Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
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
Kf has found other battles to fight based on the comment list so don't expect him to come back here anytime soon. I rather suspect we're at an end anyway. He's insistent that Cantor's mathematics is troubling and we don't agree. What else is there to say really?ellazimm
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
KF, replying to Aleta:
More broadly, we should always be very cautious about imposed axiomatic criteria that pretty directly force results, as that may run close to begging questions.
But mathematicians have no choice other than to impose axiomatic criteria that force results. That's how mathematics works. For example, the abc conjecture which I mentioned above. If Mochizuki has proved it, then that's because ZFC + first-order logic force this conjecture to be true (I assume that's the system Mochizuki works in).daveS
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Thanks, kf. I appreciate the specific comments to some of my questions. 1. We seem to be in agreement that "logically internally consistent systems" should be "anchored to reality." However, I am still puzzled that you are not more specific about what is worse than paradox when you write,
paradox by definition skirts incoherence ... or goes across its border. The latter ends in shipwreck, so it is important to resolve.
Given that "across the border" and "shipwreck" are not exactly mathematical terms, do you mean "contradiction"? 2. When I asked,
Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers?
you answered
God knows fully, we know in part. What we know is, endlessness as ellipsis can itself be a finite stand in for completion. Where something is logically incoherent, ending the endless in finite stage steps, no being can know or actualise the logically impossible in thought or physically. God cannot create a square circle, this is an impossible being.
Interesting and good, clear answer. I'll think about this. 2. When I asked,
Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events?
you answered,
Time is temporary and rooted in the visible, material realm. The very succession of moments is causally connected and successive. This includes say molecular agitation and intra atomic or intra nuclear forces which are inherently dynamic so a material world in which time passes but nothing happens is not feasible.
This also is a good clear answer. "Before" God created the universe, then, there was no time: time manifests itself in the succession of causally connected moments. I agree with that. Question: As a thought exercise, could God then create another universe, different than ours, with its own timeline? If so, would it be impossible to say which universe came "first", as there would be no set of material events to establish the timeline by which the existence of the two universe could be compared? 3. You also write,
Perhaps you mean can we have a snapshot, frozen moment contemplated by Deity? That seems possible but it has nothing to do with whether time proceeds once a material world is actual.
I wasn't thinking of that, but the idea of a "moment of time" brings up an interesting point. The whole idea of the continuity of the reals brings up a different set of issues concerning infinity other than the ones we've been discussing, and "a moment in time" was at the heart of Zeno's paradox about the arrow that can't move. So if God could see a moment in time would he not be, in a sense, "ending the endlessness" in respect to the infinitely small, as opposed to the endlessly large? Is that also a paradox? I'm going to think about this also. 4. You also write,
And I have no problem with accepting abstractions as real in their own way. Existence and physical existence are not the same. I think it was Augustine who pointed to eternal contemplation in the mind of God (a necessary, root being undergirding reality) as a sufficient realisation of abstractions.
For the sake of this discussion, I am assuming what you say is true: that all mathematics exists as pure abstractions in the mind of God, as Plato originally assumed when he spoke of the perfect circle. However, I've been pondering this. Human beings have devised some pretty strange mathematics. For instance, dave or ellazimm pointed me to Cantor's function (or cantor's ladder - google it if you're not familiar with it), and it seems like a pretty bizarre thing for Cantor to have even thought of. Question: So, did Cantor's ladder already exists as an abstraction in the mind of God, or did it only become an abstraction in the mind of God when Cantor invented it? Either way seems to be puzzling. For instance, I could make up a function like Cantor's ladder, but use base 17 and some other set of rules. Does this function also already exist as an abstraction in the mind of God. Or how about every possible fractal Julia set? Does every possible logical construction we could ever think of already exist in the mind of God? Or do they become part of the mind of God after we invent them?Aleta
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
KF #1380 Nice articles. I notice that no one seems to think any of the examples discussed are paradoxical or concerning.ellazimm
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
KF #1380
pardon, but I must ask: why did you keep bringing up convergent series with terms heading for the infinitesimal, in a context where the relevant issue is divergent sequences that count up towards the infinite?
It's come up several times in the thread (you're always talking about y = 1/x, etc, et. I won't bring it up again.
I find it strange that you seem to find it hard to see that an endless succession — thus (potentially?) INFINITE — of values that increment at +1 and yet are all deemed FINITE is at minimum paradoxical.
I can live with the fact that you find it paradoxical but I don't. And since we've been running over the same old ground, finding your same old fear it's probably time to stop talking about it. Aleta and daveS and I are not going to change our minds and you aren't either. Let it go.
