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
Yes I understand there is a wider context, but in the narrower context, what problem do you see with all natural numbers being finite, and the set of naturals having an infinite number of members? I understand there are issues with the broader context, but you have continually seemed to argue there are issues with the narrower context of the naturals. It seems to me it would be useful for you to clearly, more clearly than you have, explain in perhaps more precise mathematical language, what the issue with the naturals are. Issues with w, or an infinite past, or infinitesimals, are interesting, but bringing them up as a larger context doesn't actually address the smaller one. If the smaller issue (the naturals) were actually being addressed, then the larger context might be interesting, but it looks to me like your continually returning to larger issues (w, infinite past, infinitesimals) is a way of avoiding the arguments about the naturals. Every time the discussion tries to narrow down on the naturals, you fall back on "but there are other issues." So, I repeat,
Could you separate the assertion that all naturals are finite, and that the set of naturals is infinite, from the issue of an infinite past? And, if you separate the two issues, is there anyone claiming that there is a problem with “ending the endless” if we look at just the naturals, or is the only concern you have with the other issue concerning the past?
Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, Maybe you do not have a problem, but I do. LNC problem: numbers next to 0 but below the reals where there is supposedly a continuum [thus no gaps or breaks etc], is inherently questionable and needs some reasonable resolution.
I think I see what you're saying, but remember that the infinitesimals are "infinitely close" to 0, so it's not as if they are sitting in some "gap" in the reals, which would contradict the definition of a continuum. Anyway, the hyperreals were constructed almost 70 years ago, so I think any serious outstanding issues would be resolved by now. Granted, it's a strange set. But there certainly is no violation of the law of the excluded middle here.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Seeing how you KF are still into physics I thought I should mention that the model I have finds two of possible four requirements for intelligence in the behavior of matter, with no need to "guess" (anymore?) and "confidence" that normally sets constants that would be the part consciously felt by what you can call God if you want. I have no solid evidence that the universe is this way, but from what I have for theory is possible. This illustration shows what I have, for modeling the behavior of matter as though it's fine tuned by intelligence even though that is not necessarily the case. In either event it's a novel scientific model to experiment with: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.pngGaryGaulin
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Aleta, form the very first I welcomed that you agreed with me on that one. However, I am not sure that that is a generally acknowledged point, given what we see Durston et al pointing to and as we saw Spitzer remark on earlier. And the discussion has to bear in mind that wider context. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
DS, Maybe you do not have a problem, but I do. LNC problem: numbers next to 0 but below the reals where there is supposedly a continuum [thus no gaps or breaks etc], is inherently questionable and needs some reasonable resolution. So far, I see, artifice, a useful fiction that works around a ticklish situation. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
kf, you write,
I am surprised to still see questioning the issue of ending the endless as that has been a root issue behind several UD threads recently. As in, the proposal of an actually infinite past of the physical cosmos entails an actually completed infinite succession of causal stages that can be labelled in one way or another that translates pretty directly into completing the endless. You may not support that, and that has been acknowledged from the beginning when you said such. But the matter lurks.
I'm glad you acknowledge that I've not defended nor discussed the infinite past issue. But that is different than the issue of the naturals. The difference in the two situations is this: that in creating the naturals we build each number from its predecessor, endlessly, moving "upwards", towards infinity. In the example of the past, one is claiming that somehow one could move up from negative infinity, which makes no sense. So, could you separate the assertion that all naturals are finite, and that the set of naturals is infinite, from the issue of an infinite past? And, if you separate the two issues, is there anyone claiming that there is a problem with "ending the endless" if we look at just the naturals, or is the only concern you have with the other issue concerning the past?Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, do you not see the problem that [0,1] is by all accounts a continuum, and putting up numbers next to 0 that are not reals?
No, I don't think there is a problem with this construction.
I can see an artifice of argument set up as scaffolding that says well infinitesimals are smaller than any real; but there is an apparent price being paid here: is [0,1] a continuum or not . . . and does this not mean that between two close neighbours that are distinct we can insert another point, basically by averaging the first place in the deep decimals where there is a difference or the like?
No, that's not what a continuum is [at least in reference to subsets of R]. Otherwise, the rational numbers would be a continuum, which they're not.
