Actual Infinity in Reality?

[SteveII]

I clearly did not say the singularity was an event. There was a change. Something started everything. 


Note how you had to say *previous* when I said they have to all exist already--past and present. BECAUSE if all of them do not exist at once (in other words they exist sequentially as the theory clearly states), you have a very big problem of a past infinite. 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. Explain why we could ever logically get to our current universe.  

You are assuming that if time is infinite, there is an infinite gap between two events. That is false. There is no 'infinite wait' because the process is always ongoing with an infinite amount *already* having happened at any point. If you pick any point in the sequences, the time to now is finite.

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. 

---

Do you really believe that? It seems to me you are looking for a theory that gets you a past infinite rather than looking for theories that relate better to reality. 

For example, you. Do you imagine that the thing that makes you you endures from moment to moment? How does human consciousness work with "causality being an illusion"


An you keep failing to understand that the point of Hilbert's Hotel (or the reformulated example) is to show that infinite set theory and how you can use them in theoretical mathematics does not translate into the world of real objects. Don't keep asserting that because mathematicians can do it paper--therefore reality. No one has shown how that is possible yet. You have failed to produce a single reference in this thread and the last that shows the mathematicians believe there can be an infinite amount of an actual thing. You can not get to an actual infinite by adding one thing after another. In the real world, that's what you have to do--add things one after another. You can't just jump to the end and declare that one actually exists because we can write it down on paper and talk about potential infinities in theory. 

Don't give me equations with the word 'infinity' in them. That is not proof or even a good indication that one can exists. Give me examples of something or show where smart people talk about how they can exist and I will reconsider. Until then, all you are doing is asserting a claim with nothing to back it up.

No, that is NOT the reasoning. The reasoning is that it works mathematically, so *there is no contradiction*. You are the one claiming a contradiction, but have yet to actually show one.

You keep claiming there has to be some sort of 'infinite wait' in the case of an infinite regress, but that is simply false: there is still only a finite amount of time between any two events.

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.