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
Aleta, I would start with some accepted standard, yes. But I would allow for a cardinality greater than, equal to or less than that standard. It is all relative, hence the name. That way you don't need any special pleading to get around the ramifications of set subtraction.
Therefore, Virgil’s belief, based on his set subtraction method, is that there are an infinite number of levels of infinity, both less than and greater than the level infinity associated with the natural numbers.
And that follows from Cantor's reasoning behind small and big infinity- and again I am not sure if the naturals is what I would use as a standard. I haven't given it much thought but that is what I would most likely start with and then see if another standard is better.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, again, ellipsis of endlessness and the k, k+1 etc vs 0, 1, 2 etc effect highlighted through the pink vs blue tapes, the ellipsis of endlessness again. And there is not a problem with an infinite array of values in the near neighbourhood of 0 as values run towards the infinitesimal, with of course yet another type of endlessness, endlessly smaller and smaller. KF
You're not responding to my question. I'm asking whether my set T is an infinite subset of N consisting only of finite natural numbers.daveS
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
As far as I can tell, Virgil's view is that every infinite proper subset of the natural numbers has a different cardinality. Much as Cantor named aleph null (A0) as the cardinality of the naturals and A1 as the cardinality of the reals, and then built a sequence of further levels of infinity from there, Virgil seems to have the idea that we can start with the cardinality of the naturals and build down from there. The evens have fewer members than the naturals, the set of all squares would have even fewer members, the set of all factorials even fewer yet. Interesting enough, the integers would have more members than the naturals, by the same argument Virgil uses for the odds and evens. Let I = the integers = {0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3, ...}, N = the naturals = {1,2,3,...), and N- = the non-positive integers {0,-1,-2,-3, ...} Then I - N = N-, so N and N- have fewer members than I. One more example: let N = the naturals and let N1 = {2,3,4,..}, so that N - N1 = {1}. By Virgils reasoning, the cardinality of N1 is one less than the cardinality of N, although still infinite. Therefore, Virgil's belief, based on his set subtraction method, is that there are an infinite number of levels of infinity, both less than and greater than the level infinity associated with the natural numbers. This seems to be what he believes.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
VC, the warning is there. Point out the errors or wrongs, but kindly do not resort to further inappropriate language. I do not have time to police, and will act on what I see. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
DS, again, ellipsis of endlessness and the k, k+1 etc vs 0, 1, 2 etc effect highlighted through the pink vs blue tapes, the ellipsis of endlessness again. And there is not a problem with an infinite array of values in the near neighbourhood of 0 as values run towards the infinitesimal, with of course yet another type of endlessness, endlessly smaller and smaller. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
VC, I am beginning to run out of patience, please fix your tone. KF
And I have already run out of patience, hence my tone. Strange that you confront me for my responses but let the attacks and lies I am responding to alone.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
EZ Jared:
We’ve discussed your system of ‘relative’ cardinalities many, many times on your blog.
We have discussed the concept but not the system as I don't have a system, yet. And you can't even grasp the concept.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
KF, Do you agree or not that I have shown an infinite subset of N consisting of only finite numbers? Let me take a fragment of one of your posts from above and edit it a little:
And when sets are isomorphic and endless they must have the same cardinality — scale index — shown by finding a 1:1 correspondence. Isomorphism can be shown by transformation: {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} [edited next three lines] x -> 1/x {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} The sets {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} and {2, 4, 8, 16, ...}[edited] have countable endlessness, first degree endlessness, cardinality aleph null.
Therefore {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} is an infinite subset of N consisting of only finite values. Edit: BTW, I agree there's nothing special about the set I've chosen here; it does not 'change' anything. I made the switch partly for variety's sake.daveS
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
DS, I notice again, ellipsis of endlessness. The pattern is, naturals we reach in steps or represent using notations dependent on such, will be finite, and so will their reciprocals. But that brings us to the k, . . . problem. Ellipsis of endlessness. 1/k, . . . headed to 0 as limit (thus, heading towards infinitesimal scale) does not materially change the situation. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
DS (Attn Vc etc), First, I am not going to be available for some days, so no new thread just yet. Apart from the question, what would such a thread add? Second, I appreciate the loading issue, but with the tone problem I have not had time to police, and with me incommunicado for a time upcoming, a new thread is not advisable right now. Notice has been served on tone so I expect a marked improvement over the next several days. There will be no further warnings. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Got it, me_think.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Aleta @ 772
Virgil is right, me_think, about the cardinality of the reals and naturals: they are different.
The "Profound effect" comment @ 768 was supposed to be a snark, except that it backfired :-) !Me_Think
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
#766 VC
LoL! I don’t have a system yet, jerk.
Oh don't be so shy. We've discussed your system of 'relative' cardinalities many, many times on your blog. Any you know what? You couldn't figure out the cardinalities of the primes then either! And a bunch of other infinite sets as I recall. And now you can't figure out the cardinalities of sets A and B from above. I can do all of those for you if you want me to. Just say the word. By the way, you are mis-spelling my first name.ellazimm
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
KF, First, would it be possible to set up a new thread to continue the discussion? This one isn't (always) loading properly.
Pardon but first the sequence 1/n of course goes to endlessly smaller numbers heading to the infinitesimals.
