My own paradox!

[nes]

The NeS paradox...

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume matter in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Hypothetically assume that a computer that has always existed (and that this computer doesn't use power, change form, change shape, give off heat, never crashes, etc) calculated one more digit of pi every second.

Step 4 - Hypothetically assume today and we go check what the last digit of pi that the computer calculated.


If the computer has existed forever, then pi would have been calculated since an infinite number of digits would be calculated.

If the computer has not existed forever, then it would still be calculating pi.

Pick what you logically think is correct then answer below.


At what time would the computer stop calculating pi?

Would it be a finite or infinite number of years ago?



Conclusion: If the computer has calculated pi an infinite number of years ago, then it could calculate pi an infinite number of times. Which isn't possible since pi is infinitely long. Pi would first have to be fully calculated before pi can be calculated again. The main point being that we could never see what digit of pi the computer is on because the current state of time we go do that would never come.

Now apply this concept to matter in the universe existing for an infinite amount of time without being created. A computer that existed for an infinite amount of time calculating pi shows us that this isn't possible.

 

[RightinNYC]

There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin....it's not logically consistent, to start.

It's like saying "What would happen if an unstoppable object (i.e. a supercannonball) hit an immoveable wall (i.e. a superbarrier)?

Nothing, because such an event cannot occur by definition.

 

[nes]

There's so much wrong with this that I don't know where to begin....it's not logically consistent, to start.

It's like saying "What would happen if an unstoppable object (i.e. a supercannonball) hit an immoveable wall (i.e. a superbarrier)?

Nothing, because such an event cannot occur by definition.

Correct, such an event such as matter existing forever can't occur. My paradox shows this.

See, your right. Thats why a computer cannot exist calculating pi forever. An unstoppable object cannot exist. An immovable wall can't exist also. What exactly is wrong with my paradox?

People are assuming matter can exist forever, so I put this into context in my paradox.

 

[RightinNYC]

Correct, such an event such as matter existing forever can't occur. My paradox shows this.

See, your right. Thats why a computer cannot exist calculating pi forever. An unstoppable object cannot exist. An immovable wall can't exist also. What exactly is wrong with my paradox?

People are assuming matter can exist forever, so I put this into context in my paradox.

No, an unstoppable object can exist, as can an immovable wall. Just not in concurrence. And what's wrong with your paradox is that it....isn't really a paradox because the premises are illogical on their face.

 

[nes]

No, an unstoppable object can exist, as can an immovable wall. Just not in concurrence. And what's wrong with your paradox is that it....isn't really a paradox because the premises are illogical on their face.

No, an unstoppable object can exist, as can an immovable wall. Just not in concurrence. And what's wrong with your paradox is that it....isn't really a paradox because the premises are illogical on their face.

If an unstoppable object can exist, then can 2 unstoppable objects exist? What if 1 unstoppable object traveled at a rate of speed while the other object was at rest and they collided. Show me one unstoppable object that exists in the universe.

Show me which step premise is illogical and tell me why. I based the premises on the assumption that matter existed for an infinite amount of time without a beginning.

 

[RightinNYC]

I accidentally thanks you instead of quoting you :doh



If an unstoppable object can exist, then can 2 unstoppable objects exist? What if 1 unstoppable object traveled at a rate of speed while the other object was at rest and they collided. Show me one unstoppable object that exists in the universe.

Show me which step premise is illogical and tell me why. I based the premises on the assumption that matter existed for an infinite amount of time without a beginning.

You can remove the thanks on the side by clicking the "remove your thanks" button.

No, by definition, only one unstoppable object can exist. And of course one doesn't actually exist, it's called a singular premise.

Your premises are illogical because they simply can't exist together even in the first place.

1) We don't know that pi is infinite. We simply haven't reached the end yet.
2) You can't compare two infinites and try to draw conclusions from them. It's like saying "which is greater, infinity or infinity + 1?"

Neither.

 

[nes]

You can remove the thanks on the side by clicking the "remove your thanks" button.

No, by definition, only one unstoppable object can exist. And of course one doesn't actually exist, it's called a singular premise.

