Actual Infinity in Reality?

[SteveII]

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.

Since you took the time to kind of reply to my syllogism...

You are incapable of separating the concept of a mathematical infinity with one in real life or a logically possible infinity. That's why you think this question has been answered. I have shown conclusively that the concept of infinity in mathematics is not the same. It was not derived from a logical process. It is assumed for the purpose of further math calculations. Period. End of story. If you use the mathematical concept of infinity as an argument against anything related to infinity with real objects (like Hilbert's Hotel), you are question begging. By one of your previous comments, you seem to think this is okay to do. It is NOT. 

For the 40th time, all you have to do is produce an article that talks about the possibility of an actual infinity. This does not mean an article that mentions a multiverse. That is not a discussion on the concept of infinity (the subject of this thread). I am talking about an article that discusses the concept. This should be easy if I am "mindlessly repeating the same shit which has been refuted regardless". 

Why do I keep asking for an article? Because, no offense, the nuances of this subject are beyond you. You stumble along with complete confidence that is not warranted by your piss-poor critical thinking, argumentation and discussion skills. I am not usually as blunt, but your cockiness and condescension is getting to me. 

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.

I will clarify the obvious:

1' An actual infinite in the physical world consists of real (not abstract) objects.

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 from Hilbert's Hote we get:
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3

These are contradictory statements resulting from simple arithmetic operations (from 2). 

You CANNOT use infinite set theory constraints to explain away the contradictions because infinite set theory is not derived from a logical process. It is assumed in mathematics by the Axiom of Infinity. So the defeater you offer is exactly the same as "let's assume there is no contradictions". 

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

You are in over your head. 

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.

When talking about rooms and guest (actual objects), all we need is basic arithmetic (from 2). We do not need "groups". It is painfully obvious this is an attempt to sneak in your beloved infinite set theory constraints. 

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.

LOL. read it again or ask Poly to clarify. You would get a kudo from those people if I said "white" and you said "black".