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
KF, Since this process is beginningless, it cannot be described by an algorithm. I have already given all relevant details of the manager's tour: He was in room number -n, n seconds ago, for every natural number n. Clearly no rooms were missed, and the tour ends at the present. Note that there is no analog to the "ellipses of endlessness" in the HH. Edit: No ω's either.daveS
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Aleta, I have pointed out the concern and how it comes out given the implicit sub axiom of ellipsis of endlessness. Notice, I have shown that no step by step unlimited process can exhaust the endless [at any k, k+1 etc the process starts over again from effective start point and cannot span], so there is an implicit axiom that does the work. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
DS, set up the algorithm and show it. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
kf writes, "Just a refocus on context." No, just a rehash of things already said multiple times, without addressing my main points in 253: a simple proof that all numbers in N are finite, which fails only if there is some third kind of number in N (not finite but not transfinite) that "reflects transfinite nature" and is somehow "beyond the ellipsis" yet still in N. However, kf doesn't address the issue of trying to mathematically supply some specifics about these numbers, or any other part of what he thinks exists if all natural numbers aren't finite. So, kf has a intuitive concern about something ("ending endlessness?"), but isn't able to specifically or mathematically give it any coherence. I've tried pretty hard to understand his perspective, but that's my summary of the situation. Since it doesn't look like there will be any further progress, I believe (again) that this is the end of the discussion.Aleta
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
KF,
We need to live with a world that manifests an inherently finite past succession to date.
However, assuming an infinite past, the manager of the Hilbert Hotel could, proceeding at a rate of one room per second, complete the inspection of every room today. Recall that this is a beginningless tour, not an endless tour.daveS
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
F/N: all of this points to the issue of claimed or implied actual completion of the endless, which is where we started. Viewing the cosmos as causal succession: . . . C_k --> C_k+1 --> . . . C_n, now we see that a causal succession embeds a succession of states. Is the LHS ellipsis a completed EoE so that we are in the zone w + g i.e. the past was transfinite? Nope, as EoE cannot be bridged or traversed in finite steps. Language alone is already trying to warn us. A finitely remote initial point is indicated, as was discussed already. This is just a contextual reminder. Nor does it work to say at any p in the past we are only finitely remote onwards from k and we can repeat endlessly: . . . C_p --> C_p+1 --> . . . C_k --> C_k+1 --> . . . C_n, now No, the ellipsis on the LHS is still there and would still be endless. Yet worse is the case where one implies an endless causal succession in the past to the present, which if it means anything means that for some p': . . . EoE . . . C_p' --> C_p'+1 --> . . . EoE . . . C_k --> C_k+1 --> . . . C_n, now Ending the endless is a fallacy. If you doubt this, kindly show such an actual step by step completion or algorithm that can bridge the implied transfinite span in steps. We need to live with a world that manifests an inherently finite past succession to date. A world that strongly points to a beginning, where -- let's augment -- a Root R gives rise to the beginning B, from which temporal-spatial causal succession proceeds: R:B –-> . . . C_k –> C_k+1 –> . . . C_n, now Where, further augmenting, R is a necessary being root. Just a refocus on context. KFkairosfocus
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Aleta: I have pointed out in 217 above, two days back, how an inductive proof simply postpones the point of making the ellipsis of endlessness, so that it is unlimited but does not span the endless. Such a proof is good enough for showing that for any particular n we please, some C(n) will be true as it rests on C(0) or C(1) and shows that C(k) => C(k+1), but an endless loop that advances in steps is still incapable of actually spanning the transfinite. Indeed, take some arbitrary k of very high value, then proceed to k+1 etc. Then, put in correspondence with the beginning of the sequence count C(0), C(1) etc. That is, we have a proof that after k we have not made any material progress towards the transfinite zone. Instead, we rely on the ellipsis of endlessness and say the potentially infinite transfers to the set of all n. That is an imposition, in fact what was shown was that for an unlimited range C(n) will hold, but not that