Actual Infinity in Reality?

[SteveII]

This is getting silly--try to keep up. 

First, there is no "logic of actual infinity" for me to assail. There is no non-question-begging argument for it.

Ok, but you can still use a certain type of argument to disprove it. You get that, right? And in fact, that's what you have been trying to do anyway ... but you keep failing.

Well, some of that has to do with your attention or your comprehension (or both). I did make an argument--I even presented it formally. Here it is again (with a new line to be clearer). 

1. An actual infinite consists of real (not abstract) objects.
2. In 100% of our experiences and 100% of our scientific inquiries, quantities of real objects can have all the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division applied to them. 
3. As Hilbert's Hotel shows, these operations cannot be applied to the concept of an actual infinite without creating contradictions and absurdities
4. Classical propositional logic does not allow for contradictory statements to be true. 
5. Therefore an actual infinite of real objects is logically impossible.

Infinite set theory is not a defeater for (2) because infinite set theory is not itself a conclusion derived from a logical process. To defeat (2) you have to give logical reasons why we should expect an infinite quantity of objects to behave fundamentally different than a finite quantity of objects. 

So, tell me where I "keep failing". 

Second, you can't answer Hilbert's Hotel without invoking set theory. I have not yet been supplied a reason why we have to invoke a mathematical assumption used only in mathematics to discuss rooms and guests. We wouldn't if there were 100, 1000 or even 10^10 rooms/guests. Poly has tried that tack that set theory is necessary for basic math operations. This is utterly ridiculous and I will point that out shortly.

Every grouping of stuff that can be mathematically represented as a set.

Sure if you have a mathematical purpose to do so. We don't. 

I see you have dropped your infinite causes is possible because there are no causes argument--good for you! It was a lousy argument.

I didn't drop it. You just didn't respond to the argument last time I referred to it. Plus, you seem to have forgotten Sean Carroll's causality is derived, not fundamental, quote. You do know that's what physicists believe, right?

And I believe that even your compadre Poly corrected you in thinking there is nothing to count back into infinity and therefore trigger the problem of traversing an actual infinite. I thought you dropped the argument. My mistake. If you still think there is no problem, I can't help that.