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
Mathematics is the language of science. Just because some one doesn't like mathematics, doesn't mean it is trickery. I don't know why infinity annoys people. 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. Pi (which determines the circle) is needed only up to 16 digits for all practical purposes. NASA uses 16 digits for the Space Integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (SIGI). Beyond that, more accurate Pi may be needed for calculating large tracts of universe volume. Again, there is no need to bother thinking about Pi beyond 16 digits for all practical purposes.Me_Think
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Aleta: I just read 900. I think it’s pretty odd to call pure mathematics “clever linguistic/symbolic trickery.” I don't intend to minimize the brilliance of those who have developed the mathematics of infinity. That is not my purpose. Now, you certainly agree that at very least, the mathematics of infinity is certainly a clever manipulation of symbols and language, right? What I'm asking beyond that is what does infinity mean, if anything? I hope my intent is coming through. Should we not develop theorems about circles because perfect circles don’t exist. Of course, we should. 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)? Should we not use derivatives in calculus because they are based on limits as certain values go to infinity. Of course, we should. But I hope you see the point of my post now.mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
I just read 900. I think it's pretty odd to call pure mathematics "clever linguistic/symbolic trickery." Should we not develop theorems about circles because perfect circles don't exist. Should we not use derivatives in calculus because they are based on limits as certain values go to infinity. Should we not use natural exponential functions because continuous change of infinitesimal amounts don't actually exist? Those are rhetorical questions. If we don't develop the pure mathematics we don't have the tools to apply to the real world even if there is also a slight imperfection as we move from the pure mathematics to the application. What would you have mathematicians do? What part of pure math would you consider not "clever linguistic/symbolic trickery?"Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Aleta: And what do you mean “actually exist.” Do you mean in the real world, Yes. or do you mean that they can’t even be posited as mathematical concepts? Of course, they can be posited as mathematical concepts. But what the meaning is, is another matter. Does infinity mean something beyond the clever manipulation of language and symbols? If so, what?mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
And what do you mean "actually exist." Do you mean in the real world, or do you mean that they can't even be posited as mathematical concepts?Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
daveS: Do you accept the distinction between countable and uncountable sets? I understand the difference between the two with respect to mathematical definitions. I reject that uncountable sets actually exist.mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Aleta: Pure mathematics is about ideas, not about what can happen in the physical or temporal world that I agree. The mathematics of infinity are interesting, particularly to pure mathematicians, but have no pragmatic use. But it goes beyond this. What interests me, personally, is what it means. Does infinity really represent something meaningful beyond some interesting and clever linguistic/symbolic trickery?mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
mike1962, Do you accept the distinction between countable and uncountable sets? It would seem to me that if you reject the existence of infinite sets, then this distinction would make no sense.daveS
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
That is the discussion we'v been having for three threads and and well over a 1000 posts. There is a vast field of mathematics about infinity. Pure mathematics is about ideas, not about what can happen in the physical or temporal world that Do you think, mathematically, that there are infinitely many natural numbers? {1,2,3 ...} Or do you think it is nonsense to even talk about this set as a whole just because we could never count them all?Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Aleta @ 896, What this proof by contradiction amounts to is that if we count indefinitely, we will never run into the last prime in our counting. But since it is impossible to count infinitely, what does this really mean beyond the fact that if we count indefinitely we won't run into the last prime in our counting? When you smuggle infinity into the proof you drag in a contention between temporal counting (something we can do) and transcendent infinity (something we can never reach by counting.) This changes the nature of the proof to something a lot less obvious. In effect, it makes it nonsense. Clever, and perhaps interesting to some, but useless as a proof that there are really infinitely many primes. If infinity as a quantity doesn't exist, then an infinity of primes as a quantity cannot exist. This leads to another interesting question, which should be obvious.mike1962
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
For the record, this is a nice proof by contradiction: Prove: There is no highest prime (which implies there is an infinite number of primes) 1. Assume there is a highest prime, so there are a finite number of primes. Let them be p1, p2, p3, ... pn, where p1 = 2, p2 = 3, p3 = 5 and pn = the highest prime. Now let P = (p1 x p2 x p3 x ... x pn) + 1 2. Since P is bigger than pn, this means P can't be a prime, because pn is the largest prime. 3. However, if you divide P by any of the known primes (p1 or p2 or ... pn), you get a remainder of 1, 4. Therefore P is prime because it has no prime factors. 5. But that contradicts 2, in which we showed that P wasn't prime. 6. Therefore, the assumption in 1 must be wrong because it leads to a contradiction. 7. Therefore, there is no largest prime. 8. Therefore there are an infinite number of primes. Q.E.D. Proofs by contradiction are lovely.Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
Do you see the number, Aleta? I would say that is a flaw.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
A proof that there is always a higher prime. Do you see a flaw, Virgil? http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/q2.htmlAleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Cantor's approach: "The heck with it- call them equal and let's go have a beer." Pure mathematics at its finest. Now I know why Aleta and Jared love it so much.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
EZ:
I disagree, I don’t think it can be done.