There is an onward issue opened up by how non standard analysis uses 1/x to catapult from near 0 in [0,1] to the transfinite hyper-reals. That opens up possibilities for contemplating how multiplicative inverses are mutually connected in the reals and it raises issues on the continuity of reals in [0,1] as infinitesimals are sometimes said to be non real near neighbours of 0.
See, you brought it up again. No, the infinitesimals are not non-real. All the numbers on the number line are 'real' numbers. And, as I pointed out, there is nothing special about zero if that kind of thing bothers you. There are 'infinitesimals' everywhere. Like I said, between any two numbers on the number line there are infinitely many rational (and even more real) numbers between them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . and 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 . . . (or 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/3, 1 + 1/4, 1 + 1/5, 1 + 1/6 . . . ) are all finitely valued infinite sequences. None are paradoxical. It's the way mathematics works. Two sequences converge (to zero and one respectively), one sequence diverges.ellazimm
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Some thoughts: https://aeon.co/opinions/how-thinking-about-infinity-changes-kids-brains-on-math with: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/teaching-the-mathematics-of-infinity/?_r=1kairosfocus
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
Pardon a string of notes: Aleta: Yes, logically internally consistent systems may in some cases fail to correspond to facets of reality. That is part of why we need to anchor key parts of mathematics to reality by bringing to bear key cases, thought exercises and problems anchored to reality. That brings to bear a wider coherence that controls for factual adequacy. In the case of varied geometries, we see different aspects of reality being tied to various possible geometries. More broadly, we should always be very cautious about imposed axiomatic criteria that pretty directly force results, as that may run close to begging questions. I also emphasise that mathematics is not an isolated force on its own. It is the study of the logic of structure and quantity. Where one bridge between logic and reality is that in a cosmos, entities have to have mutually consistent core characteristics to be feasible (no square circles) and that the things populating the world must then also be mutually coherent, forming an ordered unified whole. Just, mathematics slices off that facet where quantitative and structural aspects are involved. I am actually surprised that this seems to be viewed as controversial. I add, paradox by definition skirts incoherence -- where it gets its spiciness from -- or goes across its border. The latter ends in shipwreck, so it is important to resolve. On some Q's raised: >>1. Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers?>> God knows fully, we know in part. What we know is, endlessness as ellipsis can itself be a finite stand in for completion. Where something is logically incoherent, ending the endless in finite stage steps, no being can know or actualise the logically impossible in thought or physically. God cannot create a square circle, this is an impossible being. >>2. Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events?>> Time is temporary and rooted in the visible, material realm. The very succession of moments is causally connected and successive. This includes say molecular agitation and intra atomic or intra nuclear forces which are inherently dynamic so a material world in which time passes but nothing happens is not feasible. Perhaps you man can we have a snapshot, frozen moment contemplated by Deity? That seems possible but it has nothing to do with whether time proceeds once a material world is actual. EZ, pardon, but I must ask: why did you keep bringing up convergent series with terms heading for the infinitesimal, in a context where the relevant issue is divergent sequences that count up towards the infinite? I find it strange that you seem to find it hard to see that an endless succession -- thus (potentially?) INFINITE -- of values that increment at +1 and yet are all deemed FINITE is at minimum paradoxical. In reply, I have pointed out how
a: such finite stage divergent succession is inherently built into the system of counting numbers [that is what they do], b: that at any k we reach or represent there is onward endlessness k+1 etc (that can be 1:1 matched with 0,1,2 etc . . . implying BOTH sets are endless thus infinite) and c: that the k = copy of set from 0 to k-1 copy of set so far principle means that were the succession to ACTUALLY go to endlessness, some members would be just that . . . endless. But in fact, d: point b shows we cannot actually complete, we have potential but not actual infinite succession, we are pointing across an ellipsis of onward endlessness. Thus, e: while any value k we can get to in succession or represent k will be finite, endlessness is an inextricable part of the concept and we can not actually attain to such endlessness or infinity in finite stage steps. That is, f: it -- the infinite -- is a concept not a number, and g: we recognise that by defining a transfinite order type to the incomplete succession that goes on endlessly, omega [w for convenience]. h: We then proceed with onward mathematics that for the moment seems to be pulled together in the tree framework provided by the surreals, cf OP
Going on, infinitesimal stages are not relevant to finite stage divergence. There is an onward issue opened up by how non standard analysis uses 1/x to catapult from near 0 in [0,1] to the transfinite hyper-reals. That opens up possibilities for contemplating how multiplicative inverses are mutually connected in the reals and it raises issues on the continuity of reals in [0,1] as infinitesimals are sometimes said to be non real near neighbours of 0. MT: Infinity and space are distinct categories. Abstract, non space based things can go to endlessness, and in principle, abstract space can do the same, cf the arrows of continuation on axes of graphs. And I have no problem with accepting abstractions as real in their own way. Existence and physical existence are not the same. I think it was Augustine who pointed to eternal contemplation in the mind of God (a necessary, root being undergirding reality) as a sufficient realisation of abstractions. Perhaps, your question is whether observed physical space such as what we live in is infinite in actuality. This goes beyond geometry of space-time, which seems near flat. It is beyond observation, so is phil not sci. The answer lies in the issue of actualising infinite extension physically, which as Hilbert's Hotel shows, is highly dubious. The infinite tapes are a thought exercise in extension of physical phenomena, much like Turing's machine. Gotta go again, KFkairosfocus
April 7, 2016
April
04
Apr
7
07
2016
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
KF, Does infinity transcend spacial dimensions ? IOW, every dimension is limited but as dimensions are infinite,may be the infinite tape goes on and on from one dimension to next.Me_Think
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
At 1366 kf writes,
I have said something that is almost a commonplace, that reality is coherent, which is a logical constraint tied to distinct and mutually compatible identities of particular things in a world that despite such diversity shows harmony. Cosmos, not chaos.
