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 @663
re:662 I answered that question in 661 – maybe our posts crossed paths.
There are two questions @662. You tried to answer the first one @661 to no avail. Didn't answer the second one yet. Please, be concise. Thank you. Note that you don't have to answer any questions. But I appreciate that you do.Dionisio
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Aleta:
2c. Does E have exactly 1/2 as many element as N?
As infinity is a journey it would all depend on when you looked. However the relative cardinality can be determined by the bijective function.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Aleta:
More civil, rational, on-topic argument from Virgil.
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human.
Considering that I was responding to a blatant lie, that was rational and on-topic.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
re:662 I answered that question in 661 - maybe our posts crossed paths.Aleta
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Aleta @635
My “true” motives? What are they? Am I hiding them? I like to discuss things, and I like to have the opportunity to clarify and articulate my views. I’m interested in math, philosophy, and religion. I like discussing my thoughts on theism and atheism. Anything wrong with that? :-)
See @659 an example of your conflicting statements. How do you explain such an inconsistency? Your explanation @661 tries to justify things to no avail. What's the bottom line of this discussion thread according to KF's OP?Dionisio
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
It seems to me, Dionisio, that you are trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't exist. If you were to read all three posts on this topic, you would see that I multiple times said I was interested in the pure math, and not interested in the connection to other topics such as time or God. It wasn't until post 509 that I said anything about other than the pure math, and that actually had a point related to the math. I didn't bring up God again until you asked the question as to whether the pure math discussion had anything to do with the OP, and I replied to that. I quit discussing math with kf about post 530. You then brought up the topic of the connection to the purpose and interests of this site at 587. So my statement at 587 was a general statement about the vast bulk of my participation in the topic of infinity up until that point - it certainly wasn't a statement that math was the only thing I was ever interested in. My statement at 631 was a further statement that I have more interests than math. There are no conflicts here. I really don't get what point you are trying to make. You seem to be beating around the bush about something - how about just coming straight out and telling us what's on your mind?Aleta
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
daveS @651
Well, from my perspective it appears that way. We obviously have our disagreements, but I see no reason to suspect that kairosfocus, Aleta, ellazimm, or any of the other serious contributors have hidden motives.
Well, maybe they were not 'hidden' but unclear. However, it seems like after some of you have answered a few questions your true motives have been clarified a bit. At least more details have come up to the surface. For example, you may look @659. :)Dionisio
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Aleta @587
[…] those of us involved in the discussion (daveS, ellazim, and myself) were only interested in the pure mathematics.
Aleta @631
[Dionisio to KF @618] 1. “BTW, I see that your interlocutors that claimed to be interested only in the math part of the discussion have gotten involved in non-math discussions too? :)”
Yes, I have. But up until just the last few days, we were discussing pure math. I have other interests than pure math.
Aleta @587 "[...] only interested in the pure mathematics." Aleta @631 "I have other interests than pure math." [emphasis mine] Doesn't the word "only" @587 seem to conflict with the statement @631? :)Dionisio
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
OK, Virgil, now you've got me curious about what you believe, so here are some questions. 1. Let N = the natural numbers {1,2,3,...} I assume you agree that there are an infinite number of members in this set? Is it true that you believe that? 2. Let E = even natural numbers {2,4,6,...} 2a. Is this an infinite set? I assume you believe it is infinite. Is it true that you believe that? 2b. Does this set have fewer members than N? I assume you believe it does because you said so in #261. 2c. Does E have exactly 1/2 as many element as N? I don't know whether you believe this is so, or not, Would you be willing to answer these few questions so I can be sure I understand your position?Aleta
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
More civil, rational, on-topic argument from Virgil.
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human.
kf, I appreciate your giving Virgil a warning earlier. And I agree that it might be useful for you to add your two cents to a simple proposition: "The set of natural numbers has the same cardinality (aleph null) as the set of even natural numbers because a 1:1 correspondence between the two can be established."Aleta
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
I have done the first many times
LIAR! You have no shame and are a pathetic example of a human.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
EZ Jared:
Congratulations for posting the definition of what a one-to-one mapping is but not whether or not it is the only mapping.
Are you saying that you didn't understand the relevance of what I posted? Figures
Is A or B (defined above) ‘larger’.?
Who cares? If you did then you should be able to figure it out by yourself given everything I have told you. If you can't figure it out then you aren't the mathematician that you think you are.
It was an example of how set subtraction was inadequate to address the cardinality of sets.
You were supposed to be addressing the utility issue.
I’m confused.
Yes, I know.
That isn’t what I defined C
It is contained in C and it is what the natural correspondence is
Are you saying my one-to-one mapping is not one-to-one?
If there is more than one correspondence then there isn't any one-to-one correspondence. If I can match an element in your set D to more than one element in your set C, then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence, by definition. And if I can subtract one set from another and get a set with infinite elements then it is obvious that the three sets do not have the same number of elements.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
#652 VC
No, it is true- one and only one. Even wikipedia agrees:
Congratulations for posting the definition of what a one-to-one mapping is but not whether or not it is the only mapping. Is A or B (defined above) 'larger'.? You still haven't answered.
