Actual Infinity in Reality?

[polymath257]

I can see the paradox: it is counter-intuitive to not have a start since we are accustomed to things having one. But why does that lead to an *impossibility*?
And I would say this is why math and physics should come first and philosophy later: most people simply haven't developed their intuitions prior to learning how things actually are or can be.

And there it is. Thinking that math and physics should come first before being properly trained to think is what the problem is (of course we are talking about the pursuit of advanced degrees). Both math and physics rely on the Philosophy of Science to even exist--yet you place it secondary to the subject. 

---

Essentially, as far as I can see, you are assuming that any process in the real world must have a start. Does that correctly state your position?

So, why do you think this is necessary?

Because if a series of events did not have a start, the current events we are experiencing would never occur because there would still have to be an infinite number of events that must come first. You are suggesting that an infinite number of events have already happened, but that simply cannot be true. Since events are actual countable things, by definition, you could not have traversed an infinite amount of them to get to the current event. There will always have to be infinitely more events that still need to happen. This is not a "counter-intuitive" problem. This is a metaphysical impossibility. 

Again, don't you find it strange that you can't find a paper on an infinite series of events?

I disagree with both of your points. First, it is a good idea to see how the world works and how actual scientists work before attempting the philosophy of science.  Going this way prevents a LOT of errors philosophers make about how things 'must be' that are simply not true. Even if philosophy is *logically* prior to other areas (of which I am not convinced), it is better to put it later as a pedagogical technique.

So, yes, I would place doing these before the study of philosophy as a practice to learn how to think about things. Philosophy tends to be rarefied enough that without particulars in mind, it is very easy to go astray. And philosophers, especially those doing metaphysics, go astray as a matter of course. Such distinctions as potential vs actual infinity are properly discarded as outdated and simply wrong headed. Treatments of concepts like 'substance' need to be wholly revisited in the light of quantum physics. Concepts of time have to be reviewed based on what we know from relativity. By doing math and physics *first* we solve a lot of time on philosophical dead ends that take up way too much time in philosophy classes.

And, once again, there is no infinite traversal in infinite time. ALL points are finitely far from all other points. There would NOT be an infinite number that still 'need to happen'. If we are at a point 100 years ago, there is only 100 years yet to go to get to now. At *any* point you select, there is only a finite amount of time required to get to now.

I don't find it strange to not find a paper. Physicists tend to think philosophers are idiots. And they are mostly right about that. Way too many philosophers are still stuck in the ideas of Aristotle and Plato. They tend to promote their biases instead of really learning how things can or could be. Philosophers like to claim various things are 'impossible' or 'must be the case'. Physicists have enough experience to know such conclusions are often, even usually, wrong because of bias on the part of the philosopher. It has happened too many times in the past: Kant thinking Euclidean geometry is the only one possible (non-Euclidean geometry put that to rest), philosophers claiming a probabilistic scientific theory is impossible (Quantum Mechanics put that to rest), etc.

Philosophers spend way too much time getting themselves balled up in language and such things as the problem of universals. Truthfully, the paradoxes of language just show how little humans are logical. And philosophers fall all over themselves showing their best to uphold that tradition.

So physicists go and do their science and tend to ignore the people saying that things can't be how they are or must be how they are not They really don't think any argument is required for an actual infinity because the possibility is *logically* possible and the notion is useful in creating their theories. When those theories work and are testable in other areas, physicists tend to adopt the whole package until new evidence comes in. Philosophical arguments based on Aristotelian metaphysics just don't carry any weight for people actually doing science these days. Aristotle is a nice historical demonstration of how badly ideas can go wrong. That his ideas were taken as gospel for so long held us back a good 1000 years if not more.