Your premises are illogical because they simply can't exist together even in the first place.

Then if my premises are illogical, you can conclude that matter has not been in existence forever.

1) We don't know that pi is infinite. We simply haven't reached the end yet.

Math Forum: Ask Dr. Math FAQ: About Pi

That is a lie.

Pi is an infinite decimal. Unlike numbers such as 3, 9.876, and 4.5, which have finitely many nonzero numbers to the right of the decimal place, pi has infinitely many numbers to the right of the decimal point.

2) You can't compare two infinites and try to draw conclusions from them. It's like saying "which is greater, infinity or infinity + 1?"

Neither.

Correct, your only proving that matter can't exist forever. There is an actual infinite, and a potential infinite. Time acts as a potential infinite, it will never be an actual infinite, because it is progressive. If time was infinite, then 1 second later wouldn't add to the total duration of time.

An example of this I brought up at another post is:

Easy to understand concept:

Its just as if an object created now traveled at one direction for an infinite amount of time, that object will never reach an infinite distance away.

As long as the object travels, it hasn't reached a distance that is infinitely far. Because if the object were to be infinitely far away, it would not gain distance because if it did, then it would be a further distance than it was before.

Actual infinity can never be achieved.

Since time is progressive, it will never be infinite.

The main point being that we could never see what digit of pi the computer is on because the current state of time we go do that would never come.

Also the computer would never have a beginning to calculating pi since it has existed forever.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Pathos

"Pathos"

The NeS paradox...
Step 1 - Assume time is constant.
Step 2 - Assume matter in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.
Step 3 - Hypothetically assume that a computer that has always existed (and that this computer doesn't use power, change form, change shape, give off heat, never crashes, etc) calculated one more digit of pi every second.
Step 4 - Hypothetically assume today and we go check what the last digit of pi that the computer calculated.
If the computer has existed forever, then pi would have been calculated since an infinite number of digits would be calculated.
If the computer has not existed forever, then it would still be calculating pi.
Pick what you logically think is correct then answer below.

At what time would the computer stop calculating pi?
Would it be a finite or infinite number of years ago?
Conclusion: If the computer has calculated pi an infinite number of years ago, then it could calculate pi an infinite number of times. Which isn't possible since pi is infinitely long. Pi would first have to be fully calculated before pi can be calculated again. The main point being that we could never see what digit of pi the computer is on because the current state of time we go do that would never come.
Now apply this concept to matter in the universe existing for an infinite amount of time without being created. A computer that existed for an infinite amount of time calculating pi shows us that this isn't possible.

If you like I can provide you with a link to another forum where I stated that the property of an irrational magnitude was this paradox. I clearly introduced it in the thread you started, "Big Bang theory".

 

[nes]

Re: Pathos

"Pathos"

If you like I can provide you with a link to another forum where I stated that the property of an irrational magnitude was this paradox. I clearly introduced it in the thread you started, "Big Bang theory".

This paradox only shows why matter existing forever is irrational, not how god exists. From the paradox I've shown you, you can only conclude that matter came in to a state of existence at one point of time. With this hypothetical pi computer, when would it start calculating pi? It would not have a beginning if it existed forever. If it never calculated "3.14" the first 3 digits, then it has not calculated pi. If there wasn't a point where it calculated "3.14" then it would never have a starting point for calculating pi, thus the calculation would be undetermined and incorrect.

Tell me specifically why my paradox is incorrect.

 

[RightinNYC]

Then if my premises are illogical, you can conclude that matter has not been in existence forever.

What?

Math Forum: Ask Dr. Math FAQ: About Pi

That is a lie.

By definition, until the end has been found, it cannot be CERTAIN that pi is infinite. There's always the chance that it could end. There's a paradox for you.

Correct, your only proving that matter can't exist forever. There is an actual infinite, and a potential infinite. Time acts as a potential infinite, it will never be an actual infinite, because it is progressive. If time was infinite, then 1 second later wouldn't add to the total duration of time.

An example of this I brought up at another post is:

Since time is progressive, it will never be infinite.

