Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

amount - a quantity of something, especially the total of a thing or things in number, size, value, or extent.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/amount

A single name Billy may be considered an amount of 1 [name]. The answer is therefore yes.

Thanks for answering. So any name of anything is an amount on your view? Every word we're both using is an amount?

[psyreporter]

Yes, you may consider a word an amount by its own term. It is simply an observation that recognizes quantity which could be applicable to individual words without considering its meaning.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, you may consider a word an amount by its own term. It is simply an observation that recognizes quantity which could be applicable to individual words without considering its meaning.

It seems like you're not understanding what I'm asking.

It seems like you're thinking that I'm asking this:

If something is a quantity or amount, or at least if we're thinking about it as a quantity or amount, then is it a quantity or amount regardless what we name it?

I'm not asking that. I'm asking this:

If something is NOT a quantity or amount, or at least if we're NOT thinking about it as a quantity or amount, then is it a quantity or amount regardless what we name it?

So for example if we name an odd object we encounter "blorganich," where we're at least not thinking about blorganich as a quantity or amount, is blorganich nevertheless a quantity or amount on your view?

[psyreporter]

Something is by definition a reference to a quantity.

some - an unspecified amount or number of.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/some

Therefor the answer is yes. Even if you would explicitly NOT consider something to be an amount, it would still be an amount.

It would not be relevant since you claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility. In your argument in defense of the Kalam cosmological argument you clearly denote time as an amount.

It is why I wondered: on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

[Terrapin Station]

Something is by definition a reference to a quantity.

some - an unspecified amount or number of.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/some

Therefor the answer is yes. Even if you would explicitly NOT consider something to be an amount, it would still be an amount.

It would not be relevant since you claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility. In your argument in defense of the Kalam cosmological argument you clearly denote time as an amount.

It is why I wondered: on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

Okay, so again let's attempt to clarify this: do you consider every term we use to be a quantitative term?

[psyreporter]

A pattern is by definition quantitative. Since a term is an extension of pattern recognition, a term is by definition quantitative.

The observer is the origin of pattern recognition. At question is whether it is a valid idea to perceive the reality of time as bound by the pattern in which it is observed, thus, that it is quantitative and must have a total.

[Terrapin Station]

A pattern is by definition quantitative. Since a term is an extension of pattern recognition, a term is by definition quantitative.

The observer is the origin of pattern recognition. At question is whether it is a valid idea to perceive the reality of time as bound by the pattern in which it is observed, thus, that it is quantitative and must have a total.

There isn't any word that's not quantitative in your view, though. So we'd not be able to talk about anything non-quantitatively on your view.

[psyreporter]

When it concerns meaning that is derived from an interplay of words (e.g. logic), there may be an ability to arise comprehensibility of that which cannot be denoted to be quantitative.

That which would be denoted as non-quantitative wouldn't be a 'thing'. In the case of time being a thing, the word thing, as it appears, would be applicable only to the pattern that is recognized by the observer, which would be a mental construct.

[Consul]

A pattern is by definition quantitative.

Patterns are things-in-relations, and there is a quantitative aspect in terms of the number of (kinds of) things and the number of (kinds of) relations involved in a pattern.

[Terrapin Station]

When it concerns meaning that is derived from an interplay of words (e.g. logic), there may be an ability to arise comprehensibility of that which cannot be denoted to be quantitative.

That which would be denoted as non-quantitative wouldn't be a 'thing'. In the case of time being a thing, the word thing, as it appears, would be applicable only to the pattern that is recognized by the observer, which would be a mental construct.

Some words aren't "things," interplay of words isn't a "thing"?

How are you defining "thing"? I typically us "thing" more or less as a variable. But apparently you're not using it that way.

[psyreporter]

If a mental construct is to be considered a thing, then anything from the perspective of the human could be considered a thing by the mental construct in which it is perceived.

When it concerns meaning however, one could argue "not not" to indicate something for which no word exists.

What is the essence of not not? Can it be said to be quantitative?

[gater]

Something is by definition a reference to a quantity.

some - an unspecified amount or number of.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/some

Therefor the answer is yes. Even if you would explicitly NOT consider something to be an amount, it would still be an amount.

It would not be relevant since you claim that an infinite amount of time is an impossibility. In your argument in defense of the Kalam cosmological argument you clearly denote time as an amount.


The Kalam cosmological argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.


The problem with this is - Kalam assumes the Universe began to exist - he has no evidence to make this claim. The truth is that the Universe has always been here, it didnt have a beginning.

[Terrapin Station]

When it concerns meaning however, one could argue "not not" to indicate something for which no word exists.

What is the essence of not not? Can it be said to be quantitative?

You might as well have written that in Swahili.

[psyreporter]

The problem with this is - Kalam assumes the Universe began to exist - he has no evidence to make this claim. The truth is that the Universe has always been here, it didnt have a beginning.

Terrapin Station defends the Kalam cosmological argument by using what is mentioned in the paper as impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’.

The paper ends with the following:

There are, of course, other arguments for the finitude of the past that we have not discussed – most notably, perhaps, the one based on the supposed impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’. We shall have to leave them for another occasion.

If TP's argument can be considered correct, it could be seen as evidence that the Kalam cosmological argument is valid.

[Terrapin Station]

@Terrapin Station defends the Kalam cosmological argument

I'm an atheist.