An illustrative example of what? How does that demonstrate the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality?
It was an example of how set subtraction was inadequate to address the cardinality of sets. Can you say which of sets A or B is bigger?
It’s not my fault that the links you provided have nothing to do with what I am asking. It’s not my fault that all you can do is bluff you way through this. Too bad wikipedia disagrees with you one the one to one correspondence thing.
I'll let everyone else take the time to assault the hill you've dug in on.
And then there is the natural mapping used to determine if one set is a proper subset of the other: C={10,20,30,40…} D={10,20,30,40…} That means that Jared’s is not a one-to-one as there is more than one way to match the elements. And that goes against the definition.
I'm confused. That isn't what I defined C to be. Please pay attention. And I provide two different mappings between C and D (one one-to-one and one not) so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying my one-to-one mapping is not one-to-one? I can prove it. AND you still haven't said which is bigger, A or B. And you still haven't determined the relative (to the positive integers) cardinality of the prime numbers.ellazimm
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Here’s an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D
And then there is the natural mapping used to determine if one set is a proper subset of the other: C={...,10,...20,...30,...40...} D={10,20,30,40...} That means that Jared's is not a one-to-one as there is more than one way to match the elements. And that goes against the definition.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
Incorrect.
No, it is true- one and only one. Even wikipedia agrees: bijection:
1. each element of X must be paired with at least one element of Y, 2. no element of X may be paired with more than one element of Y, 3. each element of Y must be paired with at least one element of X, and 4. no element of Y may be paired with more than one element of X.
and the bluff:
I won’t argue with you anymore since you are determined not to change your mind despite the evidence.
You have yet to present any evidence relevant to the question.
Here’s an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D Here is a non-one-to-one mapping: element in C ~ mod(element in D,10) or element in D mod 10
An illustrative example of what? How does that demonstrate the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality?
It’s not my fault you don’t understand the links I gave you many times or the basis of modern mathematics.
It's not my fault that the links you provided have nothing to do with what I am asking. It's not my fault that all you can do is bluff you way through this. Too bad wikipedia disagrees with you one the one to one correspondence thing.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Dionisio,
daveS @634
Pardon me for jumping in, but isn’t it clear that most of us participating in this thread just like to discuss mathematics?
No, not at all.
Well, from my perspective it appears that way. We obviously have our disagreements, but I see no reason to suspect that kairosfocus, Aleta, ellazimm, or any of the other serious contributors have hidden motives.daveS
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
#645 KF Why don't you weigh in on this issue? Why not help clear up the mathematical disagreement?ellazimm
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
#642, 643 VC
LoL! A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
Incorrect. You should have read those books on Set Theory I recommended.
You are pathetic as that has nothing to do with the question I asked. My question pertains to a small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor’s set theory. We have been over and over this many times and you still insist on spewing your cowardly nonsense.
I won't argue with you anymore since you are determined not to change your mind despite the evidence.
But you don’t even know what a one-to-one correspondence means.
Let's see what others think shall we?
LoL! Set subtraction works if you use it relative to a standard set. But obviously you are too dim to grasp that even though we have gone over it.
Fine then tell me whether or not sets A and B as above are the same size or not.
A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one way to match the elements. That is in the definition.
Incorrect.
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
I have done the first many times and you're incorrect on the second. Here's an illustrative example. C = {1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 . . . } D = {10, 20, 30, 40 , 50 . . . } Here is a one-to-one mapping: 1 ~ 10, 2 ~ 20, 3 ~ 30 . . . 10 x element in C ~ element in D Here is a non-one-to-one mapping: element in C ~ mod(element in D,10) or element in D mod 10 (I'm forgetting my math as opposed to Excel notation.) (knowledgeable readers please leave VC to address the situation himself)
NOTE- I am NOT asking about Cantor’s set theory but just one small part of it. That means when Jared responds with Cantor’s set theory is fundamental he proves that he is a cowardly wanker who cannot support his position.
It's not my fault you don't understand the links I gave you many times or the basis of modern mathematics. You denying the evidence does not obligate me to restating the evidence over and over and over again. If you want to understand the arguments take a real set theory course. And now you have to decide which is 'bigger', A or B? Using your system.ellazimm
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
daveS @634
Pardon me for jumping in, but isn’t it clear that most of us participating in this thread just like to discuss mathematics?
No, not at all.Dionisio
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Tell me Aleta- what kind of person responds to a question with an answer that doesn't even address the question and then runs around the internet claiming to have answered the question? This is exactly what EZ Jared is doing.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Aleta- You just cannot support your claims, Aleta, and everyone knows it. I bother with people like Aleta and EZ Jerad because they can only "support" their claims by repeating what is being refuted/ debated. I love pure mathematics and I dislike condescending people like Aleta that pollute it.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
VC [SNIP– warning VC, KF] KFkairosfocus
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Hi EZ. I see that you've been around the block with Virgil on this. I certainly won't bother. I especially won't bother with people who don't appreciate the importance of pure mathematics, irrespective of applied utility, and I also am not fond of discussing things with people who call others [SNIP -- Aleta warning. KF] So Virgil is not worth my time.Aleta
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other. NOTE- I am NOT asking about Cantor's set theory but just one small part of it. That means when Jared responds with Cantor's set theory is fundamental he proves that he is a mathematical weenie who cannot support his position.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
EZ Jerad:
There usually are many different ways to math up elements of two sets. BUT if there is a matching that is one-to-one then the sets, finite or infinite, has the same cardinality.
