(February 24, 2018 at 5:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(February 24, 2018 at 5:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: You correctly understand my point. Polymath does not because he is so sure that there is not problem with an infinite chain of evens that he doesn't even see the metaphysical impossibility of his statements. He just states them over and over because his math background says you can do math with potentially infinite sets so an actual infinite must exist. If it wasn't so frustrating, it would be a fascinating example on why Philosophy of Science should be the first course math and physics majors should take.I can see the paradox: it is counter-intuitive to not have a start since we are accustomed to things having one. But why does that lead to an *impossibility*?
And I would say this is why math and physics should come first and philosophy later: most people simply haven't developed their intuitions prior to learning how things actually are or can be.
And there it is. Thinking that math and physics should come first before being properly trained to think is what the problem is (of course we are talking about the pursuit of advanced degrees). Both math and physics rely on the Philosophy of Science to even exist--yet you place it secondary to the subject.
Quote:
(February 24, 2018 at 5:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I can see the paradox: it is counter-intuitive to not have a start since we are accustomed to things having one. But why does that lead to an *impossibility*?
And I would say this is why math and physics should come first and philosophy later: most people simply haven't developed their intuitions prior to learning how things actually are or can be.
Essentially, as far as I can see, you are assuming that any process in the real world must have a start. Does that correctly state your position?
So, why do you think this is necessary?
Because if a series of events did not have a start, the current events we are experiencing would never occur because there would still have to be an infinite number of events that must come first. You are suggesting that an infinite number of events have already happened, but that simply cannot be true. Since events are actual countable things, by definition, you could not have traversed an infinite amount of them to get to the current event. There will always have to be infinitely more events that still need to happen. This is not a "counter-intuitive" problem. This is a metaphysical impossibility.
Again, don't you find it strange that you can't find a paper on an infinite series of events?