Actual Infinity in Reality?

[SteveII]

I assume and implied no such 'infinite gaps'. I said: "We could not have gotten to our current universe without an infinite amounts of universes already being created. We would still be waiting for an infinite amount of universe to be sparked before ours could be sparked--which will never happen, because there still needs to be an infinite more that need to come first. Why can't you address this!? You keep asserting that how it is."

Ironically, you just asserted that is it possible again without addressing the point: how do we get an infinite number of universes sparked/spawned/whatever before ours? There would still need to be an infinite more that need to happen first. You seem to think that if math can use infinities in equations, then this is not a logical problem--it is! A very big one. 


Again, I proposed no infinite wait. Only the logic that an infinite number of universes still must come before ours can occur (because any multiverse model is one of a series of contingent universes). I am not claiming a contradiction, I am claiming it is metaphysically impossible. Overcome this objection or you have lost the argument.

What is the world does it mean to be a metaphysical impossibility except that there is an internal contradiction? Where is the impossibility of having infinitely many precursors? YOu have pointed to none or given a reason to think such is impossible.

Your very sentence "Where is the impossibility of having infinitely many precursors?" contains the metaphysical impossibility. It's that simple. You will never get to the present because there are always and infinite amount of precursors that still need to happen to get to the present. 

And yes, you made a claim that an infinite wait would be required when you said that we would still be waiting for an infinite number of universes to spark. No, we would NOT be waiting. An infinite number *would already have happened*, so we only have to wait a finite number from any point to get to the present. You seem to not grasp the idea of an infinite regress: *there is no start*, so at any point you set down, an infinite number of events have *already& happened.

So, where, precisely, is the impossibility? What is the argument that this cannot be the case? Other than a silly 'we wouldn't be here', which shows a deep misunderstanding, you have given nothing.

I have no idea where you are getting these infinite gaps I supposedly am proposing. Your theory has events every moment in time going back. I am talking about the same scenario. I am not talking about a start to such a sequence either for your scenario. The fact that you have no start is the problem that creates the metaphysical impossibility. You cannot have a sequence of events ending today because there will always have to have happened a infinite amount of sequences before you get today. You will never get to today. Ever. I don't know how to say it any clearer.  

Notice how Grnadizer gets this. However, he is trying to solve it by saying there are no sequences that have to happen because there is no such thing as cause/effect. So he is not arguing for an actual infinity of events. He says there are just no events.

---

Steve, I think you are confusing logic with intuition here.  Just because the concept feels strange and contradictory to imagine doesn’t mean that it’s illogical.  The math is the logic.  As we were discussing before, many theories in physics begin as theoretical, mathmatical models before scientists conduct real world experiments to test them against reality.  The mathematical model is exactly what demonstrates that the theory is...theoretically, logically possible.  Whether or not it comports with our physical reality is another story, but neither Grand nor Poly are asserting that it does. They’re simply showing you it’s a mathematically sound theory, and therefore, there is no logical contradiction.  You keep saying it’s not logical, but you haven’t pointed out any failure in the logic.  All you’re doing is saying, ‘I just don’t see how his could ever be.’  That’s simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Then this should be easy to show me shouldn't it! Abstract uncountable potentially infinite sets are useful on paper. Show me in mathematics where an infinite set has no beginning. Only that would be an actual infinite in mathematics. If you can only find sets with a beginning, all you are talking about is potential infinite sets. Apples and oranges. 

They do not translate to the real world. You three are hiding behind this leap. I challenge any of you to find a paper that describes how an actual infinite is possible.

---

Everything about quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive; that doesn’t make QM absurd or illogical, lol.

Do you think there is causation? Do you think there is even a chance that causes and effects are an illusion?

[Jehanne]

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?

[LadyForCamus]

What is the world does it mean to be a metaphysical impossibility except that there is an internal contradiction? Where is the impossibility of having infinitely many precursors? YOu have pointed to none or given a reason to think such is impossible.

Your very sentence "Where is the impossibility of having infinitely many precursors?" contains the metaphysical impossibility. It's that simple. You will never get to the present because there are always and infinite amount of precursors that still need to happen to get to the present. 

And yes, you made a claim that an infinite wait would be required when you said that we would still be waiting for an infinite number of universes to spark. No, we would NOT be waiting. An infinite number *would already have happened*, so we only have to wait a finite number from any point to get to the present. You seem to not grasp the idea of an infinite regress: *there is no start*, so at any point you set down, an infinite number of events have *already& happened.

So, where, precisely, is the impossibility? What is the argument that this cannot be the case? Other than a silly 'we wouldn't be here', which shows a deep misunderstanding, you have given nothing.

