Actual Infinity in Reality?

[SteveII]

This is probably where you should have taken the intro to philosophy class before all your math classes. It skews reality for students to think they are the center of the world.

Mathematics is its own discipline. Math employs a type of logic: mathematical logic. There is a whole host of things that have to do with philosophy and logic that have nothing to do with math. (see the link I posted that discusses 9 different types of logic --a BRANCH of philospohy)


What in the world do you think the tens of thousands of pages written on Zeno's paradoxes alone have been discussing? If you can discuss infinity dividing a distance, you are not talking about mathematics. 

You have a way over-inflated view of mathematics. It is not the end all. Only mathematicians who don't know anything about philosophy/metaphysics think that. 


Certainly not. The idea of an infinite series of things is not itself a mathematical concept. Grandizer likes to champion an infinite series of causes. Philosophers for millennium have discussed infinite regresses (and how to avoid them). The concept also comes up in religion, computer science, physics, engineering, and a bunch of other disciplines. 

Again, mathematics is no where near the center of the universe.

And in computer science, physics, engineering, etc, the way it is discussed is through math, not philosophy. There is a good reason for that. Mathj is MUCH more logical and precise than philosophy will ever be.

It looks to me like you need to take a bit of your own advice: philosophy isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. At *best* it can explore possibilities. At worst, it leads to dogmatism and fanaticism.

I don't think math is th end all. But it is a MUCH better way to investigate ideas than philosophy as demonstrated by its track record. When there is a conflict between math and philosophy, I'll go for the math any day. But if there is a conflict between physics and philosophy, I'll go for the physics any day.

Those areas of logic that have nothing to do with math are those that are the least logical: Aristotelian 'logic' and informal logic. The rest: propositional, predicate, and modal, are ALL part of math.

By rejecting math (which you have done repeatedly), you are only showing your own ignorance. By insisting on ideas that were properly abandoned a century or more ago, you show yourself to be dogmatic. Until you can overcome those limitations, you have decided to give up on logic and rationality. And at that point, there is nothing worth saying.

I will continue to correct you when you are wrong in your math and physics. But your ideas about infinity are clearly outdated and too firmly held to be worth debating.

Wait a minute. I have never rejected math. I reject your use of mathematical concepts where it is not appropriate. The fact that I do not think that infinite set theory has any translation whatsoever in the real world is not limited to me. I still find it extraordinary that you and Grand are so sure, but it seems neither could produce a single article on the subject. We have had nothing but assertions and your misapplication of mathematical concepts to things that do not pertain to math. 

So I see that you favor math over philosophy and physics over philosophy. How about when physics and math don't agree:

Physical infinities
So infinities in modern physics have become separate from the study of infinities in mathematics. One area in physics where infinities are sometimes predicted to arise is aerodynamics or fluid mechanics. For example, you might have a wave becoming very, very steep and non-linear and then forming a shock. In the equations that describe the shock wave formation some quantities may become infinite. But when this happens you usually assume that it's just a failure of your model. You might have neglected to take account of friction or viscosity and once you include that into your equations the velocity gradient becomes finite — it might still be very steep, but the viscosity smoothes over the infinity in reality. In most areas of science, if you see an infinity, you assume that it's down to an inaccuracy or incompleteness of your model. https://plus.maths.org/content/does-infinity-exist

I am also done debating infinity. I have heard nothing new for 30 pages and no one seems to be able to answer my objections with a coherent counterargument.