Red flag is reserved for the alternative that talks in terms of sacrificing excluded middle. Maybe, working premise, an infinitesimal is smaller than any finitely large real, but not quite zero. That’s more or less the rule of thumb view I have seen used for decades, lurking behind the limit approach, which is obviously now the standard one. And it has historical roots. It seems some serious artifices had to be brought in to look at them again. KF
But where exactly is the law of the excluded middle being set aside? I'm just guessing here that you are saying something about numbers either being 0 or not 0? I don't know. Edit:
PS: attempting the down-count beyond w is exactly my point, it hits the ellipsis of endlessness and cannot break the cardinality of first magnitude endlessness. Stepwise process is inherently finite and cannot traverse the EoE to reach a finite neighbourhood of 0.
That has been acknowledged all along, though. Counting down from ω to 0 is not involved in the Hilbert Hotel inspection tour.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
DS, do you not see the problem that [0,1] is by all accounts a continuum, and putting up numbers next to 0 that are not reals? I can see an artifice of argument set up as scaffolding that says well infinitesimals are smaller than any real; but there is an apparent price being paid here: is [0,1] a continuum or not . . . and does this not mean that between two close neighbours that are distinct we can insert another point, basically by averaging the first place in the deep decimals where there is a difference or the like? Orange flag. Red flag is reserved for the alternative that talks in terms of sacrificing excluded middle. Maybe, working premise, an infinitesimal is smaller than any finitely large real, but not quite zero. That's more or less the rule of thumb view I have seen used for decades, lurking behind the limit approach, which is obviously now the standard one. And it has historical roots. It seems some serious artifices had to be brought in to look at them again. KF PS: attempting the down-count beyond w is exactly my point, it hits the ellipsis of endlessness and cannot break the cardinality of first magnitude endlessness. Stepwise process is inherently finite and cannot traverse the EoE to reach a finite neighbourhood of 0. PPS: Look at smooth infinitesimal analysis for walkaway from LEM.kairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
KF, If I may address some of your points to Aleta,
Last I checked the reals are a continuum, and [0,1] is a real continuum, and yet infinitesimals are being discussed close to 0 as neighbours that are smaller than any real number. Orange flag at minimum.
What exactly is the orange flag here? As we've stated several times, there are no real infinitesimals, although they exist in the hyperreals.
On another approach, the law of the excluded middle is being set aside. Red flag!
?? Where did this happen?
What about to taking some transfinite ordinal, say w + g and down-counting in stepwise succession? Again, things start to get delicate. Orange flag again.
Well, say you attempt to count down from ω. There's nowhere to go, unless you skip almost all of N. Is that a problem somehow?daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Aleta, Passing by a moment again. The survey on numbers is useful. I am surprised to still see questioning the issue of ending the endless as that has been a root issue behind several UD threads recently. As in, the proposal of an actually infinite past of the physical cosmos entails an actually completed infinite succession of causal stages that can be labelled in one way or another that translates pretty directly into completing the endless. You may not support that, and that has been acknowledged from the beginning when you said such. But the matter lurks. Scroll up to the OP, where Durston cites a case. In this or an earlier thread there was talk of infinite past oscillating universes. You may not be interested in the cosmology but it is material context and brings up the math on secondary issues. That math is of significance, and is worth discussing; but it is in fact incidental though connected to the logical and conceptual issues. It is not the existence of w and/or aleph null that are the issue, it is when things are affirmed or implied that point to stepwise traversal of the infinite. And that connects to concerns I have over how we think of induction. That is why in part I spent time looking at the logical Machine generating the stepwise succession. A result is, it goes on limitlessly, but still cannot traverse the transfinite in steps. Where, in looking at {0, 1, 2 . . . } --> w, the endlessness is there in the LHS. The RHS does not pop it out of thin air. That's why I have stressed EoE. Succeeding k to k +1 does not span the endless, it points to the potential infinite, and indeed we can put k, k+1 etc in correspondence with the overall set, underscoring the endlessness. And I find myself further uncomfortable with the proposition that on an ordinary inductive proof it is shown that an endless set that counts up has in it only finite members. That runs very close to an outright statement of ending the endless. I find myself needing to look very closely at that and related matters. When I do so, I find further that a lot of scaffolding artifices are popping up surrounding infinitesimals, hyper reals, super reals and whatnot. Last I checked the reals are a continuum, and [0,1] is a real continuum, and yet infinitesimals are being discussed close to 0 as neighbours