Infinity and Kalam

[Stoic]

Probably. It convinces some and not others. That's typically how it works in philosophy. How do you come to a conclusion about whether something is metaphysically impossible?

That's a good question. You apparently had no trouble doing so.

[mattbballman31]

Just as an upfront, if I don't understand something you're saying, I'm not going to pretend that I do, so, my cards are on the table. Whether you want to take that as me being dumb or you being a bad communicator is up to you. And because it's annoying to have to type out complete sentences to tell you about how I don't understand nearly anything you're saying, I may just start ignoring your posts, unless, of course, I understand one of them.

I know what you are talking about, but the existence of a potential post infinity would not be limited by any hypothetical past temporal regress, an actual infinity, which would be closed set of infinities by definition. The potential infinity of the past would be the same concept of simply as far as you go in the past or the future you could still go further than any limit one could conceive. This is very basic Aristotilian concepts of infinities. It is questionable that actual infinities actually exist.

Yea, almost none of this makes sense to me. Sorry. I don't know what a 'potential post infinity' is, so I don't know what it would mean for such an infinity to be limited by anything, or why one of these limitations means it would be 'closed' 'by definition', whatever that means. You reiterate what it means for the past to be a potential infinite, but all I can do is repeat what you quoted. I realize that the potential infinite is a 'basic Aristotelian concept'. No one disputes that. I agree that actual infinities don't exist. In principle, if you (say you'll never die) go back in the past, covering an equal, arbitrary, finite, non-zero interval once every minute, say, then it's not true that you wouldn't reach a beginning. The only sense in which the past is a potential infinite is the sense in which it's constantly growing in the direction of the arrow of time. Every day, for example, the past grows by a day. And if, say, time never ends, the extent of the past is potentially infinite. That's just trivially true. But if it's potentially infinite in the way you're talking about, again, time wouldn't need to be growing in the earlier-than direction, which it isn't.

It is a fact that putting numbers on time is a human artificial construct. There are no numbers on time in the present, future nor past except for the numeric designation human use for our convention.

Ok, yes. IN A SENSE, correlating an interval of time with a natural number is something humans came up with. But I don't understand why this matters at all. Correlating natural numbers with intervals of time is an indispensable conceptual tool for understanding sets with a transfinite number of elements.

Not ambiguous simply the definition of potential infinities. Space and time is non--Euclidian whether you care or not. Space could be finite, but there is no way we could definitively determine whether space is finite nor infinite.

This loses me. I don't deny that space and time are non-Euclidean; I was bringing it up to illustrate how space and time can be finite with no edge. And if we agree that actual infinities are metaphysically impossible, I would think that it could be definitively determined with space is finite or infinite in extent.

Already presented the argument base don basic math, and what we know and do not know concerning whether our physical existence is finite or infinite.

This is unintelligible to me.

No, you did not address the issue of potential infinities. You just hand waved without a coherent explanation. Being a conclusion of a philosophical argument is terribly weak, because on has to accept the premises before the argument works, and the reality of math and our knowledge of time and space renders the premises false.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Your assertion that potential infinities cannot apply to past is just that an assertion without basis. The past and future time is just equally there without any natural intervals of time. Intervals of time remain a human convention and cannot put finite limits on time in the past nor the future.

Ok, what I offered as a basis you're obviously not going to accept.


Potential infinites are not finite by definition since Aristotle defined them. Time does not have numbers, and something can be potentially infinite regardless of it being number from the human perspective or not. Simply going back in time there would always be more regardless of how far back in time, nor perceive how far back in time you could go.

This will probably be my last reply to you in this thread. Potential infinities aren't denumerable because it's a limit concept, not a definite, discrete number. I'm not saying anything uncontroversial at all. If you disagree, take it up with the experts. The rest of what you've said is opaque to me.

[lee_merrill]

An infinite regress of equal, arbitrary, finite, non-zero events is an actual infinite.

Why equal intervals? Zeno's paradox involves an infinite number of non-equal intervals, which is an actual infinity. I might add that I believe in the Kalam argument, as stated here:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Why equal intervals? Zeno's paradox involves an infinite number of non-equal intervals, which is an actual infinity. I might add that I believe in the Kalam argument, as stated here:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Blessings,
Lee

There is no falsifiable evidence that our universe nor our physical existence including our universe has a beginning. Some hypothesis do propose that our universe began as a singularity or black hole. The singularity or a black hole could come from another universe or many universes in the greater eternal physical existence. Therefore I do not accept premise 2. You know, 'Turtles (or universes) all the way down. Our physical existence is potentially infinite or eternal.

[shunyadragon]

There is no falsifiable evidence that our universe nor our physical existence including our universe has a beginning. Some hypothesis do propose that our universe began as a singularity or black hole. The singularity or a black hole could come from another universe or many universes in the greater eternal physical existence. Therefore I do not accept premise 2. You know, 'Turtles (or universes) all the way down. Our physical existence is potentially infinite or eternal.

To add: mattbballman31 was confused and has no clue as to what a potential infinite is. Whether our physical existence is potentially infinite or not has nothing to do with whether an actual infinity exists or not.

[mattbballman31]

There is no falsifiable evidence that our universe nor our physical existence including our universe has a beginning. Some hypothesis do propose that our universe began as a singularity or black hole. The singularity or a black hole could come from another universe or many universes in the greater eternal physical existence. Therefore I do not accept premise 2. You know, 'Turtles (or universes) all the way down. Our physical existence is potentially infinite or eternal.