I responded to this in 1377. I agree that we expect reality to be amenable to logical descriptions, but as you yourself mention in respect to the parallel postulate, we can have logical systems that do accurately describe the world and we can have logical systems that don't. We can't just assume that a logical system is accurate until we test it against the evidence. That is why I think it is misleading to say "logic and mathematics constrain reality", because that phrase ambiguously conflates logic and math causing reality to be a certain way (which is false) with logic and math describing the reality that we find before us.Aleta
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Thanks for the thoughts at 1364, HeKS. Perhaps contradiction is what kf sees as worse than a paradox, but that would be a pretty simple thing to say directly rather than hint at, so I still wonder if he has something else in mind. Your second point brings up one of the key issues, I think. You write,
Regarding the notion that math constrains reality, I tend to think that KF would be more likely to say logic constrains reality, but this might be better phrased as simply saying that reality really is consistent with logic, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false.
This is what kf said the second time, but this is significantly different than his first statements that logic constrains reality. Here's why. Logic and math by themselves say nothing about the real world until a mathematical model is proposed that maps particular aspects of the math to the world, and is then tested to see if it is consistent with reality. A proposition like "that is a square circle" can be rejected immediately because it is contradictory within math itself, but a statement like "a particle can take two different simultaneous paths from point A to B" may seem like a contradiction but is actually supported by evidence. In this case the problem is not the math itself but the model that needs to be adjusted. So the statement that "reality really is consistent with logic", while true in theory, is only true in practice if we assess our models with reality itself, rejecting some and accepting others. The classical example of this, which I wrote a lot about many months ago in a discussion on this topic, is that of the three different plane geometries which arise from different parallel postulates. All three geometries (for flat, positively curved, and negatively curved surfaces) are mathematically consistent, but obviously only one can apply to a particular surface. So the issue is not whether reality can be described logically and mathematically, but which mathematical model best describes reality. So if kf really thinks reality is constrained by logic, then he may very well think that somehow our discussions about the logic of infinity actually tell us something about the reality of time. However, my position is that we can use our understanding of infinity to propose models about time (and those models must be logically consistent), but that we can only check to see if our model is correct by testing it. If our tests show problems with our model, we don't conclude the universe is illogical or unmathematical. We conclude that we need to change our model to include new features: new definitions, new mathematical formulations, etc. P.S. Thanks for your note to kf, where you said,
Just to be clear, do you realize that neither [ellazimm or me] has argued that an infinite past-time is possible? It seems that the only thing they’ve been arguing is that infinity is well defined as an abstract mathematical concept and so can be used without issue within that specific abstract realm of pure mathematics. But neither has said that this in any way lends support to the coherence of an infinite past-time. Do you acknowledge this?
And I see that kf answered this question, so I'm glad that is clear.Aleta
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
KF #1373
we are simply not seeing the same thing. No, what I speak of is an issue of the logic involved, an endless succession of +1 stage increments that is thus a divergent and infinite trending sequence . . . it is what we count with . . . that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical.
Not if you consider Cantor's work. You clearly think it is a problem but I don't and neither do thousands upon thousands of mathematicians. And there is now work built upon the very thing you find troubling. And it hasn't come tumbling down in over a century. What about sqrt(-1)? Is that not paradoxical? And yet it's part of an equation I now you find compelling. Why don't you find that paradoxical?
We are talking divergence, coarse grained finite steps that are not heading to infinitesimal size and more. Please do not conflate the cases.
