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
Aleta, for each finite k, the room count will be just that, finite, which will iterate for k + 1. Kindly now continue that essential finiteness of successive steps and show us how you obtain cumulative transfiniteness of the count [the type order, I believe is the technical term] without attaining to at least w in the ordinal succession, which is where cardinality aleph null kicks in. Where, w is the first transfinite ordinal. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
KF, I didn't read this carefully:
As the put in infinitely many fresh guests by putting current room n occupant to 2n and new ones to 2n – 1 shows, the whole matches the evens.
Yes, this is another proof that the set of rooms finitely distant to the front desk is infinite.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Yes, kf, the natural numbers are endless. However, they don't pass the ellipsis into the transfinite zone", whatever that means. They are defined by the fact that for every natural number k, k + 1 is also a natural number. Each k is a finite number, and there are an infinite number of them. Those are really the only two points I've been trying to discuss with you.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
kj, Hilbert's Hotel is about " a hypothetical hotel with a countably infinite number of rooms" (wikipedia and Wolframs'), and "countably infinite means having the same cardinality as the natural numbers. Therefore, if you aren't discussing natural numbers, you are not discussing Hilbert's Hotel.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
KF,
Also, I would think that a lagged count of the set will not be a proper subset.
Eh? The function I defined gives a 1-1 correspondence between A = {..., -2, -1, 0} and B = {..., -3, -2, -1} = A - {0} (set difference). B is a proper subset of A. Therefore A is infinite. Note also that A is the set of room numbers for rooms finitely distant from the front desk (counting the front desk as a room).daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
DS, the problem is not that the whole numbers form an endless continuation, it is that finitude at given k on this particular set will mean that the span to k is finite not transfinite. For the span to be transfinite it has to be just that, limitless. Also, I would think that a lagged count of the set will not be a proper subset. As the put in infinitely many fresh guests by putting current room n occupant to 2n and new ones to 2n - 1 shows, the whole matches the evens. And no finite span of rooms will be such that transfer of the full house guests from n to 2n will accommodate all existing guests. It has to be endless. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
kf says,
Aleta, I have been deliberately staying away from debating the naturals.
I've noticed that. However it is the natural numbers that are relevant to the hotel example, and it is the natural numbers that are relevant to the discrete steps of a "step by step causal succession" n time. The model here is the number line, with the natural numbers (or the integers if you wish) as the things we are talking about, and with the number line there is no "bridge to the transfinite" involved. The sequence of ordinals is not relevant to either the infinite hotel nor the idea of time passing in a step-by-step causal way. So you have been deliberately staying away from exactly the topic that is relevant.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, as I already noted above per standard results a set will be transfinite when it can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset. KF
So the set of finite nonpositive integers is infinite because we have a 1-1 correspondence between it and one of its proper subsets. f(n) = n - 1 is one such correspondence. If you agree with that, then this also gives a 1-1 correspondence between the set of room numbers for rooms at finite distance from the front desk and one of its proper subsets. Therefore the set of rooms finitely distant from the front desk is infinite.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Aleta, I have been deliberately staying away from debating the naturals and have addressed the ordinals starting from von Neumann's construction on {} up and have above discussed ordinals across a transfinite span indicated by an ellipsis. With the Wolfram discussion and direct parallel to my earlier remarks in play in answer to doubts and dismissals that may be inspected above. At no point in our current discussion have I said w and on are natural numbers, but I have said they form an ordinal scheme extending from 0, 1, 2 etc on. Whether or not the natural numbers terminate before that level and whether or not all natural numbers are finite [but have an overall cardinality that is transfinite*], the transfinite ordinals w etc are a continuation from 0, 1, 2 . . . as counting numbers. That is all I need for the issue of needing to traverse the transfinite to become a serious question on issues regarding a claimed infinite past. KF *PS: The counting scheme k = 1 + 1 + . . . 1 k times raises interesting questions on what is in that ellipsis in all cases.kairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
DS, as I already noted above per standard results a set will be transfinite when it can be placed in 1:1 correspondence with a proper subset. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
kf, the sequence of ordinals mentioned in Wolfram, 0, 1, 2, …, omega, omega+1, omega+2, …, etc. is NOT the same as just addressing the set of natural numbers. w, w + 1, etc. are not in the set of natural numbers and are not somehow "beyond the ellipsis". That sequence is not relevant to discussing taking unit steps on a number line, traversing the natural numbers You write,
"Obviously a finite step produced set cannot but be finite. .... I spoke of naturals, k as finite counting sets, and how I could see an endless incremental succession of same. That endlessness of succession is where the issue of transfiniteness enters.
