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
And again: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? It is very telling that my detractors refuse to answer that simple question. It’s as if they know that by answering it they will prove my point. ellazimm choked and spewed a non-sequitur that he really thinks answered the question. Everyone can see that he didn't even address it. So do any other detractors care to answer it? If not then my point is made and you have nothing to say about it.Virgil Cain
March 10, 2016
March
03
Mar
10
10
2016
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
Mapou:
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
{1,2,3,4,5,...}- that is an infinite set.Virgil Cain
March 10, 2016
March
03
Mar
10
10
2016
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
ellazimm- we have nothing to discuss as all you do is lie and bluff. Set subtraction proves that Cantor was wrong. Again I have been over and over this with you and you still ignore it. And when you spew nonsense like:
And you keep pretending that since you have no personal knowledge of the ‘practical’ application of a core concept in Cantor’s work the whole thing doesn’t matter anyway.
It just proves my point about you. No one has any knowledge for the practical application of saying that all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. And no that is not a core concept in Cantor's work. You have serious issues, kiddo.Virgil Cain
March 10, 2016
March
03
Mar
10
10
2016
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Virgil, KF, Mapou I don't understand why but you all are dancing around questions that have been addressed to you that are pertinent to the way this thread has evolved. Virgil: you and I have discussed at great length (on your own blog) your system of relative cardinalities. You 'calculated' the 'relative' cardinality of many infinite sets. So why are you now saying you haven't given it much thought at the same time baldly declaring that Cantor was wrong and you have proved it? I have asked you over and over again on this thread to determine the cardinality of sets A and B (defined a long ways above) and you won't even say whether you can or not. And you keep pretending that since you have no personal knowledge of the 'practical' application of a core concept in Cantor's work the whole thing doesn't matter anyway. But you have proved him wrong? Proving Cantor wrong would mean having to come up with an alternative to his 'system' which means you have to be able to answer questions like the ones I keep asking you. KF, daveS asked you over and over again several straight-forward yes or no question that are purely mathematical and you danced around it as if answering would threaten your life. daveS appears to have teased out one answer but why did you not just address the issue directly? We're just asking you about the mathematics NOT the cosmology or theology. I don't understand why you write paragraph upon paragraph of prose that avoids answering simple, direct questions. Mapou, you like bringing up concepts and ideas that you know will get people riled up but this time, when Aleta addressed your statements and then asked you a question in return you stomped off. I have noticed you behaving that way on other threads. You think it's a good and important thing to question authority (I agree) but you seem to have a real problem when you are questioned in return. What was it about Aleta's question that you found so objectionable? I have been participating on the blog for a number of years. I have been ridiculed many times (as you will all remember) and have been banned for no stated reason as you will also remember. On this thread Aleta, daveS and myself (to a much lesser extent) have been trying to figure out what it is you believe about a neutral topic and have been doing so in a generally respectful manner. Why is it so hard to answer some questions? This thread is not part of some greater war, it's about mathematics. In academic environments you HAVE to be prepared to face intense questioning, it's how it works. You can't just say whatever and expect people to nod and smile and take it on faith. They are going to do their best to stress it and pull it apart before they bring it into the fold. That's the way it should be, that's how you make sure that new stuff actually makes sense: the crucible of scrutiny. It's nothing personal. But if you can't defend your ideas and, especially, if you don't even try, then people are going to stop paying attention. Maybe you don't care if anyone takes you seriously but I don't that very much. All three of you have written hundreds of posts declaring yourselves to be right about various topics. When someone is trying to take you seriously and figure out what exactly you are saying that is exactly the time to answer some questions.ellazimm
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
mike1962 @ 811
In the end. We die. Period. You make your peace with that. Whatever it is
In the end we are food for microbes, nothing else.Me_Think
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
In the end. We die. Period. You make your peace with that. Whatever it is.mike1962
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, by definition of endlessness T will go beyond any arbitrarily large finite value and in that sense is endless or infinite. Every specific defined term of T will be finite but endlessness cannot be exhausted.
