On Dec 24, 6:29 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig--- undress to reply) wrote: > You are missing the point. The whole idea of the diagonal argument is
No, Phil, YOU are missing the point. YOU ARE NEW. Herc has been here FOR A DECADE. YOU should look back. Everything you are about to say HAS BEEN SAID a dozen times already. HE KNOWS the list is presumably exhaustive. He is trying to say that because you have to create infinitely many changes, YOU JUST CAN"T, because you never finish or it's too hard. What he ACTUALLY doesn't understand is that there is a logical inference rule called universal generalization. What he actually doesn't understand is that this rule does NOT give A FLYING FUCK how huge the domain of discourse (over which it is generalizing) may be -- there is NOT any issue of TIME OR SEQUENTIALITY in performing (whatever) over each individual element of the domain -- the generalization is asserted or true about ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. But he thinks that merely pointing out that a process is infinitary somehow proves it can't complete.