Actual Infinity in Reality?

[Jehanne]

I am not asking if there is a concept in mathematics that deals with infinity or if there exists sets with an infinite number of members (although you might use the concept in a larger argument). I am not asking if we can theoretically divide something an infinite amount of times (although you might use the concept in a larger argument). I am not asking about a potential infinite. 

I am asking about an actual infinite of something concrete (not abstract). Can it logically exist? Why or why not? 

No mention of God either. Philosophy subforum--let's stick with pure metaphysics.

Steve,

Sorry that I missed this thread.  Watch these three videos:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...f-infinity

[GrandizerII]

I am not asking if there is a concept in mathematics that deals with infinity or if there exists sets with an infinite number of members (although you might use the concept in a larger argument). I am not asking if we can theoretically divide something an infinite amount of times (although you might use the concept in a larger argument). I am not asking about a potential infinite. 

I am asking about an actual infinite of something concrete (not abstract). Can it logically exist? Why or why not? 

No mention of God either. Philosophy subforum--let's stick with pure metaphysics.

Steve,

Sorry that I missed this thread.  Watch these three videos:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...f-infinity

Steves argument is that mathematical [actual] infinity cant be shown to be mapped to reality. Hes not disputing the validity of the maths perse ... or so he says. But he does argue that the maths would lead to absurdities if applied to the real world. Therefore, according to him, actual infinity cannot be ... actual. But the paradox hes referring to is veridical, its apparent ... not actual ... paradox. Its the kind of outcome to be expected with infinite sets of things as opposed to finite sets, only because there are no ends on one or both sides of the infinite set.

[Amarok]

And in all cases Steve is wrong . He has yet to demonstrate the math does not describe reality . He just asserts it and expects us all to be impressed  .

[Jehanne]

And, Steve's reasoning (and, by extension, Dr. Craig's) is just dumb, and I have asked Steve this question before:

If the Universe is expanding, what, exactly, is it expanding into?

If Steve replies, "nothing" (completely reasonable), then Dr. Craig's claim that "Out of nothing, nothing comes" is false, because space itself is expanding at the expense of nothing.  On the other hand, if Steve says that there is some sort of multiverse and/or higher dimensions (again, completely reasonable), then, as the BGV theorem paper states, explicitly, there is "new physics", which as with the "Ultraviolet catastrophe" (just Google), means that there is a deeper physical reality out there beyond General Relativity, Quantum Theory, and even, String Theory.  On the other hand, if Steve says that space goes on forever, then that is the very definition of an actual infinite, which means that there are events taking place at this very instant which, given the finiteness of information travel (again, completely reasonable) means that such information will reach us in our infinite future (which means that it will never reach us).  Steve might want to read about the Andromeda Paradox for a better understanding of the principle of simultaneity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E...m_argument

[Amarok]

The Andromeda Paradox is my favorite paradox 

[RoadRunner79]

And, Steve's reasoning (and, by extension, Dr. Craig's) is just dumb, and I have asked Steve this question before:

If the Universe is expanding, what, exactly, is it expanding into?

If Steve replies, "nothing" (completely reasonable), then Dr. Craig's claim that "Out of nothing, nothing comes" is false, because space itself is expanding at the expense of nothing.  On the other hand, if Steve says that there is some sort of multiverse and/or higher dimensions (again, completely reasonable), then, as the BGV theorem paper states, explicitly, there is "new physics", which as with the "Ultraviolet catastrophe" (just Google), means that there is a deeper physical reality out there beyond General Relativity, Quantum Theory, and even, String Theory.  On the other hand, if Steve says that space goes on forever, then that is the very definition of an actual infinite, which means that there are events taking place at this very instant which, given the finiteness of information travel (again, completely reasonable) means that such information will reach us in our infinite future (which means that it will never reach us).  Steve might want to read about the Andromeda Paradox for a better understanding of the principle of simultaneity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E...m_argument

When posed against an infinite universe, didn’t you tell me, that wasn’t a valid question?

[GrandizerII]

The universe is expanding, but not into a true literal nothing. That word "into" implies something. Otherwise, a logical interpretation of the sentence "the universe is expanding into nothing" would that the universe isnt expanding at all.

Sometimes physicists have to be careful with how they word things. No wonder why we get theists misrepresenting what many of us believe about the universe or cosmos.

[Jehanne]

And, Steve's reasoning (and, by extension, Dr. Craig's) is just dumb, and I have asked Steve this question before:




If Steve replies, "nothing" (completely reasonable), then Dr. Craig's claim that "Out of nothing, nothing comes" is false, because space itself is expanding at the expense of nothing.  On the other hand, if Steve says that there is some sort of multiverse and/or higher dimensions (again, completely reasonable), then, as the BGV theorem paper states, explicitly, there is "new physics", which as with the "Ultraviolet catastrophe" (just Google), means that there is a deeper physical reality out there beyond General Relativity, Quantum Theory, and even, String Theory.  On the other hand, if Steve says that space goes on forever, then that is the very definition of an actual infinite, which means that there are events taking place at this very instant which, given the finiteness of information travel (again, completely reasonable) means that such information will reach us in our infinite future (which means that it will never reach us).  Steve might want to read about the Andromeda Paradox for a better understanding of the principle of simultaneity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E...m_argument

When posed against an infinite universe, didn’t you tell me, that wasn’t a valid question?

Modern cosmology has absolutely no problem with the Universe being infinite in space and in time.  From Modern Physics, 3rd edition, by Professor Kenneth Krane:

[RoadRunner79]

When posed against an infinite universe, didn’t you tell me, that wasn’t a valid question?

Modern cosmology has absolutely no problem with the Universe being infinite in space and in time.  From Modern Physics, 3rd edition, by Professor Kenneth Krane:

That wasn’t the question.

[Jehanne]

The Universe is growing in spatial extent, since, on an intergalactic scale, distances are increasing.  Even if the Universe is infinite in spatial extent, the distances between any two galaxies is finite, and so, one has Cantor's concept of "infinities within infinities":

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the...thematics/

A Universe that is an "actual infinite" in space and time is completely reasonable.