that are smaller than any real number. Orange flag at minimum. On another approach, the law of the excluded middle is being set aside. Red flag! Put in multiplicative inverses and I would see a catapult to the transfinite zone. But then the links between hyper or super reals and reals and established transfinites held to extend the counting numbers -- which supposedly are a subset of the reals -- look murky. Orange flag again. What about to taking some transfinite ordinal, say w + g and down-counting in stepwise succession? Again, things start to get delicate. Orange flag again. At minimum, there is caution, proceed with extreme caution. Okay, for now, exploratory modelling that tries out things to explore. Red-amber flags waving, we explore hoping to spot the quicksand patches before we tumble in. I think it is worth taking reals as continuous in [0,1] seriously and regarding infinitesimals as all but 0, not finitely different from 0. That cries out for multiplicative inverses that are transfinite and as I see a perfectly good sequence from w up, why not a mild one, m, that drops us to say w + g when catapulted through y = 1/x? Where would that take us for our purposes , , , in say the lines of thought explored by Euler? Of course, I called that A, long ago and saw that it would get us to a down count through w + (g -1) --> A~1, etc. As well continuity in [0,1] would by catapulting neighbours, allow filling in say w to w +1 etc, i.e. the exploratory, naive approach suggests that the transfinite ordinals can be looked at as mileposts on a transfinite continuum that extends from w on, with an EoE leading up from, 0, 1, 2 etc and conceptually traversed by w being successor to the counting set with the EoE. Interesting, though not a mathematical proof from first principles by lock-down steps. Next, attempting a downcount in steps to reach a finite neighbourhood of 0 would try to traverse the endless. A, A~1, etc will go in correspondence with the 0, 1, 2 etc and we are back to stepwise traversal of an ellipsis of endlessness. Maybe that lends some conceptual support to the idea of such a traversal running into the gap between unlimited succession and traversing the endless that the algorithm from this morning shows at was it 217. https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/durston-and-craig-on-an-infinite-temporal-past/#comment-597338 Meanwhile, it looks like Euler was thinking in not very dissimilar but much more sophisticated ways that someone is trying to rehabilitate through hyper real thinking: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/images/upload_library/22/Allendoerfer/2002/0025570x.di021222.02p0075s.pdf So, let us see how we can connect some dots into a coherent whole, if that is possible. The firmest thing so far is it is futile to try to cumulatively traverse the endless in finite steps. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Here are some thoughts about the bigger picture in this discussion. At the end of this post, I'll describe how I think this applies to our discussion about infinity. A major theme in the history of mathematics is that of extending the notion of number. I used to have an exploratory discussion day with my pre-calculus class about this. Here's a brief summary, off the top of my head: 1. Counting numbers starting with one, and rationals came first. There is pre-historical evidence of this understanding. 2. Irrationals came next: the story of the proof that sqrt(2) is irrational is famous. 3. Zero came next, introduced from the Hindu's about 1000 AD, and introduced first as a placeholder in the decimal number system. Later, when the numbers came to be visualized on the number line, the counting numbers were backed down to zero rather than starting at one. Note that there was resistance to accepting zero as a number in this sense, because you can't have zero things. Overcoming this resistance involved extending the concept of what numbers mean, moving them away from just associated with counting or measuring concrete objects. 4. Interesting enough, negative numbers were next, and they didn't get accepted as numbers in the Western world until the 1700's: the argument being how can you have less than nothing? Here we see a pattern that will be repeated a. A number is impossible, often in respect to an equation: x + 5 = 3 has no solution because you can't add a number that makes it less. b. Someone says lets invent a symbol for this "impossible" number, pretend that it exists, and see what happens: hence, –2. c. Mathematicians explore the possible rules for the new number, and it's implications d. Mathematicians discover that there are no inconsistencies, and the new number fits well into the existing numbers system once understand how it works. e. Mathematicians find ways to both visually the new number and apply it to real-world situtaions f. The new number is fully integrated into mathematics, and our notions of number have been extended and have grown. 