Thanks. It appears we agree that T is an infinite set, and every element of T is finite?daveS
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
DS, by definition of endlessness T will go beyond any arbitrarily large finite value and in that sense is endless or infinite. Every specific defined term of T will be finite but endlessness cannot be exhausted. The ellipsis that indicates endlessness is a key component of the set. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Thanks, Mike. I said approximately the same things at 798.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Aleta: does pi exist? It depends on what you mean by "exist." "Exist" can mean a number of things. At very least, Pi is an intellectual abstraction invented/discovered by humans, resolvable to various degrees using algorithms. Whether or not it "exists" outside of that is a matter of strenuous philosophical contention by those very humans. Ultimately, nothing makes sense. But Pi as an abstraction has demonstrable usefulness to humans pragmatically. (Pardon the semi-redundancy.)mike1962
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
P.S. I also believe "the universe is both finite and discrete". We're not talking about the physical universe. We're talking about abstract mathematical concepts which can be applied, always with some lack of precision, to the real world. But the question is about the natural numbers as a mathematical concept.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
But in 795 you wrote,
Aleta, answer my question first. Then I’ll answer yours.
I answered yours. You don't agree with me, I assume, but I answered. Perhaps you should follow through and answer mine, even if I might not agree with you. How many natural numbers are there?Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Aleta, Do not address me anymore. Our conversation is over.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Mapou, does pi exist? This has nothing to do with religion at all.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Aleta speaks just like a Darwinist/materialist/atheist or Christian fundamentalist. With a forked tongue.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Mapou, does pi exist? It is an abstraction. If abstractions don't exist, does mathematics not exist? How about "tree". It's an abstraction. By saying that abstractions don't exist you are denying the existence of everything that makes human knowledge possible.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
KF,
Your T is the set of naturals from 1 on and again continues endlessly in succession. No particular member in T we can note down will be infinite and no finite value in T will begin to exhaust the set.
Would you please answer these questions directly? Is T an infinite set? Is every element of T finite?daveS
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Abstractions do not exist, by definition. PS. This is the reason that the universe is both finite and discrete. Live with it.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Mathematical ideas are abstract concepts, and we're quite capable of inventing symbols for and thinking about them. Infinite sets are in the same place as perfect circles, ?, sqrt(-1), the Mandelbrot set, 10^200, and any other mathematical concept. Some people believe these exist in some Platonic realm, and some believe they exist only as symbolic abstractions that we have invented. But in any case, the question of "where is infinity" is not different than "where is" any other mathematical concept. Some mathematical concepts are tied more closely to physical reality than others. The counting numbers have direct physical representations, circles can come close to perfect, etc. Others concepts like e, the Mandelbrot set, and infinity don't have direct physical representations. But they all are, from a purely mathematical point of view, abstract ideas symblized in language and mathematical symbols. They exist within mathematics as such irrespective of whether we can point to something that exists in the physical world. Your turn: how many natural numbers are there?Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Mapou, do abstractions exist? If so, transfinite sets do. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
DS, your set S was reciprocals of naturals continued endlessly per ellipse. Your T is the set of naturals from 1 on and again continues endlessly in succession. No particular member in T we can note down will be infinite and no finite value in T will begin to exhaust the set. Endlessness is a crucial component and there is a continual pointing across it. Stepwise finite stage endless succession cannot be completed. And the definition of w and its status as a limit ordinal without definable predecessor reflects that. There is no definable specific finite natural number of endless degree of removal from 0 or 1; tied to inability to traverse endlessness in steps. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Aleta, Answer my question first. Then I'll answer yours.
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Hi Mapou. How many natural numbers are there? You know, N = {1,2,3,...} How many numbers are in that set?Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Virgil @790, My point is that, before we can talk about infinite sets, we gotta ask ourselves the following question:
If an infinite set exists, where is it?
Unless and until we can answer the question, we are just urinating against the wind. We cannot just poof things into existence. IOW, if you can compare two things, they are not infinite.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Thanks, Virgil. It appears that I now correctly understand your position about the "relative cardinality" of infinite sets in respect to the Cantorian cardinality of the natural numbers.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
If infinity exists, where is it?
Infinity is a journey and you are on it, albeit only for a very short time :cool:Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Mapou:
The idea that one infinity can be bigger or smaller than another is about as cretinous and brain dead as it can get.
Without context I would agree. But given the context it is easy to see that some infinite sets have a higher density than others. It also seems that we can quantitatively classify two different types of infinite sets. From that it follows that there are at least two different types of infinities when it comes to numbers and that one is going to have a higher density than the other.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
If infinity exists, where is it? If time exists, where is it? If space exists, where is it? If distance exists, where is it? If unicorns exist, where are they? PS. Don't mind me. I'm just imitating Immanuel Kant.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
The idea that one infinity can be bigger or smaller than another is about as cretinous and brain dead as it can get. It beats the flat earth hypothesis by light-years.Mapou
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
kairosfocus- I copy that and thank you for your patience.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
1 19 20 21 22 23 48

Leave a Reply