Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.

Durston:

>>To  avoid  the  theological  and  philosophical  implications  of  a  beginning  for the  universe,  some  naturalists  such  as  Sean  Carroll  suggest  that  all  we  need  to  do  is  build  a  successful  mathematical  model  of  the  universe  where  time  t runs  from  minus  infinity  to  positive  infinity. Although  there  is  no  problem  in  having  t run  from  minus  infinity  to  plus  infinity with  a  mathematical  model,  the real past  history  of  the  universe  cannot  be  a  completed  infinity  of  seconds  that  elapsed,  one  second  at  a  time. There  are at  least  two  problems.  First,  an  infinite  real  past  requires  a  completed  infinity, which  is  a  single  object and  does  not  describe  how  history  actually  unfolds.  Second,  it  is  impossible  to  count  down  from  negative  infinity  without  encountering the  problem  of  a  potential infinity  that  never  actually  reaches  infinity. For  the  real  world,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  first  event  that  occurred  a  finite  amount  of  time  ago  in  the  past . . . [More] >>

Craig:

>Strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say, as you put it, that a “beginningless causal chain would be (or form) an actually infinite set.” Sets, if they exist, are abstract objects and so should not be identified with the series of events in time. Using what I would regard as the useful fiction of a set, I suppose we could say that the set of past events is an infinite set if the series of past events is beginningless. But I prefer simply to say that if the temporal series of events is beginningless, then the number of past events is infinite or that there has occurred an infinite number of past events . . . .

It might be said that at least there have been past events, and so they can be numbered. But by the same token there will be future events, so why can they not be numbered? Accordingly, one might be tempted to say that in an endless future there will be an actually infinite number of events, just as in a beginningless past there have been an actually infinite number of events. But in a sense that assertion is false; for there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity. The only sense in which there will be an infinite number of events is that the series of events will go toward infinity as a limit.

But that is the concept of a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Here the objectivity of temporal becoming makes itself felt. For as a result of the arrow of time, the series of events later than any arbitrarily selected past event is properly to be regarded as potentially infinite, that is to say, finite but indefinitely increasing toward infinity as a limit. The situation, significantly, is not symmetrical: as we have seen, the series of events earlier than any arbitrarily selected future event cannot properly be regarded as potentially infinite. So when we say that the number of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today ℵ0 events have elapsed. But when we say that the number of future events is infinite, we do not mean that ℵ0 events will elapse, for that is false. [More]>>

Food for further thought. END

PS: As issues on numbers etc have become a major focus for discussion, HT DS here is a presentation of the overview:

unity

Where also, this continuum result is useful:

unified_continuum

PPS: As a blue vs pink punched paper tape example is used below, cf the real world machines

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

and the abstraction for mathematical operations:

punchtapes_1-1

Note as well a Turing Machine physical model:

Turing_Machine_Model_Davey_2012

and its abstracted operational form for Mathematical analysis:

turing_machine

F/N: HT BA77, let us try to embed a video: XXXX nope, fails XXXX so instead let us instead link the vid page.

