Actual Infinity in Reality?

[GrandizerII]

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).

Or some of that has to do with you skipping over my refutations, and just mindlessly repeating the same shit which has been refuted regardless.

You haven't addressed the infinity - infinity explanations that both polymath and I have provided various times throughout this thread. All you do is when confronted with the maths is blabber on about how mathematics only applies to the abstract world, even though your argument is pretty much saying that even mathematically, infinity leads to absurdities.

Look, it's clear you're not that good at mathematics. That's fine, but then you can't do proper philosophy of mathematics if you can't even understand the mathematics under discussion.

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".

From the start, your argument is a failure.

Premise 1 is false.

Premise 3: There are no contradictions or absurdities. We have put in so much effort to point this out to you. I can guarantee that you didn't EVER bother to address directly the mathematics throughout this thread.

So due to false premises, your argument is at best not sound.

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

Everytime you talk about operations on groups, that implies mathematics right there. You need mathematics to clarify what is going on in this case.

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.

Did you note the response to that where I actually told him I agree pretty much with what he said from the start? And the kudos to that response? And actually, I don't think you understood what polymath was saying to me.