And here I thought that you had gotten tired of being wrong, and just skulked off. Oh, well...

Wortfish wrote:Newmark wrote:We've been over this. Do you think that the sets {..., -2, -1} and {..., -2, -1, 0} are equal? Both have no lower bound, and thus no beginning as I have defined it. You are, as usual, dead wrong.

Why are -1 and -2 negative with respect to? The anwer, of course, is 0. And that's why this set is meaningless with respect to the flow of time which flows forward towards zero and not away from it.

Tomorrow is 1 day from today. Yesterday is... how many days from today? I would say that "-1" would be a perfectly reasonable answer. Or do you propose that we can't measure the distance from now to a point in the past? Or are "yesterday" and "tomorrow" the same day, if both are the same distance from today?

You conception of what constitutes "all possible elements" is ill-defined (must the natural numbers contain every possible complex number?), and so is your idea of infinity (since you by your definition above can't tell me that the set of every integer except zero is infinite). In short, if you want to actually understand mathematics, don't take all your lessons from a conspiracy crackpot.

If something has been moving forever, it must have covered all possible points because it has had an endless amount of time to do so. If it has not covered every possible point, that implies it did not have enough time to do so which is clearly absurd.

Not that this hasn't got the slightest bit to do with the passage you quoted, but I have explained several times why your usage of "forever" is insufficient. This "problem" only becomes absurd in your straw man version of infinity.

An infinite set is a complete set.

No.

You are, as usual, dead wrong.

Some infinite sets fulfills the requirements for

some mathematical definitions of "complete". No definition of complete fits

all infinite sets in a way that would help your argument, especially since you could even answer my question above about what constitutes "all possible elements". Give me the definition of "complete" and "infinite" you are using (and "endless" while your at it), and tell me if you think the following sets are both "infinite" and "complete":

All natural numbers

All odd numbers

All negative numbers

All primes

The union of all integers greater than 1 and all integers less than -1

All rational numbers between 0 and 1

All real numbers

All complex numbers, excluding the real numbers

Or, you can simply admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And here (aside from previously refuted points) you provide an ample example of why your concepts of infinity doesn't apply to the past, while at the same time displaying that you don't understand a model as simple as the negative numbers, and thus continue to argue against your strawman.Yet again, "there must have been a beginning, because infinity is impossible, because there must have been a beginning"... Don't you every get dizzy?

I'm done with negative numbers since you don't realize that they only make sense in this context once an infinite duration has already endured....and, yes, that is impossible.

Translation: you are done with negative numbers because you still haven't grasped the the difference between set size and distance between points, and prefer to stick with your straw man. You are indeed wise to stop arguing about things you know nothing about, like your claim that the reals and the rationals are the same set if you approximate enough...