This is a side issue but no infinitesimals are involved. I'm only working with real numbers in this example. The numbers in the sequence are the reciprocals of the powers of 2, all (real) rational numbers. Do you at least agree that the set {1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, ...} is infinite? And that every element is positive?daveS
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Virgil is right, me_think, about the cardinality of the reals and naturals: they are different. However, since Virgil rejects Cantor in general, it's odd that he would invoke Cantor at all.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
VC, I am beginning to run out of patience, please fix your tone. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
DS, Pardon but first the sequence 1/n of course goes to endlessly smaller numbers heading to the infinitesimals. The endlessness cannot be completed in steps of reciprocals either, and we are right back at the main issue. Ever multiplicative inverse we can reach in steps of succession will be finite, as the numbers in the main sequence are finite. Marking correspondences and leaving off zero: 1/1 --> 1 1/2 --> 2 1/3 --> 3 . . . 1/n --> n . . . lim 1/n --> 0 Again we see pointing across an ellipsis of endlessness. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Me_Think:
Of course there would be profound effect – you would have proven that the set of real numbers has greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers !
Cantor has already said that the reals have a greater cardinality than the naturals. small infinity, big infinity But thanks for the continued laughs, MTVirgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
Joe @ 767,
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
Of course there would be profound effect - you would have proven that the set of real numbers has greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers ! - because set of real numbers has the same cardinality as the set of all subsets of the set of natural numbers.Me_Think
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
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. Thank you for proving my point.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
EZ Jared:
You haven’t understood any of the answers or links to answers I’ve provided.
Liar. Also not one of your answers nor links even addresses my question. It's as if you are proud to be a bluffing loser.
You refuse to listen to anyone who disagree with you.
Nice projection
You can’t use your own system
LoL! I don't have a system yet, jerk.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
#760 VC
You are a legend in your own itty-bitty mind.
Ah, the Virg we know and love.
You haven’t answered the question so what is there to believe?
You haven't understood any of the answers or links to answers I've provided. You refuse to listen to anyone who disagree with you. You can't use your own system to figure out the cardinalities of sets A and B above. Or the primes. But Cantor's system can handle all those cases easily.ellazimm
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Have you found a mistake in any of Cantor’s work?
Yes, standard set subtraction proves he was wrong.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Aleta, I dare you to answer the question: If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Will you choke like Jared/ EZ has or will you actually address the actual question?Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Aleta:
Therefore, the evens are both a subset of the naturals and countable by the naturals. Both are infinite at the same level so to speak: there are the same number of evens as there are naturals.
And yet standard set subtraction proves that there are not the same number of elements between the evens and the naturals. And your only asinine response is to say that you cannot use set subtraction in this case.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all? Jared:
If you won’t believe me then read a real book on set theory.
You haven't answered the question so what is there to believe? 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.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Aleta:
I think one reason Virgil reverted back to hostile, rude non-discussion because the points I’m making are coming perilously close to pointing out some confusions in his thinking.
You are a legend in your own itty-bitty mind.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
I think one reason Virgil reverted back to hostile, rude non-discussion because the points I'm making are coming perilously close to pointing out some confusions in his thinking. Consider the set of even numbers E and the set of natural numbers N Now let Ef (f for finite) be a finite set of even numbers, such as = {2,4,6,... 2000) Let Cf be a counting mapping for Ef. Cf is a subset of N (because counting is done with natural numbers), and Cf will only go up to 1000. Cf = {1,2,3,... 1000} 2 -> 1 4 -> 2 ... 2000 -> 1000 Notice that Ef is not a subset Cf. Counting mappings do not do the same thing as subset mappings. Ef has the same cardinality as Cf, which is 1000. Both sets have 1000 elements. If you are interested in subsets, you need to consider another set, let us call it Sf = {1,2,3,...2000} Here the mapping 2 -> 2, 4 -> 4, ... 2000 -> 2000 shows that Ef is a subset of Sf. However Sf has twice as many elements as Ef, because it also includes all the odds. This mapping, however, has nothing to do with counting. It just shows that for any number of evens Ef, there is a subset of the naturals that contains Ef, but this relationship doesn't count the number of elements in Ef. These are the two ideas that Virgil is conflating. ============= Now, how does this apply to the entire infinite sets of E and N? The argument above for Ef and Cf shows that for any finite even number, every element of Ef can be mapped to one of the natural numbers, and that the cardinality of the two sets are the same: if f = 2 billion rather than 2000, then there is still a counting mapping which shows that Ef has 1 billion elements. If we had another even number, the count goes up by one. Thus, by induction, any finite set of evens, no matter how large, can be counted by being mapped to a subset of the naturals. (And in all cases, the set of evens under consideration is not a subset of the set being used to count it.) However, when we consider the infinite sets, the two concepts, subsets and counting, merge. The evens are a subset of the naturals, as 2 -> 2, 4 -> 4, ... forever. The evens can be counted by the naturals, as 2 -> 1, 4 -> 2, ... forever Therefore, the evens are both a subset of the naturals and countable by the naturals. Both are infinite at the same level so to speak: there are the same number of evens as there are naturals.Aleta
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
#757 VC
If Cantor was wrong about countable infinite sets having the same cardinality, what would be affected or would there be no effect at all?
If you won't believe me then read a real book on set theory. I know you won't do that but you won't believe anyone who disagrees with you.
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.
Have you figured out the 'relative' cardinality of the sets A and B I defined above? Have you figured out the cardinality of the prime numbers? Have you found any academic support for your 'system'? Have you found a mistake in any of Cantor's work?ellazimm
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
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.Virgil Cain
March 9, 2016
March
03
Mar
9
09
2016
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
1 20 21 22 23 24 48

Leave a Reply