tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6840999498049883601..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Thomson's lampAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18083326762789968352009-05-22T22:09:09.473-05:002009-05-22T22:09:09.473-05:00"Infinitely subdividable" is ambiguous. In one se..."Infinitely subdividable" is ambiguous. In one sense, it means that it is possible for time to be in fact infinitely subdivided. In that sense, (2') is enough. In another sense, it means that for any finite division, a further finite subdivision is possible, but without a claim that an infinite subdivision is possible. In that sense, (2') is not enough.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-38386214606677828792009-05-22T18:30:12.675-05:002009-05-22T18:30:12.675-05:00Why does the argument to a paradox have to maintai...Why does the argument to a paradox have to maintain (2)? Why can't she just maintain:<BR><BR>(2') If time is infinitely subdivisible, the story of Thomson's lamp is possible?James Bejonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05842862598659108841noreply@blogger.com