5. Imaginary and complex numbers came next, not long after negatives, and the steps above were repeated. The equation x^2 = –1 has no solution, as a consequence of the rules for multiplying negative numbers, so let's make up a number i = sqrt(-1) and see what happens. And, lo and behold, all sorts of stuff happens that works, fits i with the rest of the number system, and leads to all sorts of powerful applications and extremely counter-intuitive results such as the Mandelbrot set. 6. So this brings us to infinity. The beginning idea is that of endlessness: a process that can always be continued. Building the natural numbers from each numbers successor is an example of an endless process. We say that, therefore, there are an infinite number of natural numbers. However, infinity isn't a number at the end of the naturals, it isn't a place to be reached, etc. However, Cantor decided to play the same game as above: let's "pretend" that infinity is a number, let's give it a name and symbol, let's explore how and works, and see what we get. And again, we got new, consistent (for the most part) mathematics that introduced a new type of number, the transfinites. The transfinites extend the meaning of number. Just as negatives extended number past counting numbers, but did not change the nature of the naturals, and imaginary numbers extended the reals, but did not change them, the transfinites extended the concept of number to include infinity, but it did change or undo the basic nature of the other numbers. So aleph null is the name of the infinite number of natural numbers. That doesn't change the fact that the naturals are defined by the successor rule, so that each and every natural is finite. Cantor's extension of number to include aleph null and other transfinites doesn't add a mystery to the naturals that wasn't there before. Just because Cantor was able to successfully to invent new mathematics involving transfinites doesn't mean that the infinite set of naturals has been or could be completed. kf continues to claim that "there are those who are explicitly claiming actual completion of an infinite stepwise succession," and I have asked him to cite someone who believes this. Perhaps, and I offer this as a hypothesis, kf feels that way because he feels that the existence of aleph null implies a completion of the infinite. But it doesn't. If this is not the source of kf's claim/feelings, then his feelings come from elsewhere. If so, I again ask for an example of someone who claims the infinite can be completed.Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
George Gamow writes:
The sequence of numbers (including the infinite ones!) now runs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...... ℵ1 ℵ2 ℵ3 ...... and we say "there are ℵ1 points on a line" or "there are ℵ2 different curves" ...
Is this a finite sequence? eta: weird. in the preview those came out as the Hebrew character א but not when saved.Mung
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
kf, you write,
there are those who are explicitly claiming actual completion of an infinite stepwise succession.
I've asked before: who is someone who is explicitly making this claim? Fundamental accepted mathematics does not make this claim, and I don't know anyone who does. Is it possible that you are arguing against a position that in fact no one holds? Can you cite a source of someone " claiming actual completion of an infinite stepwise succession"?Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, My first concern is centred on the assertion rooted in an ordinary inductive proof/argument that natural, counting numbers [to which we may assign the succession of ordered counting sets starting from {} as discussed above] form an endless succession of finite values which are all finite but cumulatively belong to a transfinitely large set. KF
I just don't see any problem with this. The individual finite natural numbers are very different from the entire collection.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Aleta, 223, thanks for the thought. I wish I did not see a point of concern much as you summarised by clipping. But, the concern is there -- much like a theological doubt. Once there it has to be reasonably worked through. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
DS, My first concern is centred on the assertion rooted in an ordinary inductive proof/argument that natural, counting numbers [to which we may assign the succession of ordered counting sets starting from {} as discussed above] form an endless succession of finite values which are all finite but cumulatively belong to a transfinitely large set. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Aleta, it seems to me that in a relevant context there are those who are explicitly claiming actual completion of an infinite stepwise succession. That context is surrounded by cases where issues and assertions may imply just such ending the endless. In those contexts issues on the meaning of the transfinite, ordinal succession to that zone, the nature of mathematical induction and of the set {0, 1, 2 . . . EoE* . . . } arises, joined to the onward reals, continuum and the interval [0,1]. In context we then see the transfinite ordinals from w and what may be connected therewith. KF *PS: I speak explicitly of ellipsis of endlessness as this seems critical. Notice, the ordinary form of mathematical induction uses step by step sequencing hung upon an initial value in a sequence of steps. Such a sequence extends without limit, but inherently cannot exhaust or end the endless.kairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
F/N: Some reading going back to and upgrading Euler: http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/images/upload_library/22/Allendoerfer/2002/0025570x.di021222.02p0075s.pdf KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, If I am going to accept a paradox that runs brushingly close to a contradiction, you had better believe I am going to look at it very closely indeed to ensure that what I acknowledge is not in fact incoherent.
Could you state in precise mathematical terms what this alleged "paradox" is?
