RE: Actual Infinity in Reality?
February 24, 2018 at 5:40 pm
(This post was last modified: February 24, 2018 at 5:42 pm by polymath257.)
(February 24, 2018 at 5:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:I can see the paradox: it is counter-intuitive to not have a start since we are accustomed to things having one. But why does that lead to an *impossibility*?(February 24, 2018 at 2:34 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Bold mine.
I think what Steve means is, if we have time moving in a forward direction, how do we get to that one point in time from an infinite past? How do you get to that single event in time without beginning somewhere? If events are happening in succession, and time is infinite into the past, how would we ever arrive at a singular point in time? Wouldn’t you have to start somewhere to get there? I’m confused! Lol
You correctly understand my point. Polymath does not because he is so sure that there is not problem with an infinite chain of evens that he doesn't even see the metaphysical impossibility of his statements. He just states them over and over because his math background says you can do math with potentially infinite sets so an actual infinite must exist. If it wasn't so frustrating, it would be a fascinating example on why Philosophy of Science should be the first course math and physics majors should take.
And I would say this is why math and physics should come first and philosophy later: most people simply haven't developed their intuitions prior to learning how things actually are or can be.
(February 24, 2018 at 5:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(February 24, 2018 at 5:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: You correctly understand my point. Polymath does not because he is so sure that there is not problem with an infinite chain of evens that he doesn't even see the metaphysical impossibility of his statements. He just states them over and over because his math background says you can do math with potentially infinite sets so an actual infinite must exist. If it wasn't so frustrating, it would be a fascinating example on why Philosophy of Science should be the first course math and physics majors should take.I can see the paradox: it is counter-intuitive to not have a start since we are accustomed to things having one. But why does that lead to an *impossibility*?
And I would say this is why math and physics should come first and philosophy later: most people simply haven't developed their intuitions prior to learning how things actually are or can be.
Essentially, as far as I can see, you are assuming that any process in the real world must have a start. Does that correctly state your position?
So, why do you think this is necessary?