But in your own original statement, you said we were operating under the presumption that time WAS infinite. You're contradicting yourself.

Also the computer would never have a beginning to calculating pi since it has existed forever.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

 

[nes]

What?
By definition, until the end has been found, it cannot be CERTAIN that pi is infinite. There's always the chance that it could end. There's a paradox for you.

It has been proven that pi is an irrational number.

PROOF - pi is irrational

It has been mathematically proven that irrational numbers exist. It has been mathematically proven that pi is an irrational number.

What is the square root of 2?

But in your own original statement, you said we were operating under the presumption that time WAS infinite. You're contradicting yourself.

Correct, that means the presumption that time is infinite is wrong. This means that time was not infinite.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

With this hypothetical pi computer, when would it start calculating pi? It would not have a beginning if it existed forever. If it never calculated "3.14" the first 3 digits, then it has not calculated pi. If there wasn't a point where it calculated "3.14" then it would never have a starting point for calculating pi, thus the calculation would be undetermined and incorrect.

Do you believe that it is practical for an infinite number of events to occur, then after those infinite number of events comes the state of existence of present events? Time is progressive, an infinite duration of time can not pass.

Perhaps you should look at the paradox thoughtfully instead of skimming it through. Is it even practical to have something in existence forever?

 

[RightinNYC]

It has been proven that pi is an irrational number.

PROOF - pi is irrational

It has been mathematically proven that irrational numbers exist. It has been mathematically proven that pi is an irrational number.

What is the square root of 2?

These proofs are operating under our own time and logic constraints. In a world where computers can exist for all eternity, who's to say the same result would be reached?

Correct, that means the presumption that time is infinite is wrong. This means that time was not infinite.

Then this key premise you offer is contradicted by your own statement:

Assume matter in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

With this hypothetical pi computer, when would it start calculating pi? It would not have a beginning if it existed forever. If it never calculated "3.14" the first 3 digits, then it has not calculated pi. If there wasn't a point where it calculated "3.14" then it would never have a starting point for calculating pi, thus the calculation would be undetermined and incorrect.

Er, yes. So you're basically conceding that your entire argument is ridiculous and devoid of logic. Why bother posting it then?

Do you believe that it is practical for an infinite number of events to occur, then after those infinite number of events comes the state of existence of present events? Time is progressive, an infinite duration of time can not pass.

Perhaps you should look at the paradox thoughtfully instead of skimming it through. Is it even practical to have something in existence forever?

No, which is why I'm confused as to what you seem to think you've achieved with this. You've trumpeted it as if you've made some incredible discovery, when in reality all you've done is make up a scenario that is absurd. Here, let me try.

The RightatNYU paradox...

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume ponies in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Assume that ponies have long and pretty hair but only on Tuesdays

Step 4 - Assume that their hair falls out every Wednesday unless the world will end before the next Tuesday

Step 5 - Assume that no one can know if the world will end.


If the ponies have existed forever, then their hair must have fallen out every Wednesday. However, because we cannot know something that only occurs in a scenario we can never encounter, how do we know that rule 4 even exists?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Definitions

"Definitions"

This paradox only shows why matter existing forever is irrational, not how god exists. From the paradox I've shown you, you can only conclude that matter came in to a state of existence at one point of time. With this hypothetical pi computer, when would it start calculating pi? It would not have a beginning if it existed forever. If it never calculated "3.14" the first 3 digits, then it has not calculated pi. If there wasn't a point where it calculated "3.14" then it would never have a starting point for calculating pi, thus the calculation would be undetermined and incorrect.
Tell me specifically why my paradox is incorrect.

What is there to disprove?
A paradox by definition is a set of premises independently true, which lead to a contradiction when any is applied.
It is the exact property that an irrational magnitude both is and is not.
The initial timeline argument fails because you also apply the discrete premise of being or not being thereby creating a contadiction. The only valid thing to do is accept the paradox. Speculating, it is an inherent foundation of reflexive causality.

Such is the reason for the following reply in the "Big Bang theory" thread.

For the universe to exist forever would mean that there would never be an event that would cause its existence.

