(February 13, 2018 at 9:14 am)polymath257 Wrote: As for the infinite regress, it seems like an A-theory description is easy: there is an infinite past. That is an A statement that is always true. Where's the problem?

This is the only part I may disagree with you (due to A-theory of time implying a traversal of infinity before getting to the present), but let's agree to disagree on this one, and agree with your post overall.

Well, I admit that I am partial to the B theory of time. It is the closest to how physics is done (although some common treatments of the B theory have statements that are not true physically). The whole A theory of time just seems strange to me, so I am sure I don't have all the particulars correct.

But if there is an infinite past in the A theory, is it required that the whole past be traversed? Or is the statement that there is an infinite past acceptable since it is tensed?

(February 13, 2018 at 12:52 am)Grandizer Wrote: Steve, you keep arguing that it is impossible to complete a potential infinity. I agree, but this is not an argument against an already completed actual infinity. The present is already here because its always been, not because the past moments stop existing. Yes, there are connections between this and that, but these are static connections. One movie frame does not cause the next frame even though they may be connected. And there is a certain perceived direction of time in this local universe, but this has more to do with how weve evolved in combination with the fact that this local universe started out with low entropy that just happens to increase. In other universes, it may be the other way around. Who knows.

---

Also, yes, this universe has that Big Bang thingy at the start (perhaps), but these are all moments that are a part of an frozen eternal structure. Even your state of consciousness at each moment is part of it.

1. You just said we can't get to an actual infinity by adding--but you can already have one???? How does that make any sense? Even in metaphysics, you have to follow the rules of logic. You hand-wave an actual infinity into existence because you need it for your theory--a theory whose sole purpose is to avoid a beginning. This is a perfect example of needing a theory that does x and then back-filling it with whatever crazy concepts you need to (regardless of if they are logical) and then declaring "according to the theory..." Don't think that's what you and Polymath are doing? Neither one of you has even attempted to explain it--just assert it over and over as part of the "theory." 

2. Even if you subscribe to the B-theory of time, that spacetime block is only 13.6 billions years old. It has a definite beginning. If you claim the block is eternal, you are not talking about what cosmologists are talking about.  It seems you have a whole different theory--one that I have still not seen one link or quote from. BTW, I read the whole Wiki article on Eternalism. It does not claim anything eternal. 

3. It also does not claim there is anything other than the obvious causality we experience. I think they use the term "cone" to illustrate causality in a block-time universe.

A brute fact isn't explained, that's what makes it a brute fact.  Consider your god.  Is there any explanation for it's existence?  No.  Only the assertion of alleged brute facts.  

Either that's a problem for both or it's a problem for neither.  Make up your mind and proceed from there.

(February 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. You just said we can't get to an actual infinity by adding--but you can already have one???? How does that make any sense? Even in metaphysics, you have to follow the rules of logic. You hand-wave an actual infinity into existence because you need it for your theory--a theory whose sole purpose is to avoid a beginning. This is a perfect example of needing a theory that does x and then back-filling it with whatever crazy concepts you need to (regardless of if they are logical) and then declaring "according to the theory..." Don't think that's what you and Polymath are doing? Neither one of you has even attempted to explain it--just assert it over and over as part of the "theory."

You can't complete a potential infinity. But if the infinity is already there, there is no need to complete it. It's there already. You believe God is an example of actual infinity anyway. Why then are you arguing against an actual infinity? Oh, that's right. You only want your God to be that special.

Quote:2. Even if you subscribe to the B-theory of time, that spacetime block is only 13.6 billions years old. It has a definite beginning. If you claim the block is eternal, you are not talking about what cosmologists are talking about.  It seems you have a whole different theory--one that I have still not seen one link or quote from. BTW, I read the whole Wiki article on Eternalism. It does not claim anything eternal.

I can only repeat this so many times. Yes, this universe has a beginning to its expansion with the Big Bang (and maybe to its existence as well), BUT we can only talk like this when we are analyzing the universe from a temporal first-person perspective. Looking at the whole structure from a birds-eye view, no, there is no ultimate beginning, and there is no flow of time. Time is a static coordinate.

Quote:3. It also does not claim there is anything other than the obvious causality we experience. I think they use the term "cone" to illustrate causality in a block-time universe.

You can argue that one state of the universe/cosmos causes the immediate state right after it, but that is just as much causation as a movie frame causing the immediate movie frame right after it, or USA causing Canada.

(February 13, 2018 at 4:05 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. You just said we can't get to an actual infinity by adding--but you can already have one???? How does that make any sense? Even in metaphysics, you have to follow the rules of logic. You hand-wave an actual infinity into existence because you need it for your theory--a theory whose sole purpose is to avoid a beginning. This is a perfect example of needing a theory that does x and then back-filling it with whatever crazy concepts you need to (regardless of if they are logical) and then declaring "according to the theory..." Don't think that's what you and Polymath are doing? Neither one of you has even attempted to explain it--just assert it over and over as part of the "theory."

You can't complete a potential infinity. But if the infinity is already there, there is no need to complete it. It's there already. You believe God is an example of actual infinity anyway. Why then are you arguing against an actual infinity? Oh, that's right. You only want your God to be that special.

---

Quote:2. Even if you subscribe to the B-theory of time, that spacetime block is only 13.6 billions years old. It has a definite beginning. If you claim the block is eternal, you are not talking about what cosmologists are talking about.  It seems you have a whole different theory--one that I have still not seen one link or quote from. BTW, I read the whole Wiki article on Eternalism. It does not claim anything eternal.

