Actual infinities.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Precisely.

Earlier you said arguments against actual temporal infinities are not helpful to theism, but they aren't necessarily harmful either.

---

They are neutral; agreed.  But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions.  Theism is compatible with everything!  As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order.

Here I was under the impression that Occam's Razor was saying not to postulate beyond what is necessary. Given that Occam was a theist, I think that you are misunderstanding what he was saying.

[Jehanne]

---

---

They are neutral; agreed.  But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions.  Theism is compatible with everything!  As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order.

Here I was under the impression that Occam's Razor was saying not to postulate beyond what is necessary.  Given that Occam was a theist, I think that you are misunderstanding what he was saying.

Everyone in his day was a theist!  Still, he was a man who was slightly ahead of his time.  Even Galileo placed the Sun and not the Earth at the center of the Universe.

[Ignorant]

They are neutral; agreed. [1] But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions.  Theism is compatible with everything! [2] As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order. [3]

1) Great!

2) Fair enough.

3) Yes that is true. Angels/"supernatural forces" are unnecessary for explanations about planetary motion or other natural phenomenon. If the god-of-the-gaps theism is the only one you know, then you rightly reject it, but I would hope you would remain open to more sophisticated accounts of theism.

Does metaphysical naturalism suppose/know of some sort of necessary "thing", common to all things, without which nothing-at-all could exist? If it is supposed, why is it supposed? If it is known, what is it?

[Little lunch]

If there are infinite amounts of measurements between spaces, then wouldn't the same be true for any measurement, Eg, time, volume, sound, colour, etc.
Sorry, but it sounds like a load of rubbish, even though it is quite interesting.

[Jehanne]

They are neutral; agreed. [1] But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions.  Theism is compatible with everything! [2] As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order. [3]

1) Great!

2) Fair enough.

3) Yes that is true. Angels/"supernatural forces" are unnecessary for explanations about planetary motion or other natural phenomenon. If the god-of-the-gaps theism is the only one you know, then you rightly reject it, but I would hope you would remain open to more sophisticated accounts of theism.

Does metaphysical naturalism suppose/know of some sort of necessary "thing", common to all things, without which nothing-at-all could exist? If it is supposed, why is it supposed? If it is known, what is it?

Do plants grow because fairies water them?  Provide them with nutrients?  Physics is complete:



We don't need to look beyond it, even if there are things, such as consciousness, that are not irreducible.

---

If there are infinite amounts of measurements between spaces, then wouldn't the same be true for any measurement, Eg, time, volume, sound, colour, etc.
Sorry, but it sounds like a load of rubbish, even though it is quite interesting.

Cantor proved it -- between any two points on the real number line, there are an actual infinite of points.  If space and/or time is continuous, like the real number line, ergo, actual infinities exist and we transverse between and through them constantly, as does everything else in the Cosmos.

[Ignorant]

Do plants grow because fairies water them?  Provide them with nutrients? [1] Physics is complete:

We don't need to look beyond it, [2] even if there are things, such as consciousness, that are not irreducible.

1) No. No.
2) So physics replaces metaphysics? Is the concept of "being" reducible to particles/waves/strings/physics?
So... question:
The image shows 6 categories; quantum mechanics, spacetime, gravity, other forces, matter, and higgs. Are these your answer to the question regarding "necessary things"?

[RoadRunner79]

---

While it sounds good, I think that there are problems with the infinite number of points between any two points (crossing an infinite number while traversing between those two points).
Mostly I would ask, how a point is being defined in this example, and how one point  is differentiated from another?  Usually an example is given, where the distance is divided over and over again (potentially infinite) however to me, it seems that the math always gives you a finite number (no matter how long you persist in this). 

It seems that the definition of the point, must be left undefined in which case; I ask what is it describing at all?  It cannot be defined as anything related to physical distance or volume.  For such would lead to a contradiction.  If I have two positions 1 meter apart then there is a finite length.  If the point is defining anything in relation to the distance, then it cannot be both infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time.   I can describe the distance as 1 meter or 1000 mm because they are defined and have a relation to one another; as well, I can go even smaller in my definition, however I always have a finite number for the distance.