I have no idea where you are getting these infinite gaps I supposedly am proposing. Your theory has events every moment in time going back. I am talking about the same scenario. I am not talking about a start to such a sequence either for your scenario. The fact that you have no start is the problem that creates the metaphysical impossibility. You cannot have a sequence of events ending today because there will always have to have happened a infinite amount of sequences before you get today. You will never get to today. Ever. I don't know how to say it any clearer.  

Notice how Grnadizer gets this. However, he is trying to solve it by saying there are no sequences that have to happen because there is no such thing as cause/effect. So he is not arguing for an actual infinity of events. He says there are just no events.

---

Steve, I think you are confusing logic with intuition here.  Just because the concept feels strange and contradictory to imagine doesn’t mean that it’s illogical.  The math is the logic.  As we were discussing before, many theories in physics begin as theoretical, mathmatical models before scientists conduct real world experiments to test them against reality.  The mathematical model is exactly what demonstrates that the theory is...theoretically, logically possible.  Whether or not it comports with our physical reality is another story, but neither Grand nor Poly are asserting that it does. They’re simply showing you it’s a mathematically sound theory, and therefore, there is no logical contradiction.  You keep saying it’s not logical, but you haven’t pointed out any failure in the logic.  All you’re doing is saying, ‘I just don’t see how his could ever be.’  That’s simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Then this should be easy to show me shouldn't it! Abstract uncountable potentially infinite sets are useful on paper. Show me in mathematics where an infinite set has no beginning. Only that would be an actual infinite in mathematics. If you can only find sets with a beginning, all you are talking about is potential infinite sets. Apples and oranges. 

They do not translate to the real world. You three are hiding behind this leap. I challenge any of you to find a paper that describes how an actual infinite is possible.

Okay, I think I finally understand your objection here.  You’re saying that time-flow is what’s throwing a wrench into translating an actual infinite from math to reality.  I get what you mean, but I am no physicist so I’ll let Grand and Poly continue on.  However I will say, as Grand has said, I don’t see how an actual infinity wouldn’t be logically possible if we assume B theory of time is correct.  Directionality of time wouldn’t be an issue in that case, if my understanding of the theory is correct.

---

Everything about quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive; that doesn’t make QM absurd or illogical, lol.

Do you think there is causation? Do you think there is even a chance that causes and effects are an illusion?

I have to think about this a bit.

[Jehanne]

Steve's theism has the same paradoxes. What was "god" doing from eternity past?

[LadyForCamus]

Steve's theism has the same paradoxes.  What was "god" doing from eternity past?

Oh, of course.  Even if it’s true that an actual infinity of events is not logically possible, that would do nothing to advance any case for god.  ‘The universe is finite, therefore god,’ is certainly a non-sequitur.

[pocaracas]

Steve's theism has the same paradoxes.  What was "god" doing from eternity past?

No, in Steve's view, God exists in the absence of time.
What that means, however, is something I can't imagine.

I can picture existing with no time passing, though... the best example is the photon. All photons feel no passage of time, but rather passage of space.

So... let there be light... maybe god is just a collection of photons?

[Jehanne]

Steve's theism has the same paradoxes.  What was "god" doing from eternity past?

No, in Steve's view, God exists in the absence of time.
What that means, however, is something I can't imagine.

I can picture existing with no time passing, though... the best example is the photon. All photons feel no passage of time, but rather passage of space.

So... let there be light... maybe god is just a collection of photons?

Kind of like non-physical "causation"?  Or, an effect being "simultaneous" with its cause?  Why aren't those logical impossibilities?

[Whateverist]

Steve, I think you are confusing logic with intuition here.  Just because the concept feels strange and contradictory to imagine doesn’t mean that it’s illogical.  The math is the logic.  As we were discussing before, many theories in physics begin as theoretical, mathmatical models before scientists conduct real world experiments to test them against reality.  The mathematical model is exactly what demonstrates that the theory is...theoretically, logically possible.  Whether or not it comports with our physical reality is another story, but neither Grand nor Poly are asserting that it does. They’re simply showing you it’s a mathematically sound theory, and therefore, there is no logical contradiction.  You keep saying it’s not logical, but you haven’t pointed out any failure in the logic.  All you’re doing is saying, ‘I just don’t see how his could ever be.’  That’s simply an argument from personal incredulity.

Then this should be easy to show me shouldn't it! 

Yeah, if you can't get the meaning past the fingers in his head that really is on you, LoC.

[pocaracas]

No, in Steve's view, God exists in the absence of time.
What that means, however, is something I can't imagine.

I can picture existing with no time passing, though... the best example is the photon. All photons feel no passage of time, but rather passage of space.

So... let there be light... maybe god is just a collection of photons?

Kind of like non-physical "causation"?  Or, an effect being "simultaneous" with its cause?  Why aren't those logical impossibilities?

"well, god must have done it somehow! We don't know how, we just believe that he did"

[Jehanne]