ID and infinite regression

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dauphin
There are an infinite number or class of infinities.

Did Georg Cantor prove that there are an infinite number of infinities, one is bigger than the one "below" it? Or did he only showed that you can have different classes of infinities and you can compare their sizes?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Isn't that Carl Jung? Though that's id, not ID. ID (all caps) is either an acronym or an abbreviation.

Nope, it's Freud.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ecthy
molly?

I'm distracted, battling my:

Creatures from the ID, page 7

http://www.gotsuperpowers.com/gallery/creaturesfromtheidpg7.htm

[Brundlefly]

Spinoza said either there is infinite deferral of meaning, in which case, everything is absurd, or the chain of meaning ends in a primordial being. Most people cannot deal with the idea that everything is absurd, therefore they run into the arms of religion. Without existense of a primordial being, this means we are the source of meaning for everything. Sartre would say that such religious types are in "bad faith" because they dont want to accept and take responsibility for being utterly free.,.

[LiberalAtheist]

Nope, because you can at any time just arbitrarily end the line of causality at supernatural beings for your own conveniance. See anything material MUST be created. Why? BECAUSE I SAID SO! But doesn't that mean God needs a creator? No because he is supernatural and so different (I love the fallacy of equivocation).

[LiberalAtheist]

Originally posted by Brundlefly
Sartre would say that such religious types are in "bad faith" because they dont want to accept and take responsibility for being utterly free.,.

Satre also said Liebniz and Kant were atheists....

In any event, I like how you line up a determinist philosopher with a total indeterminist. Tight.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Did Georg Cantor prove that there are an infinite number of infinities, one is bigger than the one "below" it? Or did he only showed that you can have different classes of infinities and you can compare their sizes?

I don't know if he did. It can be shown by induction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A593552

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Did Georg Cantor prove that there are an infinite number of infinities, one is bigger than the one "below" it? Or did he only showed that you can have different classes of infinities and you can compare their sizes?

He proved there's an infinite series of ever bigger infinities.

It's a fairly trivial consequence of Cantor's Theorem.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


That has nothing to do with my argument. My position is that it is in principle impossible to identify an experiential given as the justificatory basis for our beliefs, because there is in fact no such thing.

unfortunately this in only true in such a way as to be totally irrelevant.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo

unfortunately this in only true in such a way as to be totally irrelevant.

As if you even understood it.

[Last Conformist]

It nonetheless doesn't matter, since we're stuck being empiricists or crazy.

[Mercator]

I can only see one positive thing about intelligent design. It's still rubbish and the fact that people are trying to push it into education is worrying. But at least it's a step closer to evolution and a step away from clinging on to thinking the Earth was created 10,000 years ago. When all Christians are finally convinced supernatural selection is the one true description of the origin of life ( ), it'll be easier to convince them.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


As if you even understood it.

Ill restate my post. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge empirical data as intrinsically more reliable as a basis for forming beliefs than non empirical data is irrelevant.

[Ecthy]

What's so creaturesque about that boy playing guitar? He does look a little incestuous but then also quite young, so he might get better. Plus, he seems into music. So stop pretending he be zombie.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Ill restate my post. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge empirical data as intrinsically more reliable as a basis for forming beliefs than non empirical data is irrelevant.

The fact that there is no clear cut distinction between what counts as empirical and non-empirical confirmation makes a mockery of your assertion. You simply don't know what you are talking about. You can't pass off an 18th century philosophical position in the 21st century without being laughed at.

What counts as empirical data is internal to our belief set. External events can cause beliefs, but that is different from justifying them (a cause is not a reason). And beliefs do not face confirmation or disconfirmation on their own, but as part of large interdependent sets.