Originally posted by mattbballman31
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Infinity and Kalam
Collapse
X
-
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.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostAn infinite regress of equal, arbitrary, finite, non-zero events is an actual infinite.- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWhy 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,
LeeLast edited by shunyadragon; 12-11-2020, 08:09 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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.
Hypothetical possibilities aren't enough to supplant the dominant cosmogonic model.
Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostTo 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWhy 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,
LeeMany and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
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.
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.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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.
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.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
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.
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.
Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
That's a good question. You apparently had no trouble doing so.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostYou'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!
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
I look at particular cases and use a priori intuition. Admitting actual infinities into your ontology elicits counter-intuitive and contradictory results.
As for contradictory results, I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
611 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment