|
No roach, I was referring to Vigilante's.
Vigilante. No offense taken, but if you bring something up here you should make more of an effort to defend it than saying "google it". I mean, I could just say google this whole discussion and end this thread.
I disagree with your definition of infinity. You're trying to disprove the notion based on what I consider a non-standard definition of the subject matter. Who said infinity has to go on in both directions?
Also, formally, my infinite sequence machine example is such:
If infinity exists
There can exist such a mechanical device that will produce an infinite number sequence
over an infinite amount of time.
It doesn't have to be electronic. That's not fundamentally part of it. You can't say it will fail because there won't be enough time, because the statement operates under the assumption that there is infinite time.
The task is to prove the opposite to form a biconditional. I feel like it's a biconditional by definition, because an infinite number sequence would take infinite amount of time. So if one exists, there must be infinity.
This statement by be cyclically redundant and therefore invalid though, but I challenge somebody to formalize the opposite viewpoint.
__________________
In the end we are but wisps
|