Well, you keep mentioning infinitesimals so I thought I'd throw those in as well. If you didn't want to talk about them, why did you bring them up? Anyway, you are troubled but I don't know of anyone else who is. So I guess it's just a concern you'll have to bear. But it doesn't give you cause to call the mathematics into question. Again, I'm not saying anything about an infinite past or future. Nor am I addressing any particular point of physics or philosophy. Just the math. And since your concern is not one shared by the mathematics community or research then I guess there's an end to it.ellazimm
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Hi kf.
that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical
I've asked you a number of times to tell us specifically what you see that might be more than paradoxical, and you haven't answered. HeKs says he thinks you might mean contradictory. So do you mean this: "... that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical but might be worse - might be a contradiction?" Is contradiction what you are seeing as worse than paradoxical?Aleta
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, appeals to authority do not go beyond the force of fact and logic.
Well, I'm actually appealing not to authority but to standard definitions that you can find in any book on first-order logic. Just as if we were playing a game of Go, we might have to consult the/a rule book to decide whether a particular move is legal.
The issue is ending the endless in finite stage steps.
I suggest we stick to the specific issue of whether ω has any infinite elements.
As discussed again k k+1 on shows why that fails. Sorry, more later, real world calls as the sun rises. KF
Let me respond more fully to this and the following quote from a previous post:
g –> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession.
I have never said that ω can be "completed" by starting with {} and applying the successor operation. That's why I brought up the Axiom of Infinity many hundreds of posts ago (perhaps in one of the earlier threads). The set ω is "completed" by the Axiom of Infinity in a single step.daveS
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
EZ, we are simply not seeing the same thing. No, what I speak of is an issue of the logic involved, an endless succession of +1 stage increments that is thus a divergent and infinite trending sequence . . . it is what we count with . . . that is infinitely extended but always finite is at minimum paradoxical. It is not a ho hum done over with. And a convergent sequence or series [as in via partial sums as a sequence and neighbourhoods etc] is not even relevant to the matter. We are talking divergence, coarse grained finite steps that are not heading to infinitesimal size and more. Please do not conflate the cases. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
KF #1371
Think about an infinite succession of numbers that increases by 1 each step and is always for every case finite at the far endless zone, bearing in mind that infinite means continued endlessly and finite just the opposite, having an end.
So? Cantor figured out how to handle that 100+ years ago. And his method works.
I note, ordinary induction speaks to a first value and a chaining of successive specific values, hence the inherent finitude and potential infinity as opposed to completed.
Again, if I can prove a statement is true for 1, 2, 3 AND I can show that if the statement is true for any n > 1 and is therefore true for n+1 there is no problem. I'm always dealing with finite values.
Next, do you notice that I am constantly pointing out the place of finite scale stages at each step? (As in, do not put into my place a strawman target.) Sequences that reduce to infinitesimal values can converge and can do so in finite time, as in the Zeno paradoxes. Not relevant.
Take 1, 1/2, 13, 1/4, 1/5 . . . . it converges to zero but it never gets to zero. It will beat any value you pick in (0, 1] in a finite period of time (part of the definition of a limit but leaving out the deltas and epsilons) but it will never, ever get to zero.
Continuity of reals in [0,1] is particularly relevant to the issue of speaking of numbers not real near 0. As has appeared above.
What numbers are you talking about? Infinitesimals are 'real' even if you can't measure them. 'Real' has a particular mathematical meaning. Check this out if you really want to give your head a twist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal AND between any two given real numbers there is always another. In fact, between any two give real numbers there are an infinite number of real numbers. Not only is the cardinality of all the real numbers in [0, 1] greater than the cardinality of the positive integers but that is also true for any interval [a, b]. The real number line is ever where infinite. And this is not controversial or a paradox. This is the bedrock upon which limits and therefore calculus rests. Note: there is nothing special about 0. Consider . . . 2, 1 + 1/2, 1 + 1/3, 1 + 1/4, 1 + 1/5 . . . . That sequence converges on 1 although it never gets there. I can construct an infinite sequence of numbers that converges to any finite value you specify. From above or below.ellazimm
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
EZ, Think about an infinite succession of numbers that increases by 1 each step and is always for every case finite at the far endless zone, bearing in mind that infinite means continued endlessly and finite just the opposite, having an end. Which is the specific case in question, so your name one challenge is needless. I note, ordinary induction speaks to a first value and a chaining of successive specific values, hence the inherent finitude and potential infinity as opposed to completed. Next, do you notice that I am constantly pointing out the place of finite scale stages at each step? (As in, do not put into my place a strawman target.) Sequences that reduce to infinitesimal values can converge and can do so in finite time, as in the Zeno paradoxes. Not relevant. Continuity of reals in [0,1] is particularly relevant to the issue of speaking of numbers not real near 0. As has appeared above. And more, again, gotta go. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
KF #1366
Namely, the assertion and claimed proof on ordinary mathematical induction that there are INFINITELY many +1 step from 0 successive and FINITE whole counting numbers or counting sets. At minimum this is a strange paradox, or it may be much worse than mere paradox.
