Actual infinities.

[Ignorant]

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?

I don't know enough to disagree about whether or not physics is complete regarding the everyday world. Why qualify the world with "everyday"? What other sort of world happens less frequently?

Does physics account for (an) essentially necessary thing(s)? In other words, many philosophers and scientists maintain that there must be at least one thing that just necessarily is (and could not NOT be) at every moment.  Does physics account for that? If so, how?

[Jehanne]

No, I am saying that the sum of those finite numbers (their ordinality) is infinite.  But, once again, please answer my question, "Are some potential infinities bigger than others?"

I agree, that you can make up fractions potentially forever.  However what they represent is still part of a finite thing.  You are talking about the process.
I do think, that the more loosely define your set, then a infinite multi-dimensional array would be technically larger than and infinite single dimension array (such as used in addition).  

How do you apply this to the topic?
Its seems, that you are talking about abstractions, not in any way reference to the two points of the OP.  How do you connect these?

Do you see the logical contradiction with having an actual completed set, that is by definition never complete?

The set of natural numbers is an actual infinite, that is, it contains an infinite number of objects.  Ditto for the set of real (rational and irrational) numbers, but in the latter case, that infinite set is larger than that of the natural numbers.  How about "potential infinities?"  Are they all the same size (cardinality)?  Or, are some larger than others?

But, the point of my OP is that actual infinities may exist in nature, all around us, in fact.  And, the simple act of motion is the traversal of an actual infinite, which means that the physical existence of actual infinities is not an absurdity.

[RoadRunner79]

I agree, that you can make up fractions potentially forever.  However what they represent is still part of a finite thing.  You are talking about the process.
I do think, that the more loosely define your set, then a infinite multi-dimensional array would be technically larger than and infinite single dimension array (such as used in addition).  

How do you apply this to the topic?
Its seems, that you are talking about abstractions, not in any way reference to the two points of the OP.  How do you connect these?

Do you see the logical contradiction with having an actual completed set, that is by definition never complete?

The set of natural numbers is an actual infinite, that is, it contains an infinite number of objects.  Ditto for the set of real (rational and irrational) numbers, but in the latter case, that infinite set is larger than that of the natural numbers.  How about "potential infinities?"  Are they all the same size (cardinality)?  Or, are some larger than others?

But, the point of my OP is that actual infinities may exist in nature, all around us, in fact.  And, the simple act of motion is the traversal of an actual infinite, which means that the physical existence of actual infinities is not an absurdity.

And as I have been asking now for some time... an actual infinite of what?   You keep wanting to go to the abstract but never make the connection to what that infinity is describing.   It cannot be distance, because at each point, I have traversed a finite distance.  You have only showed that you can have an actual infinity as an abstract concept, and have not showed any relation to the points traversed. 

Would you agree, that you cannot cross infinity, by addition (that you will never reach the end)?  Can you cross from point A to Point B in your OP?

[JackRussell]

Well, god.

[Jehanne]

It cannot be distance, because at each point, I have traversed a finite distance.  You have only showed that you can have an actual infinity as an abstract concept, and have not showed any relation to the points traversed. 

This is where we disagree.  The ordinal number of points (that is, discrete elements, call them "epsilon", if you wish) between any 2 points, sums to an actual infinite, if space is continuous.

---

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?

I don't know enough to disagree about whether or not physics is complete regarding the everyday world. Why qualify the world with "everyday"? What other sort of world happens less frequently?

Does physics account for (an) essentially necessary thing(s)? In other words, many philosophers and scientists maintain that there must be at least one thing that just necessarily is (and could not NOT be) at every moment.  Does physics account for that? If so, how?

Physics, via QFT (Quantum Field Theory), which consists of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) and QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), explains the strong and electroweak fundamental forces of Nature, while General Relativity provides a classical description of gravity.  There is simply no need to posit anything beyond this, even if it is the case (and, it is) that certain phenomenon (such as all of biology) are not reducible to QFT or GR.

[RoadRunner79]

It cannot be distance, because at each point, I have traversed a finite distance.  You have only showed that you can have an actual infinity as an abstract concept, and have not showed any relation to the points traversed. 

This is where we disagree.  The ordinal number of points (that is, discrete elements, call them "epsilon", if you wish) between any 2 points, sums to an actual infinite, if space is continuous.

You got a little snippy, when I didn't answer your question (about one infinity being bigger than another). I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You need to define, what you mean by a point. How do you differentiate one point from another. Can you traverse an infinite number by addition, and if you can traverse from point A to point B in the example. How did you get to B?

I think you need to tie your ideas together, and that when you do, you will find that you have a finite length, and if you define point, that will be finite as well.

[Ignorant]

Physics, via QFT (Quantum Field Theory), which consists of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) and QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), explains the strong and electroweak fundamental forces of Nature, while General Relativity provides a classical description of gravity.  There is simply no need to posit anything beyond this, even if it is the case (and, it is) that certain phenomenon (such as all of biology) are not reducible to QFT or GR.

I am quite sure that they explain well the fundamental aspects of nature. My question is whether or not they account for the necessary being inherent in nature? Whether infinite into the past or having a beginning, something about the cosmos must just "be" as self-explanatory. Does physics describe anything like that?

[Jehanne]

Physics, via QFT (Quantum Field Theory), which consists of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) and QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), explains the strong and electroweak fundamental forces of Nature, while General Relativity provides a classical description of gravity.  There is simply no need to posit anything beyond this, even if it is the case (and, it is) that certain phenomenon (such as all of biology) are not reducible to QFT or GR.

I am quite sure that they explain well the fundamental aspects of nature. My question is whether or not they account for the necessary being inherent in nature? Whether infinite into the past or having a beginning, something about the cosmos must just "be" as self-explanatory. Does physics describe anything like that?

Here's the Quantum Eternity Theorem from Quantum Mechanics by David Griffiths, 2nd edition (pages 13-14):



It implies that the Cosmo's wave function is eternal, that is, without a beginning or end.

[Succubus]

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?

I don't know enough to disagree about whether or not physics is complete regarding the everyday world. Why qualify the world with "everyday"? What other sort of world happens less frequently?

Does physics account for (an) essentially necessary thing(s)? In other words, many philosophers and scientists maintain that there must be at least one thing that just necessarily is (and could not NOT be) at every moment.  Does physics account for that? If so, how?

The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood