Actual Infinity in Reality?

[GrandizerII]

Not adding any layer on top of what is clearly an implication of the B-theory of time. Maybe it's the word "illusion" that puts you off, but if you want "causality" to still be implied by the B-theory of time, you do have to redefine the word to mean something that doesn't indicate the flow of time or actual change or actual motion. Fresh fruit does not cause rotten fruit in the sense that it morphs into it; the "antecedent" fresh fruit is still there and the "consequent" rotten fruit is there as well (just in different time moments). Baby horses do not actually eventually morph into adult horses; the baby horse still exists along with the adult version of it. And the key reason we have this one perceived direction happening in this one particular local universe is because of the increase of entropy from one state of this universe to the next, with entropy being at its lowest in the moment closest to the supposed "Big Bang singularity". But otherwise, as far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, there is no direction of time. And even then, direction does not mean temporal causation anyway; both "cause" and "effect" simultaneously and eternally exist.



No, it isn't. The elements have always been in such a set. How many times do you need to be told this?

I'm going to push back very slightly here. Even in general relativity, which regards spacetime as a single manifold and time does not flow (so B theory is closest), there is a notion of causality.  There are constraints on how things can be at different time slices. So, we will find the rotten apple time slice after that of the fresh apple and not before (in terms of the time coordinate). We find higher entropy states at later time slices than lower entropy states, etc.

Time is still all 'out there'. It does not 'flow' in the sense of the A theory. But there are still patterns between the time slices and we call *those* patterns causality.

Sure, but as you just said/implied, direction of entropy is what's providing an "objective" direction to time here. If entropy was somehow equal (hypothetically speaking) between all the timeslices, then we wouldn't be able to tell which slice causes which slice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number

I am curious if Steve thinks it is possible for Graham's number of objects to exist in our universe.

Oh, not that. Please don't remind me of that number ...

---

Since really what this whole fiasco is about has to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself requiring an infinite past to be impossible, let me remind Steve what William Lane Craig (the main proponent of the argument) has to say about this argument:

From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block which is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and therefore the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. Although G. W. F. Leibniz's question, Why is there (tenselessly) something rather than nothing? should still rightly be asked, there would be no reason to look for a cause of the universe's beginning to exist, since on tenseless theories of time the universe did not begin to exist in virtue of its having a first event anymore than a meter stick begins to exist in virtue of having a first centimeter. . . . Thus, the real issue separating the proponent of the kalam cosmological argument and critics of the first premiss is the objectivity of tense and temporal becoming.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question...-principle

Meaning that WLC himself acknowledges that the KCA relies on the A-theory of time to be true. Otherwise, note the bolded. Surely Steve isn't as great of a philosopher as WLC, so perhaps he should pay attention to what WLC is saying, before making rash assertions here about the B-theory of time.