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. But you are right- you couldn't do it.
And it runs counter to other work showing what the cardinality of the primes is.
It runs with the current notion of a bijective function. And that runs with current notion what makes them countably infinite sets.
Your ignorance of the mathematics does not carry the day.
Your lies, bluffs and false accusations just expose your desperation.
Using set subtraction and your ‘concept’ do you think the set of relative cardinalities is a well-ordered set?
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.
Which of sets A or B has the higher cardinality?
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?Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Virgil
It can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. If you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given everything I have told you about my concept. Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand what that means.
I disagree, I don't think it can be done. And it runs counter to other work showing what the cardinality of the primes is. Which is why I suggested it as a test of your 'concept'. And you haven't been able to figure out it out. So, if you can't show it then you 'concept' doesn't work. I fully expect you to continue to dodge the issue since you've been doing that for months and months now. But if your 'concept' can't handle cases that Cantor's approach can handle then your concept is like a lame horse. It can't get the job done. And what does your 'concept' say about the cardinality of the rational numbers? Are there more rational numbers between 1 and 10 than between 1 and 2? Can you prove your answer?
And your lies have been pointed out many more times. All you have are bluffs and lies.
Your ignorance of the mathematics does not carry the day. But it continues to serve to make you look ignorant and foolish.
Set subtraction is properly constructed math.
Using set subtraction and your 'concept' do you think the set of relative cardinalities is a well-ordered set? Which of sets A or B has the higher cardinality?ellazimm
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
daves:
There are endless examples. How about tackling the set of all labeled trees on any finite number of vertices? How does the cardinality of this set compare with the cardinality of N?
OK, if I develop a system I will give it some thought.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
EZ:
It looks like you can’t find the cardinality of the primes or sets A and B above since you haven’t done so.
It can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. If you were half the mathematician that you think you are you could do it given everything I have told you about my concept. Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand what that means.
Your ignorance of its importance within mathematics has been pointed out to you many, many times.
And your lies have been pointed out many more times. All you have are bluffs and lies.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Aleta:
There are an infinite number of of rationals between any two rationals. Example: between 0 and 1 there is {1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8 , …} These are truly dense, in the mathematical sense, and not just dense in the Virgilean sense of spread out within another set.
Clueless. And your set structure leaves much to be desired. But I would think a simple inversion and direct comparison would be at hand.
And yet the number of rationals is the same as the number of naturals: see http://www.homeschoolmath.net/.....ntable.php for an easy demonstration of the proof.
I am pretty sure that is what is being debated so just restating it doesn't help. And the "proof" leaves much to be desired.
Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity,
That is only your opinion and is not an argument.
but properly constructed math does.
Set subtraction is properly constructed math.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Virg #886
You can’t even follow along. That’s pathetic, Jerad. Thank you for proving that it is useless to have a discussion with you.
It looks like you can't find the cardinality of the primes or sets A and B above since you haven't done so. I can determine the cardinality of all those sets though.
There isn’t any importance to saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and no one can verify it.
Your ignorance of its importance within mathematics has been pointed out to you many, many times. You're making yourself sound very foolish. Especially when you're also avoiding answer some simple math based questions.ellazimm
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
EZ:
I think I know what the cardinality of the primes is.
You can't even follow along. That's pathetic, Jerad. Thank you for proving that it is useless to have a discussion with you.
A ‘practical’ application has nothing to do with Cantor’s work being important and verified.
There isn't any importance to saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality and no one can verify it.Virgil Cain
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
VC,
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about.
There are endless examples. How about tackling the set of all labeled trees on any finite number of vertices? How does the cardinality of this set compare with the cardinality of N?daveS
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Aleta #883
I wonder what Virgil thinks of that?
