Actual Infinity in Reality?

[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.

There was a debate ( about 18 months ago) with a Jewish Rabi (Daneil Rowe) and atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling.  One of the parts that interested me, was Rowe's point that physical things cannot be infinite or endless in extent.   This is due to the fact that physical things, are necessarily defined by their limits.  They have properties such as size, weight, position and a number of other qualities that require limits in order to define them.  He described this as being bound (finite) as opposed to being unbound.   I tried searching for this type of thought process, but didn't have much luck; finding others who described it this way.   But I thought it was interesting.

Yeah thats how i see it.

[GrandizerII]

Don't be silly. By your argument, even the example you provided is not an example of a composition fallacy.

You're not giving much specific here to work with... I would encourage anyone to look it up for themselves.

Yeah, because all these people participating must be so ignorant compared to you that they don't know what it means, and when to spot it.

[Amarok]

Yeah thats how i see it.

Then you don't see

[The Grand Nudger]

32 pages of outright denying math and propositional logic, and for what?  LOL.  

 How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to "fit" with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? 

-hitchens

[Amarok]

You're not giving much specific here to work with... I would encourage anyone to look it up for themselves.

Yeah, because all these people participating must be so ignorant compared to you that they don't know what it means, and when to spot it.

Well don't you know Roads the greatest mind of our age 

[SteveII]

What?!? Conflicting answers (Hilbert, Galileo)

You have been shown several times there are no conflicting answers. Different instances of infinite set are going to yield different results. This is logical, not contradictory.

Same infinite collection - same infinite collection is still 0 (empty collection), and always will be.

It's when you subtract one infinite collection from a different infinite collection that you get other [varying] answers, depending on these collections. It's loosely similar to finite (7) - finity (4) = finity (3) => finity - finity = 3???

And what about 0/0? The answer could be any number, and when we don't know exactly which due to lack of contextual contraints, the answer is that it's indeterminate. Same with infinity - infinity.

For every bit of your answers above, you have assumed the Axiom of Infinity. This axiom was not derived from a logical process. It is simply assumed so particular math problems can be conducted on it. It is not proof of anything or gives guidance to anything in the real world (where the thought experiments are conducted).

So, you have to deal with the items of my list by showing why these six things do not indicate an actual infinity is metaphysically impossible WITHOUT using infinite set theory from mathematics. I have shown that if you use mathematical infinite set theory in your reasoning if an actual infinite can exist, you have begged the question. That is an invalid argument. 

1. You cannot get to infinity by successive addition.
2. You get absurdities when you propose an infinite number of actual objects (Hilbert's Hotel).
3. You get contradictions about how many squares and square roots there must be (Galileo's paradox)
4. Is the vase full or empty in the Ross–Littlewood paradox?
5. Is the lamp on or off in the Thomson's lamp paradox?
6. It seems we cannot traverse even a finite distance in Zeno's paradoxes

[polymath257]

32 pages of outright denying math and propositional logic, and for what?  LOL.  

 How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to "fit" with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? 

-hitchens

Hey, math is *so* illogical!

Not like, say, metaphysics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, said it in so many threads.  Math or reason, unbelievable.  Genies, legit.

[Amarok]

32 pages of outright denying math and propositional logic, and for what?  LOL.  

-hitchens

Hey, math is *so* illogical!

Not like, say, metaphysics.

Yup fuck math it's just so silly 

Metaphysics is the gold standard of reality 

[polymath257]

You have been shown several times there are no conflicting answers. Different instances of infinite set are going to yield different results. This is logical, not contradictory.

Same infinite collection - same infinite collection is still 0 (empty collection), and always will be.

It's when you subtract one infinite collection from a different infinite collection that you get other [varying] answers, depending on these collections. It's loosely similar to finite (7) - finity (4) = finity (3) => finity - finity = 3???

And what about 0/0? The answer could be any number, and when we don't know exactly which due to lack of contextual contraints, the answer is that it's indeterminate. Same with infinity - infinity.

For every bit of your answers above, you have assumed the Axiom of Infinity. This axiom was not derived from a logical process. It is simply assumed so particular math problems can be conducted on it. It is not proof of anything or gives guidance to anything in the real world (where the thought experiments are conducted).

So, you have to deal with the items of my list by showing why these six things do not indicate an actual infinity is metaphysically impossible WITHOUT using infinite set theory from mathematics. I have shown that if you use mathematical infinite set theory in your reasoning if an actual infinite can exist, you have begged the question. That is an invalid argument. 

1. You cannot get to infinity by successive addition.
2. You get absurdities when you propose an infinite number of actual objects (Hilbert's Hotel).
3. You get contradictions about how many squares and square roots there must be (Galileo's paradox)
4. Is the vase full or empty in the Ross–Littlewood paradox?
5. Is the lamp on or off in the Thomson's lamp paradox?
6. It seems we cannot traverse even a finite distance in Zeno's paradoxes

1. So what?
2. Give a specific absurdity so we can discuss it in detail.
3. What, precisely, is the contradiction in Galileo's paradox?
4. Since the operations involved are impossible (even if we assume an actual infinity), the question isn't well-posed.
5. Since the operations involved are impossible (even if we assume an actual infinity), the question isn't well-posed.
6. The word 'seems' is the key here. Again, Zeno's paradoxes are not issues if both space and time are infinitely divisible: traversing an infinite set of points in an infinite set of intervals is not an issue. The infinites *resolved* the problem. It was the assumption of finiteness that caused the problem.

Specifically, in both 4. and 5, some activity has to happen at faster than the speed of light (whether flipping a switch, or moving balls). This is a violation of physics. But the issue isn't the actual infinity, but the speeds faster than light.