It's not a paradox though. Why can't there be an infinite number of finite numbers? How can you get something infinite by counting up by 1 from anything finite?
After the weeks of back forth and rethinking on concepts as recently as during the night, I find myself at the point where I think the core matter is that when we succeed to or write down or symbolise any specific counting sequence number, k, there is an unlimited, end-less onward succession that consistently escapes attempts to capture it beyond an ellipsis of endlessness.
An infinite sequence of finite values. Correct.
Every counting value k we can reach, represent, write down or symbolise, k, is finite, but beyond the end-less-ness lurks, as an integral part of defining the set of counting numbers {0,1,2 . . . }. Beyond k will always lie k+1, k+2 etc without upper limit in a far zone of endlessness. We can represent or actualise the potential infinite but we cannot exhaust or traverse endlessness in finite stage steps or things based on such, e.g. Place value or sci notation.
I don't know what 'potential infinite' means but you seem mostly on track here.
This also constrains what ordinary mathematical induction — and recall, such preceded axiomatisations [and yes, there is a plural there] — shows. This too only reaches the potentially infinite.
If I want to prove a statement is true for all positive integers and I show it's true for the first few and I can also show that if it's true for n it's also true for n+1 I'm just working with finite values!
We may then put in a “forcing” axiom [generic sense here] as a further premise, but we must beware of cases where endlessness affects the result.
Name one. Any result for whole numbers is not meant for infinite cardinal numbers. That's why Cantor had to come up with something new.
I have other points of discomfort such as the continuousness of the closed interval [0,1] which is connected through y = 1/x to the domain of transfinites beyond the ellipsis of endlessness in the number tree in the OP.
What is the problem here? Clearly you can show many examples of, again, endless series of finite values all of which lie in the interval [0, 1] 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6 . . . . That one is monotonically decreasing with a greatest lower bound of 0. 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/5, 5/6, 6/7 . . . That one is monotonically increasing with a least upper bound of 1. If you consider the interval [-1, 1] you can get things like 1/2, -1/3, 1/4, -1/5, 1/6, -1/7 . . . which converges on 0. This is all important because some very useful tools in physics depend on infinite series converging to finite values. Fourier analysis is one example. Taylor series is another. If you have a problem with these things then you clearly never progressed past third semester Calculus. Which I took as a sophomore in college. There's a lot of math after that. Taylor discussed his series in 1715. That makes the topic 300 years old at least. I don't know about you but I don't really want to go back to the math (and therefore the physics) of 300 years ago.ellazimm
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
KF @ 1367
The point is not that light and balls calculate but that they reflect constraints that are expressible in terms of least action etc.
That's of course true, yet is it logically understood that light follows the fastest path or that ball follows a path that minimizes the Action? It is understood if you know the physics, not by logic or intuition.
Likewise, popular notions that quantum physics undermines the logic of distinct identity fail.