Comments
DaveS #1322
(...) many Scriptural teachings at kgov.com/time showing that God exists in time, therefore we teach that God has not existed atemporally outside of time and then entered time, but rather, that His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, from ancient times, (...)
God eternally existing in time would mean that time is more fundamental than God, which is incoherent. It would pose the question: "where did time (and space) come from?" and God would not be candidate as a cause. God cannot be the foundation of all reality and (eternally) be enclosed by time.
Because of the impossibility of time itself being created (...)
Big bang?Origenes
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, please look at the numbers tree in the OP. 0 and neighbourhood is the near zone, you then face endlessness and successors starting at w on. KF
If we're working in the surreal numbers, are ω - 1, ω - 2, and so on also in the far zone?
The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time.
Hmm. I don't know that Enyart would agree; he apparently believes God exists in time and has existed for an actual infinity of time. To be honest, I didn't find the Morriston paper that persuasive, however. This does at least show there is some diversity of opinion even among Christians regarding an infinite past.daveS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time.kairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
DS, please look at the numbers tree in the OP. 0 and neighbourhood is the near zone, you then face endlessness and successors starting at w on. KF KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Interestingly, Bob Enyart, who posts here occasionally, has done a show on this topic. The title of the webpage: "God crossed an actual infinity of time through the beginningless past".
Age Old Philosophical Question Answered: Bob Enyart answers the age old philosophical objection to countless Bible passages that present God as having existed throughout eternity past. Because of the impossibility of time itself being created, and by the many, many Scriptural teachings at kgov.com/time showing that God exists in time, therefore we teach that God has not existed atemporally outside of time and then entered time, but rather, that His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting, from ancient times, the everlasting God who continues forever, from before the ages of the ages, He who is and who was and who is to come, who remains forever, the everlasting Father, whose years never end, from everlasting to everlasting, and of His kingdom there will be no end.
Further down the page:
God has existed through the "beginningless past" (Morriston, 2010, Faith and Philosophy, pp. 439-450). Christian theologians who object to this typically do so by being inconsistent, and thus, their objection is easily neutralized, and then answered.
Here's a paper by Morriston on the subject (I haven't read it yet) entitled "Beginningless Past, Endless Future, Actual Finite". The abstract:
One of the principal lines of argument deployed by the friends of the kalam cosmological argument against the possibility of a beginningless series of events is a quite general argument against the possibility of an actual infinite. The principal thesis of the present paper is that if this argument worked as advertised, parallel considerations would force us to conclude, not merely that a series of discrete, successive events must have a first member, but also that such a series must have a final member. Anyone who thinks that an endless series of events is possible must therefore reject this popular line of argument against the possibility of an actual infinite.
daveS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
KF, Is it accurate to say your "far zone" consists of all ordinals ω and larger?daveS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Aleta, there is an ellipsis of endlessness that commonly crops up, I add e.g. {0,1,2 . . . }. There is such a thing as beyond that ellipsis starting with w as can be seen in the tree of surreals appended to the OP. The far zone from counting numbers near zero is what happens in and beyond that ellipsis of endlessness. Which the surreals do highlight in a reasonable framework. The onward points then are, the spanning or traversal of such endlessness, which it is evident cannot be executed in finite stage steps as would be required for an infinite past of causally connected stages but mainly as a consequence of the involved logic of structure and quantity. In that wider context, there was a proposal that implies that there are infinitely many +1 step successive finite natural numbers ranging up from 0, which I find to be at best paradoxical, for cause. There is more but there is no need to go on repeating much the same as has already been said. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
I don’t think that is true. The concern about an infinite past is always in the back of his mind, I’m sure, but a great deal of what he has said has been about some unorthodox notions about the pure mathematics of the natural numbers, such as that “beyond the ellipsis” there is a “far zone”, etc. I don’t believe that he thinks “infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct.”
Ok, well I'll leave KF to address whether or not that is the case. Some of the math stuff that has been discussed lies clearly outside my knowledge and understanding and I find it best to be up-front when that is the case. But from what I've understood of what he's written, the concern about an infinite past has been closer to the front of his mind than the back, and the math related stuff he has been discussing has seemed to be offered in the larger context of how impossible it would be to have an infinity in the real world, which is what an infinite past would be.
In respect to the point about starting from infinity, you write, “I disagree with you that I’m confused.” My apologies for misunderstanding you. We are in agreement that “starting from infinity” is meaningless.
Not a problem. It was an understandable misunderstanding. It would obviously become burdensome on my part if I had to specify every time I make a statement of a certain sort that it is made for the purpose of drawing out the absurdity of some situation, or that some scenario would need to be described with the words I'm using even though the words amount to a nonsensical statement, so I've just used a shorthand hoping that my ultimate meaning is clear from prior posts, but clearly that's not always the case.HeKS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Thanks, HeKS.
