Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Categories
Atheism
Mathematics
rhetoric
worldview
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.

Durston:

>>To  avoid  the  theological  and  philosophical  implications  of  a  beginning  for the  universe,  some  naturalists  such  as  Sean  Carroll  suggest  that  all  we  need  to  do  is  build  a  successful  mathematical  model  of  the  universe  where  time  t runs  from  minus  infinity  to  positive  infinity. Although  there  is  no  problem  in  having  t run  from  minus  infinity  to  plus  infinity with  a  mathematical  model,  the real past  history  of  the  universe  cannot  be  a  completed  infinity  of  seconds  that  elapsed,  one  second  at  a  time. There  are at  least  two  problems.  First,  an  infinite  real  past  requires  a  completed  infinity, which  is  a  single  object and  does  not  describe  how  history  actually  unfolds.  Second,  it  is  impossible  to  count  down  from  negative  infinity  without  encountering the  problem  of  a  potential infinity  that  never  actually  reaches  infinity. For  the  real  world,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  first  event  that  occurred  a  finite  amount  of  time  ago  in  the  past . . . [More] >>

Craig:

>Strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say, as you put it, that a “beginningless causal chain would be (or form) an actually infinite set.” Sets, if they exist, are abstract objects and so should not be identified with the series of events in time. Using what I would regard as the useful fiction of a set, I suppose we could say that the set of past events is an infinite set if the series of past events is beginningless. But I prefer simply to say that if the temporal series of events is beginningless, then the number of past events is infinite or that there has occurred an infinite number of past events . . . .

It might be said that at least there have been past events, and so they can be numbered. But by the same token there will be future events, so why can they not be numbered? Accordingly, one might be tempted to say that in an endless future there will be an actually infinite number of events, just as in a beginningless past there have been an actually infinite number of events. But in a sense that assertion is false; for there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity. The only sense in which there will be an infinite number of events is that the series of events will go toward infinity as a limit.

But that is the concept of a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Here the objectivity of temporal becoming makes itself felt. For as a result of the arrow of time, the series of events later than any arbitrarily selected past event is properly to be regarded as potentially infinite, that is to say, finite but indefinitely increasing toward infinity as a limit. The situation, significantly, is not symmetrical: as we have seen, the series of events earlier than any arbitrarily selected future event cannot properly be regarded as potentially infinite. So when we say that the number of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today ℵ0 events have elapsed. But when we say that the number of future events is infinite, we do not mean that ℵ0 events will elapse, for that is false. [More]>>

Food for further thought. END

PS: As issues on numbers etc have become a major focus for discussion, HT DS here is a presentation of the overview:

unity

Where also, this continuum result is useful:

unified_continuum

PPS: As a blue vs pink punched paper tape example is used below, cf the real world machines

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

and the abstraction for mathematical operations:

punchtapes_1-1

Note as well a Turing Machine physical model:

Turing_Machine_Model_Davey_2012

and its abstracted operational form for Mathematical analysis:

turing_machine

F/N: HT BA77, let us try to embed a video: XXXX nope, fails XXXX so instead let us instead link the vid page.

