>>> times yesterday, when noon clearly occurred.
> >>>> The experiment occurred in [-1,0). Talk of time outside that range is
> >>>> irrelevant. Times before that are imaginary, and times after that are
> >>>> infinite. Only finite times change anything, so if something changes,
> >>>> it's at a finite, negative time.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can define a list of times t_n = noon yesterday - 1/n seconds,
> >>>>> for all n=1, 2, 3, ...
> >>>> Are there balls in the vase for t<-1? No.
> >>> What balls? What vase?
> >>>
> >>> I'm naming times. They're just numbers.
> >>>
> >>>>> Clearly this list of times has no end. But didn't noon happen?
> >>>> Nothing happened at noon to empty the vase, \
> >>> What vase? Why are you obsessed with vases?
> >>>
> >>> Do you deny me the ability to create a set of variables
> >>> t_n, n = 1, 2, ...? Why do vases have to come into it?
> >> I thought we were trying to formulate the problem.
> >
> > No, we (some of us) are trying to formulate a completely
> > different problem, with balls and vases (possibly even
> > times) explicitly removed so that other aspects can be examined.
> >
> > Yet you keep trying to put balls and vases back in, after being told
> > that they are not present in the new problem.
>
> I am pointing out that your formulation doesn't match the original
> problem. You say above you are possibly eliminating times form the
> problem. Sorry, but that's a required feature, and if your mathematical
> description ignores them, then it's missing the boat.
TO has several times himself tried to eliminate times, because keeping
the times in requires that he admit that every ball inserted into the
vase at a time before noon is also removed at a time before noon.
If times are in, then TO is wrong.
>
> >
> > I'm asking a question not having to do with balls and vases
> > but that does involve times. I'm trying to get at this "noon doesn't
> > happen" concept and what about the problem parameters
> > makes you think the experiment can stop time. In another thread,
> > even time has been removed and the discussion is simply about
> > subsets of the natural numbers.
>
> That approach does not represent the problem. Set theory without times
> cannot describe this unending process. When you include time, this
> becomes clear.
And it becomes (or remains) clear that TO has the wrong end of the
stick. As usual!
>
> >
> > In both cases, the idea is to get AWAY from the balls and
> > vases problem and focus on specific, separate properties of
> > that problem. Without balls or vases. OK?
> >
> > - Randy
> >
>
> As long as it's true to the problem. I am not interested in whether you
> can concoct some OTHER experiment where I'll agree the vase is empty.
> That's a waste of time. The problem is with the original problem, and
> changing the problem to suit your answer is non-logical.
Then why has TO tried so hard and so often to do precisely that?
According to the original problem, every ball inserted before noon is
removed before noon.
|
|