Actual Infinity in Reality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Steve,

Sorry to be late in the conversation.  But I really am puzzled as to why you think ifinities pose a logical contradiction 

-because that's god's wheelhouse.  You see..."god" is Steves actual infinity, proposed to solve the conundrum he asserted.

[Jenny A]

Steve,

Sorry to be late in the conversation.  But I really am puzzled as to why you think ifinities pose a logical contradiction 

-because that's god's wheelhouse.  You see..."god" is Steves actual infinity, proposed to solve the conundrum he asserted.

Ah but if infinities are a logical impossibility , then so too would be the Christian God as he is supposedly eternal which would involve an infinity of time.

[The Grand Nudger]

-because that's god's wheelhouse.  You see..."god" is Steves actual infinity, proposed to solve the conundrum he asserted.

Ah but if infinities are a logical impossibility , then so too would be the Christian God as he is supposedly eternal which would involve an infinity of time.

He's the special exemption, as usual.

[GrandizerII]

-because that's god's wheelhouse.  You see..."god" is Steves actual infinity, proposed to solve the conundrum he asserted.

Ah but if infinities are a logical impossibility , then so too would be the Christian God as he is supposedly eternal which would involve an infinity of time.

Steve and RR dont see God as infinity!!!

[SteveII]

I'd point out that *finite* sets in mathematics are just as 'abstract'. mathematics is the study of formal axiom systems. So of course it is all abstract.

Yes, but finite sets are countable and we can know every member. An infinite set is not countable, unbounded. It is more abstract since we cannot find examples in reality to stand in as a comparison. Also, finite sets are defined by logical axioms which are more self-evident, where infinite sets are defined by non-logical axioms, which is interchangeable with 'assumption'. 

The idea that axioms are 'intuitively obvious' is another outdated idea. Euclid tried that with Euclidean geometry, but we have found that his system, even of geometry, was far from unique. Non-euclidean geometry is equally consistent, but gives different answers.

Which leads to the point: when there are different axioms systems that are all consistent, there is nothing to say which is correct and which is not correct except to go to observation and testing.

So, the fact that introducing actual infinities does bring a contradiction shows that there is no *logical* reason to exclude actual infinities.

So you cannot mathematically prove an actual infinity. All you have in mathematics is an axiom that assumes an actual infinity. Mathematics cannot say one way or another whether an actual infinity exists. Therefore, you must move to observations/tests with real objects and see if the concept can stand up to scrutiny. There are a whole series of absurdities that you run into when you start to do thought experiments with infinities. So while mathematics does not show a logical contradiction, observation does. 

And I agree--the actual existence of actual infinites has not been proven. But that isn't my claim. My claim is that there is no *logical* issue with them and that they should be considered as one *possibility*. And that is quite enough to destroy the Kalam argument. There is no *contradiction* with having an infinite regress of causes. It is internally consistent and so cannot be dismissed out of hand.

No, your claim is that there is no *mathematical* issue. You cannot say there is no *logical* issue when all we have are paradoxes and absurdities when we think about an infinite number of real objects. Mathematics is definitely not the only source of logic.

[GrandizerII]

I'd point out that *finite* sets in mathematics are just as 'abstract'. mathematics is the study of formal axiom systems. So of course it is all abstract.

Yes, but finite sets are countable and we can know every member. An infinite set is not countable, unbounded.

Please study your infinite set maths properly. What you're saying here is patently false, mathematically speaking. Some infinities are countable, like the integers.

[Catholic_Lady]

I voted yes, but I don't think it is possible for infinity to exist without the supernatural because it is contrary to natural, physical laws.

[GrandizerII]

I voted yes, but I don't think it is possible for infinity to exist without the supernatural because it is contrary to natural, physical laws.

How? Asserting it doesn't make it true.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's no logical contradiction that shows that infinity is logically impossible.

Why? Because you'd always need +1 reason

I don't think infinity is logically impossible. But I do in actuality think that it is not physically possible. But that's just my opinion... plus I think science supports a finite universe.

IMO existence itself as a whole (which is beyond the universe... it's where the universe came from. It's that supposed "nothing").... is eternal but finite.

I think there are logical proofs that existence is eternal. But not that it is finite. However.... I think that it makes sense that something that can grow in size is finite. Infinity just seems redundant really. The universe doesn't need to be infinite. And parsimony seems like reality's most fundamental law, to me (besides non-contradiction but IMO that is beyond laws. Because something that is and is not at the same time isn't even an object at all).

[LadyForCamus]

I voted yes, but I don't think it is possible for infinity to exist without the supernatural because it is contrary to natural, physical laws.

You should go back and read the thread from the beginning, CL.  You may at least be giving that notion a second thought by the time you get to where we are now.  I, for one, have learned a lot here!