The Measure Problem

[Strange]

I had never heard of “finitism” before. If anyone else is in that fortunate position, you can confirm your worst fears about philosophy as an academic subject here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

I do have a lot of respect for proper philosophy. But not this sort of junk. 

[DannyTR]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you will find you are wrong there. It has been put on a firm mathematical basis. Your faith just won’t let you understand that. 

How can an “eternalist” think time has an end? That sounds like a contradiction. I think you need a new name for your religion. 

Hilbert’s Hotel illustrates the illogical nature of set theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

A completely full hotel with room for an infinite number of new guests. Sound! I don’t call that a ‘firm mathematical basis’.

I believe that past, present and future are ‘real’ and all exist. If time is real it must be finate, hence an end of time.

Eternalism is defined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

[taeto]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I had never heard of “finitism” before. If anyone else is in that fortunate position, you can confirm your worst fears about philosophy as an academic subject here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

I do have a lot of respect for proper philosophy. But not this sort of junk. 

I have not checked that particular wikipedia page, which I admit could possibly be infested with crackpot contributions. But finitism is basically a respectable theory, just to check how much one can get away with without the possibility of something like "infinite sets". Obviously it is not a lot, as it bans you from doing arithmetic, calculus, complexity etc. But in some contexts of fundamental maths it is a worthwhile study.

Of course the cranks, like the OP, hate this theory. They want to argue that all of ZFC is "wrong", without admitting to any finitistic presumptions.  

[DannyTR]

4 minutes ago, taeto said:

I have not checked that particular wikipedia page, which I admit could possibly be infested with crackpot contributions. But finitism is basically a respectable theory, just to check how much one can get away with without the possibility of something like "infinite sets". Obviously it is not a lot, as it bans you from doing arithmetic, calculus, complexity etc. But in some contexts of fundamental maths it is a worthwhile study.

Of course the cranks, like the OP, hate this theory. They want to argue that all of ZFC is "wrong", without admitting to any finitistic presumptions.  

I only have a problem with the ‘axiom of infinity’; the rest of ZFC I’m not questioning. Calculus worked just fine for 300 years before the invention of infinite sets. I think the limit concept is fine as that can be defined with just potential infinity. 

[taeto]

2 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

I only have a problem with the ‘axiom of infinity’; the rest of ZFC I’m not questioning. Calculus worked just fine for 300 years before the invention of infinite sets. I think the limit concept is fine as that can be defined with just potential infinity. 

Excuse me. Please explain how the Axiom of Infinity has any bearing on the definition of a limit in Calculus??

And since you will not be able to do that, please explain why you thought that was the case.

[Phi for All]

46 minutes ago, DannyTR said:

I’m Eternalist and a Finitist so I have to believe time has a end.

!

Moderator Note

You've taken this discussion into religion, and despite the efforts of the participating members, have refused to support your ideas with anything near scientific rigor. Your insistence on certain subjects has led you to soapbox about them without listening to any refutations. It's clear from the above statement that you can't be reasoned with in this regard. You have substituted faith for trust in your belief system.

Thread closed. Don't bring up the topic again unless you're prepared to discuss the evidence you have for your assertions.