Comments
EZ:
Fine, let’s see you do it. I say you can’t find the relative cardinality.
See, you do want to make this personal. That means you are totally out of touch with reality.
I can come up with a one-to-one mapping but it will just show that the cardinality of the primes is the same as the positive integers.
No one can as all the primes are not known. You lose.Virgil Cain
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
But I think you are wrong. The naturalist is saying that infinity is meaningful within the world of pure math. Whether it is "real" in either a physical or metaphysical sense is not relevant. Your position would claim that vast segments of mathematics, if not all of mathematics, was meaningless and unreal to a naturalist. Would this change how the naturalist does math? Would it make his math any different than the math done by a theist? The answer to both these rhetorical questions is "no", it wouldn't. And what if I am (which is the closest to the truth) an agnostic about the metaphysical nature of math? Does that make my position "less awkward", but still not quite valid? The math has meaning in respect to the system in which it resides, and it has as much "reality" as any other abstract concept. And your examples aren't good analogs. The meaning of a Bible verse is an opinion, and the nature of the Tao is a metaphysical speculation. Those are not the same thing as a proof that there are an infinite number of primes. (And I assume you accept the proof.)Aleta
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Aleta, Let me put it another way. Can a naturalist weigh in on a discussion about the meaning of Psalm 82? Sure he can. And yes, he can also join a discussion about whether the Tao is all-knowing or not. He may even be a dominating knowledgeable participant in such discussions. However there is something awkward about his position, to say the least, since he holds that he is not discussing anything meaningful and real. My point is that a naturalist discussing infinity is in the exact same position.Origenes
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
The difference between #896 and #931 is an amazing demonstration of what some clarity can achieve. I am still puzzling out how #931 shows that there is no largest prime, rather than showing that all primes have the form 2x+1. And I am also trying to understand what the discussion of neighboring primes adds here?hrun0815
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Origenes write,
a naturalistic context does not accommodate for infinity.
A "naturalistic context", as far as I know, doesn't believe there is actually an infinite number of anything in the real world. That's been stated here a number of times. But that doesn't mean that infinity as a concept within the basic mathematical system of numbers is meaningless. There is a difference, which I've described several times in above posts, between the self-contained system of pure mathematics and the application of math to the physical world. Also, you writes,
So yes, when a Taoist contemplates infinity it refers to something real.
So I can legitimize the mathematics of infinity if I am a Taoist but not if I am a naturalist? How can the validity of the math depend on such a distinction. The math is true or not irrespective of the metaphysical perspective of the person holding it. Can you imagine me teaching a course on Cantor, and starting the course by asking about the metaphysical positions of all the students so I could know who could actually, validly, accept the math I was about to teach and those who couldn't!Aleta
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Aleta, it is immediately obvious there is no highest prime given endlessness and definition of primes, though they patently become sparser on average; that I have seen since childhood before doing any advanced mathematics. The (or in principle any) proof proffered may have issues or concerns so I would not start there but with first principles: a prime is not cleanly divisible by any lower whole number, disregarding 1. As a consequence 2 is prime and thereafter all primes must be odd starting with 3. This gives a conceptual bridge. Given any even will have odds as neighbours -- where any even will be 2 * x, where x may be a prime or a train of multiplied prime factors -- all primes beyond 2 will necessarily be 2 *x +1 (actually allowing x to go to 0 allows start at 1). This includes neighbouring primes such as 17 and 19, where 15 and 17 or 19 and 21 are not neighbouring primes, as well as, 25 and 27 are neigbouring odds but not primes. Then with that context, the proffered proof can be seen to make better sense to the concerned. I find there is too often too much left too implicit. KF PS: Successive primes, however discovered, can be ranked in order, and that order will continue endlessly in a counting sequence, i.e. first degree endlessness. At any prime in the sequence p_k, P-k+1 etc could be matched onward 1:1 with, 0,1,2 etc, yielding yet another transfinite pattern.kairosfocus
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Aleta: People such as Origenes who believe that naturalists can’t have any validly grounded form of knowledge because we are “just matter” (...)
Your paraphrase of my point is off the mark. I've been very clear in #912: meaning depends on context and a naturalistic context does not accommodate for infinity — as far as I can tell. So, point out that I'm mistaken about that lack of accommodation or explain how meaning does not depend on context. But please don't distort my simple point.
Aleta: In respect to the metaphysical nature of math, I am basically an agnostic leaning towards Taoistic Platonism. Does that count? :-) Is my mathematics now meaningful?
The Tao is infinite. So yes, when a Taoist contemplates infinity it refers to something real.Origenes
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
DS, the ellipsis of endlessness -- part of the core concept. Cannot be attained to, cannot be spanned in +1 steps due to endlessness, just as the foot of the rainbow I looked at across the Caribbean this morning from an aircraft window cannot be reached from where one is (and looking at it did make me think of this thread). Can be envisioned, not reached. I think that has consequences. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Hi kf. The proof at 896 shows that there are an infinite number of primes without resorting to any induction or stepping-through process. Is it a valid proof, in your eyes. Does it convince you that the set of all primes is an infinite set?Aleta
