Infinity and Kalam

[seer]

"Again, from Vilenkin’s Stanford article: “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”. And, as he says, the ‘laws of physics’ require “space/time” to be meaningful."


Could this state be a Mind?

Don't tell Tass that - his head will explode...

[Machinist]

I guess there is a belief among atheists that A stops equaling A at some point. I can appreciate how that belief could come about too with all this quantum business. If it's possible for one thing to go down two different paths at the same time (google sum over histories), then that sort of pokes holes in my notion of the absoluteness of A=A ness. There is much talk in that field that one thing can be in two places at the same time. If that's true, then how are we to think about A=A?



I know there is much lost in translation between the actual research and the articles that you read in scientific American. I get that. But that is the level I am on. And on this level, from this perspective, I discern that the underlying belief in that field is that A does not equal A. And I guess if you can dismantle that pillar of reality, then anything goes. There seems to be a huge effort to bring this about.

[seer]

If it's possible for one thing to go down two different paths at the same time (google sum over histories), then that sort of pokes holes in my notion of the absoluteness of A=A ness. There is much talk in that field that one thing can be in two places at the same time. If that's true, then how are we to think about A=A?

I don't think the same particle goes down two different paths at the same time. If true that might bear on the law of non-contradiction, but not the law of identity. A would still equal A even if it takes two paths.

[Machinist]

I don't think the same particle goes down two different paths at the same time..

It's the word on the street.

[seer]

It's the word on the street.

Here is an interesting description:

Obligate Pedestrian
,
PhD Mathematics, The University of Western Australia

I am unaware of any version of quantum theory that says that a particle can exist in two places at once in the sense of a billiard ball being on the Earth and on the Moon at the same time. If the experiment is designed to detect the particle as being a hard lump, then it will find the particle in one and only one place. The Born interpretation says that the particle has a chance of being found on the Earth and a chance on the Moon - but no chance of being found at both places at once. Like a coin has a chance of showing heads and a chance of showing tails - but no chance of showing both at once. Bohm said that the particle actually does have a specific position. Heisenberg said it had none. Quantum field theory says that the particle is a field that is distributed through all of space. But this is like saying that the atmosphere is distributed around the Earth. The atmosphere is simply something that is large and spread out: like the quantum field for a particle. This is not what is meant by being in two places at once. Schrödinger would have said that a particle is like a king wave standing out above the background - but not that it could be in two places at once. If global relativistic effects are included, then time travel could mean that a particle was at two places at once - but only in the sense that some other observer would see the particle twice. And this is not a quantum question. And the particle would still not be at two places at once in terms of its own proper time - which in this context would be the time field that applies validly to the question.

[Machinist]

Well this whole time i've been running around in circles thinking that things can be in two places at the same time...like the universe is weird like that or something.

[shunyadragon]

You're actually making the point for me. I'm arguing that if the universe were past-eternal, then actual infinities would result and all the absurd ontological consequences we'd be stuck with if we admit them into our metaphysics. But then you just reiterate the claim that if the universe were past-eternal, then the past would constitute an actual infinite. Well, yea!

Always distinguish between infinite multitudes and infinite magnitudes. Aristotle kept this in mind. Even if you had an infinite multitude, if the whole is logically prior to the parts, the infinite magnitudes won't permit infinite multitudes to be denominated in them, even if you had infinite time.

The way you get to the universe's beginning is through the informal structure of a reductio: assume the universe didn't have a beginning, observe the ontological consequences of admitting an actual infinite into your metaphysic, perform a cost/benefit analysis about what you're willing to pay for the theses you're willing to bite the bullet on (David Lewis has a method like this), and if you think the price tag is too high, then drop the thing that gave the undesirable consequences, and go with the opposite of the thing that gave you those consequences; namely, the thesis that the universe had a beginning.

There's no shame in this, honestly. You could be an atheist and believe it. Lots of physicists and philosophers believe it.

