RE: Actual infinities.
October 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2017 at 12:41 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 17, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(October 17, 2017 at 11:16 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: We had touched on this a little while ago. I believe that when I turned the same reasoning against an infinite universe, that you then said it was a nonsense question.
An actual infinite of what (numbers you can make up)? I don't disagree here. However I think that the trick here, is that points is really left undefined. As soon as you define what is in between, you have a finite number of them. Either that or the what really has nothing to do with anything physical or describing the movement, and so it would be in error to make that comparison. I don't think that anyone is arguing against infinity as a abstract or concept. It appears that a lot of this works on loose and shifting definitions.
Cantor's proof is mathematical; of course, no one is claiming that you can enumerate all numbers of the real number line between any two finite points, only that such an infinite set exists. The point is that WLC's claims against "actual infinities" are nonsensical.
Again, I ask what is it that is infinite? I think that as soon as you define the what, you lose the infinity. It is largely a trick of non-definition.
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