DS, my problem with suggesting non real infinitesimal hyper reals — other than as a model building artifice to create a system, then be checked to see if the scaffolding can thereafter be removed — is that [0,1] is a continuum of reals. 0 is a real, and numbers in its very near neighbourhood should also be reals, per continuum. So, on the face of it, there is plenty room at the bottom near 0 to catapult infinitesimals that are all but zero. And of course, similarly proposing hyper reals beyond the reals should fit in with this. KF
You can carry out any construction you want, as long as you do it correctly. I'm just saying that 1/m = ω + g is impossible under any scheme you have suggested so far, so you'll have to try something else. I think all the info in the quote you posted concerning the hyperreals is already on the table, btw.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
But no one is claiming to end the endless. Why you think that is the case is what I don't understand.Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
DS, my problem with suggesting non real infinitesimal hyper reals -- other than as a model building artifice to create a system, then be checked to see if the scaffolding can thereafter be removed -- is that [0,1] is a continuum of reals. 0 is a real, and numbers in its very near neighbourhood should also be reals, per continuum. So, on the face of it, there is plenty room at the bottom near 0 to catapult infinitesimals that are all but zero. And of course, similarly proposing hyper reals beyond the reals should fit in with this. KF PS: Let me clip a discussion that brings out points where concerns pop up: http://2000clicks.com/mathhelp/BasicNumsys51Hyperreal.aspx
Any of a colossal set of numbers, also known as nonstandard reals, that includes not only all the real numbers but also certain classes of infinitely large (see infinity) and infinitesimal numbers as well. Hyperreals emerged in the 1960s from the work of Abraham Robinson who showed how infinitely large and infinitesimal numbers can be rigorously defined and developed in what is called nonstandard analysis. Because hyperreals represent an extension of the real numbers, R, they are usually denoted by *R. Hyperreals include all the reals (in the technical sense that they form an ordered field containing the reals as a subfield) and they also contain infinitely many other numbers that are either infinitely large (numbers whose absolute value is greater than any positive real number) or infinitely small (numbers whose absolute value is less than any positive real number). No infinitely large number exists in the real number system and the only real infinitesimal is zero. But in the hyperreal system, it turns out that that each real number is surrounded by a cloud of hyperreals that are infinitely close to it; the cloud around zero consists of the infinitesimals themselves. Conversely, every (finite) hyperreal number x is infinitely close to exactly one real number, which is called its standard part, st(x). In other words, there exists one and only one real number st(x) such that x – st(x) is infinitesimal
kairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Aleta, the issue of a transfinite number of finites [successively arrived at -- cf my use of a thought exercise logic machine earlier today], esp where counting sets extend without limit is right at the heart of my concern. Unlimited extension is one thing, ending the endless is another. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
DS, If I am going to accept a paradox that runs brushingly close to a contradiction, you had better believe I am going to look at it very closely indeed to ensure that what I acknowledge is not in fact incoherent. That is for instance why you will sometimes hear me speaking of the deep nature of the problem of the one and the many. In theology the triune concept of God is another similar case. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Hi kf. I appreciate that you are genuinely working to communicate some perhaps ineffable issues concerning the infinite nature of the natural numbers. You write,
I long ago learned to respect my sense of cognitive dissonance, of logical incongruity. Remember, as primarily a physicist I had to swallow the transition from the classical to quantum and relativity.
Recognizing cognitive dissonance is important, because it is better to acknowledge two competing views than it is to deny one in order to relieve the uncertainty and conflict. However, as has been the experience for many trying to grasp some of the results of quantum physics and relativity, sometimes the truth is that one has to accept both perspectives in order to really understand the larger picture. I think the same is true of the infinity of the natural numbers. Each natural number is finite and there is an infinite number of them seems, perhaps, to set up an either/or cognitive conflict. You, I think, are trying to resolve the conflict by somehow denying one half of the and statement about rather then transcending the conflict and accepting the bigger picture. Like many Gestalt-ish issues, focusing too hard on one half of the picture makes it impossible to see the other half, but standing back and relaxing the vision allows one to see that there is a whole that encompasses the two different perspectives. With that said, throughout your long post you return often to the issue that I think is most bothering you. From multiple places:
The claims being made come too close to ending the endless. The claim that finitude spreads through the whole chain by succession seems to me to suggest a claim to exhaust, or end the endless by an algorithm that can only ever be actually finite. Induction shows an unlimited, reliable logical chain that will work for any particular n you please, which by being specified becomes inevitably finite. But it cannot exhaust the endless. If it did so, it would indeed confer finitude upon all members, but to do that it has to end the endless. If every counting number in succession is finite, how then can we consistently claim the set as a whole is transfinite, endless? Pointing to, but not completing, in a context where completing is the requisite. This process is unlimited but inevitably is finite and however rapidly executed CANNOT exhaust and end the endless.