LoL! A one-to-one correspondence demands there be one and only one way to match the elements.
I know, you never got the links I gave you about how Cantor’s set theory is fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics.
You are pathetic as that has nothing to do with the question I asked. My question pertains to a small and obviously insignificant part of Cantor's set theory. We have been over and over this many times and you still insist on spewing your cowardly nonsense.
Again, IF there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets then they have the same cardinality.
But you don't even know what a one-to-one correspondence means.
(I can give you ‘formulas’ for each if you like but your set subtraction method doesn’t work.)
LoL! Set subtraction works if you use it relative to a standard set. But obviously you are too dim to grasp that even though we have gone over it. A one-to-one correspondence means there is one and only one way to match the elements. That is in the definition.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
#640 Virg
EZ Jerad, still choking- How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged “one-to-one correspondence” is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other.
There usually are many different ways to math up elements of two sets. BUT if there is a matching that is one-to-one then the sets, finite or infinite, has the same cardinality.
And yes I am convinced that I am right as no one can demonstrate otherwise. To prove I am wrong one would have to show the consequences of what I say. Yet the only consequence I can find is that text books would have to be changed.
I know, you never got the links I gave you about how Cantor's set theory is fundamental to the foundation of modern mathematics. I won't bother posting them again, there's no point.
Have you figured out the utility in what Cantor spews, Jerad? Until you do you cannot say that I am wrong and you are right. However the definition of a “one to one correspondence” says that I am right. But you just ignore that.
Again, IF there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets then they have the same cardinality. End of. No 'natural' or 'artificial' considerations. If you can find a one-to-one correspondence then you've proven the two sets have 'the same size'. Set subtraction doesn't work for all pairs of sets but one-to-one mappings do. A = {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 . . . } B = {5, 6, 8, 12, 20, 36 . . .} Which of these sets is larger or are they the same size? (I can give you 'formulas' for each if you like but your set subtraction method doesn't work.)ellazimm
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
EZ Jerad, still choking- How about it EZ- can you tell us the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? And the alleged "one-to-one correspondence" is an illusion as there are more than one way to match the elements given one set is a proper subset of the other. And yes I am convinced that I am right as no one can demonstrate otherwise. To prove I am wrong one would have to show the consequences of what I say. Yet the only consequence I can find is that text books would have to be changed. Have you figured out the utility in what Cantor spews, Jerad? Until you do you cannot say that I am wrong and you are right. However the definition of a "one to one correspondence" says that I am right. But you just ignore that.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
#636 Aleta
Virgil, however, is the one that is wrong. Not even kf would agree with Virgil here.
He will not ever budge from his erroneous position so I wouldn't spend much time arguing with him if I were you. He's got no published support for his views, he can't find any errors in work supporting Cantor's system and he believes in 'relative cardinalities' (i.e. that the cardinality of the positive even integers is half that of the positive integers) but he can't say what the 'relative' cardinality of the primes is. He's seen the one-to-one mapping argument many times so don't waste your breath on that. He's convinced he's right and will not back down.
However his alleged “one-to-one correspondence” fails in many cases as there is more than one way to correlate the two sets- one natural and one that is artificial.
Cantor’s mapping function actually gives us the relative cardinality. Not that Aleta will understand any of that.
See what I mean? Have you figured out the 'relative' cardinality of the primes yet Virg?ellazimm
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,…} B = {1,3,5,7,9,11,…} C = {0.,2,4,6,8,10,…} If these sets all had the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements, then sets subtraction should prove that claim. And yet A-B=C. That means that Set A has more elements than both sets B and C. And more elements means it has a higher cardinality. Only mental gymnastics can get around that fact.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Aleta- Aleta said that subtracting infinite sets is not allowed and yet could not provide any support for her claim. And yes, Cantor was wrong and there isn't any way to support his claims. However I have found a way to refute his claims. Cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set. Set subtraction proves that the cardinalities of certain countably infinite sets are different. Cantor offered a kluge to get around that. However his alleged "one-to-one correspondence" fails in many cases as there is more than one way to correlate the two sets- one natural and one that is artificial. Also no one can say what the utility is for Cantor's proclamation. Meaning saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless and meaningless and saying that they do not have the same cardinality changes nothing but text books. It also makes everything equal, meaning we use the same correlation for determining if one set is a proper subset of another as we would for determining the relative cardinality of the sets. Cantor's mapping function actually gives us the relative cardinality. Not that Aleta will understand any of that.Virgil Cain
March 7, 2016
March
03
Mar
7
07
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
1 24 25 26 27 28 48

Leave a Reply