as far as I can tell, KF has all along been discussing this issue of infinity as it relates to the coherence of a real-world instantiation in the form of an infinite past-time. He wrote the OP and that’s pretty clearly the issue he has been trying to discuss, so I’m not sure what the argument is about for you and ellazimm if your point is merely that infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct, as I don’t think KF has argued otherwise.
I don't think that is true. The concern about an infinite past is always in the back of his mind, I'm sure, but a great deal of what he has said has been about some unorthodox notions about the pure mathematics of the natural numbers, such as that "beyond the ellipsis" there is a "far zone", etc. I don't believe that he thinks "infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct." In respect to the point about starting from infinity, you write, "I disagree with you that I’m confused." My apologies for misunderstanding you. We are in agreement that "starting from infinity" is meaningless.Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Aleta, Thanks for your response. You said:
So the language you propose is a bit more accurate because it fleshes out a bit more what the definition of infinite is. (An aside, though: even the phrase you use “towards infinity as a limit” is informal and not truly accurate, as infinity is not really a place that can be a limit. It would be more accurate to just say “without limit.”)
I agree. I wasn't actually intending to suggest that it was infinity itself that was the limit, but that the limit of our counted set can continually increase towards infinity. Having said that, I realize upon rereading that my wording suggested it was infinity that was the actual limit, so I should have been even more careful about the way I worded that. You said:
In any discussion, different people may have different ideas about what the thread is about.
Fair enough. However, I was speaking with reference to the OP. Of course, you are free to add to the discussion on any aspect of the relevant issue you choose, but what I was ultimately trying to get at is that, as far as I can tell, KF has all along been discussing this issue of infinity as it relates to the coherence of a real-world instantiation in the form of an infinite past-time. He wrote the OP and that's pretty clearly the issue he has been trying to discuss, so I'm not sure what the argument is about for you and ellazimm if your point is merely that infinity works just fine as a purely mathematical construct, as I don't think KF has argued otherwise.
The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. … It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.
I’m afraid this quote contains one of the key confusions in the discussion. The phrase “from infinity” makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from. You are falling prey here to the same thing you cautioned me against above when you suggested we be more precise about what infinite means on the number line, confusing an informal way of talking with the more accurate mathematical idea.
I disagree with you that I'm confused. I completely agree with you that "[t]he phrase 'from infinity' makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from." Please don't take my use of that phrase or the statement that "it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity" to suggest this was a coherent concept or a thing that could happen. My point all along in this thread has specifically been that such a notion makes absolutely no sense and ultimately amounts to word salad. In fact, I specifically said this in my comment to you:
The man’s statement [about descending from infinity], and the entire scenario it relates to, is utterly nonsensical. It is absurd.
My reason for using the phrases is to draw out that claims of having arrived at the present from the infinite reaches of a beginningless past amount to making statements of the sort that you are saying (with my full agreement) make no sense. Statements about the feasibility of doing it are basically meaningless, because the entire notion is nonsensical. You said:
You write, “Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.” No, “Getting from infinity to some finite number” is, as they say, not even wrong. The statement makes no mathematical sense.
Thanks for the info. As I said, at least as the issue relates to the real world I have been saying all along that the idea doesn't make any sense at all, but I was uncertain as to whether there might be some mathematical formality that could in some way represent such a thing, however absurd it is in reality.HeKS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Hi HeKS. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. In respect to the question, "1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers," you write,
but as it is worded I find it has the potential to confuse the real issues, which are decidedly not purely mathematical. The illustrations, like that of the ladder, were intended to serve a few different purposes, but the ultimate purpose I had in mind in my comments was to stress the importance of maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities.
I'm sorry the question seems confusing, but I think I made it clear that this question is about pure math when I wrote "Note: this is a purely mathematical question. It is not about time, or ladders, or tapes – just math." I know you are unlikely to have followed all my posts on this, but I am a strong advocate for doing exactly as you say, "maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities." You write,
After all, there is not an actually existing infinite set of integers just sitting around out there somewhere, and so we must question what is meant by the word “are” in your claim, since it would normally be a reference to existence. I think a more accurate way of stating matters would be to say that there is no arbitrarily large integer that would be the largest possible integer, and so the integers can continuously increase from the zero point towards infinity as a limit in both the positive and negative directions.