Those are just some of the lines that you wrote that summarize your concern: that somehow claiming that every natural number is finite brings an end that contradicts the endlessness - the infinitude - of the set. I don't believe this is a contradiction. I cant say anything more than I've already said to relieve you of you concern other than I think you thinking there is an issue here when in fact there is isn't. No, you can't exhaust or end the endless, but claiming that each step is finite doesn't imply that you can. I think it is good and constructive that the discussion has finally, in my opinion, clearly delineated what the issue is, and where we have a difference. I see no conflict or contradiction where you do. I really think this is a Gestalt issue. Like the famous picture of the two faces/vase, when you see the finite nature of each step, you can't see the endlessness, and when you think about the endlessness, you can't see how all the components can be finite. Infinity is not a topic that our minds can natively comprehend, any more that is wave/particle duality, or non-simultaneity. But that is the beauty of mathematics - we can logically create systems that bring us to understandings that go beyond what we can intuitively grasp. Cantor et al, in formalizing notions of infinity, made us accept many ideas that are counter-intuitive, or in conflict with other notions that seem clear to us. But accept them we must, because the math shows us that they are as they are. So asserting that every natural number is finite, and that the set of all such numbers is infinite, does not claim, or imply, that we have brought an end to endlessness. Rather, it tells us something about the nature of endlessness.Aleta
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
DS, I have no problem with endlessness of counting numbers, and I have no problem with inductions being of unlimited extent, such that for any concrete substitution case it will hold. The issue at first level is completing the endless in that way. In that context w emerges as the assigned successor to the endless succession. And the issue is just what is the set of counting numbers starting from zero, and what are their attributes. The outlined stepwise process above distinguishes between being unlimited in successive extension and completing the set, nesting that to complete one would have to produce an endless copy of the set, which by definition is infinite and endless. Cannot be done. Analytically. Also, the endlessness is within the set itself, w does not add endlessness to it. Further as the way the set progresses is through collecting more and more successors, it will in process be finite but points beyond to endlessness. That whole context leaves me very wary when an inherently finite and potentially infinite only proof process is held to entail an endless actual number of finite numbers. There is a contradiction there or else something too close to be comfortable. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
KF, In your notation, m must be a non-real hyperreal infinitesimal. I don't have any idea how these things are graded as "mild" or not, so I will set that aside. In that case, 1/m = A is an infinite hyperreal, and is thus not equal to ω + g for any nonnegative integer g.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
DS, other numbers are drawn out of the ordinals. And as discussed I spoke to a mild infinitesimal taken through 1/m to get to A, which per an exploratory model I substituted as w + g. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
KF,
Continue to endlessness and w emerges as supremum: {0, 1, 2, . . . EoE . . . } –> w
In fact, {0, 1, 2, ...} = ω is how this is usually expressed. I will ask again: If you have problems with an induction proof actually "finishing", what sense does it make to you to think of N as being a "completed" set in the first place? The set itself is generated by induction, after all. And no Turing machine can generate and list all the members of N in a finite number of steps. I think a more consistent position for you would be to deny the existence of N (in the sense that Aleta and I think of it) and just say one can work with finite subsets of N only. That would sidestep this issue of mathematical induction we are discussing. This is quite an unorthodox position, of course, but you wouldn't be the only adherent. Edit: Further to my #218: One way to see a difference between ordinals and hyperintegers is this: There is no smallest infinite hyperinteger, while ω is the smallest infinite ordinal.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, the same “catapult” is used routinely in non standard analysis, as has been pointed out to you already.
What I'm saying is that:
1/m = A, gets you to w + g
is an impossibility. It's like saying 2 + 2 = 5. The infinite hyperreals are not ordinal numbers. I would urge that you exercise the same caution here with the "catapult" that you do when discussing mathematical induction.daveS
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
PS: Let's represent that algorithm and logic machine:
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. BTW, thus the place for catapults that are not step by step incrementing processes. Using 1/x, 1 --> 1, 1/10 --> 10 [two orders of mag . . think in terms of place value steps], 1/100 --> 100 [4 orders], 10^-300 --> 10^300, [600 orders of mag], and then go on to the infinitesimal zone and catapult to the transfinite. Catapulting like that gives me a structural, quantitative connexion -- which seems logically coherent -- so that I can see the links from a bound and limited zone, [0,1] that is well within the finite set of ordinals and the transfinite that is beyond stepwise reach though steps point there.kairosfocus
February 13, 2016
February
02
Feb
13
13
2016
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
1 38 39 40 41 42 48

Leave a Reply