it has spanned the transfinite. Normally, that is of no consequence, we in effect have an axiom -- or a sub-axiom -- imposed similar to the parallel lines one in classical Euclidean Geometry. However, in the particular case, we are dealing with the set of counting numbers itself. It is this set that we rely on to count and to take in all possible counts, and which the ellipsis of endlessness (note my repeated emphatic use of this full description and abbreviation EoE*) shows must continue endlessly. That endlessness is where the transfinite nature of its cardinality comes from. As already, repeatedly, pointed out, we then follow the pattern of the finite and assign a novel number w as the successor to the endless succession: {0,1,2 . . . EoE . . .} --> w does not pop transfinite-ness out of thin air, it is already present in the LHS, in the EoE. Indeed, that is what the successor operation repeatedly shows, e.g. (as was actually used above) we see how {0,1,2,3,4} --> 5 by way of: {} --> 0 {0} --> 1 {0,1} --> 2 etc. does not pop five-ness out of thin air on the RHS but labels a phenomenon inextricably present on the LHS. But, again, the set with the EoE is the set we use to count, and it is its successive members that create its span, right through the ellipsis. If all of its members are finite per the imposition of the axiom of completion of the EoE (and I know I am giving a novel, descriptive label), then we have a paradox at best, that a string of inherently finite incrementing counting sets is transfinite. But,
if . . .
p1: the string is created by finitely steps to have in it a finite value so far,
then . . .
c1: there is not endlessness.
While, if . . .
p2: the string has gone to endlessness,
then . . .
c2: the endless degree of steps must find itself reflected in the substance of the counting sets in it.
where also . . .
c3: the counting sets so far are all always collected on the LHS
That is one thing that 217 showed, by showing the presence of a copy of the set so far at any given count in the LHS list of successive counting sets and their numeral representations. Allow me to copy that discussion, clipping 217:
START –> 1] Initiating Feed: Initial condition: {} –> 0 ===> LOGIC MACHINE, LM Initialise LM space for storing current counting set list { . . . }, here, initially to empty set then on increment to immediately following successors to go through 1, 2, . . . EoE . . . Initialise LM space for storing current assigned numeral for current counting set, here, the empty set Initialise printer, confirm ready Go on to fetch, decode, execute . . . 2] LM-0: Set LM counter –> 0 Print “{“, print list from counting sequence to date, comma separated values, print “} –>”, print [counter contents]// gives counting set assignment and states the successor Increment printer output sheet for next line. Go on to fetch, decode, execute . . . 3] LM-next case: Increment LM counter value using standard, place value notation as stored in the machine Extend LM space for storing current counting set list { . . . }, to include newly incremented counter value // extends the counting set for the onward successor Print “{“, print just extended list from counting sequence to date, comma separated values, print “} –>”, print [current counter contents] // prints the result with the new counting set, preparatory to the onward successor Increment printer output sheet for next line. Go on to fetch, decode, execute . . . 4] Continue: Go on to fetch, decode, execute code block 3 just above.
This process is unlimited but inevitably is finite and however rapidly executed CANNOT exhaust and end the endless. Step 4 guarantees that, by imposing an endless loop. Endless loops are great for the main machine process in a computer, but these by definition are open ended and incomplete up to imposing a close down interrupt by shutting down the system or yanking the plug etc. And, this is in effect a proof by induction on initial case plus chaining logic plus standard result process at each step, here an algorithm rather than churning out the result of a formula etc. Which, we must recognise as unlimited but not ending the endless. And as an internal loop were it to do so the “final” printed set would be the whole endless set, nested. We RELIABLY produce instead an unending chain of finite counting sets but we do not have ability to exhaust the set as a whole. We revert to ellipsis of endlessness and collect the whole in a set we term the natural numbers big-N, giving its successor the finite symbolic numeral omega, then we start over again at transfinite level and proceed. Indeed the above exercise (it is patently code-able, save for the implications for storage) can be modified to execute that and to terminate at a suitable point after listing the ordinals in the compressed way say Wolfram did. That is a terminating, finite, exhaustively computable process that exploits the ellipsis of endlessness.