Your neglecting the fact that regardless of whether 'actual infinities' exist our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' as defined by Aristotle. By the way Aristotle proposed that 'actual infinities' do not exist.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Aristotle distinguished between infinity with respect to addition and division.

But Plato has two infinities, the Great and the Small.

— Physics, book 3, chapter 4.

"As an example of a potentially infinite series in respect to increase, one number can always be added after another in the series that starts 1,2,3,... but the process of adding more and more numbers cannot be exhausted or completed

© Copyright Original Source

[mattbballman31]

Your neglecting the fact that regardless of whether 'actual infinities' exist our physical existence is 'potentially infinite' as defined by Aristotle. By the way Aristotle proposed that 'actual infinities' do not exist.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity

Aristotle distinguished between infinity with respect to addition and division.

But Plato has two infinities, the Great and the Small.

— Physics, book 3, chapter 4.

"As an example of a potentially infinite series in respect to increase, one number can always be added after another in the series that starts 1,2,3,... but the process of adding more and more numbers cannot be exhausted or completed

© Copyright Original Source

Oh my goodness, I kind of missed responding to this incessant inanity. Duh, Shunya. No one denies the 'existence' of potential infinities. What does this have to do with anything? Go to the past and decide upon a metric with the following boundary conditions: it has to be a metric with intervals that are equal, arbitrary, finite, and non-zero. If you do that, you're only going to get a finite number of them. According to that metric, the universe isn't potentially infinite to the past. It had a beginning. Now, apply the metric to the future. It'll go on and on forever and no actual infinite will ever instantiate. So, what the heck is your dumb point here, dude? None of what you said undermines Kalam's second premise, and everything I said gives it support.

[shunyadragon]

Oh my goodness, I kind of missed responding to this incessant inanity. Duh, Shunya. No one denies the 'existence' of potential infinities. What does this have to do with anything? Go to the past and decide upon a metric with the following boundary conditions: it has to be a metric with intervals that are equal, arbitrary, finite, and non-zero. If you do that, you're only going to get a finite number of them. According to that metric, the universe isn't potentially infinite to the past. It had a beginning. Now, apply the metric to the future. It'll go on and on forever and no actual infinite will ever instantiate. So, what the heck is your dumb point here, dude? None of what you said undermines Kalam's second premise, and everything I said gives it support.

First, naturally, there are no metrics in time forward, backward or whatever. Humans assign metrics in time for our purposes. Second, Aristotle was correct there is no such thing in reality as actual infinities observed in nature. It is simply a math concept of closed set infinities. Third, There is no known evidence of any sort of absolute beginning in time. Our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal regardless. Going backward or forward in dimensions if you think you come to any sort of limit it is possible to be potentially infinite by just adding our units of distance. The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity.

You have failed to present any objectively verifiable evidence of any sort of absolute beginning that would justify the KCA.

[mattbballman31]

First, naturally, there are no metrics in time forward, backward or whatever. Humans assign metrics in time for our purposes. Second, Aristotle was correct there is no such thing in reality as actual infinities observed in nature. It is simply a math concept of closed set infinities. Third, There is no known evidence of any sort of absolute beginning in time. Our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal regardless. Going backward or forward in dimensions if you think you come to any sort of limit it is possible to be potentially infinite by just adding our units of distance. The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity.

You have failed to present any objectively verifiable evidence of any sort of absolute beginning that would justify the KCA.

Wow. Just, wow. First sentence. Duh. Duration has no metrics. Metrics are something we impose on duration for purposes of measurement. If a certain metric is finite to the past, then duration is finite to the past. Consider the human body. Hmmm. I don't see any measurements called 'feet' on the human body. Do I? No! It's a metric we impose on the human body for purposes of measuring height. After settling on a metric, if you're 6 feet tall, it's pretty clear you're not infinitely tall, no? It's the same with duration!

