While it sounds good, I think that there are problems with the infinite number of points between any two points (crossing an infinite number while traversing between those two points).
Mostly I would ask, how a point is being defined in this example, and how one point is differentiated from another? Usually an example is given, where the distance is divided over and over again (potentially infinite) however to me, it seems that the math always gives you a finite number (no matter how long you persist in this).
It seems that the definition of the point, must be left undefined in which case; I ask what is it describing at all? It cannot be defined as anything related to physical distance or volume. For such would lead to a contradiction. If I have two positions 1 meter apart then there is a finite length. If the point is defining anything in relation to the distance, then it cannot be both infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time. I can describe the distance as 1 meter or 1000 mm because they are defined and have a relation to one another; as well, I can go even smaller in my definition, however I always have a finite number for the distance.
As to arguments which are claimed to Dr. Craig, which then requires an actual infinite. This would need to be more specific to answer. Do the arguments require an actual singularity, or are they just surrounding what is commonly called the Big Bang Singularity? If they do not require a singularity, then it is not inconsistent. There may be some arguments effected, but it is difficult to tell, without being more specific. It has occurred to me (within the last year), that the infinite when talking about a singularity comes from dividing by zero. Some say, and I tend to agree, that this is better described as undefined, rather than infinite. And the question comes about, if you can have something physical, that can be described as truly inhabiting zero space/volume? Even with an astronomically small number (for volume), then it becomes finite again.
I think the following describes my position on this fairly well, And I think that the word "infinite" is often used as shorthand for either very small or very large.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
Mostly I would ask, how a point is being defined in this example, and how one point is differentiated from another? Usually an example is given, where the distance is divided over and over again (potentially infinite) however to me, it seems that the math always gives you a finite number (no matter how long you persist in this).
It seems that the definition of the point, must be left undefined in which case; I ask what is it describing at all? It cannot be defined as anything related to physical distance or volume. For such would lead to a contradiction. If I have two positions 1 meter apart then there is a finite length. If the point is defining anything in relation to the distance, then it cannot be both infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time. I can describe the distance as 1 meter or 1000 mm because they are defined and have a relation to one another; as well, I can go even smaller in my definition, however I always have a finite number for the distance.
As to arguments which are claimed to Dr. Craig, which then requires an actual infinite. This would need to be more specific to answer. Do the arguments require an actual singularity, or are they just surrounding what is commonly called the Big Bang Singularity? If they do not require a singularity, then it is not inconsistent. There may be some arguments effected, but it is difficult to tell, without being more specific. It has occurred to me (within the last year), that the infinite when talking about a singularity comes from dividing by zero. Some say, and I tend to agree, that this is better described as undefined, rather than infinite. And the question comes about, if you can have something physical, that can be described as truly inhabiting zero space/volume? Even with an astronomically small number (for volume), then it becomes finite again.
I think the following describes my position on this fairly well, And I think that the word "infinite" is often used as shorthand for either very small or very large.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