As you can see, the axiom of the EoE is being used to decide the matter, carrying the whole weight of the conclusion that the counting sets are all finite but their span is transfinite. That is a big weight for a single -- and often implicit -- premise to carry. I suggest that what is shown is that there is an unlimited succession of incrementally lengthening counting sets which cannot be completed by a succession of actual successive steps, but we use a symbol, the EoE, to represent that there is a potentially infinite process here. Often we then have to address things like partial sums and error terms, showing that beyond a given point the onward difference to endlessness would be within a certain error band. That again uses EoE. It also implies that onward terms taper into infinitesimals trending to 0 such that the onward sum is within error bands. Or, in epsilon delta terms, the sequence of partial sums will be within some delta neighbourhood of the limit as pushed forward. Infinitesimals lurk, even when we find ways to avoid talking about them: he who must not be named and all of that. We need it, but we should be aware that we are tickling a dragon's tail. On the case in view, we do not have a sequence of partial sums approaching a limit, we have a limitless expansion, indeed this ordered set gives us the metric for endlessness. For us to go to the RHS and assign w, the endlessness has to appear in successive subsets hidden under the EoE; especially as w is not the successor to any one given value, it is a recognised successor to the process as a whole. That is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of concluding that all subsets collected in succession are finite, to endless extent. A more direct conclusion is that to any degree we can complete the count succession, it will be finite, but the process is endless. And we posit a symbol and successor for that endless collection, w. When we term w the first transfinite ordinal and assign it as beyond the natural counting numbers, that is a definition that has to face the paradox above. We have to live with it, but should recognise it. Let me highlight, a summary of what I am comfortable with:
Finite counting numbers extend without limit, we cannot count out and list the set that collects such numbers [i.e. it is a fallacy to assert or imply ending the endless in successive steps], the set as a whole can be symbolised by using EoE, and has cardinality first degree of endlessness. That first degree endlessness is symbolised as aleph null, and we collect the sets in succession as a whole from 0 and assign a fresh number that succeeds, w -- which we explicitly recognise as transfinite. I think we should be cautious, then in using ordinary mathematical induction and the axiom of EoE to then say all naturals are finite and yet the set as a whole -- composed by incremental succession such that the counting sets lurking under the symbols stretch out with the scale of the whole -- is transfinite. At minimum, the implicit premise of EoE should be explained and the weight it carries should be disclosed.
Of course, here is the axiom of infinity in its usual simple form:
There is a set I that contains{} --> 0 as an element, and for each a (an element in I), the set a UNION {a} is also in I.
That is, starting from {} --> 0, we collect in succession the preceding sets and extend endlessly. Such crucially depends on EoE to propagate to the full set. A set that as we see is inherently not completed by stepwise succession. So the [sub-]axiom of the ellipsis of endlessness is carrying a lot of weight. Which, we should duly note. And in turn that allows us to answer VC's concern: N: 0, 1, 2, . . . n . . . EoE . . . Multiply each element by 2: E: 0, 2, 4, . . . 2n . . . EoE . . . That is this is a disguised form of the whole set thanks to EoE. Likewise, transform each n in N to 2n + 1: O: 1, 3, 5 . . . 2n + 1 . . . EoE . . . Again, a disguised form thanks to EoE. So, the three sets are in mutual 1:1 match. Likewise, shift k: N: 0, 1, 2 . . . EoE . . . s_K: k (= k + 0), k + 1, k + 2 . . . EoE . . . This is just a k-shifted transform of the same fundamental set. The symbols have changed but the sets are all countable and transfinite per EoE. They are fundamentally the same. There is self-similarity of sub-sets, a sort of fractal self-repeating in the smaller pattern in the loose sense. And so, when Cantor et al took the paradox and said, okay when a proper subset can be matched 1:1 with the set of counting numbers that is a way to recognise its transfinite nature, it opened up a new world. Of course, VC's counters A and B with an underlying 1-second clock feed are extensions of the algorithm clipped from 217 above with one (say B) at a half-rate count, in effect there is an inner loop that sets up a 2-count then transfer to the counting register. With a common start B will run at more or less half the count of A to unlimited extent. Both are endless processes and show that a stepwise succession cannot complete endlessness. It also applies the [sub-]axiom of EoE and concludes that for any clock tick k, counter A will read k and counter B roughly or exactly half of k. But both are headed to the same transfinite zone. Just, B is the proverbial slow boat to China. Where at any given time, we will always be pointing onwards to a potential infinity. EoE is important. KF *PS: I think I should quietly note: your highlighting as if typical of an obvious typo in such a context above (pardon, I will sometimes make such errors and fail to spot/correct them), per fair comment, does not help the discussion. That is like the verbal slip of speaking of a far end rather than zone; also highlighted. Sorry for slips and typos, but they are no more than that. Just yesterday I found myself saying how decisions are *maken,* an inadvertent blend of made and taken. Oopsie, but worth a chuckle.kairosfocus
February 15, 2016
February
02
Feb
15
15
2016
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Why do my detractors think that just repeating what I am refuting refutes me? Talk about being mental midgets...Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Aleta, You are just a blind parrot blowhard. I know what Cantor said. I also know that what I said refutes him. And I know that what you said about set subtraction of infinite sets is total BS. These represent two countably infinite sets: Two counters- one counts every second and the other counts every other second. The first counter will always have a higher count (double or close to it) than the second- always and forever. You lose.Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Virgil, I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. Try reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set. I quote,
For example, there are infinitely many odd integers, infinitely many even integers, and (hence) infinitely many integers overall. However, it turns out that the number of even integers, which is the same as the number of odd integers, is also the same as the number of integers overall.
That's it for me with you.Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Aleta, You don't have an argument. Just saying "You can’t use “standard set subtraction” on infinite sets", is meaningless. You actually have to make a case and you cannot. ALSO- Two counters- one counts every second and the other counts every other second. The first counter will always have a higher count (double or close to it) than the second- always and forever. That is just another proof of my case.Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Virgil, your logic in 261 is wrong. You can't use "standard set subtraction" on infinite sets. There are just as many positive evens {2, 4,6, ...) as there are positive integers [1, 2, 3, ...]. This is about as foundational of a universally accepted fact about infinite sets as there is. Sets A, B, and C in your example all have the same cardinality - aleph null, the first transfinite number, the first type of level or infinity.Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Two counters- one counts every second and the other counts every other second. The first counter will always have a higher count (double or close to it) than the second- always and forever.Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Hi Aleta- First please respond to my post with something of substance and then I will get to your question.Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Hi Virgil. Every other whole number is even. Does that mean there are twice as many whole numbers as evens? What do you think?Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Aleta:
Can you at least entertain the possibility that your intuition is wrong, and that Cantor et al are right?
Cantor leads to logical inconsistencies. For example Cantor said that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements. Yet standard set subtraction proves that is not so: Let set A = {0,1,2,3,4,5,...} Let set B = {1,3,5,7,9,11,...} Let set C = {0.2.4.6.8.10,...} A - B = C, proving that all countably infinite sets do not have the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements. And only contrived mental gymnastics can get around that fact.Virgil Cain
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
kf writes,
Aleta, the naturals span to endlessness. Yes, we conceive the endlessness whole and see this as expressing what we sum up as a first transfinite, but that character is in the set of whole counting numbers.