Second, NO ONE IS DISPUTING ARISTOTLE'S POINT. Craig CITES ARISTOTLE in making his case for the past-finitude of the universe. Why do you keep citing him, weirdo? If Aristotle is right, yes! THERE ARE NO ACTUAL INFINITIES IN NATURE. Yes! Yes! Amen! Duh! You're preaching to the choir, dude. That's WHY the universe is past-finite. AND, the only way to squeeze out a POTENTIAL infinite is if you illicitly tinker with the metric. I have no idea why you are too dense to get this. MOREOVER, Craig has said OVER AND OVER that actual infinities are "MATH CONCEPTS". Why do you keep arguing for things that Craig actually believes in? Is English your second language?

Third, Craig has said OVER AND OVER again that the Kalam demonstrates that METRIC time had a beginning. The cosmological evidence provides reason for thinking that this is MORE PLAUSIBLY TRUE THAN NOT; it was NEVER MEANT to be a DEMONSTRATION for the INELUCTABLE conclusion that Absolute Time had a beginning (that's the job of the philosophical arguments). Next!

FOURTH, you keep saying that "OUR EXISTENCE" is potentially infinite. This is dumb and unclear, per usual. If you go BACKWARD, no it is not IF YOU IMPOSE THE RELEVANT METRIC; if you go FORWARD, it doesn't freaking matter; the Kalam is only talking about PAST finitude, weirdo.

Your last sentence "The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity." is the REASON WHY, when you impose on the past a particular metric, it is PAST FINITE. How in the world is your brain not seeing how obvious this is?

[shunyadragon]

Wow. Just, wow. First sentence. Duh. Duration has no metrics. Metrics are something we impose on duration for purposes of measurement. If a certain metric is finite to the past, then duration is finite to the past. Consider the human body. Hmmm. I don't see any measurements called 'feet' on the human body. Do I? No! It's a metric we impose on the human body for purposes of measuring height. After settling on a metric, if you're 6 feet tall, it's pretty clear you're not infinitely tall, no? It's the same with duration!

Second, NO ONE IS DISPUTING ARISTOTLE'S POINT. Craig CITES ARISTOTLE in making his case for the past-finitude of the universe. Why do you keep citing him, weirdo? If Aristotle is right, yes! THERE ARE NO ACTUAL INFINITIES IN NATURE. Yes! Yes! Amen! Duh! You're preaching to the choir, dude. That's WHY the universe is past-finite. AND, the only way to squeeze out a POTENTIAL infinite is if you illicitly tinker with the metric. I have no idea why you are too dense to get this. MOREOVER, Craig has said OVER AND OVER that actual infinities are "MATH CONCEPTS". Why do you keep arguing for things that Craig actually believes in? Is English your second language?

Third, Craig has said OVER AND OVER again that the Kalam demonstrates that METRIC time had a beginning. The cosmological evidence provides reason for thinking that this is MORE PLAUSIBLY TRUE THAN NOT; it was NEVER MEANT to be a DEMONSTRATION for the INELUCTABLE conclusion that Absolute Time had a beginning (that's the job of the philosophical arguments). Next!

FOURTH, you keep saying that "OUR EXISTENCE" is potentially infinite. This is dumb and unclear, per usual. If you go BACKWARD, no it is not IF YOU IMPOSE THE RELEVANT METRIC; if you go FORWARD, it doesn't freaking matter; the Kalam is only talking about PAST finitude, weirdo.

Your last sentence "The past cannot be defined as a closed set of infinity." is the REASON WHY, when you impose on the past a particular metric, it is PAST FINITE. How in the world is your brain not seeing how obvious this is?

This gets more bizzaro every time you post, and very difficult to respond to. No, naturally there are no metrics on time.

Our universe and all of our physical existence is potentially past infinite by definition,.