Now you are learning.

 

[nes]

These proofs are operating under our own time and logic constraints. In a world where computers can exist for all eternity, who's to say the same result would be reached?

The proofs prove that pi is an infinite number. I merely used the computers as an example to illustrate work done as a measure of time.

Then this key premise you offer is contradicted by your own statement:

Then if the key premise is untrue, the premise that matter existed forever is untrue also.

Er, yes. So you're basically conceding that your entire argument is ridiculous and devoid of logic. Why bother posting it then?

Because some people believe that matter has been in existence forever. I am illustrating why its devoid of logic.

No, which is why I'm confused as to what you seem to think you've achieved with this. You've trumpeted it as if you've made some incredible discovery, when in reality all you've done is make up a scenario that is absurd. Here, let me try.

The RightatNYU paradox...

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume ponies in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Assume that ponies have long and pretty hair but only on Tuesdays

Step 4 - Assume that their hair falls out every Wednesday unless the world will end before the next Tuesday

Step 5 - Assume that no one can know if the world will end.


If the ponies have existed forever, then their hair must have fallen out every Wednesday. However, because we cannot know something that only occurs in a scenario we can never encounter, how do we know that rule 4 even exists?

This paradox is incompatible with the paradox I presented. Your premises have conditional statements. Step 4 is a conditional statement. My premises do not have any conditional statements. Why don't you try rephrasing your paradox without any conditional statements. no "ifs".

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume matter in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Hypothetically assume that a computer that has always existed (and that this computer doesn't use power, change form, change shape, give off heat, never crashes, etc) calculated one more digit of pi every second.

Step 4 - Hypothetically assume today and we go check what the last digit of pi that the computer calculated.

There is no "if" statements. Lets see your paradox rephrased.


The RightatNYU paradox... rephrased by nes

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume ponies in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Assume that ponies have long and pretty hair but only on Tuesdays

Step 4 - Assume that their hair falls out every Wednesday

Step 5 - Assume that no one can know if the world will end.

The conclusion?

Peter Suber, "Paradoxes of Material Implication"

 

[RightinNYC]

The proofs prove that pi is an infinite number. I merely used the computers as an example to illustrate work done as a measure of time.

Ah, but they prove it under our current constraints.

Then if the key premise is untrue, the premise that matter existed forever is untrue also.

Uh.....yea.

Because some people believe that matter has been in existence forever. I am illustrating why its devoid of logic.

You're failing miserably at this task.

This paradox is incompatible with the paradox I presented. Your premises have conditional statements. Step 4 is a conditional statement. My premises do not have any conditional statements. Why don't you try rephrasing your paradox without any conditional statements. no "ifs".

There is no "if" statements. Lets see your paradox rephrased.

The RightatNYU paradox... rephrased by nes

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume ponies in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Step 3 - Assume that ponies have long and pretty hair but only on Tuesdays

Step 4 - Assume that their hair falls out every Wednesday

Step 5 - Assume that no one can know if the world will end.

The conclusion?

You're taking both your original statement and my own restatement waaaaay too seriously. This whole thread is pointless.

 

[nes]

How about this conclusion,

If matter existed forever in an isolated system and events that occur presently rely upon the events that occur prior, then the present and past events could not be determined because the first event is undetermined.

So, show me a paradox that allows a computer to calculate pi forever and give you a number it is calculating on.

EDIT: no use, I conclude that you are to brainwashed and incapable to understand the concept of actual infinity and potential infinity.

 

[nes]

To show probability and chance to not exist and events that happen in the past and present determine events that happen in the future, I'll show you my coin flipping conclusion.

If you flip a coin in an isolated environment, if you flip it with a certain force and direction for each event the outcome will be the same. In reality, there is no such thing as chance or probability, there is only cause and effect.

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

If the universe existed forever, then determinism cannot exist since all events are the result of prior events and those events are the result of prior events which ultimately is the result of the first event.

Laplace's demon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the history of science, Laplace's demon is a hypothetical "demon" envisioned in 1814 by Pierre-Simon Laplace such that if it knew the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe then it could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and future.