I don't believe this addresses either of my questions: what is wrong with my proof that all naturals are finite, and if you think otherwise, can you be specific about the nature of these non-finite natural numbers that are "past the ellipse." Saying that set of the counting numbers has a transfinite character does not say anything specific about the particular numbers in the set. If they all aren't finite, what are they? Also, I don't know why you addressed the continuum - that doesn't bear on the topic of the naturals.Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, passing by a moment, the law of the excluded middle is one of the three pivotal principles connected to distinct identity that are rightly termed laws of thought or first principles of right reason. That’s why I will also have to fish around to see if there is not a distinct identity in some relevant sense. KF
Well, as you stated, this smooth infinitesimal analysis is regarded as just as rigorous as "standard" analysis. It appears this example shows that we need not restrict ourselves to classical logic only when doing mathematics. I assume there are many other such examples. [Edit: In fact I know there are, but I haven't looked into this much.] If you can point out a real mathematical issue, that is, an instance where this approach yields incorrect results, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I see no problems.daveS
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Aleta, the naturals span to endlessness. Yes, we conceive the endlessness whole and see this as expressing what we sum up as a first transfinite, but that character is in the set of whole counting numbers. As for continuum, I suggest the point is that for any arbitrary pair of close members of R there will always be more between. That will include say 1/pi in the relevant interval and in fact 1/pi^n where n is a whole number, all of which are not rationals. Rationals are reals but not all reals are rationals. KF PS: I spoke of LEM st aside for smooth infinitesimal analysis, cf Bell et al. That's a third approach.kairosfocus
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
DS, passing by a moment, the law of the excluded middle is one of the three pivotal principles connected to distinct identity that are rightly termed laws of thought or first principles of right reason. That's why I will also have to fish around to see if there is not a distinct identity in some relevant sense. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
KF, Thanks for the reference. And yes, I stand corrected, the wikipedia entry on smooth infinitesimal analysis does say it is based on logic without the law of the excluded middle. I wouldn't characterize that as a "red flag", however.daveS
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
What is the concern? You keep saying that, but have no specifics. If every milepost isn't finite, then what is the nature of a non-finite natural number? I ask the following: 1. Address my proof in 253 above - how is it invalid? 2. If every milepost isn't finite, then what is the nature of a non-finite natural number? Be specific about that. 3. Answer the bolded question. Can you even entertain the possibility that your intuitive concern is wrong, and that established mathematics is right? [I see that you later answered this question in a P.S., so you can ignore this.] [edited to more clearly state three questions.]Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Aleta, please note the ellipsis of endlessness is on the LHS of the definition of w as successor. That is it is embedded in the set. That is where my concern is. W exists as summarising the order type of the endlessness, it is not popping that into existence out of thin air. If the set were not of transfinite span, w would not be of first order transfinite cardinality. And being or transfinite span with every mile post being finite is at minimum a concern. KF PS: The fact that I am not asserting contradiction but instead concern suffices to show I am aware that my concern may be wrong, but needs good reason to see why. And, in this general context Cantor was also wrong on key matters, hence the issue of naive set theory vs ZFC. (In short, no authority is better than his/her facts and reasoning backed up by underlying assumptions; I here reveal my Protestant heritage.)kairosfocus
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
kf, you write,
For, the range of counting numbers as a whole is said to be endless and for that to be it seems “intuitively” that it should have in it members that reflect transfinite nature in themselves.