The most popular QM experiment is the double slit experiment. Is the result logical?Me_Think
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
DS, appeals to authority do not go beyond the force of fact and logic. The issue is ending the endless in finite stage steps. As discussed again k k+1 on shows why that fails. Sorry, more later, real world calls as the sun rises. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
MT, The point is not that light and balls calculate but that they reflect constraints that are expressible in terms of least action etc. Likewise, popular notions that quantum physics undermines the logic of distinct identity fail. Starting with, to do quantum mechanics one must rely on distinct identity. Superposition does not destroy identity. Likewise, your statement:
if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are not always correct in concluding that the proposition is false
. . . necessarily relies on the principles of distinct identity it tries to set aside. Start with I vs not I and F vs not F, then proceed. Inherently self falsifying by self referential incoherence. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
HeKS (Attn Aleta & EZ): I have said something that is almost a commonplace, that reality is coherent, which is a logical -- prime sense prior to axiomatisations, which are in this context secondary -- constraint tied to distinct and mutually compatible identities of particular things in a world that despite such diversity shows harmony. Cosmos, not chaos. There cannot be a square circle or the like in any possible world, as core characteristics of squarishness and roundness stand in contradiction. And the like. In that context, I have repeatedly pointed to an understanding of Mathematics: the logic of structure and quantity which we of course may study. So, it is in that context appropriate to indicate that such coherence has causal impact. Put three pennies, a three-pence coin and a sixpence in a drawer and necessarily one has a shilling's worth absent interference. As C S Lewis pointed out. So, there is no contradiction between logic and mathematics constraining reality, both express the prior point, coherence of reality. Just, when well done, mathematics works it out in exacting and often surprising details. I am aware A & EZ have not suggested an infinite past causal succession completed in the present. DS, in some moods has come close to trying to justify that, usually by reworking in terms of unlimited past regress of finite stages and finite values. As the OP shows, there are significant people out there who have tried to argue for an infinite past quasi-physical succession of stages arriving at our now world. This is highly questionable, not least on logic of structure and quantity grounds. Now, during the course of the thread an incidental issue and linked cluster of concerns popped up. Namely, the assertion and claimed proof on ordinary mathematical induction that there are INFINITELY many +1 step from 0 successive and FINITE whole counting numbers or counting sets. At minimum this is a strange paradox, or it may be much worse than mere paradox. After the weeks of back forth and rethinking on concepts as recently as during the night, I find myself at the point where I think the core matter is that when we succeed to or write down or symbolise any specific counting sequence number, k, there is an unlimited, end-less onward succession that consistently escapes attempts to capture it beyond an ellipsis of endlessness. Which is what the pink vs blue tape example illustrates. Every counting value k we can reach, represent, write down or symbolise, k, is finite, but beyond the end-less-ness lurks, as an integral part of defining the set of counting numbers {0,1,2 . . . }. Beyond k will always lie k+1, k+2 etc without upper limit in a far zone of endlessness. We can represent or actualise the potential infinite but we cannot exhaust or traverse endlessness in finite stage steps or things based on such, e.g. Place value or sci notation. This also constrains what ordinary mathematical induction -- and recall, such preceded axiomatisations [and yes, there is a plural there] -- shows. This too only reaches the potentially infinite.We may then put in a "forcing" axiom [generic sense here] as a further premise, but we must beware of cases where endlessness affects the result. And the conclusion traced to the forcing, not the inherent pattern of the logic. Much as happens with Euclid's 5th postulate on parallel lines etc and how we discovered after 2000 years that there were other possible and consistent geometries that obeyed other patterns. Some of which turned out to be physically relevant. I have other points of discomfort such as the continuousness of the closed interval [0,1] which is connected through y = 1/x to the domain of transfinites beyond the ellipsis of endlessness in the number tree in the OP. But that can go to another day. What is clear for the main purpose of the thread is that a suggested infinite past causal succession attaining by finite stages to the present is quite questionable. I do not doubt the reality of the transfinite, and have freely used omega etc [w is a stand-in]. The issue at focus for me was as described, and I have suggested that ending or traversing the endless in finite stage steps is incoherent and dubious to the point of fallacy. I did take the non standard approach as an example and suggested broader use of 1/x as a catapult between infinitesimals near 0 and transfinites. I further suggested that as there are onward ellipses of endlessness, we can distinguish hard infinitesimals that catapult us into such far-far zone transfinites yielding hyper-integers and linked hyper reals without defined first values. A suggested mild infinitesimal m would catapult to the first band, beyond w so that 1/m --> A, A = w +g, g a finite value. Those are suggestions. The surreals seem to have promise to bring things out. And DS has repeatedly brought to the table useful new things. Discussion can go on without limit but I have to pause for now. KFkairosfocus
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
HeKS @ 1364
so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false.
