RE: Actual Infinity in Reality?
February 23, 2018 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2018 at 12:30 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(February 23, 2018 at 11:17 am)SteveII Wrote:(February 23, 2018 at 9:01 am)polymath257 Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
(February 23, 2018 at 9:50 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.
(February 23, 2018 at 10:07 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Everything about quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive; that doesn’t make QM absurd or illogical, lol.
Quote: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.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
