(February 23, 2018 at 4:41 pm)SteveII Wrote:(February 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm)polymath257 Wrote: No, that is NOT the case. We aren't waiting for an infinite number to happen. At any point, there is only a finite wait to any other point. So, for example, between 100 years in the past and now is only a wait of 100 years, not an infinite amount of time. And, at both now and 100 years ago *an infinite amount of time had already passed*. There isn't an infinite amount to still occur to get to the present.
The precursors *have already happened*.
You have *yet* to show what the impossibility is.
What is the metaphysical problem with having no start? Specifically?
Yes, precisely, there has already been an infinite number of events at any point in time. So?
There could not have been that many events already (because events are things that can be counted backwards one before the other and by definition, you can't get to infinity by successive addition). Even if you still can't wrap your head around the standard definitions of infinity, doesn't the fact that there still has to be an infinite amount more events that have to happen before "any point in time" give you pause? By the very definition of infinity, you cannot traverse it to get to the events of today. There will always and forever be more events that must happen first!
You can't simply treat infinity as one thing that you can throw into a sentence because mathematicians use it in set theory. You are talking about an infinite series of events. These events have substance and are real things. You make a claim when you say there are an infinite series of events and you have to tell us how, against all logic, that is even possible.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that you can't find an article to explain this for you?
Unless you have something new, this is the last time I am going to say the same thing. 20 times is my limit.
(February 23, 2018 at 11:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: Steve,
In the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there are eternal models of cosmology. Do you believe that Roger Penrose considers his CCC model of cosmology to be a "logical impossibility"? And, why are these scientific papers getting published if they are so flawed? Now, if time must be finite, as you claim, then is space also finite?
P.S. Are all sets that are "potential infinite" the same cardinality? Or, are some bigger than others?
How do I know if Penrose even believes his theory to be the best one? Even if he got the math right, that does not imply in the least that an actual infinity exists.
Do you think that every scientific paper that gets published is true or that even the authors think it is true?
Are you asking if space is an actual infinite of distance or substance, then no. If you are asking is space a potential infinite of distance or substance -- that seems possible.
It seem to me that different potential infinities can accumulate more quickly so there should be some mathematical differentiation for that, but at the end of the day, there is no upper limit so it does not make sense when talking about real objects--and that is the topic of this thread and what I intend to discuss.
Why are you counting *backwards*? Time moves forward! Nobody is counting backwards from today to the infinite past.
I'm not sure what you mean by there having to be an infinite number of *more* events before any particular moment of time. Where is the 'more'?
So, what we do *NOT* have is a situation
start----infinite time----now.
Instead, we have the situation for any point in the past,
infinite time----point in the past---finite time---now.
At no point in this progression is there an infinite amount of *more* time to traverse. The amount of time between any two events is always finite. And the amount of time in the past of any event is infinite.
I really don't see where there is a problem here. No infinite traversal is required in a finite time. And an infinite traversal in an infinite time is not a problem.
Again, you fail to explicit state what the problem is. Nobody is claiming an infinite amount of any substance in a finite region. But an infinite amount of space or an infinite amount of time (neither of which is a substance) have no issues that I can see. And an infinite amount of substance throughout an infinite space is also no problem that I can see. And nothing you have said leads me to think differently on that.
And what does it even mean to be a potential infinity of space? isn;t that *exactly* the same as there being an actual infinity of space? if you can always go further (potential infinity), doesn't that mean that all of space is an actual infinity?