That is not true in many cases. Quantum mechanics comes to mind immediately, but the way you describe ordinary processes too determines whether something is logical or not. For E.g., Light bends when going from less dense to denser medium. However, if you describe the process as light finds the fastest path to traverse (Fermet's principle) it will be illogical because it makes no sense that light can calculate the path that takes least time and traverse the path, yet it is true. Similarly, when you throw a ball, the trajectory of the ball is a hyperbola, but the path which the balls follows is the path which minimises the difference between Kinetic and Potential energy (Principle of Least action). It makes no sense logically, yet the ball does exactly that. Of course there are more 'illogical' phenomenon - Ball lightening, Hessdalen light, crop circles etc, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are not always correct in concluding that the proposition is false.Me_Think
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
To Aleta: I just want to offer a couple brief thoughts on KF's position. Regarding his comments about being 'a paradox, and maybe far worse', I believe the 'far worse' bit refers to an actual contradiction and therefore actually unresolvable, unlike a paradox, which may only seem like a contradiction. Regarding the notion that math constrains reality, I tend to think that KF would be more likely to say logic constrains reality, but this might be better phrased as simply saying that reality really is consistent with logic, so if a proposition relating to the real world entails a logical contradiction, we are warranted in concluding that the proposition is false. If it merely presents a paradox, then there is room at least for further investigation or consideration, but if it entails a bona fide contradiction or logical impossibility then it is false. To KF: I'm a little unclear here as to what your disagreement is with Aleta and ellazimm at this point. Just to be clear, do you realize that neither has argued that an infinite past-time is possible? It seems that the only thing they've been arguing is that infinity is well defined as an abstract mathematical concept and so can be used without issue within that specific abstract realm of pure mathematics. But neither has said that this in any way lends support to the coherence of an infinite past-time. Do you acknowledge this? If so, what is it that you disagree with them about (if the answer is the math itself, you might as well just say "it's the math", cause any further commentary about that math will likely go over my head)HeKS
April 6, 2016
April
04
Apr
6
06
2016
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
Hi kf. Some questions for you to comment on, if you wish. Pick one or more. re 1329 1. Can God comprehend the infinite in its entirety, or can he also, as we do, just see endless step-by-step traversal of, for instance, the natural numbers? 2. Can/has God created time as an independent dimension which passes in some sense even if no physical events are happening, or does time pass only if causally connected events are occuring? That is, is time independent from or dependent on a succession of material events? Another way of asking this: Does our universe exist within a dimension of time, or does time only exist within our universe? 3. You often talk about the consequences of our ideas about infinity being a paradox, or "far worse". In 1356, I asked,
Could you explain more specifically what could be “far worse” than paradoxical. I don’t think we have any idea what you’re talking about, and you won’t tell us.
It may be obvious to you what these dire consequences are, but not me. Could you give a specific example? 4, In 1357 I point out that you have been inconsistent as to whether you think that math constrains reality, or is more a tool that describes a world that is amenable to mathematical description. Could you comment on what your position is on this? ThanksAleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Another example, from notes entitled "Deduction in First-Order Logic:
Deductions: A deduction in FOL_C from a set Γ of sentences is a finite sequence D of formulas such that whenever a formula A occurs in the sequence D then at least one of the following holds. (1) A ∈ Γ (2) A is an axiom. (3) A follows by modus ponens from two formulas occurring earlier in the sequence D or follows by the Quantifier Rule from a formula occurring earlier in D.
Regarding the construction of terms in first-order logic, from wikipedia:
The set of terms is inductively defined by the following rules: 1. Variables. Any variable is a term. 2. Functions. Any expression f(t1, ... ,tn) of n arguments (where each argument ti is a term and f is a function symbol of valence n) is a term. In particular, symbols denoting individual constants are 0-ary function symbols, and are thus terms. Only expressions which can be obtained by finitely many applications of rules 1 and 2 are terms. For example, no expression involving a predicate symbol is a term.
The bolded part explains why we can only apply the successor operation finitely many times in FOL.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
PS to 1360: To elaborate on:
KF: e –> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor. Me: Well, no, there aren’t any of those. As I stated, n is a natural number, so n + 1 exists and is finite.
Every natural number n ∈ ω can be reached through a finite number of applications of the successor operation to 0. We cannot apply the successor operation infinitely many times ("endlessly", I think you would say). That is forbidden. These proofs and constructions have only finitely many steps. That's why if {0, 1, 2, ..., n} ∈ ω, then n is finite.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless.
I am going to use standard mathematical vocabulary here. The union I spoke of is of a countably infinite sequence of sets, and that union is by definition ω. It is not in any process of "continuing", it just exists by the Axiom of Union. The correspondence you are requesting is : {} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k - 1} {0} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k} {0, 1} -> {0, 1, 2, ..., k + 1} and so on, for any k. More compactly, n -> n + k, for all n ∈ N.
a –> Actually I spoke of a were the succession to endlessness completed. Where, there is a copy of the set so far pattern that can be shown and was shown. b –> But also I showed where for any k the onward succession k, k+1 etc continues tot he same endlessness as 0,1,2 etc. So, directly, the completion cannot occur.
Well, again it appears you are still talking about applying the successor operation infinitely many times. We (neither you nor I) are not allowed to do this, so ω cannot be formed in this manner.
c –> Where the imposition of “for all n in the succession” does little more than loop the matter, and ignores the chaining inherent in posing a claim case k => case k+1, hung on a first case.
No infinite loops allowed, as I stated above. ω is the union of all finite ordinals; it's not constructed by "endlessly" applying the successor operation.
Me: Let’s call this set α . But by definition of the union of sets, this means that α ∈ {1, 2, 3, …, n} for some natural number n. KF: e –> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor.
