Actual Infinity in Reality?

[polymath257]

OK, so your definition of infinity is different than pretty much everyone else's definition. The *modern* definition doesn't involve a 'process'. You either have something or you don't. That means the distinction between 'potential' and 'actual' infinities is pretty much discarded in modern discussions. So, your 2) is contrary to how the concept is now used.

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t think that addresses the contradiction I mentioned. Also where you not just recently telling Steve that infinity wasn’t a quantity.  Have you changed your mind?

Infinity is not a number in the sense that it's not an element of the set of real numbers, it's that which encompasses the number of elements in it. It's the set itself when the set contains infinite elements. Pay attention to the grammar of words before you charge me with contradicting myself.

Easy there buddy.  You can mistakes, I can make mistakes, things may need to be clarified or perhaps one may even alter or modify their position.   I'm not like some who declare victory, before, after, and during every argument.   This is about an idea, and the discussion of it. I'm not trying to say gotch ya, and act like that is the end of things.   That would be the fallacy, fallacy.

Also here, you may note, that in your definition here, you are saying that it is the set, and then using "infinite" in another way to describe the elements.   I think that the second meaning is closer, and you don't need to involve sets to describe infinity.   You are describing something about the thing in question that you are talking about.

And you didn't state any contradiction. All you did was show that you continue to confuse actual infinity with potential infinity.

No I'm not... I'm talking about it in it's entirety fully formed as you have stated.  If I was talking about a potential infinity, there wouldn't be the contradiction.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is all to argue that the past can't be infinite, therefore God made it on His cosmic watchmaker's bench.

Not really. Thomas Aquinas, at least, felt it was indeterminate and did not matter with respect to the 2W once you account for the distinction between accidentally and essentially ordered sequences. Why do you believe it impossible to discuss have a purely metaphysical question without delving into the theological implications? Seems to me like yer itchin' for a fight.

[RoadRunner79]

This is all to argue that the past can't be infinite, therefore God made it on His cosmic watchmaker's bench.

Not really. Thomas Aquinas, at least, felt it was indeterminate and did not matter with respect to the 2W once you account for the distinction between accidentally and essentially ordered sequences. Why do you believe it impossible to discuss have a purely metaphysical question without delving into the theological implications? Seems to me like yer itchin' for a fight.

To you last question here, I often suspect it’s because they can’t discuss and evaluate it apart from the other thing. They can’t understand any other way, than their concrete thinking where you evaluate from the end.

[polymath257]

This is all to argue that the past can't be infinite, therefore God made it on His cosmic watchmaker's bench.

Not really. Thomas Aquinas, at least, felt it was indeterminate and did not matter with respect to the 2W once you account for the distinction between accidentally and essentially ordered sequences. Why do you believe it impossible to discuss have a purely metaphysical question without delving into the theological implications? Seems to me like yer itchin' for a fight.

Well, that *was* the origin of the discussion in the other thread. But, yes, this is a different thread.

I've yet to see a valid argument for why an infinite past is impossible. I get a bunch of 'you can get to now otherwise', but that is assuming a start infinitely far in the past. if there is no start at all, then there is no issue.

[Edwardo Piet]

Eternity exists... infinity doesn't.

[GrandizerII]

Infinity is not a number in the sense that it's not an element of the set of real numbers, it's that which encompasses the number of elements in it. It's the set itself when the set contains infinite elements. Pay attention to the grammar of words before you charge me with contradicting myself.

Easy there buddy.  You can mistakes, I can make mistakes, things may need to be clarified or perhaps one may even alter or modify their position.   I'm not like some who declare victory, before, after, and during every argument.   This is about an idea, and the discussion of it. I'm not trying to say gotch ya, and act like that is the end of things.   That would be the fallacy, fallacy.

Oh, please.

Also here, you may note, that in your definition here, you are saying that it is the set, and then using "infinite" in another way to describe the elements.   I think that the second meaning is closer, and you don't need to involve sets to describe infinity.   You are describing something about the thing in question that you are talking about.

Infinite number of elements. Infinite being descriptive term for the endless number of elements in the set. Look at the whole set/collection of numbers/elements, and that there is your infinity. It's not somewhere near "the magical ends".

And you didn't state any contradiction. All you did was show that you continue to confuse actual infinity with potential infinity.

No I'm not... I'm talking about it in it's entirety fully formed as you have stated.  If I was talking about a potential infinity, there wouldn't be the contradiction.

If you were talking about actual infinity, then why are you struggling with the premise? Actual infinity exists, meaning all elements exist in it without bounds/ends. Complete doesn't mean having ends in this context. It means all elements are present.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not really. Thomas Aquinas, at least, felt it was indeterminate and did not matter with respect to the 2W once you account for the distinction between accidentally and essentially ordered sequences. Why do you believe it impossible to discuss have a purely metaphysical question without delving into the theological implications? Seems to me like yer itchin' for a fight.

To you last question here, I often suspect  it’s because they can’t discuss and evaluate it apart from the other thing. They can’t understand any other way, than their concrete thinking where you evaluate from the end.

Plus there's the AF culture. Every time I try to start a lighthearted humor thread it always bombs because it seems like atheists don't want to play in the same sandbox with theists, except for mafia. (Or maybe my idea of fun doesn't appeal to others...there' always that.)

[LadyForCamus]

To you last question here, I often suspect  it’s because they can’t discuss and evaluate it apart from the other thing. They can’t understand any other way, than their concrete thinking where you evaluate from the end.

Plus there's the AF culture. Every time I try to start a lighthearted humor thread it always bombs because it seems like atheists don't want to play in the same sandbox with theists, except for mafia. (Or maybe my idea of fun doesn't appeal to others...there' always that.)

Hey, Jack and I played!!! 😁

[henryp]

Intuitively, it doesn't seem like an infinite number of anything can exist tangibly.

The hobby philosophizer in me thinks that our mathematics are probably just a flawed representation of reality. It's the best we could come up wiht, but it's all done from our perspective in the grand scheme of things, and because of that, it's a bit inadequate.