Do you believe this to be true?

If so, then how could these events occur when the first event is undefined.

 

[MrFungus420]

The NeS paradox...

Step 1 - Assume time is constant.

Step 2 - Assume matter in this universe existed for an infinite amount of time.

Fine so far...

Step 3 - Hypothetically assume that a computer that has always existed (and that this computer doesn't use power, change form, change shape, give off heat, never crashes, etc) calculated one more digit of pi every second.

And here is where you fall down. If it has existed for an infinite amount of time, then it could never start calculating. By definition, having a defined end point (such as starting the calculation of pi), it is not infinite.

Now, since the rest of your babbl...sorry, argument, rests on this premise, and the premise is faulty, the rest of your argument is baseless.

And, it's not yours in any way. It is just a restatement of the Cosmological Argument.

 

[MrFungus420]

Correct, such an event such as matter existing forever can't occur. My paradox shows this.

See, your right. Thats why a computer cannot exist calculating pi forever. An unstoppable object cannot exist. An immovable wall can't exist also. What exactly is wrong with my paradox?

People are assuming matter can exist forever, so I put this into context in my paradox.

Again, it's not yours at all.

And, again, your basic premise is flawed. Since pi has a defined beginning, there has to be a particular point at which it began calculating pi.

It only appears a paradox because you are first assuming that there is a beginning and then using that to prove that there must be a beginning. It is an example of circular reasoning.

 

[MrFungus420]

Re: Pathos

Tell me specifically why my paradox is incorrect.

I just did.

 

[MrFungus420]

Then if the key premise is untrue, the premise that matter existed forever is untrue also.

No, your key premise is the contradiction.

You are simultaneously trying to contend that the computer exists without a beginning yet it began when it started calculating pi.

The only paradox is in your initial premise. It requires both no beginning and a beginning.

Because some people believe that matter has been in existence forever. I am illustrating why its devoid of logic.

It's devoid of logic because your premise is based on a contradiction?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No matter how many times or how clearly you explain it to him he is still going to think that because his argument is illogical, what he was trying to argue against also must be.

IF your magical computer always existed, it never started counting.

 

[nes]

No, your key premise is the contradiction.

You are simultaneously trying to contend that the computer exists without a beginning yet it began when it started calculating pi.

The only paradox is in your initial premise. It requires both no beginning and a beginning.

It's devoid of logic because your premise is based on a contradiction?

See, your getting somewhere. If the computer never existed to calculate "3.14", then the state of existence that we live in would never come. This is because time is progressive, I demonstrated this by saying a digit is calculated a second, giving this progressiveness a value. Since without a beginning means an infinite amount of time, I picked pi. An infinite amount of digits should be calculated if the computer has always existed and calculated 1 digit of pi a second.

PREMISES:

1. time is constant
2. computer exists forever calculating 1 digit of pi a second
3. the computer would have calculated an infinite amount of digits by the time our state of existence has come


the computer would have never started pi by "3.14" or any other defined digit, the computer would have to start at a digit that is infinite because it is undefined. If the computer started at "3.14", then the computer would have a beginning. If the computer did not start at "3.14", then any calculation it makes won't effect our current state of existence. So is it even possible for a computer to exist forever?

If the universe did not begin, this is an actual infinite. Since time is progressive, it is potentially infinite, yet it will never reach an infinite value.

So in conclusion stating that matter existed forever is illogical.

If you say premise 2 or 3 is devoid of logic, then you must conclude that matter had a beginning.

 

[Gibberish]

It's like saying "What would happen if an unstoppable object (i.e. a supercannonball) hit an immoveable wall (i.e. a superbarrier)?

Wouldn't the unstoppable object simply bounce off the immovable object? By this occurring the immovable object wasn't moved and the unstoppable object never stopped.

 

[nes]

Wouldn't the unstoppable object simply bounce off the immovable object? By this occurring the immovable object wasn't moved and the unstoppable object never stopped.

I thought of this to, however I assumed the unstoppble object had an infinite amount of mass, etc... Unstoppable objects don't exist in reality and never will.