Well, no, there aren't any of those. As I stated, n is a natural number, so n + 1 exists and is finite.
f –> tantamount to saying that you cannot actually continue to endlessness, so the whole argument collapses via imposition of the conclusion you want in the course of the argument.
No, it is tantamount to saying that proofs consist of finitely many steps. That is, unless you want to work in some exotic infinitary logic, which I doubt.
g –> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession.
As I said, this sort of "endlessness" doesn't occur in proofs except in some exotic forms of logic. The following quotation explains why
The main idea of mathematical induction is that if a statement can be proved true for the number 1, and if we can also show that by assuming it true for 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n, we can prove it true for n + 1, then our statement will therefore true for all natural numbers n ≥ 1. The power of this method is that a statement can be proved true for all natural numbers in finitely many steps, rather than having to prove it true for each n ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4, ..} individually.
If you google "proofs have finitely many steps", you will find other examples.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
KF
the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms.
Where is the mathematical problem? Where is the fault in a proof or a theorem? You keep objecting but you can't point to a specific fault except that you think there's some issue with reality vs math but you can't say exactly what is it.
As for mind changing, the issue I have has been openly stated from early on, the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} –> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse.
What can be worse? You've been asked over and over and over again and you won't say. SPELL IT OUT.
has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless.
What? We've been saying over and over and over again that there is no controversy or problem or issue with the mathematics. All these questions have been dealt with a long time ago. But, for some reason, you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again when you can't even explain your problem in standard mathematical parlance.
If not, has it then captured all the elements of the set of successive counting numbers, which is to continue without upper limit?
Yes, it has. You are just talking on and on without really addressing all the work that has been done already. Seriously, you seemingly completely ignore all the posts we've written in good faith trying to explain and elucidate our views and the well established mathematics. You continue to talk in vague and non-mathematical terms which we have repeated asked you to clarify. And you have singularly failed to get specific about what exactly you are having a problem with mathematically. Again, 'endlessness' is NOT a mathematical problem. It's a problem with you. What is your problem? PLEASE be specific so we are not all just wasting our time. I'm beginning to think you are just trying to provoke us into behaving badly because you ignore our questions and queries and just keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If you want to have a dialogue then you need to respond and not just repeat.ellazimm
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
DS, has your union continued to endlessness? (Where, for any k in the succession, k, k+1 etc can be endlessly put in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 . . . ) If so, kindly show us, and show us how such a union will be also not endless. If not, has it then captured all the elements of the set of successive counting numbers, which is to continue without upper limit? KF PS: Let me clip you at 1344: >>if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the union of the countably infinite sequence of sets 0, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, … must include an element (itself a set) of infinite cardinality. >> a --> Actually I spoke of a were the succession to endlessness completed. Where, there is a copy of the set so far pattern that can be shown and was shown. b --> But also I showed where for any k the onward succession k, k+1 etc continues tot he same endlessness as 0,1,2 etc. So, directly, the completion cannot occur. c --> Where the imposition of "for all n in the succession" does little more than loop the matter, and ignores the chaining inherent in posing a claim case k => case k+1, hung on a first case. d --> Making the chaining implicit does not make it go away. >>Let’s call this set ?. But by definition of the union of sets, this means that ? ? {1, 2, 3, …, n} for some natural number n. >> e --> Where n will be an endlessly large value, i.e., one without a finite successor. >>But again, the sets {0, 1, 2, …, n} that occur in that union all have finite endpoints n (since I am not allowed to repeat the successor operation more than finitely many times).>> f --> tantamount to saying that you cannot actually continue to endlessness, so the whole argument collapses via imposition of the conclusion you want in the course of the argument. >> So we have a contradiction: our infinite subset ? is an element of a finite set (of finite sets) {0, 1, 2, …, n}.>> g --> on the contrary, you have not met the required criterion of endlessness and have actually admitted the point that the set cannot be completed in succession.kairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
kf, here are three places where you has have said that math and logic constrain reality: Back in 1009, for instance, you wrote,
PS: That we are relying on proof by contradiction to carry enormous weights is a deep and pervasive commitment to coherence of truth and the constraining power on reality posed by logic ...
and at 1080,
Logical-mathematical realities can and do causally constrain the real world. ... And this seems there as a limit to observable reality imposed by logic, never mind that we cannot observe the remote past, or even the much nearer past.
and the most telling quote,
the logic of structure and quantity — a matter of pure abstract logic — constrains physical reality ... Logic of abstract entities has causal constraining force in the physical world
But now you say differently:
the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms.
Can you clarify your beliefs on this topic. You've said inconsistent things.Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 48

Leave a Reply