(February 14, 2018 at 9:38 am)SteveII Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 9:28 am)polymath257 Wrote: Well, we do not know if space is infinite in extent. If it is, there are an infinite number of stars.

I can show you any number of physics books that assume an infinite time into the past. It isn't a *logical* problem. Whether it is reality is another thing. But the problem isn't the logic.

First, an infinite number of stars? If it wasn't apparent before, it sure is now--you don't know what you are talking about.

Second, if such a thing appears in "any number of physics books" then it should not be hard to paste a link so at least someone could explain it. SHOW US YOU HAVE NOT MADE THIS ALL UP! Is that asking too much!!

Again, what is wrong with having an infinite number of stars? Most are far enough away that the light hasn't gotten here since the start of the current expansion. But there is no *logical* problem.

What's there to explain? They use the whole real line to model time. That's it. No further explanation needed.

---

Let me put it this way: can you imagine a time for which there was not previous time?

This "Completed Infinity" stuff is just nonsense. You have put two words together that are contradictory. Just like "married bachelor". Your phrase literally contains no meaning.

(February 14, 2018 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: This "Completed Infinity" stuff is just nonsense. You have put two words together that are contradictory. Just like "married bachelor". Your phrase literally contains no meaning.

No, it's not.

The set of all integers is a clear example of complete infinity.

Steve, have you tried heading over to google for some independent research? Or are you just going to stamp your feet and demand someone take screen shots of every page in their physics and mathematics books for you, and if they don’t, claim victory? That’s not how this works, lol.

---

(February 14, 2018 at 8:25 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm not all that concerned about the hotel or the library either.  My point is that you started talking about sets, because then you can have a concept, but my question is about what that concept represents.  

My problem is that it is easy in concept to just say that it is complete.   This is because nothing ever needs to be complete (which is good, because by definition infinity is never complete)  The problem is how do you have an actual infinity when there is always something more.   In concept, we can use the magic ellipses  1+2+3....+N  to say that the set is complete.  However those ellipses represent something, and that representation keeps going on forever.    In what way is it complete if it keeps going.   What I am asking (and doubting) is that you can ever tie this abstract to something physical.   Even if you are granted any  starting condition you like (infinity always requires more).

In this case, the ellipses do NOT represent something that goes on forever. If I write, for example, 1,2,3,...,1000, that is a finite list of numbers. I could write this list out completely, but I won't. It isn't necessary to do so to know there are a thousand numbers in that list.

I can do the same thing for 1,2,3,....1000000000. That is still a finite list of numbers, but I am not going to write out the complete list since it would take a gigabyte of text to do so. I could easily have a completer program write this out, but again that would be pointless. We already know the numbers on that list.

But I can go farther. The list 1,2,3,....,10^1000 has more numbers in it that there are particles in the observable universe. It is still a finite list of numbers, though. Actually writing out this finite list is impossible on anything like a human time scale. But it doesn't go on forever and it is a completed list.

Now, the list 1,2,3,4,.... does 'go on forever', but we can *also* consider it as a completed list. We don't have to write down everything in the list to know what is on the list any more than we did for any of the other lists I gave. Every counting number is in that list. There are also numbers not on that list  (negative numbers, fractions, etc). That doesn't prevent it from being considered as a whole, your intuition notwithstanding. There is no *logical* contradiction to discussing this list as a whole.

---

(February 14, 2018 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: This "Completed Infinity" stuff is just nonsense. You have put two words together that are contradictory. Just like "married bachelor". Your phrase literally contains no meaning.

Sorry to blow your Aristotelian mind, but you are wrong. The set of integers is a 'completed infinity' of numbers. The set of real numbers is a *larger* completed infinity. These are meaningful constructs that are well-studied and well-understood.

Steve and RR should have more faith in their God, lol. Why should God not be able to create actual infinities anyway. You guys already believe he can timelessly create things and do other miraculous stuff. What stops you from believing he can't do actual infinity?

(February 14, 2018 at 7:43 am)SteveII Wrote: It's telling that no one can actually find and post a link or quote that shows an actual infinite of concrete objects (or events) is logical.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en...ysics&btnG=

(February 14, 2018 at 9:48 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: This "Completed Infinity" stuff is just nonsense. You have put two words together that are contradictory. Just like "married bachelor". Your phrase literally contains no meaning.

No, it's not.

The set of all integers is a clear example of complete infinity.

Note here Steve's use of the word "completeD" instead of "complete". To me, this is quite telling. It's like they can't help but think agency has to be behind everything that exists.

(February 14, 2018 at 9:47 am)SteveII Wrote: This "Completed Infinity" stuff is just nonsense. You have put two words together that are contradictory. Just like "married bachelor". Your phrase literally contains no meaning.

Go to literally any modern math book above the high-school level. Completed infinities are commonplace and produce no contradictions. If you look at a good set theory book, you can see discussions of different sizes of infinity and questions we have concerning such. If you go to any analysis textbook, you will see discussions of sequences, which are infinite collections *as a commonplace*.

You are so far from being correct here, it is laughable. I have over a century of mathematics to show there is no logical problem with completed infinities.

---

(February 14, 2018 at 10:11 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 9:48 am)Grandizer Wrote: No, it's not.

The set of all integers is a clear example of complete infinity.

Note here Steve's use of the word "completeD" instead of "complete". To me, this is quite telling. It's like they can't help but think agency has to be behind everything that exists.

Good point! He sees it as a process instead of as a thing. That is a basic mistake.

(February 14, 2018 at 10:08 am)Grandizer Wrote: Steve and RR should have more faith in their God, lol. Why should God not be able to create actual infinities anyway. You guys already believe he can timelessly create things and do other miraculous stuff. What stops you from believing he can't do actual infinity?

If Steve and RR put as much time and intellectually energy into a physics and math education as they do into theology and Christian apologetics, well...then they probably wouldn’t be theists anymore.  😋