The question of in what sense mathematical concepts exist is of interest, but not the topic of this thread. Mathematicians of all philosophical and religious perspectives work with perfect circles and pi and infinite sets as they are defined within the symbolic world of math: they all agree that those concepts exist as part of those mathematically systems and as part of our ability to apprehend those concepts. That is what I mean by "exist" and "are". I'm making no claims about their metaphysical nature nor about any physical representation. Also, I agree with you that there are more accurate ways to state what we mean by "infinite", but, as with many concepts, we informally use a word or phrase that we all know has a more precise meaning. For instance, in calculus we start by stressing the idea of limit: for instance, in discussing the series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ..., we stress that the limit of this series as n goes to infinity is 1, but that any partial sum (where we stop at some finite n) is not 1: informally, we say we "get infinitely close to 1". However, later in the year we may say that the sum of that series is 1, because, since we understand the more precise meaning, we can shortcut the language. So the language you propose is a bit more accurate because it fleshes out a bit more what the definition of infinite is. (An aside, though: even the phrase you use "towards infinity as a limit" is informal and not truly accurate, as infinity is not really a place that can be a limit. It would be more accurate to just say "without limit.") However, there is more than that. Cantor formalized the notion of infinity, and set in motion a whole branch of mathematics that goes beyond just trying to accurately describe numbers on a number line. He created a new kind of number, the transfinites, and named the particular order of infinite possessed by the integers as aleph null, and then discovered that there are other infinite numbers: some infinite numbers are bigger than others. So the integers are infinite with cardinality aleph null would be a more accurate statement for those familiar withe mathematics of infinite sets. You write,
The abstract concept of infinity can be used without problem by mathematicians, but that doesn’t mean that an infinity can be translated into a concrete and coherent reality in the world. And that is what this thread is about.
In any discussion, different people may have different ideas about what the thread is about. For kf, the connection of the topic to arguments about an infinite past are paramount. However, that topic has not been my interest. I've written a few posts about why I feel that way, but the vast majority of my interest is about the pure math. So when I say that the integers are infinite I am in no way discussing any possible connection of that statement with anything physically real. Translating "an infinity ... into a concrete and coherent reality in the world" is not what my involvement in the discussion is about. You write,
The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. ... It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics.
I'm afraid this quote contains one of the key confusions in the discussion. The phrase "from infinity" makes no sense. Infinity is not a place you can start from. You are falling prey here to the same thing you cautioned me against above when you suggested we be more precise about what infinite means on the number line, confusing an informal way of talking with the more accurate mathematical idea. You write, "Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics." No, "Getting from infinity to some finite number" is, as they say, not even wrong. The statement makes no mathematical sense. Returning to the topic of what is the discussion about, you write,
Aleta and ellazimm, you seem to keep saying that your interest is purely in the mathematical issues here and not in the issues that arise when translating the abstract concept of infinity into a real world case like an infinite past-time, and you seem to expect that people are engaging you on those terms. But looking to the OP, this thread is and always has been about the latter, not the former, so it kinda seems like we’re all sort of talking past each other here.
Your first sentence is accurate. My disagreement with the second sentence is that I think in a discussion people often limit their interest, and in fact it often useful to narrow the focus. I think it's reasonable to expect people who respond to me to accept that it is only the math I'm interested in. However, it should be clear that if one intends to apply math to the real world, one better have the math right, so discussing the pure math can be a necessary first step. For instance, as above, it one realizes that mathematically "getting from infinity to some finite number" is nonsensical, then one won't mistakenly try to apply that sentence to an application of the concept to a discussion about reality of whatever kind.Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Do you just mean significant in the world of abstract mathematics, or do you mean have consequences for the material, physical, actual world? Your response in 1314 doesn't make clear which you mean.Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Material in context means what makes a difference to decisions or analysis etc.kairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
kf, when you write,
"In that context, I again state, I find it at minimum paradoxical, and I fear it much worse than that, ...
what exactly do you fear? What would be "worse than paradoxical"? And, as asked before, when you write,
Hence, my suggestion that it may be wiser, sounder to highlight onward endlessness and circumscribe our conclusions by such, where that is material.
, what do you mean by material? Do you just mean significant, or do you mean have consequences for the material, physical, actual world?Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, I have answered with a context that makes the reason for my answer plain.
But you have not stated whether the steps I referred to in #1310 are a necessary part of the proof. Kindly tell us whether they are or are not.daveS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