I can only repeat this so many times. Yes, this universe has a beginning to its expansion with the Big Bang (and maybe to its existence as well), BUT we can only talk like this when we are analyzing the universe from a temporal first-person perspective. Looking at the whole structure from a birds-eye view, no, there is no ultimate beginning, and there is no flow of time. Time is a static coordinate.

Quote:3. It also does not claim there is anything other than the obvious causality we experience. I think they use the term "cone" to illustrate causality in a block-time universe.

You can argue that one state of the universe/cosmos causes the immediate state right after it, but that is just as much causation as a movie frame causing the immediate movie frame right after it, or USA causing Canada.

---

I had a couple of questions on your first response here (I hope you don't mind)

An infinity is by definition unbound.   How can you have a completed infinity or something that is already infinite?

What are you claiming of God, that is an actual infinity?

It also seems to me, that in utilizing the B theory of time in such a way, in talking about an infinite amount of time, you are talking about time in two different ways.  And really their is not reason to assert that the block of time is eternal, anymore than it was born yesterday.

(February 13, 2018 at 4:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I had a couple of questions on your first response here (I hope you don't mind)

An infinity is by definition unbound.   How can you have a completed infinity or something that is already infinite?

Why not?

Quote:What are you claiming of God, that is an actual infinity?

Is God's presence finite?

Quote:It also seems to me, that in utilizing the B theory of time in such a way, in talking about an infinite amount of time, you are talking about time in two different ways.  And really their is not reason to assert that the block of time is eternal, anymore than it was born yesterday.

Two different ways of analyzing the world means two different languages (sets of words) to use. Water is a bunch of H2Os at molecular level, but zoom far out, and we don't see H2Os literally, just liquid water. So, at the far out level, we talk about water as liquid instead.

(February 13, 2018 at 4:28 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 13, 2018 at 4:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I had a couple of questions on your first response here (I hope you don't mind)

An infinity is by definition unbound.   How can you have a completed infinity or something that is already infinite?

1.)    Why not?

Quote:What are you claiming of God, that is an actual infinity?

2.)  Is God's presence finite?

Quote:It also seems to me, that in utilizing the B theory of time in such a way, in talking about an infinite amount of time, you are talking about time in two different ways.  And really their is not reason to assert that the block of time is eternal, anymore than it was born yesterday.

3.)   Two different ways of analyzing the world means two different languages (sets of words) to use. Water is a bunch of H2Os at molecular level, but zoom far out, and we don't see H2Os literally, just liquid water.

1.)   It is unbound by definition, you can't have it complete and thus bound.  An actual infinity keeps going and going with more to go after that.  It doesn't finish, hence an infinity

2.)  God's is omnipresent, but this isn't a mathematical  value.  It's not saying that God is present in an infinite number of places, but that God is present in all places.  God is not physical and is not bound in that way.    When dealing with the problems of an actual infinity, the problem is dealing with infinite in a quantitative sense.  I think that when you find talk of God and "infinite" you will often find that it is in this different sense.

3.)  Thanks for clarifying.  Would I be understanding correctly then, that it would be more accurate to state that the block of time in this view is eternal, rather than infinite time?  You would need to posit another time containing the block of time.   It also seems like even here, that you may be going back to an A theory understanding of time.

I go back and forth on the A/B theory of time.  I either heard or read somewhere, that the physical relation and effects of gravity to time, give us a reason for the B theory.   Everything else in all of our experiences and in everything that assumes cause and effect (such as science) points to the A theory.   I sometimes lean to more of  compatibility view of sorts (if that makes any sense)   B theorist loose me however, when they start talking towards there not being a causal relationship within time, or that one moment is independent of the ones before and after it.

(February 10, 2018 at 10:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 10, 2018 at 10:54 am)polymath257 Wrote: Once again, there is no *logical* problem with an infinite regress. Mathematics deals with the set of negative integers all the time. It isn't a logical problem. This is one example of the problems with ancient philosophy: we have learned a LOT about how to deal with infinities over the last 150 years or so. Yes, they don't act the same way as finite things do. But that isn't a contradiction.

You are imagining a problem (counting from negative infinity) where there is none. At each point, the 'counting' has been going on forever. So? The only problem with that is that there is no start. And that is not a *logical* problem. We are here and the clock has always been ticking.

This is getting tiring.

You don't know the half of it.

Theist: yada yada yada but stuff does exist, therefore God. QED

That is what is really tiring. You guys like to muse about grandly speculative questions. Then, when no one can give you an answer you like as much as "therefore God did it because God has been defined as that which can do anything", you shit on our chess board, knock the pieces every which way and crow about your great victory. It's almost as if you don't realize that "god did it" -where what He is and how He did it are declared unknowable- amounts to "it's a mystery" pretty much the same as what we have beyond what science reveals so far. Fortunately with science, revelation is ongoing so stay tuned.

OK, first some definitions.

Finite means it can be counted by some counting number or some 'real' number. Infinite means it is not finite.

So, a line segment of length 1 inch is 'finite' in length, but has an infinite number of points on it, so is infinite in terms of number of components. It is 'bounded', but also infinite. Similarly, anything with finite, non-zero volume will have an infinite number of components.

(This goes to show the definition of infinite in terms of boundedness is not a very good one).

The negative integers {..,-3,-2,-1} are unbounded below and bounded above. This is an infinite set because the number of negative integers cannot be counted by a finite number. That doesn't detract from its being bounded above (by 0). This is an example of a set that is bounded in one sense, but unbounded in another.

So, yes, you can have an actual infinite (like the negative integers) that is also bounded above. Not finishing isn't a criterion: the set is complete in and of itself.

Since I don't believe in any God, I can't say what you think about his/her/its infinite nature.

The water example shows that large collections can appear to be continuous when in fact they are not. So?