Falsifiability is neither necessary nor sufficient for theory confirmation.

Hypothetical possibilities aren't enough to supplant the dominant cosmogonic model.

[Stoic]

To add: mattbballman31 was confused and has no clue as to what a potential infinite is. Whether our physical existence is potentially infinite or not has nothing to do with whether an actual infinity exists or not.

If the universe did not have a beginning, then it seems like the past could be divided into an infinite number of hours (or pick any other arbitrary length of time), and the set of all those hours would be an actual completed infinity.

Similarly, if the universe is infinite in size (spatially), then it could be subdivided into cubic light-years, and the set of all those cubic light-years would be an actual completed infinity.

Getting from there to the claim that the universe must have a beginning, or that the universe must be finite in size, is where I have difficulty.

[shunyadragon]

If the universe did not have a beginning, then it seems like the past could be divided into an infinite number of hours (or pick any other arbitrary length of time), and the set of all those hours would be an actual completed infinity.

Similarly, if the universe is infinite in size (spatially), then it could be subdivided into cubic light-years, and the set of all those cubic light-years would be an actual completed infinity.

Getting from there to the claim that the universe must have a beginning, or that the universe must be finite in size, is where I have difficulty.

First, it is best to define what is referred to as 'the universe.' When science consider our physical existence including our universe as 'potentially infinite.'

The extent and nature of the Quantum World of our physical existence cannot be divided nor measured in terms of time. There estimates of units of measuring Quantum Mechanics on the smallest scale, but units of measurement on the larger scale nor proposed limits. Actual infinites require a defined closed set, and that is not possible in the Quantum World.

[mattbballman31]

Why equal intervals? Zeno's paradox involves an infinite number of non-equal intervals, which is an actual infinity. I might add that I believe in the Kalam argument, as stated here:

• Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Blessings,
Lee

Sorry for the hiatus. Son being born and all. It has to involve 'equal' intervals because of the possibility of unending, unequal division. So, if you specify, say, a minute (all equal 60 seconds), you can say that there's a finite series of minutes extending into the past. Keep in mind that 'unending' doesn't mean 'actually' infinite. It's a potential one. Those that think it involves an actual infinite are assuming some things: that the divisions 'exist' and are waiting for us to conceptually notice them, that a particular temporal magnitude is constituted by its parts (rather than the whole being prior to any parts we'd choose to denominate in it), etc.

[mattbballman31]

If the universe did not have a beginning, then it seems like the past could be divided into an infinite number of hours (or pick any other arbitrary length of time), and the set of all those hours would be an actual completed infinity.

Similarly, if the universe is infinite in size (spatially), then it could be subdivided into cubic light-years, and the set of all those cubic light-years would be an actual completed infinity.

Getting from there to the claim that the universe must have a beginning, or that the universe must be finite in size, is where I have difficulty.

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.

[mattbballman31]

To add: mattbballman31 was confused and has no clue as to what a potential infinite is. Whether our physical existence is potentially infinite or not has nothing to do with whether an actual infinity exists or not.

Well, no, actually, you're a dumb dolt, idiot, moron, and have no clue what you're talking about half the time, as you babble incessantly in your broken English.

Unless you think a potential infinite implies an actual infinite (some do, but I disagree with them), if you think the past is potentially infinite, it's not actually infinite. But the idea is that it's only a potential infinite in a sense not relevant to the stipulations laid down by the Kalam. The intervals extending into the past have to be equal, arbitrary, non-zero, and finite. If you want to stipulate other conditions, be my guest, but it won't good enough to avert a beginning. Sorry, pal.

[mattbballman31]

There is no falsifiable evidence that our universe nor our physical existence including our universe has a beginning. Some hypothesis do propose that our universe began as a singularity or black hole. The singularity or a black hole could come from another universe or many universes in the greater eternal physical existence. Therefore I do not accept premise 2. You know, 'Turtles (or universes) all the way down. Our physical existence is potentially infinite or eternal.

This is stupid. Big Bang Cosmology is falsifiable. What are you talking about?

No one cares that Multiverse scenarios are POSSIBLE. The majority of physicists don't believe this. It's still being worked on. In the meantime, ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE points to a beginning. All of it. You'd be perfect as a jurist during the O.J. Simpson trial. Honestly.

So, the sense in which you mean that the past is potentially infinite is based on a possibility, which isn't corroborated by the consensus in astrophysics and cosmology. Gotchya.

Anything to avoid the evidence, I guess.

[mattbballman31]

That's a good question. You apparently had no trouble doing so.

I look at particular cases and use a priori intuition. Admitting actual infinities into your ontology elicits counter-intuitive and contradictory results.

[Stoic]

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!

I was making one of your points for you, since I was talking to shunyadragon.

Looked at another way, I'm conceding that if the universe were past-eternal, then actual infinities would result.

As for absurd ontological consequences, that remains to be seen.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

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.

I prefer to keep an open mind.

[Stoic]

I look at particular cases and use a priori intuition. Admitting actual infinities into your ontology elicits counter-intuitive and contradictory results.

I understand that it elicits counter-intuitive results. But counter-intuitive things happen, so I don't see that as a show-stopper.

As for contradictory results, I haven't seen any evidence of that.