DS, I have answered with a context that makes the reason for my answer plain. Chaining is implied in any induction process that uses case k to imply case k+1 and hangs the chain of implications on an initial case as a peg. k and k+1 are not just abstractions that operate above the realities of the initial case peg and that which depends on it. Where also -- per weakest link -- in a chain, the support is effectively instantly, necessarily present all along the line or the chain breaks. But there is a clear priority of dependence. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
KF, Please answer this specific question: Do you believe the steps P(1) → P(2), P(2) → P(3), and so forth are a necessary part of the proof I gave in #1303?daveS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
DS 1303, the chaining is generalised but hangs on the peg of the initial case. I do not know about domino metaphors but I can see a succession, chaining rule and an initial value, with a running index integer number generalised as k or n or whatever. A chain incorporates both succession and simultaneity, as the weakest link principle shows. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
F/N: I find it useful to cite Merriam Webster's summary, as well as AmHD and Collins, to draw out the sense of the term finite:
MW finite 1 a : having definite or definable limits a finite number of possibilities> b : having a limited nature or existence finite beings> 2 : completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought the finite velocity of light> 3 a : less than an arbitrary [--> but specific] positive integer [= counting set or natural number] and greater than the negative of that integer b : having a finite number of elements a finite set> Am HD: fi·nite (f??n?t?) adj. 1. a. Having bounds; limited [--> as in within or progressing to an end point that gives bounds] : a finite list of choices; our finite fossil fuel reserves. b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent. 2. Mathematics a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal. b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero. c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number. d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set. Collins: finite (?fa?na?t) adj 1. (Mathematics) bounded in magnitude or spatial or temporal extent: a finite difference. 2. (Mathematics) maths logic having a number of elements that is a natural number; able to be counted using the natural numbers less than some natural number. Compare denumerable, infinite4 3. a. limited or restricted in nature: human existence is finite. b. (as noun): the finite.
High quality dictionaries of course set out to summarise relevant usage. The issue here is that the finite will be within bounds set by some given specific natural, counting set based number. I add, the finite will be limited or bounded, often in a quantitative way such that a bounding number or structure, an end, can be given. One is 5 ft, 9 inches tall, or the radius of the observable cosmos is 45 bn Ly or something like that. Even vectors gave magnitudes comparable to a bounding sphere with a radius. Such values may then be assigned a next biggest whole counting number that bounds. Which makes it crucial to observe that this set of counting numbers itself continues endlessly so it has a far zone that is open-ended, unbounded, ever able to go on. But particular values k -- however large -- will always be exceeded by k+1 etc. Which brings to bear the issue of onward end-less-ness, as k, k+1 etc can be put in 1:1 match with 0,1,2 etc. The defined "first" transfinite ordinal w reflects that emergent quantitative phenomenon, first degree endlessness. It has no definable specific finite immediate predecessor z such that z + 1 = w. Instead any particular z will be exceeded by z+1 z+2 etc, i.e. the pattern continues. It is in this context that I have spoken, above, to the material significance of endlessness in understanding the set of natural counting numbers, and the distinction to be made between any particular value in the set k and the set as a whole. Where, in building the set, it is readily seen that per von Neumann et al, a counting set k +1 collects the counting sets 0 to k, and so shows the copy of the list so far principle. For simple illustration: {0,1,2,3,4} --> 5 Where {} --> 0 {0}--> 1 {0,1} --> 2 {0,1,2} --> 3 {0,1,2,3} --> 4 and so forth, without limit to stepwise +1 stage progression of these ordinals; usually shown by the ellipsis of endlessness, . . . This takes significance in speaking to an imagined completion -- note, imagined as opposed to actualised -- to endless extent, as on this, we would have to copy that endlessness into some element. But in fact, once we arrive at any given k, the onward endlessness prevails and we cannot successively actually complete the set, we may only point to the pattern and point on across the ellipsis of endlessness. All specific values, k, we can reach or state in notations giving explicit values (or -- as just shown -- even symbolically represent, e.g. k) will be finite and bounded by k+1 etc. But that then implies onward endlessness. (Which points to the first degree endlessness of the set and its cardinality aleph null.) As a result any chaining . . . cf here https://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/notes/transfinite/transfinite-a4.pdf . . . successive stepwise process that proceeds in finite stages whether +1 increments or something else, will never exhaust endlessness. We attain thus to a potential but not actualised infinite through such processes. To assert the infinite, we abstract from such and define the overall set by in effect pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness. This is evident in the way w is stated as order type of the set: {0,1,2 . . . } --> w However, this then affects how we handle ordinary mathematical induction when the induced conclusion is materially affected by endlessness. Let me highlight by setting off in a block:
Induction INHERENTLY chains using the chaining principle -- and chaining is acknowledged in the literature -- that case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there in that succession, however we may generalise from 0,1,2 etc to for all cases n; but also as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. That is why I find discomfort with assertions such as that per an induction, all natural counting set numbers are finite, and there is an infinity of such finite values. I would find that an infinite set of successive +1 separated values or sets from 0 will proceed to endlessness and by the copy list so far principle would then enfold at least one endless member. Instead, I suggest we cannot complete to endlessness and the conclusion is restricted by the reach-ability issue. That is, any particular natural counting number k that we may attain by k applications of a +1 successive increment starting from 0 [notice the number of edits distance metric implied] will be such that onward from k there are k+1, k+2 etc that allow us to put such in 1:1 correspondence with 0,1,2 etc without limit. That is, end-less-ness cannot be traversed in steps like that. Or, in things that build on such.
We can use stepwise chaining to say things about what we can reach, e.g. all such k's will be finite, but then that leaves the endlessness onward. To address it, we may impose a generalisation that points across the endlessness, but then when endlessness itself affects the relevant property it may be unsafe to infer from finite to endless and so infinite. I suggest, stating results of ordinary mathematical induction modestly as in terms of what we may reach in succession from 0 by finite stage steps, may be advisable. This points to transfinite induction and its proof strategy, e.g. as Wiki outlines for convenience:
Transfinite induction is an extension of [--> ordinary] mathematical induction to well-ordered sets, for example to sets of ordinal numbers or cardinal numbers. Let P(a) be a property defined for all ordinals a [--> a is any ordinal of any class]. Suppose that whenever P(b) is true for all b lt a [--> all predecessors to a], then P(a) is also true. [--> notice the much stronger successor claim] Then transfinite induction tells us that P is true for all ordinals. Usually the proof is broken down into three cases: Zero case: Prove that P(0) is true. Successor case: Prove that for any successor ordinal a+1, P(a+1) follows from P(a) (and, if necessary, P(b) for all b lt a). Limit case: Prove that for any limit ordinal l, P(l) follows from [P(b) for all b lt l]. All three cases are identical except for the type of ordinal considered. They do not formally need to be considered separately, but in practice the proofs are typically so different as to require separate presentations. Zero is sometimes considered a limit ordinal and then may sometimes be treated in proofs in the same case as limit ordinals.
Let me add, as that is easiest, that the bridge to the real world is pivotal and comes through the presence of quantity and structure in concrete reality constrained by distinct identity of a given entity A that allows a world partition W = {A |~A} such that A has core characteristics that must be mutually coherent and mark it as distinct from what is not A. For simplicity say A is a bright red ball sitting on a table. Consequently A is never something like a square circle as in all possible, i.e. coherent worlds, properties for squarishness and circularity cannot be met at one and the same time under same circumstances in a given entity. Where, Mathematicsis not a magical poofed- into- being abstract entity that may make up its rules arbitrarily. For instance just to use symbols it must respect distinct identity, and of course proof of C by showing contradiction on asserting ~C is a classic technique in the core of mathematics. No, Mathematics is the logical study of structure and quantity, starting with the pre-theoretic concept that logic is about good reasoning connected to reality by the premise of coherence and clarity. Thus, we start from distinct identity and recognise that from such world partition the LOI, LNC and LEM follow instantly and self evidently. Denial of distinct identity being absurd. In this context, mathematical concepts are accountable to recognisable realities on pain of descent into absurdities. And ending in confusion. That is why test cases that are [quasi-]physical are very relevant. And the messages of the pink/blue tapes or the endlessly high ladder with its foot on the ground at 0, etc are relevant. In particular, we cannot traverse endlessness in finite stage steps. Where, whether or no we are inclined to acknowledge them, chained finite stage steps appear in many contexts, the successive natural counting numbers from 0 and anything building on such succession in particular. Including, ordinary mathematical induction. In that context, I again state, I find it at minimum paradoxical, and I fear it much worse than that, to see the presentation of the argument that there are infinitely many finite, +1 successive natural counting numbers starting from 0. Especially i/l/o the copy of the chained set so far issue and the problem of onward endlessness. Where imposing generalisations by pointing across the ellipsis of endlessness does not provide any relief. Hence, my suggestion that it may be wiser, sounder to highlight onward endlessness and circumscribe our conclusions by such, where that is material. With this case as a key exemplar. KFkairosfocus
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Cabal @ 1306
To me, that is a demonstration that infinity is just a concept with no correspondence with reality. But, as a concept it may be very useful if you are into such things – I am not.
While there is no actual infinity, without the concept of something 'tending' towards mathematical infinity, many processes in science can't be calculated, so concept of infinity is crucial in modelling the real world.Me_Think
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
To the subject of infinity I'll only say it seems to me that infinity is a concept, not a reality. I don't see any reason why we can't have an infinte loop of infinity + 1. We may add any number of numbers to infiniy and we'd never reach the end. That's what infinity means, the quest is over. To me, that is a demonstration that infinity is just a concept with no correspondence with reality. But, as a concept it may be very useful if you are into such things - I am not. If we imagine an all-compassing, complete, catholic and total void, we have to assume that such a non-object is incompatible with a subject like infinity.Cabal
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
I thought I'd offer my thoughts on Aleta's questions in 1188