Herein possibly lies the confusion. If we consider the set of numbers K = {1, 2, 3 , ... k}, then indeed that set is finite. If we consider the set of numbers N = {1, 2, 3, ...}, that set is infinite in size even though each member is a finite number. The only place transfiniteness show up in this discussion is that aleph null is the name given to the level of infinity possessed by the naturals, The sequence in Wolfram is NOT about further numbers in N that are in some further "transfinite zone beyond the ellipsis." N = {1, 2 3, ...} does NOT eventually include w.}Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
KF, All this leads me to ask, if I describe to you a set, how could you determine that it is in fact infinite? For example, the HH. How could you know it has infinitely many rooms? At any "stage", your counting process has progressed only to a finite number. Consider the set of all numbers 2^k, where k is a natural number. Is this an infinite set? It's in 1-1 correspondence with N of course, so I say yes. But I think you're going to get hung up at the same place that caused you to conclude that the set of rooms in the HH at finite distance from the front desk is finite. I don't think your views on counting allow infinite sets at all.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Aleta, I am responding to something projected unto me in comment 100. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Aleta, it seems there are all sorts of gaps of communication at work; I can only pause a moment just now. There is a reason why I have spoken of an ordinal sequence of counting numbers, of counting sets and how such are finite but successively larger following the cardinality k where the kth set has 1 + 1 + . . . + 1 = k, with 1 additive step repeated k times and a finite span ellipsis in the notation. Obviously a finite step produced set cannot but be finite. But the interest is a transfinite set, for which the problem becomes that the ellipsis has to become of more than a finite span. And, ordinals come first, with w being the first transfinite and a successor to the finite ordinals. Let me (in part for HRUN's benefit) clip Wolfram for the moment:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OrdinalNumber.html In formal set theory, an ordinal number (sometimes simply called an "ordinal" for short) is one of the numbers in Georg Cantor's extension of the whole numbers. An ordinal number is defined as the order type of a well ordered set (Dauben 1990, p. 199; Moore 1982, p. 52; Suppes 1972, p. 129). Finite ordinal numbers are commonly denoted using arabic numerals, while transfinite ordinals are denoted using lower case Greek letters . . . . The first transfinite ordinal, denoted omega [--> I have been using w], is the order type of the set of nonnegative integers (Dauben 1990, p. 152; Moore 1982, p. viii; Rubin 1967, pp. 86 and 177; Suppes 1972, p. 128). This is the "smallest" of Cantor's transfinite numbers, defined to be the smallest ordinal number greater than the ordinal number of the whole numbers. Conway and Guy (1996) denote it with the notation omega={0,1,...|}. From the definition of ordinal comparison, it follows that the ordinal numbers are a well ordered set. In order of increasing size, the ordinal numbers are 0, 1, 2, ..., omega, omega+1, omega+2, ..., omega+omega, omega+omega+1, .... The notation of ordinal numbers can be a bit counterintuitive, e.g., even though 1+omega=omega, omega+1>omega. [--> in the notation, commutativity is broken] The cardinal number of the set of countable ordinal numbers is denoted aleph_1 (aleph-1). If (A,LT =) is a well ordered set with ordinal number alpha, then the set of all ordinals LT alpha is order isomorphic to A. This provides the motivation to define an ordinal as the set of all ordinals less than itself . . . . There exist ordinal numbers which cannot be constructed from smaller ones by finite additions, multiplications, and exponentiations. These ordinals obey Cantor's equation. The first such ordinal is epsilon_0 [--> I have used E_0] . . . . Ordinal addition, ordinal multiplication, and ordinal exponentiation can all be defined. Although these definitions also work perfectly well for order types, this does not seem to be commonly done. There are two methods commonly used to define operations on the ordinals: one is using sets, and the other is inductively.
Immediately we see an explanation of many concepts and constructs and in particular the presence of an ellipsis of transfinite span: 0, 1, 2, ..., omega, omega+1, omega+2, ... with the finite ordinals in the neighbourhood of 0 succeeded by an ellipsis of transfinite span and this by w, then w + 1 etc, with an onward ellipsis of likewise transfinite span. It is instantly clear that such a transfinite span cannot be traversed and spanned in a succession of finite steps, whether ascending or descending [and hence the use of the general terms level and zone]. Earlier today, I spoke of naturals, k as finite counting sets, and how I could see an endless incremental succession of same. That endlessness of succession is where the issue of transfiniteness enters. Maybe, we can now revisit other points, clarifying along the way? Pardon, I have to run just now. Later. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
kf, no one says that "hotel infinity", aka, the natural numbers, have a finite number of rooms, aka numbers. They have an infinite number of elements, and that number is aleph null, the lowest order of infinity. But you keep talking about a "transfinite zone" that is "beyond the ellipsis": in reference to the natural numbers, there is no way to get "beyond the ellipsis", and there is no such thing as a "transfinite zone". That is the issue at stake. Besides Dave's posts, please see my 95, 99, 101. and 102.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
DS, just for now, re 100, the hotel infinity cannot have a finite total of rooms. That is a clue as to some of the issues underlying the points at stake. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
HRUN, you were answered long since. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
KF: Well, can you clarify how our perceptions of your position are incorrect?daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
So many comments and we are back at: KF is right and DS is wrong. And if math agrees with DS, then math is wrong, too.hrun0815
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