There are a number of academic from major universities that refute Craig's arguments on infinite regression

Source: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

Craig on the actual infinite wes morriston Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder, 169 Hellems, Campus Box 232, Boulder, CO 80309-0232 Abstract : In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig defends the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events. In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets of objects in the ‘real world’. I shall try to show that this argument is unsuccessful. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate. In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig has vigorously defended the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events.1 Craig’s goal, of course, is to make a strong case for the existence of God. If the past has a beginning, then so does the universe, and a familiar line of argument suggests that there must be a First Cause.2 In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets in the ‘real world’.3 If this argument were to succeed, then an actually infinite series of past events would have been proved impossible, and we could go on to ask about the cause of the very first event. However, I do not believe that Craig has succeeded in proving that actually infinite sets are impossible. As far as this particular line of argument is concerned, I shall try to show that it remains an open question whether the past could consist in a beginningless series of events. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate.

© Copyright Original Source

The following is published in a Cambridge University journal

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9

[mattbballman31]

This gets more bizzaro every time you post, and very difficult to respond to. No, naturally there are no metrics on time.

Amazing refutation, dude. You're a freaking genius.

Our universe and all of our physical existence is potentially past infinite by definition,.

I guess you're just going to ignore everything I said and repeat your unsupported claim. Cool.

There are a number of academic from major universities that refute Craig's arguments on infinite regression

I've read them all and they're all wrong. I've talked to Morriston face to face. Yes, he disagrees with Craig, Craig and I disagree with the rationale behind Morriston's disagreement.

As with any extremely popular argument, something Craig accomplished and something you know nothing about, you'll get a lot attempts at falsification. On top of a billion other things Craig has on his plate, he has kept abreast of the latest replies and replied in turn. Only a bedwetting partisan like you looks at this as anything other than what happens to ANY OTHER PHILOSOPHER in the history of any other publication history you care to look at. Zooming in on this ONE string of dialectic and calling it unique tells me loud and clear that you have no clue about the sociology of the discipline at all.

The Morriston essay you link is from 2002, idiot. Really? 2002? 20 darn years ago? Next time, when you go to Google to cherry-pick, try to pick something more recent to bamboozle your unsuspecting audience. Not gonna work with me. I've read everything there is to read on the Kalam. Been reading it for over 20 years. I remember discussing this with Morriston online when I was in Graduate school and he admits there were a number of things that needed tweaking.

On top of all this, look at the bold. Morriston contradicts you, weirdo. You've said over and over again that Aristotle proved that actual infinites can't be found in Nature. And then you quote a darn Morriston article where Morriston argues that actual infinite sets are possible in Nature. If OUR PAST can be BEGINNINGLESS, then OUR NATURE is beginningless. Morriston DISAGREES WITH YOU, dude. Craig agrees with US and ARISTOTLE, that if actual infinites can't be found in nature, then the universe can't be beginningless. Can't you see this??? Seriously, is English your second language?

The context of Morriston's article has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the beginningless universe being a POTENTIAL infinite. At all. Nothing. Provide a DIRECT QUOTE to prove otherwise. All you do is block quote paper abstracts. Sooooo lazy, man.

Source: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

Craig on the actual infinite wes morriston Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder, 169 Hellems, Campus Box 232, Boulder, CO 80309-0232 Abstract : In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig defends the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events. In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets of objects in the ‘real world’. I shall try to show that this argument is unsuccessful. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate. In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig has vigorously defended the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events.1 Craig’s goal, of course, is to make a strong case for the existence of God. If the past has a beginning, then so does the universe, and a familiar line of argument suggests that there must be a First Cause.2 In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets in the ‘real world’.3 If this argument were to succeed, then an actually infinite series of past events would have been proved impossible, and we could go on to ask about the cause of the very first event. However, I do not believe that Craig has succeeded in proving that actually infinite sets are impossible. As far as this particular line of argument is concerned, I shall try to show that it remains an open question whether the past could consist in a beginningless series of events. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate.

© Copyright Original Source

The following is published in a Cambridge University journal

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9[/QUOTE]

[shunyadragon]

Amazing refutation, dude. You're a freaking genius.