Consider the integers on a standard number line, with the positive counting numbers 1, 2, 3, … to the right of zero and their negatives to the left. 1. True or False: there are an infinite number of integers 2. True or False: Every integer is a finite number. What are your answers to questions 1 and 2. Note: this is a purely mathematical question. It is not about time, or ladders, or tapes – just math.
As I've said previously, I have no advanced math skills (something I'd like to remedy at some point when I have the time), so any answer I give that's based purely on math is likely to be of less than no value to anyone reading this thread. As such I'll take a different approach to the questions, as I share KF's view that the philosophy and logical analysis comes first. Question 1 - True or False: There are an infinite number of integers Aleta, I tend to think that you have a particular meaning in mind when you ask this question that would make a "true" answer reasonable, but as it is worded I find it has the potential to confuse the real issues, which are decidedly not purely mathematical. The illustrations, like that of the ladder, were intended to serve a few different purposes, but the ultimate purpose I had in mind in my comments was to stress the importance of maintaining mental distinctions between abstract concepts and concrete realities. Coming specifically to your question, as you know, numbers are abstract objects and they have no physical existence (though we can create physical representations of them). When we envision a number line with integers racing off from the zero point in both directions we're using our imaginations to give visual representation to abstract concepts. Obviously, there is no actual number line and there are no actual numbers. As such, I think it is misleading to simply say that "there are an infinite number of integers". After all, there is not an actually existing infinite set of integers just sitting around out there somewhere, and so we must question what is meant by the word "are" in your claim, since it would normally be a reference to existence. I think a more accurate way of stating matters would be to say that there is no arbitrarily large integer that would be the largest possible integer, and so the integers can continuously increase from the zero point towards infinity as a limit in both the positive and negative directions. The abstract concept of infinity can be used without problem by mathematicians, but that doesn't mean that an infinity can be translated into a concrete and coherent reality in the world. And that is what this thread is about. Question 2 - True or False: Every integer is a finite number. As the statement is written, I would answer that it's true. However, I once again think that the way it is written simply avoids the actual point at issue. The relevant question here is not whether every specific integer is a finite number, but whether every integer is reachable through a succession of finite steps. Now, it seems like several people here would be inclined to answer yes, however, from a logical perspective, that's simply not true. It would take a finite number of steps to reach a particular finite integer from zero or from any other specific finite integer, but it would take an infinite number of steps to reach any finite integer from infinity. And that is the point at issue in this thread. Getting from infinity to some finite number may or may not present a problem in the abstract realm of pure mathematics. I'm not going to pretend to have any clue at all what mathematical functions or formalities might be in place to effect such a transfinite maneuver. My concern in this thread is with the real world, and in the real world, any notion of traversing an actually infinite sequence, such as moving from an actually infinite beginningless past to a finite present moment, presents an utterly intractable problem, which I have attempted to illustrate with the example of a man engaged in an infinitely long descent down an infinitely high ladder who eventually climbs off the bottom rung (0) and says, "Done! I have finally finished an infinitely long descent." This is the kind of thing we're talking about when we try to translate infinity into the real world and hence my reason for saying that I think it's important for us to maintain a mental distinction between abstract concepts and concrete realities. The man's statement, and the entire scenario it relates to, is utterly nonsensical. It is absurd. And if anyone disagrees that such a thing results in absurdity, they must at least admit that it is not at all obvious that it doesn't result in absurdity. Getting on the same page Now, as far as I can tell, KF and Silver Asiatic seem to be saying essentially the same thing I am. That is, the concerns they are expressing about infinity are about the attempts to translate it from a mathematical concept to an actually existing reality in the world. It doesn't seem to me that either of them is saying that their concerns/issues relate to the simple notion of infinity as it is used in a purely mathematical context. On the other hand, Aleta and ellazimm, you seem to keep saying that your interest is purely in the mathematical issues here and not in the issues that arise when translating the abstract concept of infinity into a real world case like an infinite past-time, and you seem to expect that people are engaging you on those terms. But looking to the OP, this thread is and always has been about the latter, not the former, so it kinda seems like we're all sort of talking past each other here. Only daveS seems like he's trying to make some kind of connection between the math and the possibility of the real world case under discussion, though I don't find he's addressed any of the issues that actually arise with the real world case. Personally, I appreciate that we've all been able to have a civil discussion here over an extended time without resorting to insults and name-calling. I wish every discussion could stay at this level of civility, because it makes the discussion much more interesting and thought-provoking in my opinion. Nonetheless, it seems to me like the discussion would benefit from us getting on the same page as to what we're actually arguing about here. And, in fact, it might benefit even more from us getting on the same page about what we're not arguing about. Anyway, just some thoughts I had on the issue. Take care, HeKSHeKS