DS, I suggest to you that there is a problem of perceptions. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Aleta, Yes, I do agree with your other comments. I've been trying to say the same thing I think, specifically that ω is not the successor of any natural number, so there is no way to count up to or down from ω [Edit: from any natural number]. I guess KF believes there is some murky quasi-infinite zone in the natural numbers, but as you have clearly pointed out, the order and magnitude properties of N are not that mysterious or exciting.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
OK, that is interesting, although I don't completely understand it. However, would you agree with my other comments that if you restrict yourself to the natural numbers you don't "surpass the ellipsis" and get to the transfinite zone (which I presume means the w, w+1, w+2... sequence. That is, even if {0, 1, 2, …, ?, ? + 1, ? + 2, …, ? + ?, …} does list all the ordinals, the ?, ? + 1, ? + 2, …, ? + ?, … part is not part of the natural numbers?Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Aleta, The ordinals don't make up a sequence that is indexed by the natural numbers as sequences most often are, but the notation 0, 1, 2, ..., ω, ω + 1, ω + 2, ..., ω + ω, ... actually does make sense, in that the ordinals do form a totally ordered set. ω itself is greater than any of the finite ordinals, so it's meaningful to arrange it after all the finite ordinals, after the first ellipsis. See this for more details.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Correction to kf: I misread when you wrote, "Also, you say “This would be as opposed to a finite span 0, 1, 2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . where the first ellipsis would be finite in its span.” Yes, the first ellipsis would be finite. I was thinking of your other sequence "0, 1, 2, . . . w, w +1, w + 2 . . .", which is a sequence that I don't believe exists, and is mathematically not meaningful.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
And kf, you write, "I am specifically interested in spans that go all the way to a transfinite zone and in what happens if one tries to ascend/descend in steps." But there is no "transfinite zone" in the natural numbers. You have created a sequence that includes the natural numbers and then the transfinite numbers as if the second somehow followed the first in an ordered set. But I don't believe such a sequence is mathematically meaningful. Do you have a reference where this sequence is discussed in any mathematical literature?Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Hi kf. You added the following to your previous post:
I do envision that there may be a transfinite span in a case with a two-sided ellipsis, as in say: 0, 1, 2, . . . w, w +1, w + 2 . . . for which the first is two sided and the second open on its RHS. This would be as opposed to a finite span 0, 1, 2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . where the first ellipsis would be finite in its span.
What you envision is NOT the natural numbers. You are envisoning a sequence which includes both natural numbers and transfinite numbers, but they are two different types of things, and I don't believe they can be put in sequence as you are doing. Also, you say "This would be as opposed to a finite span 0, 1, 2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . where the first ellipsis would be finite in its span." If you are meaning to refer to the natural numbers here, that would NOT be a finite span. The ellipsis refers to the never ending process of going to the next natural number, which is an infinite span, not a finite one.Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
KF, It seems to me that you want to be a finitist, yet you accept the existence of objects such as π, ω and perhaps even noncomputable numbers. If the total number of rooms in the HH is finite, what is ω? Edit:
PS: making a distinction in successive numbers of unlimited extent that “naturals” are finite and w etc as transfinite are not “naturals” does not to my mind eliminate the ordinal number pattern of unlimited succession. I am specifically interested in spans that go all the way to a transfinite zone and in what happens if one tries to ascend/descend in steps.
That's great, but I'm not that ambitious, for the purposes of this discussion. This is why you're looking at a different problem from mine. You want to investigate traversals of HH(ω) while I am content to stick with HH.daveS
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
kf, so you are saying that you can surpass the ellipsis "where that is specified as the continuation reaches a specified level." What does that second phrase mean? What "specified level" do you reach that allows you to surpass the ellipsis? I know of no "levels" in the natural numbers, and no place in the continuation of going to the next natural number that the nature of the continuation changes. So can you explain more how the process of going to the next natural number ever reaches a "specified level" where we "surpass the ellipsis."Aleta
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
DS, if every single room is finitely remote the total of rooms should be finite, finiteness at each step implies a thus far finite neighbourhood of 0. If the total of rooms never completes as a finite count and is actually infinite, it seems to me that it must therefore include a zone that is transfinitely remote from the value 0. That is why I look at an inspection that begins at the remote zone and needs to traverse the span to 0 in steps. KF PS: making a distinction in successive numbers of unlimited extent that "naturals" are finite and w etc as transfinite are not "naturals" does not to my mind eliminate the ordinal number pattern of unlimited succession. I am specifically interested in spans that go all the way to a transfinite zone and in what happens if one tries to ascend/descend in steps.kairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Aleta, I have not intended any surpassing of an ellipsis, save where that is specified as the continuation reaches a specified level. An open ended ellipsis implies unlimited extension. I do envision that there may be a transfinite span in a case with a two-sided ellipsis, as in say: 0, 1, 2, . . . w, w +1, w + 2 . . . for which the first is two sided and the second open on its RHS. This would be as opposed to a finite span 0, 1, 2 . . . k, k + 1 . . . where the first ellipsis would be finite in its span. Where also, w, for convenience, stands for the transfinite ordinal omega. And the issues at stake pivot on that question of traversing a span that is transfinite. KFkairosfocus
February 3, 2016
February
02
Feb
3
03
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
1 42 43 44 45 46 48

Leave a Reply