I guess you're just going to ignore everything I said and repeat your unsupported claim. Cool.




I've read them all and they're all wrong. I've talked to Morriston face to face. Yes, he disagrees with Craig, Craig and I disagree with the rationale behind Morriston's disagreement.

As with any extremely popular argument, something Craig accomplished and something you know nothing about, you'll get a lot attempts at falsification. On top of a billion other things Craig has on his plate, he has kept abreast of the latest replies and replied in turn. Only a bedwetting partisan like you looks at this as anything other than what happens to ANY OTHER PHILOSOPHER in the history of any other publication history you care to look at. Zooming in on this ONE string of dialectic and calling it unique tells me loud and clear that you have no clue about the sociology of the discipline at all.

The Morriston essay you link is from 2002, idiot. Really? 2002? 20 darn years ago? Next time, when you go to Google to cherry-pick, try to pick something more recent to bamboozle your unsuspecting audience. Not gonna work with me. I've read everything there is to read on the Kalam. Been reading it for over 20 years. I remember discussing this with Morriston online when I was in Graduate school and he admits there were a number of things that needed tweaking.

On top of all this, look at the bold. Morriston contradicts you, weirdo. You've said over and over again that Aristotle proved that actual infinites can't be found in Nature. And then you quote a darn Morriston article where Morriston argues that actual infinite sets are possible in Nature. If OUR PAST can be BEGINNINGLESS, then OUR NATURE is beginningless. Morriston DISAGREES WITH YOU, dude. Craig agrees with US and ARISTOTLE, that if actual infinites can't be found in nature, then the universe can't be beginningless. Can't you see this??? Seriously, is English your second language?

The context of Morriston's article has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the beginningless universe being a POTENTIAL infinite. At all. Nothing. Provide a DIRECT QUOTE to prove otherwise. All you do is block quote paper abstracts. Sooooo lazy, man

I ignored nothing, and responded to all your posts with the definitions and applications of 'actual infinities' and potential infinities from Aristotle to the present.

Source: https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

Craig on the actual infinite wes morriston Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder, 169 Hellems, Campus Box 232, Boulder, CO 80309-0232 Abstract : In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig defends the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events. In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets of objects in the ‘real world’. I shall try to show that this argument is unsuccessful. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate. In a series of much discussed articles and books, William Lane Craig has vigorously defended the view that the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events.1 Craig’s goal, of course, is to make a strong case for the existence of God. If the past has a beginning, then so does the universe, and a familiar line of argument suggests that there must be a First Cause.2 In the present paper, I cast a critical eye on just one part of Craig’s case for the finitude of the past – viz. his philosophical argument against the possibility of actually infinite sets in the ‘real world’.3 If this argument were to succeed, then an actually infinite series of past events would have been proved impossible, and we could go on to ask about the cause of the very first event. However, I do not believe that Craig has succeeded in proving that actually infinite sets are impossible. As far as this particular line of argument is concerned, I shall try to show that it remains an open question whether the past could consist in a beginningless series of events. I shall also take a close look at several considerations that are often thought to favour the possibility of an actual infinite, arguing in each case that Craig’s response is inadequate.

© Copyright Original Source

The following is published in a Cambridge University journal

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6AC837AF09AA9

True, as previously covered from Aristotle to the present It is true that 'the past could not consist in a beginningless series of events,' which is the reason actual infinities according to Aristotle and the present view of math, do not exist beyond math constructs.

This does not address the fact that the past is 'potentially infinite' based on Aristotle's definition, and present view of science and modern math. You are ignoring the fact that we are in agreement that 'actual infinities' do not exist in nature, but have no relevance to whether the past is 'potentially infinity.' Objectively it is likely that the question can never be in reality be answered, because if Quantum Mechanics is valid basis for our physical existence therefore continuous time and space only exists in our universe and all possible universes.