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
MT:
If you don’t like the word ‘infinity’, you can think of it as ‘too many to bother counting’ or ‘too far off to bother measuring’. There is nothing mysterious and hateful about poor infinity.
First yes there are people hostile to infinity for various reasons, including things that are at best odd. Second, the above proffered concepts fail. Infinity is not just large or too big to bother but endlessly large beyond any finite value. And at the opposite scale, infinitesimal is all but zero small. Both become very important. One of the key properties which is in the wider context is that a transfinite span cannot be traversed in finite stage cumulative steps from 0 or a similar start point. It turns out that a lot pivots on this. Especially when we address causal succession by stages, or generations or iterations. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
KF, I ran across this passage by Solomon Feferman in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, p. 593, edited by Stewart Shapiro. It concerns a distinction made by Bertrand Russell between the words "all" and "any", and perhaps is akin to a distinction you are making:
Before going into the actual structure of types in Russell’s setup, let me draw attention to an earlier section of the article, headed "All and Any" (ibid., pp. 156– 159). Here, in contrast to the first quotation from Russell above, a distinction was made between the use of these two words. Roughly speaking, in logical terms, the statement that all objects x of a certain kind satisfy a certain condition φ(x) is rendered by the universal quantification (∀x)φ(x) in which "x" now is a bound variable, while the statement that φ(x) holds for any x is expressed by leaving "x" as a free variable. In modern terms, the logic of the latter is treated as a scheme to be coupled with a rule of substitution. The importance of this distinction for Russell has to do with the injunction against illegitimate totalities. In particular, with p a variable for propositions, he would admit "p is true or false, where p is any proposition" (i.e., the scheme p ∨ ¬p, but not the statement (∀p)(p ∨ ¬p) that "all propositions are true or false" (in both cases using truth of p to be equivalent to p).
Edit: There appears to be no closing parenthesis at the end of the above quotation in the original.daveS
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
KF,
I note that for every value in T that we can define and see as finite there are endlessly more values that can be placed in onward succession in 1:1 correspondence with the counting sets from 0, 1, 2 on.
I agree.
In that context the most I think we can reasonably say is that every counting set or natural number reached in successive +1 steps from 0 as actually taken will be finite, and similarly, every represented number such as place value or scientific notation that depends on such will be finite and will be succeeded by an onward endless succession that can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with the naturals from 0.
I also agree with this, although I'm not sure of the meaning of "as actually taken". And by definition, there are no natural numbers not reachable in successive steps from 0. Certainly the counting set ω is not reachable in successive +1 steps from {}.daveS
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
VC, You have gone on and on beyond what you were warned about. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
In respect to the metaphysical nature of math, I am basically an agnostic leaning towards Taoistic Platonism. Does that count? :-) Is my mathematics now meaningful? But seriously, whether math exists in some independent way, whether it be in Platonic ideals, the mind of God, the Tao, or whether it is a consequence of the creation of symbol systems not grounded at a higher metaphysical level, the math works within the symbol system itself. The proof that there are an infinite number of primes is true within the symbol system of natural numbers irrespective of the metaphysical nature of math. People such as Origenes who believe that naturalists can't have any validly grounded form of knowledge because we are "just matter" brings a much larger metaphysical element to this discussion that is, in my opinion, for me, not something I want to invest my time in here. And Mike, re my post at 911: If you are implying in your questions something similar to the same points Origenes is making - that math is in some way just clever manipulations of symbols unless it derives from some larger metaphysical source, then please say so. For instance, it would clarify your position for me if you would answer this question from 911:
My question to you is this: is any part of mathematics something other than a “clever manipulation of symbols and language”, or is all mathematics a “clever manipulation of symbols and language”? And if some mathematics is not a “clever manipulation of symbols and language” and some is, can you explain the criteria which separates the two, and give examples?
Aleta
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
DS (attn EZ): I note that for every value in T that we can define and see as finite there are endlessly more values that can be placed in onward succession in 1:1 correspondence with the counting sets from 0, 1, 2 on. And I do not know how to be clearer and more specific than that, in stating that I have come to view endlessness as a pivotal part of the definition of the naturals. In that context the most I think we can reasonably say is that every counting set or natural number reached in successive +1 steps from 0 as actually taken will be finite, and similarly, every represented number such as place value or scientific notation that depends on such will be finite and will be succeeded by an onward endless succession that can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with the naturals from 0. (And EZ, that is not dodging, I an trying very hard to go with what I see in the logic including that of ordinary mathematical induction. I think we should all take a pause ad realise that especially post Godel -- incomplete, open to possibility of incoherence -- axiomatic systems in mathematics are different from mathematical facts and are not to be equated to absolute, unquestionable truth. I seriously question the conclusion that has been presented as that there are infinitely many specifically definable successive finite numbers from 0. Not least were there such as the successor is in effect a copy of the list so far, there would be definable individual members that are endless sets in themselves. So, I have backed off to a more cautious position that pivots on endlessness being integral to the set, so there is an onward endless succession beyond any defined finite value.) KF PS: Back.kairosfocus