He thinks it's incorrect; I've mentioned it to him before. BUT he's never been able to find a mistake in any of proofs of that. So, he thinks there are different 'sizes' of infinity but he thinks there are 'classes' of infinity. Take the counting numbers and subsets of it. The cardinality of the evens or the odds would be one-half the cardinality of the positive integers. I asked him if he thought there was a smallest infinite cardinal number because the cardinality of the positive integers would be bigger than the cardinality of the evens which would be bigger than the cardinality of the multiples of three, etc. But he couldn't decide as I recall. I could be wrong about that. I should have asked him about {1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 . . . } How fast would the ticker go then (using his 'infinity is a journey' metaphor). I'd avoid talking about theorems though, he thinks some are true and some aren't.
Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity, but properly constructed math does.
Amen to that. Should we mention the imaginary numbers? Or the surreal numbers? Or the hyper-real numbers? :-)ellazimm
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Consider the rationals. There are an infinite number of of rationals between any two rationals. Example: between 0 and 1 there is {1/2, 1/4, 3/4, 1/8, 3/8, 5/8, 7/8 , ...} These are truly dense, in the mathematical sense, and not just dense in the Virgilean sense of spread out within another set. And yet the number of rationals is the same as the number of naturals: see http://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php for an easy demonstration of the proof. I wonder what Virgil thinks of that? The naturals are a proper subset of the positive rationals, which is the reverse of the evens being a proper subset of the naturals, and yet the rationals have the same cardinality as the naturals. Intuition does not help much in thinking about infinity, but properly constructed math does.Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
How about the set of all factorials? How dense is that? They get pretty spread out pretty darn fast! :-)Aleta
March 12, 2016
March
03
Mar
12
12
2016
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Virgil
t can be done, Jerad. Nothing prevents it. Even you could do it given everything I have told you. Stop trying to make this personal.
I think I know what the cardinality of the primes is. And we're talking about your counter-idea. So, lets's see you do it. Nothing personal about it.
It’s as if you think Einstein was refuted or a moron because someone else did the actual validation of his idea.
What? Are you comparing yourself to Einstein?
Make your case or stuff the innuendoes. Obviously you don’t understand the density argument. See, your childish accusation style just further provokes and adds nothing.
I think Aleta understands it very well. AND you could shut everyone up if you'd just prove you understood it by finding the relative cardinalities of the primes.
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn’t need a function and is very clear.
Great, do it.
And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor’s concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are.
A 'practical' application has nothing to do with Cantor's work being important and verified. If you think he was wrong then find a fault with one of his proofs. That's how math is done.
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about.
Why don't you look stuff up yourself for a change?ellazimm
March 11, 2016
March
03
Mar
11
11
2016
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Aleta I know. I even suggested once he look over the prime number theorem for some help. He can calculate 'relative' cardinalities for the easy stuff: the evens, the odds, the multiples of 3, etc. But give him a geometric sequence or the primes and he can't handle those.ellazimm
March 11, 2016
March
03
Mar
11
11
2016
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
daves:
Most of the countably infinite sets people are interested in are not sets of real numbers.
What are they? I cannot say if my ideas apply unless I know what you are talking about.Virgil Cain
March 11, 2016
March
03
Mar
11
11
2016
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
VC,
That has nothing to do whether or not someone can come up with a relative cardinality for primes.
Hmm. So the set of primes does have a cardinality? Anyway, if you want to use densities to determine a notion of cardinality, I guess you could do that, but that would only work for subsets of R. And there are many ways of measuring densities, so you would have to choose one. Most of the countably infinite sets people are interested in are not sets of real numbers. It's not clear how your ideas will extend to those sets.daveS
March 11, 2016
March
03
Mar
11
11
2016
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
And the pursuit of the relative cardinalities would be a noble quest. And guess what? It is the same as the pursuit of the bijective functions that map elements from one set to the elements of another. Of course the natural matching doesn’t need a function and is very clear.
Dance all you like but:
Yes logic and reasoning are beyond you. And AGAIN, the reason for asking for a practical application of Cantor’s concept is that in the absence of it then no one can really say if cantor is right or not. If Cantor was wrong about the cardinality of infinite sets then really nothing happens and intuition rules. There seems like there would be a greater number of naturals than evens and that is because there are.
Dance, dance, dance.
Your responses betray you, Jerad. You are incapable of understanding an argument and you can only parrot the party line.Virgil Cain
March 11, 2016
March
03
Mar
11
11
2016
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
1 16 17 18 19 20 48

Leave a Reply