RE: Actual Infinity in Reality?
February 25, 2018 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2018 at 10:10 am by LadyForCamus.)
@steve,
I was a bit confused about this ‘no start’ as well, but I think the relevant distinction here is in how we are viewing time. If time actually flows from moment to moment the way we experience it, then I agree with you that if we assume infinite time, it seems like a logical impossibility to not ever start anywhere, and somehow still get somewhere. But, the point that Poly and Grand are making is that it could very well be true that time does not flow. That there is no, ‘first this one, then the next, and then the next, ect.) but rather, time is a static collection of an infinity of points in existence; past, present, and future. All points exist simultaneously, and every time slice represents a section, or point, in the ‘set’ of infinite time. If that is the case, then infinite time is very much like an infinite set of numbers in mathematics, and completely logically possible. You don’t have to start at a number and actually count one after the other in order to have a completed infinite set of numbers in mathematics. You couldn’t; isn’t that the point? Similarly, you don’t have to start at ‘event one’ in time and wait for the next one to happen in order to have a completed set of infinite time. All the points are already there.
My understanding is that B theory of time is an active competing hypothesis under serious consideration by the scientific community, and not without evidential support. If that is the case, then I have to agree with Poly and Grand that there is no logical contradiction here.
(I’m a dunce in the corner compared to the rest of you, so if I got something wrong above, please jump in and course-correct. Thanks!)
I was a bit confused about this ‘no start’ as well, but I think the relevant distinction here is in how we are viewing time. If time actually flows from moment to moment the way we experience it, then I agree with you that if we assume infinite time, it seems like a logical impossibility to not ever start anywhere, and somehow still get somewhere. But, the point that Poly and Grand are making is that it could very well be true that time does not flow. That there is no, ‘first this one, then the next, and then the next, ect.) but rather, time is a static collection of an infinity of points in existence; past, present, and future. All points exist simultaneously, and every time slice represents a section, or point, in the ‘set’ of infinite time. If that is the case, then infinite time is very much like an infinite set of numbers in mathematics, and completely logically possible. You don’t have to start at a number and actually count one after the other in order to have a completed infinite set of numbers in mathematics. You couldn’t; isn’t that the point? Similarly, you don’t have to start at ‘event one’ in time and wait for the next one to happen in order to have a completed set of infinite time. All the points are already there.
My understanding is that B theory of time is an active competing hypothesis under serious consideration by the scientific community, and not without evidential support. If that is the case, then I have to agree with Poly and Grand that there is no logical contradiction here.
(I’m a dunce in the corner compared to the rest of you, so if I got something wrong above, please jump in and course-correct. Thanks!)
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