You're intuition is wrong, I think. You've already said that w, the first transfinite number, is not in N. Now you say your intuition says that there should be members of N that "reflect transfinite nature" (whatever that might mean.) That's a contradiction right there. In math, proofs and precise steps of argument are needed - intuition doesn't override proof. I've offered the following proof, and asked you why you don't think it is valid 1. Either all natural numbers are finite, or there are transfinite numbers in N. 2. w (or the corresponding aleph null) is the first transfinite numbers: w is the ordinal successor of the natural numbers 3. w is not in N 4. Therefore, there are no transfinite numbers in N 5. Therefore, all natural numbers are finite. Your intuition tells you there needs to be some kind of other number between finite and w, something that "reflects transfinite nature", that is in N, but you can offer no specifics about what that might mean. If you could provide mathematical justification for this notion (as opposed to vague concerns about "ending the endless"), you would re-write mathematics. So here's a question: Can you at least entertain the possibility that your intuition is wrong, and that Cantor et al are right?Aleta
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
DS, Bell's approach is not the rough and ready survival of the C17-18 approach that still sometimes surfaces, but another approach that addresses the issue of a point array and smoothness with nilpotent infinitesimals, etc. As one illustration, an infinitesimal is viewed as such that its square will be zero, an extension of the concept that was classically put as, the higher order terms are vanishingly small relative to first order infinitesimals, dx >> [dx]^2. Where obviously [10^-300]^2 = 10^-600, which is vanishingly small for most practical purposes relative to the original scale, though obviously this is a finite example; the point is the number of orders of mag down on unity will double on squaring. It is said to be just as rigorous as the other approaches, save that there is a workaround on LEM, which on what I gather would typically obtain WRT a phenomenon if there is some fuzziness or superposition in it so that distinct contrasts of W = {A | ~A} do not obtain. That is, there are now at least three significant schools of thought that provide alternative perspectives on Calculus foundations. KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Aleta, forgive mis-stating, I used a spatial metaphor and meant to refer to the far "zone" where the ellipsis of endlessness would have to be traversed if a step by step process wee employed. Perilously close to contradiction is relative to the relationship between paradox and contradiction. Paradoxes routinely run close and may seem incongruous, but sometimes they do go over into contradiction, and one cannot be sure on an initial glance, or even after much close study. I have said it in many ways, that if all naturals are finite, that runs close to contradiction by way of ending the endless. For, the range of counting numbers as a whole is said to be endless and for that to be it seems "intuitively" that it should have in it members that reflect transfinite nature in themselves. Think, innate mile markers on a road built by a programed step by step machine [or maybe a machine capable of simultaneously creating the road from the origin to the far zone], here an endless linear one in a flat space. If the road is endless, will the markers ALL be at finite distances from the origin at say the famous Kingston Parish Church point of departure? If so, is that not inherently a limitation, an implicit finite terminus? Or, is there a way to say the roadbuilding machine runs out of steam but the road picks up at the far zone at "mile marker" w and so forth? If not, how can we have every marker at finitely remote distance AND at the same time, the road with the markers is endless? KFkairosfocus
February 14, 2016
February
02
Feb
14
14
2016
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, it gets worse, do points “touch” — thus no gaps — and where is the continuum.
I don't know what points "touching" would mean. I also believe that the hyperreals do form a linear continuum, just as R does.
Smooth Infinitesimal analysis, at price of workarounds to the LEM, puts in in effect crudely pico segments of infinitesimal scale.
If you're talking about the "sloppy calculus" that is sometimes taught using infinitesimals, it is a bit of a cheat, but I suppose it's useful in some situations. I was never taught calculus that way, so I don't have much to say about it. On the other hand, the version based on nonstandard analysis is absolutely rigorous, with no logical problems.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
There is no "far end". I give up! (But I've said that before, and then have come back, so we'll see.) And, what does perilously close to a contradiction mean? What contradiction? Why can't you be more precise. This is math. What is the contradiction?Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Aleta, the issue is perilous closeness to a contradiction between everybody finite -- including the "far end" of the succession of counting sets, and the set is transfinite as the EoE shows. This is a way to try to put it. The connexion to timeline of cosmos is through the series so the math can be looked at on its own, implications lie where they fly. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
DS, it gets worse, do points "touch" -- thus no gaps -- and where is the continuum. The definition of continuum I learned way back was, effectively, between distinct neighbour points, you can always insert an intervening one, which strictly implies pico gaps at the bottom; oh boy. (one oddity, cynically suggest continuum is a myth and accept the infinitesimals as fitting the "final" gap when reduction goes to EoE, a monad or its kissing cousin.) Not nice. Smooth Infinitesimal analysis, at price of workarounds to the LEM, puts in in effect crudely pico segments of infinitesimal scale. They get us to at that scale curves are concatenations of straight segments. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
1 37 38 39 40 41 48

Leave a Reply