RE: Actual Infinity in Reality?
February 23, 2018 at 4:41 pm
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2018 at 5:23 pm by SteveII.)
(February 23, 2018 at 2:50 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(February 23, 2018 at 11:17 am)SteveII Wrote: 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.
No, that is NOT the case. We aren't waiting for an infinite number to happen. At any point, there is only a finite wait to any other point. So, for example, between 100 years in the past and now is only a wait of 100 years, not an infinite amount of time. And, at both now and 100 years ago *an infinite amount of time had already passed*. There isn't an infinite amount to still occur to get to the present.
The precursors *have already happened*.
You have *yet* to show what the impossibility is.
(February 23, 2018 at 11:17 am)SteveII Wrote: 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.
What is the metaphysical problem with having no start? Specifically?
Yes, precisely, there has already been an infinite number of events at any point in time. So?
There could not have been that many events already (because events are things that can be counted backwards one before the other and by definition, you can't get to infinity by successive addition). Even if you still can't wrap your head around the standard definitions of infinity, doesn't the fact that there still has to be an infinite amount more events that have to happen before "any point in time" give you pause? By the very definition of infinity, you cannot traverse it to get to the events of today. There will always and forever be more events that must happen first!
You can't simply treat infinity as one thing that you can throw into a sentence because mathematicians use it in set theory. You are talking about an infinite series of events. These events have substance and are real things. You make a claim when you say there are an infinite series of events and you have to tell us how, against all logic, that is even possible.
Doesn't it seem odd to you that you can't find an article to explain this for you?
Unless you have something new, this is the last time I am going to say the same thing. 20 times is my limit.
(February 23, 2018 at 11:59 am)Jehanne Wrote: 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?
How do I know if Penrose even believes his theory to be the best one? Even if he got the math right, that does not imply in the least that an actual infinity exists.
Do you think that every scientific paper that gets published is true or that even the authors think it is true?
Are you asking if space is an actual infinite of distance or substance, then no. If you are asking is space a potential infinite of distance or substance -- that seems possible.
It seem to me that different potential infinities can accumulate more quickly so there should be some mathematical differentiation for that, but at the end of the day, there is no upper limit so it does not make sense when talking about real objects--and that is the topic of this thread and what I intend to discuss.
