Actual infinities.

[RoadRunner79]

[Jehanne]

[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]

[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]

[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.