Actual Infinity in Reality?

[pocaracas]

1. Infinitesimals are no longer used. They were problematic in several ways and were replaced by the epsilon-delta definition of limit, which does not require them.

Damn kids!
Get off my lawn!!

[RoadRunner79]

[polymath257]

[RoadRunner79]

[polymath257]

---

1. yes, between any two real numbers, there are infinitely many real numbers. I agree.

2. Let's be more precise. Yes, whenever you are *between* 0 and 1, say 0<x<1, there is another point y with x<y<1.

3. Let's be more precise. Whenever 0<x<1, there is a point y with 0<y<x.

4. I agree with both of those as I stated them.

OK, so where is the problem?

So as we progress from say 0 to 1, there is always another point Y between X and 1 where X<Y<1.  
1. If you must pass through each of these points, you will never reach 1, because there is always another point Y which must be met.

Therefore Zeno concluded that if you can never end your journey or on the inverse (which isn't quite as intuitive) never begin your journey,
then motion is impossible.  If you have to complete a endless number of points before you can get to the end (1) then you will never be at the end (1)

Do you agree?   If not, where do you think that the error is?

Please be more precise: exactly what process do we use to go from 0 to 1? Be specific.

But yes, at any point there is another point to go through. And yes, we manage to go through all of them.

The problem is that you are assuming we cannot compete an infinite process. Look at my comments on the definition of 'infinity' above.

[Jackie]

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.

"metaphysics" is NOT a real science. It is simply mental masturbation. 

Quantum physics IS a real science.

Not that you will consider this, but who gives a flying fig anyway? You have a specific pet god you gap fill with and think no other religion tries to square itself with science. Hate to burst your bubble, but Muslims, and Jews and Hindus and even Buddhists also attempt to get science to point to their clubs.

And do not hand me any garbage about not having an agenda in that you are not talking about your God. Maybe not in this thread, but this is just a distraction for you to attempt to sound neutral and objective. In other threads and on other websites for that matter you will try to point to your pet God.

But we can play your game here.

1. Stick to metaphysics = Allah, what, that doesn't make sense to you now?

2. Stick to metaphysics = Yahweh, how about now?

3. Stick to metaphysics = Buddha, how about now?

4. Stick to metaphysics = Hindu creator God Brahma, how about now?


You only start threads like this to try to look neutral and objective. But you are not the only religion, or the first theist we've seen to attempt this fake neutrality. 

I see no conflict between infinite and finite and regardless there does not need to be a god of the gaps either way as a starting point.

I see "infinite" as simply the non cognitive fluctuation between a finite "off" to a finite "on". As long as you are breaking it up the cycle can continue forever between a finite on and a finite off without suffering the problem of infinite regress. But regardless, humans make up god claims as a reflection of their own attributes, every single one claimed in our species history, both polytheist and monotheists.

Humans are merely a temporary blip in our own point of view arrow in our universe.

[polymath257]

[Jackie]

What do you think Stevie?

(this feels like a gotcha attempt, therefore god)

Yep. I cannot begin to count the number of theists who have tried to pull the "I am not mentioning God, since I got on line in 01, only to go "GOTCHA!" .

It is a bait and switch. In my early days of debate, something like this might have stumped me, but years of experience it does not anymore. 

Even if we did agree, which we do not, they're still stuck with "which god".

[RoadRunner79]

So as we progress from say 0 to 1, there is always another point Y between X and 1 where X<Y<1.  
1. If you must pass through each of these points, you will never reach 1, because there is always another point Y which must be met.

Therefore Zeno concluded that if you can never end your journey or on the inverse (which isn't quite as intuitive) never begin your journey,
then motion is impossible.  If you have to complete a endless number of points before you can get to the end (1) then you will never be at the end (1)

Do you agree?   If not, where do you think that the error is?

1.)  Please be more precise: exactly what process do we use to go from 0 to 1? Be specific.

2.)  But yes, at any point there is another point to go through. And yes, we manage to go through all of them.

3.)  The problem is that you are assuming we cannot compete an infinite process. Look at my comments on the definition of 'infinity' above.

1. )  In this case, we are cutting in half the distance between the current position and the end position.  Which you agree, will never result in a number greater or equal to the end positions correct?  In actuality, I believe that one would need to proceed through each point, between 0 and 1 sequentially.  The dichotomy method of half marks allows us an abbreviated way to move forward, to systematically show an infinity and show that we that the end (1) will never be reached.

2.)  If they are without end... how do you go through them all?   That is the question.    (And if you are going to say time again, then how does that help you to get to 1 if X<Y<1.... More or less time, does not help you complete this sequence, it's not a matter of completing it in a timely manner).

3. Using the same method, that you use to show an infinity, also shows that you cannot complete that infinity (hence the concept and the term).   If you disagree with Zeno.... then where?   You agreed to the premises including the math.  Do you think that the conclusion doesn't follow that if X<Y<1  ad infinitum then an infinite number of halfway marks cannot be crossed, therefore the path can never be fully completed?  If so why?

[Jackie]

1.)  Please be more precise: exactly what process do we use to go from 0 to 1? Be specific.

2.)  But yes, at any point there is another point to go through. And yes, we manage to go through all of them.

3.)  The problem is that you are assuming we cannot compete an infinite process. Look at my comments on the definition of 'infinity' above.

1. )  In this case, we are cutting in half the distance between the current position and the end position.  Which you agree, will never result in a number greater or equal to the end positions correct?  In actuality, I believe that one would need to proceed through each point, between 0 and 1 sequentially.  The dichotomy method of half marks allows us an abbreviated way to move forward, to systematically show an infinity and show that we that the end (1) will never be reached.

2.)  If they are without end... how do you go through them all?   That is the question.    (And if you are going to say time again, then how does that help you to get to 1 if X<Y<1.... More or less time, does not help you complete this sequence, it's not a matter of completing it in a timely manner).

3. Using the same method, that you use to show an infinity, also shows that you cannot complete that infinity (hence the concept and the term).   If you disagree with Zeno.... then where?   You agreed to the premises including the math.  Do you think that the conclusion doesn't follow that if X<Y<1  ad infinitum then an infinite number of halfway marks cannot be crossed, therefore the path can never be fully completed?  If so why?

We don't care. Even if we agreed with this argument, which we do not, it still would NOT favor your pet god over any  other. Hawking has already said, and I agree with him, "A God is not required".

1+1= Jesus
1+1= Allah
1+1=Yahweh
1+1= Buddha
1+1= Brahma

You could argue 1+1= Unicorns or Yoda and it would mean the same thing to us.

What would be so frightening to you if you figured out you got sold old mythology? What would be so frightening to you if you found out you really are finite? 

That was then, this is now. It was understandable that BOTH polytheists and monotheists made that crap up because they didn't know any better. Our knowledge of scientific fact has exponentially increased over the past 2,000 years. Just like you don't find it credible to gap fill with Poseidon to claim him to be the cause of Hurricanes.