Philosophy Now Forum

I don't understand. Can you explain this better?

I have put together an argument that I think is pretty good. Just note that the first part is not my own, I found it posted here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mental-reality-theory-vs-external-reality-theory-checkmate/ The argument makes a strong case for why the burden of proof is...

I have put together an argument that I think is pretty good. Just note that the first part is not my own, I found it posted here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mental-reality-theory-vs-external-reality-theory-checkmate/ The argument makes a strong case for why the burden of proof is...

I have put together an argument that I think is pretty good. Just note that the first part is not my own, I found it posted here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mental-reality-theory-vs-external-reality-theory-checkmate/ The argument makes a strong case for why the burden of proof is...

If you had done what you claimed to have done I would've been paying attention to you instead of drinking wine. My drinking wine is the proof of you being boring. Also, I am being quite modest when I say that I am drinking wine. I am actually tripping on mushrooms. But the point stands. If you were...

Boring troll is boring. I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day! How dare you call me boring! I show you an ingenious proof that N = R, and you call me boring?? I demand an apology! Not even the Feral goats in Ireland would behave this way! Not even in during mating seasons! If you had d...

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more . Because once isn't enough. I did, and you are literally demonstrating it! By having to list the same natural number twice or more just to accommodate a few Reals. You have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that you are even sho...

Seriously?? So now the problem is that I am listing things twice?? Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more . Because once isn't enough. Didn't you claim the Reals were "larger" than the naturals? I did, and you are literally demonstrating it! By having to list the sa...

It's like you didn't read my previous explanations. I said you can list each box twice, one after the other. Once for numbers as seen on the list, and then for the next copy of the same box listed after that, as numbers for conversion into text that can then represent anything. Then just print the ...

If you list the naturals, where is the encoding for our western number digits? What if the person reading your naturals list doesn't know the numeral system? What if he only understands Roman Numerals or Babylonian Numerals ? Would you say the list fails then? Why are you answering the question wit...

Yes, it is! Take the number: 3800603189 that is in box_20_zeros : [3800603189.0000000000], and put it into a decimal-to-binary converter here: https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/decimal-to-binary.html Then put the binary result into this binary-to-text converter: https://www.binaryhexconver...

00.00 00.01 . ... 00.99 ... 99.99 And that is it! We finished all the finite possibilities of box: [00.00]! Now we move on to the next box of [000.000] and after that, we go to [0000.0000], and so on, and so on. Ah! I understand now! So your list doesn't contain any irrational numbers. There's no √...

Saying the Reals are not listable (in their infinity), is like saying a square circle is not a shape that can be drawn, but that is because it's not a fricking shape at all!! Idiot. Do you understand that the natural numbers are in fact listable (in their infinity)? List 0. List the next number. An...

But there is no "smallest" number after the decimal point. Of course there is. 0.000... The numbers are completely relative. 0.1, is seen as the same as 0.1000, what is 1 in one relative space is 1000 in the other. That's not true in general. You can't do this powers-of-ten trickery with ...

That's a circular definition. How many times do you have to "keep adding numbers"? No end? That's infinity! Your "definition" is circular. No, I am not. I am using my understanding of infinity a priori any definitions. It gets me everywhere. Infinity is undefined. Just the same ...