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
KF, 1. There is no infinite past. I have explained why in comment # 1141 2. Infinity exist only as a mathematical concept- there is no actual infinity 3. There is no point called 'endlessness' beyond infinity because there is no such concept in mathematics! I don't know what concept you are using to argue about 'endlessness'.Me_Think
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
KF,
As for primes, we can show they are without upper limit and are part of the endless nature of counting numbers. But we cannot attain to a prime that is endless — infinite — no more than we can succeed to endlessness in actually carried out +1 steps. Every prime we can reach is finite but we cannot reach all primes.
So, does that mean the following? 1) The set of primes is infinite, in the sense it can be put in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself. 2) You take no position on whether all primes are finite.
And on the chaining of ordinary mathematical induction, notice how the line of proof propagates, set up an initial case then also the chaining principle case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there, but as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. We may indeed point across the ellipsis of endlessness and impose a conclusion, but we can get into trouble if endless succession makes a material difference. KF
No, that's really not how it works, despite the usual domino illustration. That's because:
at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc.
is not allowed in proofs in the systems we are discussing. Consider a simple example, one that everyone sees when learning mathematical induction. Let n be any natural number 1 or greater. Let P be the predicate defined by P(n) = "the sum 1 + 2 + ... + n equals n(n + 1)/2". It's a well-known fact that P(n) = True for all natural numbers greater than 0. To prove this by induction, we carry out these steps:
1) 1 = 1(2)/2, so P(1) = True. 2) Now assume P(k) = True for some natural number k ≥ 1, so: 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + k = k(k + 1)/2. Then: 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + k + (k + 1) = [algebra elided] = (k + 1)((k + 1) + 1)/2 so we have shown P(k) → P(k + 1) for all k ≥ 1.
Here's what we don't do at this point:
P(1) → P(2), so 1 + 2 = 2(3)/2 P(2) → P(3), so 1 + 2 + 3 = 3(4)/2 P(3) → P(4), so 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 4(5)/2 * * * (ellipses of endlessness)
We're already done after step 2, where we have shown P(k) → P(k + 1) for k ≥ 1. The Axiom of Induction "forces" this theorem to be true already, with no do-forever loop or infinite chain of implications.daveS
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
How does "endless succession makes a material difference"? Do you mean material in the sense of physical or material in the sense of significant in respect to pure mathematics? I'd very much like to know what you mean by the quoted phrase. Thanks.Aleta
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
DS, the issue is simple, we cannot actually go to a transfinite extent with anything that is based on or constrained by sequenced counting sets aka counting numbers. We can show endlessness, but we cannot actually go there; we point to it. As for primes, we can show they are without upper limit and are part of the endless nature of counting numbers. But we cannot attain to a prime that is endless -- infinite -- no more than we can succeed to endlessness in actually carried out +1 steps. Every prime we can reach is finite but we cannot reach all primes. Onward endlessness blocks that. Something like the pink/blue tapes example shows the endlessness, in case someone is disinclined to accept it. And on the chaining of ordinary mathematical induction, notice how the line of proof propagates, set up an initial case then also the chaining principle case k implies case k+1, thus to k+2 etc. The chaining is right there, but as it proceeds in +1 steps, we see the same issue that at any stage k we can go onwards endlessly in match with 0,1,2 etc. We may indeed point across the ellipsis of endlessness and impose a conclusion, but we can get into trouble if endless succession makes a material difference. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
KF, I suppose it's not worth repeating the "do forever loops" discussion again. I really am confused about your position on the primes, however. I gather you believe the set of primes is infinite, just as N is. I could be wrong on that, however. Regarding whether any primes are infinite, do you agree with any of these statements?
1) All primes are finite. 2) Some primes are infinite. 3) Neither of the statements "all primes are finite" nor "some primes are infinite" is true. 4) We can't currently answer this question, but exactly one of 1) and 2) is true. 5) We can't currently answer this question, but exactly one of 1), 2), and 3) is true.
daveS
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Aleta #1296
What in the world could kf be concerned about here? All this continual talk of consequences but not able to say what they are.
I suspect he thinks it's all part of his perceived war against Biblical truth and such. He tends to cast every disagreement in that light at some point. Don't even start with homosexuality or gay marriage. He just doesn't seem to get that we are just talking about the mathematics here. Nothing to do with philosophy or values or cultural standards. If you're against him, in anything, then you're the enemy.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
KF Over and over again some of us have been trying to answer your queries. We seem to have failed in a very fundamental sense. What I'd like to know is: at what point, when you have been told over and over again by more than one person who knows the subject that you are wrong do you finally accept an outside (of yourself) conclusion? Or don't you ever? Just curious.ellazimm
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, the chaining is right there in the k to k+1 succession. KF
You prove P(k) -> P(k + 1), for all k ∈ N, in finitely many steps.daveS
April 3, 2016
April
04
Apr
3
03
2016
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 48

Leave a Reply