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
ellazimm: Well all the Christian mathematicians I’ve know have had the same view on mathematics and concepts like infinity as everyone else.
That is not possible by definition. Meaning depends on context and naturalists and theists don't share the same context. As I have pointed out (see #912) "infinity" has true meaning for the theist, it refers to something real. Not so for the naturalist.
ellazimm: IF the universe is strictly the product of unguided, natural forces then you’ll be wrong. You’re making an assumption before you know the situation.
In effect I'm saying that the idea that blind unthinking particles do mathematics is incoherent. You say (paraphrasing): "but if they do, then you would be wrong". I have to respectfully disagree. I would still claim 'incoherence' if the universe were such that blind unthinking particles are doing mathematics.Origenes
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Origenes
My aim was to point out that the theist has an entirely different view on mathematics and mathematical concepts like infinity.
Well all the Christian mathematicians I've know have had the same view on mathematics and concepts like infinity as everyone else. To some extent math is a community effort and it's hard to do good work if you're too far from the village centre.
If you are asking me if the reduction of the mental, including (brilliant) mathematical ideas, to blind unthinking particles bumping into each other is a coherent idea, then I have to say no.
IF the universe is strictly the product of unguided, natural forces then you'll be wrong. You're making an assumption before you know the situation.ellazimm
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
ellazimm: Why couldn’t we come up with complicated mathematical idea even if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry?
I didn't say that naturalism makes mathematical discoveries unlikely. What I'm saying is that, given naturalism — "if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry" — there is no grounding for a "complicated mathematical idea" other than ... brain chemistry; blind unthinking particles bumping into each other. IOWs a "complicated mathematical idea" is nothing of itself and must refer to a certain configuration of brain chemicals. A perfected neurophysiology must be able to pinpoint e.g. "infinity" as a certain configuration of chemicals in the brain of the mathematician. My aim was to point out that the theist has an entirely different view on mathematics and mathematical concepts like infinity. If you are asking me if the reduction of the mental, including (brilliant) mathematical ideas, to blind unthinking particles bumping into each other is a coherent idea, then I have to say no.Origenes
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Origenes
Whether said or not, you both should know by now, that theists, contrary to naturalists, do hold that there is “something in the real world that is infinite” and perfect. Also theists, contrary to naturalists, hold that “abstract mathematical ideas” refer to real objects grounded by a truly existent real mental realm. Under naturalism the mental (abstract mathematical ideas included) is a byproduct of brain chemistry — and/or reducible to it.
I can't comment on what theists think or conclude, that's up to them. Why couldn't we come up with complicated mathematical idea even if our thoughts are just products of brain chemistry? Aside from some just not believing it?ellazimm
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Aleta & Ellazimm,
Aleta: I don’t think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle.
ellazimm: Yes!! Exactly.
Whether said or not, you both should know by now, that theists, contrary to naturalists, do hold that there is "something in the real world that is infinite" and perfect. Also theists, contrary to naturalists, hold that "abstract mathematical ideas" refer to real objects grounded by a truly existent real mental realm. Under naturalism the mental (abstract mathematical ideas included) is a byproduct of brain chemistry — and/or reducible to it.Origenes
March 13, 2016
March
03
Mar
13
13
2016
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Aleta
I don’t think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle. But, as I said before, using infinity in mathematics has led to powerful tools that are applicable to the real world (calculus, for instance). But again, and this is critical, there is a difference between pure mathematics, at all levels, as an abstract logical system, on the one hand, and the application of math to the real world.
Yes!! Exactly. I would add that it can be helpful to think of the written form of mathematics as a language or shorthand; it has its own grammar and syntax rules. Many of the symbols COULD be replaced with regular words but it would be much harder to scan. I used to have some of my students write out in English an infinite series and it took up a lot more room and was much harder than using the standard mathematical symbols. Some of them are falling out of use which is sad. Here is a partial list. Notice how long the 'translation' of some of the symbols are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_symbolsellazimm
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
Virg
What prevents it from being done? It is as easy as finding the bijective function. Or at the most difficult finding other relative cardinalities and plotting the counts against the primes.
Fine, let's see you do it. I say you can't find the relative cardinality. I can come up with a one-to-one mapping but it will just show that the cardinality of the primes is the same as the positive integers. You say that's not true but you can't prove your view.
It runs with the current notion of a bijective function. And that runs with current notion what makes them countably infinite sets.
