Actual Infinity in Reality?

[RoadRunner79]

Shows you are not paying attention. Or that your perception does not match reality.

Or, that I've paid attention to enough of Steve's posting history.

So we can't have a reasonable discussion without it being de-railed with atheists questioning motives?   

Even if you are right.... so what.   If you want to discuss, then join in and contribute.  If the topic changes and you loose interest.... bow out.

I don't understand this need by some to always question motives and take away from honest discussion.

I don't think that you can justify this.

[Anomalocaris]

You guys correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t all theoretical models in physics begin as mathematical models?

Not all of them.  Most of them begin as conceptual model which are then described by mathematics so that their construct are made specific enough for any internal contradictions to be made manifest, or their predictions made precise and thereby possible to verify with precision or falsify.

[GrandizerII]

Or, that I've paid attention to enough of Steve's posting history.

So we can't have a reasonable discussion without it being de-railed with atheists questioning motives?   

Even if you are right.... so what.   If you want to discuss, then join in and contribute.  If the topic changes and you loose interest.... bow out.

I don't understand this need by some to always question motives and take away from honest discussion.

I don't think that you can justify this.

Let's not pretend you and Steve aren't contesting actual infinity for theological reasons.

[LadyForCamus]

You guys correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t all theoretical models in physics begin as mathematical models?

Well, that has certainly been the tendency since Galileo. Those that don't manage to produce a mathematical model are generally not taken seriously.

So then Steve is simply wrong in his notion that a mathematical model of infinity must also be demonstrated to exist in the physical world before it could be considered logically possible, lol.  Actually, that seems like a completely ass-backwards approach to theoretical physics, at least from the perspective of my pea brain.

[GrandizerII]

Well, that has certainly been the tendency since Galileo. Those that don't manage to produce a mathematical model are generally not taken seriously.

So then Steve is simply wrong in his notion that a mathematical model of infinity must also be demonstrated to exist in the physical world before it could be considered logically possible, lol.  Actually, that seems like it would be a completely ass-backwards approach, at least from the perspective of my pea brain.

It's not reasonable, that's for sure.

[LadyForCamus]

Not all of them.  Most of them begin as conceptual model which are then described by mathematics so that their construct are made specific enough for any internal contradictions to be made manifest, or their predictions made precise and thereby possible to verify with precision or falsify.

But you’re saying it is true that they are mathematical models before scientists go out into the physical world to tests them, yeah?

[Whateverist]

Are the laws of logic considered descriptive?  If so, how could they exist outside of space-time?  Without space-time, there couldn’t be an A to be either A or not A.  Right?

IMHO logic is prescriptive since what is being described could not be otherwise. It transcends any particular circumstance and applies universally regardless of the type or degree of any particular thing.

That seems a little flip.  Logic can be predictive but I don't see why you'd say prescriptive.  Logic applied correctly and hooked up to solid premises, can yield a correct prediction.  The logic dictates nothing, and its predictive power is entirely dependent upon a correct assessment of the salient factors.  Logic is a tool, nothing more.

[Anomalocaris]

Not all of them.  Most of them begin as conceptual model which are then described by mathematics so that their construct are made specific enough for any internal contradictions to be made manifest, or their predictions made precise and thereby possible to verify with precision or falsify.

But you’re saying it is true that they are mathematical models before scientists go out into the physical world to tests them, yeah?

Only with those models constructed with enough attention towards reflecting known and relevant facts that they can not readily be dismissed without careful evaluation.

[brewer]

The problem with the argument is the insistence/assumption of an E0. Prove E0 please.

Stevie will never be comtable with infinity because it just does not feel right (counter-intuitive).

[Anomalocaris]

IMHO logic is prescriptive since what is being described could not be otherwise. It transcends any particular circumstance and applies universally regardless of the type or degree of any particular thing.

That seems a little flip.  Logic can be predictive but I don't see why you'd say prescriptive.  Logic applied correctly and hooked up to solid premises, can yield a correct prediction.  The logic dictates nothing, and its predictive power is entirely dependent upon a correct assessment of the salient factors.  Logic is a tool, nothing more.

It’s not flip.  It is calculated to so invert the order reality and model as to appear to create an basis to argue that not just some intelligent agent must have come up with with the model first and then made reality accordingly. From there he can slide greasily towards asserting that the agent must have later fucked his own mother to himself birth and then ended up nailed to a cross.

The fact we don’t know why certain models appear to describe all we’ve observed is not grounds to argue reality was made to order to conform to the model.   It simply means we are not yet in a position to ascertain at a fundamental level why the model conforms so well to such reality as yet known.