[TZK]

Please respond with any counter arguments for any of these you disagree with. Most of them have to do with ideas created by metaphor as opposed to any direct experience with such a thing.

1) Time is not a spatial demension - space only has 3 dimensions, or rather space is simply space which can be represented by 3 dimensions. This is not to say that formulas with both values in them would not work, but that they would work for reasons other than time being "the" fourth dimension. Such a statement is nonsense created by metaphor and has no real meaning. Time and space are related because time is defined by our observation of things in space.

2) Infinity cannot be proven and therefore should be treated as a process which seems to have no necessary end and not a quantity. As far as we can possibly know the universe is finite in nature, as instruments of infinite precision would be required to determine otherwise. The largest number is simply whatever you or your fastest computer can count to before dying.

3) Numbers are defined visually or through other senses. Trying to define numbers using things like the "multiplicative identity" is a fool's errand and just ends you up with a circular definition. Math is a proper subset of logic and human reason in general.

4) Unless it can be shown that cause and effect ceases to work in any way, philisophical determinism is preserved. The fact that some scientist got excited a long time ago and claimed that the future could be predicted has nothing to do with the real determinism. That didn't make sense under philisophical determinism before quantum physics, at least not for anyone in the near future.

5) There is no evidence or necessity for SR to apply to subatomic particles. A simple reinterpretation is all that is needed to see why subatomic particles could possibly be exempt.

[Tormod]

I don't think your post holds criticism as much as it sounds like slightly confused rambling...

Originally Posted by TZK

1) Time is not a spatial demension

I am not aware of any theory treating time as a spatial dimension so it's difficult to counter this one.

2) Infinity cannot be proven

I am not sure what sort of infinity you imply here but there is definitely an infinite amount of whole numbers, just as there is an infinite amount of fractions between any whole number.

As far as we can possibly know the universe is finite in nature

Not sure what you mean by "as far as we can possibly know". As far as we know, the universe is probably *either* finite or infinite, but neither has been proven.

The largest number is simply whatever you or your fastest computer can count to before dying.

This is very strange logic and implies that the counting of numbers "create" infinity - however, the infinity of numbers existed before computers.

3) Numbers are defined visually or through other senses. Trying to define numbers using things like the "multiplicative identity" is a fool's errand and just ends you up with a circular definition. Math is a proper subset of logic and human reason in general.

Numbers can be defined *mentally* and I don't think that counts as a "sense" in the usual definition of the term. Numbers probably have no meaning without language or mind.

4) Unless it can be shown that cause and effect ceases to work in any way, philisophical determinism is preserved.

Cause and effect do not work in quantum physics so I am not sure what your criticism is targeting (because that rules out your "in any way" bit).

5) There is no evidence or necessity for SR to apply to subatomic particles. A simple reinterpretation is all that is needed to see why subatomic particles could possibly be exempt.

Not sure what you mean.