If you're so sure then let's see you do it in such a way that you can find its relative cardinality.
Your lies, bluffs and false accusations just expose your desperation.
If you think it's possible to figure out the relative cardinality of the primes then lets see you do it.
I need a system, not just a concept. And set subtraction just shows there is a difference (or not) between the two sets. Also the bijective function that produces the one-to-one mapping between the two sets is the relative cardinality.
So, relative to the positive integers, you think the relative cardinality of the evens (or odds) is one-half, the relative cardinality of the multiples of three is one-third, etc. Now, figure it out for the primes. Or admit you can't.
Who cares? What is the highest known prime? And if that is the highest known prime then how do you know there is one higher?
There is a well known proof that there is no 'greatest' prime number. Aleta gave a nice version of it.ellazimm
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
Origenes writes,
Words and symbols must mean something, else they are (obviously) meaningless. In order to mean something a word or symbol must be, by definition, about something else.
I don't agree. Pure mathematics is not "about something else." It is about itself: it is a self contained, logically coherent abstract system. We can make it about something else by building a model which maps mathematical concepts to real-world objects, but that is then applying math, which is different than just doing math. The Mandelbrot set, or the identity e^(i*pi) = -1, to pick two common examples, are not about anything, but they are not meaningless. Origenes also writes,
At the moment I cannot come up with a naturalistic accommodation of infinity.
I don't think anyone in this discussion has said there is something in the real world that is infinite, just as there is no perfect circle. But, as I said before, using infinity in mathematics has led to powerful tools that are applicable to the real world (calculus, for instance). But again, and this is critical, there is a difference between pure mathematics, at all levels, as an abstract logical system, on the one hand, and the application of math to the real world.Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
mike1962 @ 907
Sorry, you do not understand the point of my posts. Please re-read and see if you can glean it.
mike1962 @ 905
What I’m asking beyond that is what does infinity mean, if anything? I hope my intent is coming through.
As I said in my earlier comment, Infinity-in practical terms- means 'too large to count' or 'too far off to measure'. For philosophers it might mean a power which they can't comprehend.
what does a perfect circle mean beyond the clever manipulation of symbols and language (which at very least, it undoubtedly is)?
Perfect Circle can exist only in mathematical realm but it can be used to compare it to imperfect circles in real world to see how imperfect our circle is. Sorry AFAIK, perfect circle has no meaning even in Philosophy.Me_Think
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Mike1962, Words and symbols must mean something, else they are (obviously) meaningless. In order to mean something a word or symbol must be, by definition, about something else. Meaning depends on context. In a solipsistic universe "external world" has no meaning, since it isn't about a real object. In a naturalistic universe the term "God" has no meaning, since it isn't about a real object. IOWs "infinity" has a meaning if your philosophy can accommodate infinity. If you believe in eternal life and/or an "infinitely great being" then I guess infinity means something. At the moment I cannot come up with a naturalistic accommodation of infinity. If there is none, then for the naturalist "infinity" is nothing over and beyond clever linguistic and symbolic trickery.Origenes
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
So, Mike, can you explain more what your thoughts on this are. For instance, you wrote,
Now, since perfect circles are an impossible object in time and space, what does a perfect circle mean beyond the clever manipulation of symbols and language (which at very least, it undoubtedly is)?
My question to you is this: is any part of mathematics something other than a "clever manipulation of symbols and language", or is all mathematics a "clever manipulation of symbols and language"? And if some mathematics is not a "clever manipulation of symbols and language" and some is, can you explain the criteria which separates the two, and give examples? Thanks.Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
mike1962,
I understand the difference between the two with respect to mathematical definitions. I reject that uncountable sets actually exist.
Thanks. Your questions about the meaning of infinity are probably too hard for me. On the other hand, I'm sure we could discuss uncountable sets and be perfectly intelligible to each other, despite the fact that one of us doubts their existence. If I were to give you a list of infinite sets, you could tell me which were countable and which were uncountable (according to me, anyway). This suggests to me that the concept of infinity is something beyond clever linguistic or symbolic trickery.daveS
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Aleta: What do you mean by asking what does it mean? I didn't simply ask what it means, but what it means beyond the manipulation of language and symbols. We can back down a level and deal with something simpler, if you like. For example, using Knuth's computer notation, what does 2^^^6 mean? This presumed finite quantity, which could never be counted in time and space, given all the resources available, presumably stands for a meaningful quantity? But does it really. In what sense could it be a meaningful quantity beyond the mere symbols themselves?mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
I guess I don't get your point. What do you mean by asking what does it mean? What do you think math means? Do you think that some concepts (like "2") have a meaning while some (like perfect circles) don't. Perhaps you ought to offer your own views on this subject?Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Me_Think, Sorry, you do not understand the point of my posts. Please re-read and see if you can glean it. P.S. I love math. Infinity does not annoy me.mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
1 15 16 17 18 19 48

Leave a Reply