As to arguments which are claimed to Dr. Craig, which then requires an actual infinite.  This would need to be more specific to answer.   Do the arguments require an actual singularity, or are they just surrounding what is commonly called the Big Bang Singularity?  If they do not require a singularity, then it is not inconsistent.  There may be some arguments effected, but it is difficult to tell, without being more specific.  It has occurred to me (within the last year), that the infinite when talking about a singularity comes from dividing by zero.  Some say, and I tend to agree, that this is better described as undefined, rather than infinite.  And the question comes about, if you can have something physical, that can be described as truly inhabiting zero space/volume?  Even with an astronomically small number (for volume), then it becomes finite again. 

I think the following describes my position on this fairly well, And I think that the word "infinite" is often used as shorthand for either very small or very large.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm

---

If the Universe is expanding, as WLC says that he believes in, what, exactly, is it expanding into?

We had touched on this a little while ago. I believe that when I turned the same reasoning against an infinite universe, that you then said it was a nonsense question.

P.S.  We can talk about this later, if you want, but Cantor proved that there is an actual infinite between two finite points on the real number line:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...infinities

An actual infinite of what (numbers you can make up)? I don't disagree here. However I think that the trick here, is that points is really left undefined. As soon as you define what is in between, you have a finite number of them. Either that or the what really has nothing to do with anything physical or describing the movement, and so it would be in error to make that comparison. I don't think that anyone is arguing against infinity as a abstract or concept. It appears that a lot of this works on loose and shifting definitions.

[Little lunch]

It works with numbers, but how many times can I cut a piece of paper in half before the rules of the universe won't let me do it anymore.
It's not real. :-)

[Jehanne]

If the Universe is expanding, as WLC says that he believes in, what, exactly, is it expanding into?

We had touched on this a little while ago.  I believe that when I turned the same reasoning against an infinite universe, that you then said it was a nonsense question.

P.S.  We can talk about this later, if you want, but Cantor proved that there is an actual infinite between two finite points on the real number line:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...infinities

An actual infinite of what (numbers you can make up)?  I don't disagree here.  However I think that the trick here, is that points is really left undefined.  As soon as you define what is in between, you have a finite number of them.  Either that or the what really has nothing to do with anything physical or describing the movement, and so it would be in error to make that comparison.  I don't think that anyone is arguing against infinity as a abstract or concept.  It appears that a lot of this works on loose and shifting definitions.

Cantor's proof is mathematical; of course, no one is claiming that you can enumerate all numbers of the real number line between any two finite points, only that such an infinite set exists.  The point is that WLC's claims against "actual infinities" are nonsensical.

---

It works with numbers, but how many times can I cut a piece of paper in half before the rules of the universe won't let me do it anymore.
It's not real. :-)

If space is continuous, the answer is, "forever"!  And, yet, you would transverse such an infinite set all the time, in fact, every time that you exhale.

---

Do plants grow because fairies water them?  Provide them with nutrients? [1] Physics is complete:

We don't need to look beyond it, [2] even if there are things, such as consciousness, that are not irreducible.

1) No. No.
2) So physics replaces metaphysics? Is the concept of "being" reducible to particles/waves/strings/physics?
So... question:
The image shows 6 categories; quantum mechanics, spacetime, gravity, other forces, matter, and higgs. Are these your answer to the question regarding "necessary things"?

Physics is complete as far as the everyday world is concerned (hence, the "Everyday Equation").  If you disagree, what is there left for physics to explain?

[RoadRunner79]

We had touched on this a little while ago.  I believe that when I turned the same reasoning against an infinite universe, that you then said it was a nonsense question.


An actual infinite of what (numbers you can make up)?  I don't disagree here.  However I think that the trick here, is that points is really left undefined.  As soon as you define what is in between, you have a finite number of them.  Either that or the what really has nothing to do with anything physical or describing the movement, and so it would be in error to make that comparison.  I don't think that anyone is arguing against infinity as a abstract or concept.  It appears that a lot of this works on loose and shifting definitions.

Cantor's proof is mathematical; of course, no one is claiming that you can enumerate all numbers of the real number line between any two finite points, only that such an infinite set exists.  The point is that WLC's claims against "actual infinities" are nonsensical.

Again, I ask what is it that is infinite?  I think that as soon as you define the what, you lose the infinity.  It is largely a trick of non-definition.